The bottled water craze

The article below is from a Leftist source so it claims that the bottled water nonsense is an evil corporate plot rather than many people's everlasting superstitiousness about what they put into their mouths -- but it covers the facts pretty well

When Antonia Mahoney moved to Boston from her native Puerto Rico 35 years ago, the first thing she noticed was how much better the water tasted. Over the years, however, the water she was receiving from her tap began to lose its appeal. "Little by little, the taste changed," says the retired schoolteacher, who eventually gave up tap water altogether and began paying over $30 a month to get bottles of Poland Spring water delivered to her house.

Walking through Boston's Copley Square on a sunny day last month, however, she was intrigued by a banner advertising something called the "Tap Water Challenge." As she approached the table, a fresh-faced activist behind it told her the "challenge" was a blind taste test to see if passersby could tell the difference between bottled water and tap water. Mahoney turned her back while four water samples were poured into small paper cups -- two of tap water from Boston and a nearby suburb, and one each of Poland Spring and Aquafina.

"That's tap water," Mahoney declared after draining the first cup. "That tastes just like what I drink at home." Her confidence faded, however, as she downed the next three, which all seemed to taste the same. When the cups were turned over, it turned out that what she thought was tap water was actually Aquafina -- and what she thought was Poland Spring was actually the same Boston tap water she gets at home for free. "I couldn't believe it, I couldn't believe it," she says later. "You know I pay so much for that water. Now I am thinking to stop the Poland Spring."

Mahoney wasn't alone in that decision. A student from Connecticut who attends Massachusetts College of Art says that she has cartons of bottled water stocked in her dorm room, because she doesn't want to chance city tap water. After taking (and flunking) the test, she says now she'll start drinking from the faucet. "It tastes the same as the tap water I drink at home in Connecticut, and I drink that all the time," says the student, Katey vanBerkum. "Why spend your money on bottled water if you don't have to."

The two are among the many who have been converted across the country over the past year by the taste test, which, if not quite as ubitquitous as the Pepsi Challenge, is equally surprising in its results. Of the hundreds of people who have participated in the Tap Water Challenge in cities including Austin, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia, few of them were able to identify all the samples correctly, says Gigi Kellett, who is doling out water samples this afternoon. "It's usually those who are the most die-hard or committed to a certain brand who are most surprised when they realize they can't tell the difference," she says.

Kellett is associate campaigns director at Corporate Accountability International (CAI), a nonprofit formerly known as Infact, which is best-known for its relentless crusade against tobacco companies in the 1990s. Now, the group has started a campaign to blow away perceptions that bottled water is somehow better-tasting or purer than good old H2O from the tap. At stake, they say, is the increasing commodification of a resource that should be a basic human right, not a product on sale for $1.50 at the local convenience store.

In the past decade, the bottled water market has more than doubled in the United States, surpassing juice, milk, and beer to become the second most popular beverage after soft drinks. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, three in four Americans drink bottled water, and one in five drink only bottled water. Together, consumers spent some $10 billion on the product last year, consuming an average of 26 gallons of the stuff per person, according the Beverage Marketing Corporation. At the same time, companies spend some $70 million annually to advertise their products. Typical are Aquafina's ads advertising the beverage as "the purest of waters," Dasani's ads contending the water is "pure as water can get."

In fact, says Kellett, not only does tap water often taste the same as bottled water, but it is also often safer to drink as well. "They are spending tens of millions of dollars every year to undermine our confidence in tap water," she says, "even though water systems here in the United States are better regulated than bottled water." That's because tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which imposes strict limits on chemicals and bacteria, constant testing by government agencies, and mandatory notification to the public in the event of contamination.

Bottled water, on the other hand, is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which according to federal law is technically required to hold itself to the same standards as the EPA. The devil is in the details, however, since FDA regulations only apply to water that is bottled and transported between states, leaving out the two-thirds of water that is solely transported within states. State laws, meanwhile, are inconsistent, with some mirroring the FDA standards, some going beyond them and some falling far short of the national regulations. What's more, FDA regulations rely on companies to do their own testing, and perform voluntary recalls if products are found to be in violation of standards (if a company fails to do so, the Justice Department can order a seizure of products).

A 1999 study by the National Resources Defense Council of more than 1,000 bottles of water found that, while most bottled water was safe, some brands violated strict state standards on bacterial contamination, while others were found to contain harmful chemicals such as arsenic. The report concluded that bottled water was no safer than water taken from the tap.

In fact, many times bottled water is tap water. Contrary to the image of water flowing from pristine mountain springs, more than a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal water supplies. The industry is dominated by three companies, who together control more than half the market: Coca-Cola, which produces Dasani; Pepsi, which produces Aquafina; and Nestle, which produces several "local" brands including Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka and Calistoga (a fact that itself often surprises participants in the Tap Water Challenges). Both Coke and Pepsi exclusively use tap water for their source, while Nestl‚ uses tap water in some brands.

Of course, Coke and Pepsi tout the elaborate additional steps they take that purify the water after it comes out of the tap, with both companies filtering it multiple times to remove particulates before subjecting it to additional techniques such as "reverse osmosis" and ozone treatment. Reverse osmosis, however, is hardly state of the art -- essentially consisting of the same treatment applied through commercially available home tap water filters, while ozonation can introduce additional problems such as the formation of the chemical bromate, a suspected carcinogen. In March 2004, Coca-Cola was forced to recall nearly 500,000 bottles of Dasani water in the United Kingdom due to bromate contamination that exceeded the U.K. and U.S. limit of 10 parts per billion. This past August, three grocery stores chains in upstate New York who all used local company Mayer Bros. to produce their store brands issued recalls after samples were found contaminated with more than double the bromate limit; in some cases, contaminated water was apparently sold for five weeks before the problem was detected.

Water originating with groundwater sources, meanwhile, can have its own problems. Citizens in states including Maine, Michigan, Texas, and Florida have all fought against Nestle, whom they accuse of harming the environment by depleting aquifers and damaging stream systems with extractions of massive amounts of water though their local bottling affiliates, for which they pay next to nothing in fees and then sell at a huge markup. In 2003, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) won a landmark court victory shutting down a Nestle plant that was taking water from a stream that fed a wildlife refuge, sensitive marshland and several lakes....

Kay questions the idea behind the Tap Water Challenges, saying that consumers have chosen bottled water not only for its consistency and taste, but also for its convenience. It isn't competing so much against tap water, he says, as it is against other beverage options. "If consumers are in a convenience store and they want a beverage without calories, caffeine, or sugar, it's just ready to go," he says. "In this era of obesity, it's irresponsible to try and sway consumers away from a healthful beverage choice."

While he allows that some tap water might taste as good as bottled water, he says, not all water users are so lucky. In some parts of the country, water is tinged with a sulphurous taste or suffers from a noticeable taint of chlorine. Indeed, at the Tap Water Challenge in Boston, one participant, Leila Saba, says she drinks tap water in Boston but chooses bottled water when she visits her parents at home in South Florida, where the water has an unpleasant taste. "I think tap water is always safe to drink," she says, "but they could make an effort to make the water taste better."....

Source




QUACK MEDICINE OK IN BRITAIN

Lives will be put at risk by a controversial law which allows homeopathic medicines to make unproven scientific claims, leading doctors have warned. More than 700 medics, scientists and members of the public have signed a statement criticising a new law which they say makes a mockery out of conventional medicine. The Government's medicines safety watchdog says the change gives patients clearer information. But critics fear that giving legitimacy to pills and potions that are based on 'magic' rather than science will cost lives. One expert likened the change to categorising Smarties as a medicine, on the basis that chocolate makes you feel better.

Homeopathy, which has won the backing of Prince Charles, claims to prevent diseases such as malaria by using dilute forms of herbs, minerals and other materials that in higher concentrations could produce the symptoms of the condition. Popular treatments include arnica, a plant-based remedy used to treat cuts and bruises, and malaria nosode, anti-malaria tablets made from African swamp water, rotting plants and mosquito eggs and larvae. However, a recent study published in the Lancet suggested that the benefits of homeopathy are all in the imagination, with alternative remedies performing no better than dummy pills in clinical trials.

Until recently, homeopathic medicine manufacturers were banned from claiming new products could treat specific ailments. But regulations introduced last month by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency allow the manufacturers to make such claims, as long as they can prove the remedy is safe. Unlike conventional medicines, they do not have to show that the remedies actually work. Instead, they only have to show that the remedy has a history of being used to treat an illness.

The change has so angered the medical establishment that hundreds of doctors and scientists have signed a statement drafted by the charity Sense About Science to oppose the new labelling system. Yesterday afternoon, the House of Lords debated the issue. The critics fear that the new system could lead to life-threatening illnesses going undiagnosed, or to people binning the tablets prescribed by their GP in favour of an unproven alternative. Edzard Ernst, professor of complimentary medicine at Exeter University, said it could cost lives. "makes a mockery out of evidence- based medicine," he said. "I feel very strongly that this is a very serious mistake. If there are claims being made, there has to be evidence for them. "Constipation could be a sign of bowel cancer and if somebody that has a treatable bowel cancer goes out and buys a homeopathic medicine, they might be untreatable tomorrow. Taken to the extreme, this regulation could cost lives."

Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College London, accused the homoepathy industry of playing on people's beliefs in magic and superstition. He said: "Homeopathy websites advocate using mistletoe to treat breast cancer. The proving for mistletoe is that it grows on the bush in a way like cancer grows in a person. It is utterly barmy." Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, a former hospital doctor, said: "It is an extremely retrograde step for our medical regulator to decide a medicine can be licensed without proper evidence." Professor Adrian Newland, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, said he was "deeply alarmed" by the change, which could "encourage patients to use them as an alternative to conventional treatments".

Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's Hospital in London, said those who believe homeopathic medicine work are being misled by the "placebo effect", in which any benefit comes for the patient's expectations, rather than from the treatment itself. She said: "The only plausible explanation for any objectively determined benefit of homeopathy is the placebo effect. "I assume that the regulations would therefore legitimately be extended to cover Smarties used for similar 'treatment' purposes?"

The MHRA said the new regulations, which only apply to remedies aimed at minor ailments such as headaches, stomach pains and insomnia, provide customers with more information about the range of products available. A spokesman said quality and safety were tightly controlled, adding: "The label and/or packaging must have a clear statement of the homeopathic nature of the product, with a statement instructing the patient to consult their doctor if symptoms persist." The Society of Homeopaths said its members are bound by a code of ethics designed to protect patients. Spokesman Melanie Oxley stressed that the new rules only apply to remedies bought in chemist and health food shops and used to treat minor conditions. She added: "For treatment of a serious illness, we would hope a patient would approach a registered homeopath or their doctor."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

*********************

Amusing: Australian hospital meals carry more fat 'than fast food'

Most traditional home-cooked dinners would too. They are the source of hospital "cuisine"



Public hospitals serve meals that contain more fat, salt and calories than McDonald's burgers. The Sunday Times obtained a Royal Perth Hospital hot meal and sent it to a laboratory for testing. The analysis revealed that the chicken and vegetable dinner had more fat, sodium and energy than a Big Mac or Quarter Pounder, and nearly as much as a burger and french fries combined.

But this meal is far from the worst that is often on the menu for patients. The Sunday Times is aware that fatty pork chops in sauce and sausages and bacon are also served. "The pork chops are horrible, they must be about 50 per cent fat," one hospital worker said.

Prominent dietitian Margaret Hays said patients should get a selection of food, but the Government also had a responsibility to offer healthy choices in hospitals -- especially considering the obesity epidemic. "With such a huge number of Australians being overweight, or having heart conditions or diabetes, I'd expect that hospitals, of all places, should be paving the way to healthy eating and setting standards," she said.

The lab results showed the hospital meal contained 28.4g of artery-blocking fat, 1208mg of high-blood pressure-friendly sodium and 625 calories. This compared with a Big Mac's 25.5g of fat, 846mg of sodium and 480 calories. A Quarter Pounder has 20g of fat, 690mg of sodium and 460 calories. Grab a McChicken burger and fries, with 944mg of sodium, and you still get more salt in the hospital meal. There's also not much more fat and energy in the burger and fries, at 33.5g and 672 calories respectively.

Hospital workers said there were "boring" healthier choices, such as cold meat and salad, and cereal. But people often opted for "greasy hot stuff", such as roast beef swimming in gravy.

Ms Hays said healthy food did not have to be bland, nor would it cost more for hospitals. Tasty casseroles and soups, using plenty of vegetables and lean meat, were among many cheap and healthy options. Australian Medical Association president Geoff Dobb said unhealthy meal options should eventually be phased out in all hospitals. Opposition health spokesman Kim Hames said with obesity now the major cause of health problems, it was disgraceful that there was still hospital food that was less healthy than burgers. The Health Department refused to comment.

Source





NEW YORK NONSENSE GETTING UP STEAM

There are plenty of things in Kentucky Fried Chicken that are bad for your health - cholesterol, saturated fat and salt, to name a few. But only one has the potential to get the colonel's recipe banned in New York City. That ingredient is artificial trans fatty acids, which are so common that the average American eats 4.7 pounds a year, according to the Food and Drug Administration. City health officials say these so-called trans fats are so unhealthy they belong in the same category as food spoiled by rodent droppings.

On Monday, the Board of Health will hold its first public hearing on a proposal to make New York the first U.S. city to ban restaurants from serving food containing artificial trans fats. Eateries are scrambling for ways to get trans fats out of their food. KFC Corp. said it was planning a "major announcement" in New York on Monday about a change coming to all 5,500 of its U.S. restaurants. Franchise owners told several newspapers and magazines that KFC would stop using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil - the primary source of artificial trans fats.

Representatives of the company and its parent, Louisville, Ky.-based Yum Brands Inc., declined to comment, but the possible switch was applauded by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which sued KFC in June over the trans fat content of its chicken. "Assuming KFC goes through with it, it would be a tremendous improvement for the nutritional quality of their foods," said the center's executive director, Mike Jacobson.

Invented in the early 1900s, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil was initially believed to be a healthy substitute for natural fats like butter or lard. It was also cheaper, performed better under high heat and had a longer shelf life. Today, it is used for deep frying and as a shortening in baked goods like cookies and crackers.

Ironically, many fast food companies became dependent on hydrogenated oil about 15 years ago when they were pressured by health groups to do something about saturated fat. McDonald's emptied its fryers of beef tallow in 1990 and filled them with what was then thought to be "heart healthy" partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.

Trans fats significantly raise the level of so-called "bad" cholesterol in the blood, clogging arteries and causing heart disease. Researchers at Harvard's School of Public Health estimated that trans fats contribute to 30,000 U.S. deaths a year. "This is something we'd like to dismiss from our food supply," said Dr. Robert H. Eckel, immediate past president of the American Heart Association.

Wendy's, the national burger chain, has already switched to a zero-trans fat oil. McDonald's announced in 2003 that it intended to do so, but has yet to follow through.

If approved, New York's ban would only affect restaurants, not grocery stores, and wouldn't extend beyond the city limits. But experts said the city's food service industry, with 24,600 establishments, is so large that any rule change is likely to ripple nationwide. "It's going to be the trendsetter for the entire country," said Suzanne Vieira, director of the culinary nutrition program at Johnson & Wales University in Providence, R.I.

Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, said many New York eatery owners rely on ingredients prepared elsewhere, and aren't always aware whether the foods they sell contain trans fats.

Consumer reaction remains to be seen. New Jersey state Sen. Ellen Karcher said her office was flooded with threatening phone calls after she proposed a similar trans fat ban in early October. A proposed ban in Chicago was ridiculed by some as government paternalism run amok.

Source

See point 9 in red below to learn all you need to know about trans-fats

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

*********************

INNATE DIFFERENCES IN FOOD CRAVING



Scientists have discovered why some people's brains are particularly vulnerable to food advertising and product packaging, putting them at risk of overeating and becoming overweight. The research provides fresh insight into one of the neurobiological factors underlying obesity by showing how some people are more attracted to the prospect of being rewarded with tasty food than others. The findings from a group of scientists at the Medical Research Council's Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge led by Andy Calder and Andrew Lawrence are published in the Journal of Neuroscience.

Different people have higher or lower reward sensitivity, a personality trait that reflects a general desire to pursue rewarding or pleasurable experiences. The research shows that individuals with higher reward sensitivity, show increased activity in the parts of the brain implicated in motivation or reward when simply looking at pictures of appetizing food.

Previous research has shown that people with high reward sensitivity have stronger food cravings and are more likely to be overweight, but until now, the biological basis of this effect was unknown. This new research identifies how this relationship operates in the human brain, resulting in greater susceptibility to food advertising.

The study used the latest technology in brain imaging. The researchers showed people pictures of highly appetizing foods (e.g. chocolate cakes), bland foods (e.g. broccoli), and disgusting foods (e.g. rotten meat) while measuring brain activity using an fMRI scanner. After testing, the study participants completed a questionnaire that assessed their general desire to pursue rewarding items or goals. The results showed that the participant's scores on the reward sensitivity questionnaire predicted the extent to which the appetizing food images activated their brain's reward network.

"Previous studies in this area have assumed that brain activation patterns are similar in all healthy individuals. But the new findings demonstrate that even in healthy individuals some peoples' brain reward centers are more sensitive to appetizing food cues. This helps explain why some individuals are more vulnerable to developing certain disorders like binge-eating," said Dr John Beaver, lead author of the study. "This is particularly pertinent in understanding the rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity, as people are constantly bombarded with images of appetizing food items in order to promote food intake through television advertising, vending machines, or product packaging."

According to Dr Beaver the findings may also have broader implications for understanding vulnerability to multiple forms of addiction and compulsive behaviors.

"Research demonstrates that an individual's reward sensitivity may also relate to their vulnerability to substance abuse, and the brain network we have identified is hyper-responsive to drug cues in addicts," he said.

Source






Obesity = Can't Work = Social Security Payments!

Well, this is great. Now you can make yourself too fat to work, and you get Social Security, as if it is a disability. Kind of like a few years when back parents made their children take Ritalin or other such drug, or just claimed the kids are hyper-active and they get all sorts of social welfare benefits. In this case, they did not have to even really be fat, just claimed it. No wonder Social Security is running out of money. The good news is that they got caught. How many of you knew you could get money for being fat, or just claiming it? Since when did this become an entitlement? This is just one example of the abuse of the system. I won't even mention the massive abuses by illegal aliens, while local, state and Federal governments will do nothing to stop.

Years ago President Carter wanted to create a new budget system call "Zero Based Budgeting" The purpose was that each year every dollar had to be proved to be needed. The current system starts with last years appropriation and then adds a percentage to it, whether it is needed or not, or whether the money was wasted this year. Audits takes years to do and fraud, waste and corruption are found years after the perpetrators are gone. In this case, Carter was right. Welfare programs, Social Security need constant monitoring to see if the procedures and protocols are right. Having a medical condition that could last over one year is so broad that most anyone with high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, etc could qualify. Social Security, created as a simple retirement program (not to pay for all retirement needs) has made Americans lazy about saving for old age and creative in ways to sucker the system. Those truly in need get harmed and the system is burdened by esoteric rules, regulations and interpretations.

Just as the tax system needs a complete overhaul and make it simplistic, so should Social Security. Did you know that there are attorneys that specialize in getting you the most Social Security benefits possible-this is a speciality? Why is the system so complicated that you need attorneys and accountants? Have you ever been to the headquarters of Social Security, in Baltimore? At one point in my life I was a lobbyist, working to get Social Security to cover some dental procedures. So I went to Baltimore on several occasions. The "campus" is at least four times the size of Dodger Stadium and all of the parking-it is massive. What do you think? Should we keep our system that allows "obesity", true or not, receive benefits? Is government out of control?

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

Curry good for your brain?

Since I am a keen curry-eater, I like this study

Eating curry may keep the brain active, a study of elderly Asians suggests. Consumers of curry were found to have sharper brains and better cognitive performance than those who never or seldom ate it. The magic ingredient may be curcumin, found in the curry spice turmeric, which possesses potent antioxidant and anti- inflammatory properties, say the authors of the study, led by Tze-Pin Ng from the National University of Singapore.

It is known that long-term users of anti-inflammatory drugs have a reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's, while antioxidants, such as vitamin E, have been shown to protect brain cells in laboratory experiments but have had limited success in alleviating cognitive decline in dementia patients.

In their study the team compared scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination for three categories of regular curry consumption in 1,010 Asians who were between 60 and 93 years old in 2003. Most of them ate curry at least occasionally (once every six months), 43 per cent ate it often or very often (between monthly and daily) while 16 per cent said that they never or rarely ate it.

The team report in the American Journal of Epidemiology that people who consumed curry "occasionally" and "often or very often" had significantly better MMSE scores than those who "never or rarely" ate it

Source





Walking stops colds?

It seems unlikely that the control group got the same amount of total exercise

Half an hour's exercise a day cuts the risks of catching colds in half, a new trial suggests. Brisk walking is all that is needed, and the longer that you continue to exercise daily the greater the benefit. The trial recruited 115 older women from Seattle, Washington state. All were sedentary and either overweight or obese. For a year they were asked either to exercise daily or take part in a 45-minute stretching class once a week.

The women were randomly allocated to one or other of these groups, and every quarter were asked to fill in questionnaires asking them whether they had suffered colds or other upper respiratory infections in the previous three months. The results, published in The American Journal of Medicine, show that the daily exercise group had only half as many colds as the weekly stretch-class group. Over the final three months of the study the gap was even wider, with the stretchers suffering three times as many colds as the exercisers. "This adds another good reason to put exercise on your to-do list," said Cornelia Ulrich, the paper's senior author and an associate member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre's public health sciences division in Seattle.

But moderation was the key. Other studies had shown that excessive exercise could increase the risk of colds. She said that the likeliest cause of the benefit, if it proved to be real, was the enhancement of the immune system.

More here






Perfect smile dangerous



In the quest for the perfect Hollywood smile, they provide an instant and cheap makeover for the mouth. But the teeth-whitening kits used by thousands of Britons who want polished molars can cause permanent damage, according to dentists. Super-strength whitening kits that promise to create brighter smiles by bleaching teeth with high levels of hydrogen peroxide dye can lead to chemical burns and aggravated gum disease, the British Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry (BACD) announced yesterday. The do-it-yourself kits, on sale over the counter in Britain for as little as 10 pounds, are in demand as an alternative to surgical bleaching treatments offered by dental clinics at a cost of between 300 and 1,300 pounds.

Yet some kits available online are 250 times more concentrated than the legal limit and can cause damage or over-bleaching, resulting in so-called "fridge door teeth", clinicians claim. At worst, they may exacerbate gum disease, leading to tooth loss. Private dental clinics are burgeoning, with the market for cosmetic dentistry in Britain now said to be worth 1 billion. More than a quarter of Britons have had cosmetic dental work, including caps and braces. However, whitening treatments are the most popular, according to a recent survey. James Goolnik, a dentist and board member of the BACD, said that the kits offering a "cheap, quick fix" were ineffective and offered a false economy.

"Whitening is a bit like a facial in that it helps to unlock pores in your tooth so that stains are gently removed leaving teeth cleaner and brighter," he said. "All whitening is based on a hydrogen peroxide solution; the only difference in the hundreds of systems out there is the concentration and the way the solution is applied to your teeth. Not all of them are safe. "By law, shop-bought kits in the UK can't have a hydrogen peroxide concentration level more than 0.1 per cent. But other countries have no regulations at all."

Dr Goolnik said that take-home kits should be used with caution since they involved using poorly moulded mouth guards, often worn overnight, allowing leakage of gel or solutions containing hydrogen peroxide, a chemical typically associated with hair colourings, into the mouth. "If the gel goes on to the gums, it can cause blistering. In someone who has got irritation or decay, it can accelerate the process," he said. Dr Goolnik said that the kits with high levels of hydrogen peroxide were designed to be used by professional dentists, painted directly on to the teeth while the gums were protected. He said: "We are seeing more and more people coming in with damage caused by whitening kits . . . They go to the supermarket and see whitening toothpastes. There is no evidence they can actually whiten teeth and people might not see a difference, so they want the next thing up. At best they get no result, and at worst they get permanent sensitivity. "It is essential to invest, at a bare minimum, in going to see your dentist before you use one of these kits, but you don't want to spend money on whitening for no effect and only a dentist can get your teeth to the maximum whiteness."

A spokesman for the General Dental Council, which regulates dentistry in Britain, said: "Tooth-whitening products contain bleach and need to be handled with caution. Only registered dentists are permitted to apply materials and carry out procedures designed to improve the aesthetic appearance of teeth." Carmel McHenry, a spokeswoman for the British Dental Association said: "Liquids that discolour teeth will darken them again over time." She recommended a full dental assessment before the procedure.

A spokesman for Boots the Chemist, which sells its own brand of whitening kits, said: "People with sensitive teeth or gums are advised to talk to a dentist before using whitening kits, and all users are advised to pay careful attention to the detailed instructions on the packaging. Our own-brand kit uses a non-peroxide formula and has been extensively tested and passed as safe to use."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

Ritalin junkies warning

Prescribing Ritalin to children could be breeding a generation of junkies. The drug, commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), may be wiring children's brains for amphetamine addiction later in life.

Addiction expert Andrew Lawrence, from Melbourne's Howard Florey Institute, has found that amphetamines given to adolescent rats put them at greater risk of addiction in adulthood.

This means the 50,000 Australian children who take Ritalin -- an amphetamine-like stimulant with a similar chemical structure to cocaine, may be at risk. "We found that when a teenage rat is given amphetamines and then, after abstinence, has the drug again as an adult, they have a more sensitised reaction, opening the door for addiction," he said.

The researchers found adult rats became more susceptible to heart attack after this pattern of drug-taking. This year it was reported that children as young as five had suffered heart attacks after taking Ritalin.

The above article appeared in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" on October 22, 2006





Meat good for you, say Australian science experts

The first edition of the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet has knocked The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter off the top of the Australian bestseller list. Its sequel, launched yesterday, is expected to be as popular. A feature of the revised scientific diet book, which recommends a high-protein meat diet, is a comprehensive six-week exercise program.

The sequel was launched in Sydney by Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training Julie Bishop and CSIRO chief executive Dr Geoff Garrett, who spoke about his own weight loss after using the book's methods. Mrs Bishop said Australians had a long way to go in terms of getting fit. She said 30 per cent of Australians under 25 had high blood pressure and more than half the population was overweight. "Sixty per cent of an adult population [being overweight] in a country like Australia with magnificent weather and the opportunity to be outdoors and be physically fit is just not acceptable," Mrs Bishop said. She said insufficient physical activity caused about 8000 preventable deaths annually and cost the health budget $400 million each year.

The authors of the book, which recommends a 12-week eating plan, Dr Manny Noakes and Dr Peter Clifton, warned Australia would struggle to deal with a looming health crisis. Dr Grant Brinkworth, who developed the exercise regime, demonstrated stretches to be used in conjunction with the diet tips.

Criticisms that the first book recommended a diet that was overly based on red meat are answered in a chapter titled "Is red meat a risk factor for colorectal cancer". "The evidence that eating red meat, or any single food, is a risk for colorectal cancer is weak at best, compared to the proven negative effects of being overweight and inactive," the book states.

Recipes range from corn fritters with smoked salmon and spinach to lamb biryani.

Source





Youth obesity blamed on lack of exercise

The federal government has accused schools of contributing to child obesity by cutting back on physical education. State governments claimed federal parliamentary secretary for health Christopher Pyne was trying to shift the blame when he called on them to reintroduce compulsory sport in schools. They said sport and physical education were already mandatory at primary and secondary school level.

But Mr Pyne accused the state Labor governments of being "cute" in defining sport and said they were not promoting inter-school competition and after-school practice. "Their definition of what they regard as compulsory school sport is different to the traditional inter-school sporting competition and after-school activity," Mr Pyne said. "Some schools include drama, human movement and dance in their physical activity. "And if what the states are doing is adequate, why has the federal government had to introduce a $90 million after-school-hours activity program in state schools?"

Mr Pyne said the states' assessment of their commitment to school sport should not include the two hours of physical activity they must prove their schools are doing to qualify for commonwealth funding. Speaking at a Committee for Economic Development of Australia conference in Sydney, he said the state Labor governments had been misdirecting the blame for the obesity problem. "Labor has been diverting the blame, pointing the finger at fatty foods while slashing funding to exercise programs in schools and moving away from compulsory physical education as part of the curriculum," he said. "We need to bring back school sports and compulsory physical education."

NSW Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt said her state's schools were playing their part, but she used the commonwealth's two-hour minimum as the benchmark. "It is mandatory for primary school students to complete 120 minutes of planned physical activity each week and students in Years 7 to 10 complete an estimated 80 minutes a week," Ms Tebbutt said. "Students in Years 7 to 11 also participate in 80 to 120 minutes of school sport each week." Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said Mr Pyne's comments were another example of shifting blame to the states. He said Queensland was doing more than any other state to tackle childhood obesity through its Eat Well and Get Active programs. Rather than blaming states for not doing enough, the federal government should legislate to restrict television advertisements for junk food, he said. "Instead we have a federal government pointing the finger at everybody else," Mr Beattie said. A Victorian government spokesman said sport and physical education had been in the curriculum at government schools for several years. And in the Northern Territory, Education Minister Paul Henderson said students spend about half-an-hour exercising each day.

Federal opposition health spokeswoman Julia Gillard, also speaking at the CEDA conference, responded to Mr Pyne's claims that Labor was focusing on food rather than exercise in typical schoolyard style. "Well, der, of course it's both," Ms Gillard said.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

EGGS GOOD FOR YOUR EYES

The two very small studies below should only be seen as preliminary support for the theory

Two randomized clinical studies published this week in the Journal of Nutrition found that eating an egg daily helps to promote eye health without raising cholesterol levels.

Eggs provide two powerful antioxidants that have been shown to protect the retina and reduce the risk of cataracts and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of age-related blindness. AMD affects more than 13 million Americans or 5 percent of people ages 65 and older.

Both studies looked at the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, which are part of the carotenoid family (like beta-carotene in carrots) and are the only carotenoids found in the eye. People can't make these antioxidants on their own and must get them from foods such as egg yolks, fruits and green-leafy vegetables. Previous research has shown that the lutein in eggs may be better absorbed by the body than it is from other sources such as dietary supplements or spinach.

"The two studies published this week on lutein and zeaxanthin provide further validation that eggs provide important eye health benefits for baby boomers and aging adults," said Donald J. McNamara, Ph.D., executive director of the Egg Nutrition Center. "They also support the 30 plus years of research that show people can enjoy an egg or two a day without negatively impacting blood cholesterol levels, something that has been misunderstood by both health professionals and the public."

What the Science Says

In one of the studies published in the Journal of Nutrition, 24 women ages 24 to 59 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that consumed a sugar pill daily or one of two egg groups(2). Women in both egg groups ate six eggs a week for six weeks. The eggs contained either 330 micrograms (EGG 1) or 960 micrograms (EGG 2) of lutein and zeaxanthin. Zeaxanthin levels significantly increased for both egg groups and lutein levels increased for the women in the EGG 1 group. What's more, the eye pigments that help protect the retina by blocking out harmful light significantly increased in both egg groups. Interestingly, cholesterol levels significantly increased in the group that consumed the sugar pill but did not increase in either egg group. [Wacky!]

The other randomized control trial published this week provided further support that eating an egg a day significantly increases lutein and zeaxanthin levels without raising cholesterol levels. Thirty-three men and women over the age of 60 participated in each phase of this four-phase study. Lutein and zeaxanthin levels increased by 26 percent and 38 percent, respectively, after participants ate an egg a day for five weeks. There was no increase in levels of these nutrients during a five-week period when participants ate egg substitutes (which lack the antioxidants) daily, nor during two three-week periods when no eggs or egg substitutes were consumed. Cholesterol levels did not differ during any phase of the study.

"Many people think they are doing themselves a favor by only consuming egg substitutes or egg whites," said Marcia Greenblum, a registered dietitian. "But the fact is, many of an egg's nutrients are found in the yolk including most of the choline and vitamin B12, and about 40 percent of the protein."

Source





But eggs could kill you

Is the all-clear on eggs all over? A new Japanese study breaks through the promising news on eggs. Eating eggs every day increases a woman's risk of dying young, it says. The report appears this month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The 14-year study shows that women who ate one egg a day were more likely to die during those 14 years compared with women who ate one to two eggs a week.

It stirs up an old argument -- whether the egg yolk's 200 mg of cholesterol contributes to health problems like heart disease. Two years ago, a study published by the American Heart Association found that up to one egg per day did not have a significant impact on risk for heart disease or stroke. The AHA now recommends eating less than 300 mg per day on average. People with high cholesterol should eat no more than 200 mg per day. ...

The study involved more than 9,000 Japanese men and women whose egg consumption, cholesterol levels, and deaths were documented from 1980 to 1994. Women who ate an egg daily were more likely to die early than women who ate one or two eggs per week. Total cholesterol level among the frequent egg eaters was on average 6 mg/dL higher than less-frequent egg eaters.

For men, frequent egg eating seemed to pose no problems to total cholesterol. Fewer men ate eggs every day, for one thing. And men who were daily egg eaters had no higher risk of early death than women.

More here





CHEFS RESISTING FOOD CORRECTNESS

If you don't pay attention to calories when deciding how much of something to eat, you might want to know that the chefs serving it to you don't either. A survey of 300 restaurant chefs around the country reveals that taste, looks and customer expectations are what matter when they determine portion size. Only one in six said the calorie content was very important and half said it didn't matter at all.

While it may make diners happy to get piles of pasta and mountains of meat, they'll pay the price in pounds, said doctors at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, where the survey was presented Saturday. Chefs agreed that big servings encourage people to eat too much, but said it's up to the diner to decide how much to consume - and how much to take in a doggie bag.

Portion sizes have bloated during the last few decades, a trend that worries doctors because two-thirds of Americans eat at least one meal a week at restaurants, which increasingly offer a dizzying array of diverse and fattening cuisine. "As you increase portion sizes or the variety of meals served, people are going to consume more calories," said Thomas Wadden, president of the Obesity Society and director of the Center for Weight and Eating Disorders at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

He had no part in the study, which was led by Barbara Rolls, an obesity researcher at Pennsylvania State University. She and others gave questionnaires to chefs attending culinary meetings last year. More than 400 responded, and 300 who gave complete answers formed the final sample.

Two-thirds were executive chefs at fine or casual dining restaurants, and the rest were assistant or kitchen chefs. Most had worked at least 20 years, and three-fourths had a degree in culinary arts. Chefs said these factors strongly influence portion size: food presentation (70 percent), cost (65 percent) and customer expectations (52 percent). Only 16 percent said calories were a big influence. "Most of them thought they were serving regular-sized portions," Rolls said, but four out of five gave more than the recommended 2 ounces for pasta and 3 ounces for strip steak. If they were worried about competitor restaurants, they served more pasta and steak and used bigger plates, researchers found.

Portions are a touchy subject for many restaurants and some chains outright refused to discuss it. But at Cheesecake Factory Inc., "we're known for our generous portions" and the value they offer, said Howard Gordon, a senior vice president of the chain whose signature dish is dozens of varieties of cheesecake, the ultimate sin dessert. "There is a 'wow' factor in the way that it looks," he said of the food. The chain doesn't provide information on calories and customers ask for it "very, very rarely," he said. "I've rarely seen a person eat a whole slice of cheesecake. They share," and a whopping 80 percent take doggie bags from their meals, Gordon said. "It's a splurge."

Steps from Boston's Hynes Convention Center where the obesity meeting was being held, Eric Bogardus, executive chef at Vox Populi, a trendy American bistro-style restaurant, uses a sort of contentment index when setting portions. "When I look at a dish, the first thing I think about is, is this going to be the right portion to make somebody happy when they leave ... content without feeling full or hungry," he said.

Too-large portions "corner people" into eating too much of one dish, he said, so he keeps his on the small side. But he doesn't hesitate to adjust when he feels a dish demands it, like serving half a duck instead of the duck breast that most restaurants serve. "In general that's quite a bit of meat," Bogardus said. "But to me, if you're going to have a duck, you have to have a leg. That's where the flavor is." Chefs, after all, are cooks - not diet coaches.

Source





Pill for infertile men 'doubled' pregnancy rates

The studies relied on for the claims below would again seem to be very small

An Australian scientist has developed a revolutionary pill for men, which has doubled the pregnancy rates of infertile couples. The capsule, Menevit, containing seven antioxidants and minerals, will be available next year. "The results have been miraculous, better than we ever expected," said inventor Kelton Tremellen, an Adelaide fertility specialist. Dr Tremellen will announce the findings of his research at the Fertility Society of Australia Conference in Sydney tomorrow.

Fertility Society of Australia chair Dr Anne Clark said the findings would have wide-ranging implications for men around the world. "To have a method of treating sperm issues rather than their partner having to go through a fertility treatment is fantastic," Dr Clarke said. She believed it would prove an effective "preventative medicine" to tackle the decline in male fertility.

Menevit is to be sold through international drug company Bayer and follows three years of intensive research including two trials. The most recent involved 60 couples, two thirds of whom were given the tablet daily. Of those who took Menevit, 17 babies were conceived, compared to four babies from couples who had the placebo.

The new pill is aimed at attacking free radicals, such as smoking, obesity and exposure to chemicals, which damage sperm. Dr Tremellen said the results suggest the pill reduces sperm DNA damage and improves embryo quality. "The men gave very positive feedback," he said. "They often feel powerless as they watch their wives going through all the injections in IVF."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

VEGEMITE REPRIEVED!

Australians travelling to the US can breathe easy. So can the 100,000 or so Australian expatriates living in America. The US Government today dismissed media reports it had banned Vegemite. "There is no ban on Vegemite," US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spokesman Mike Herndon said.

Media reports at the weekend claimed American border officials were confiscating Vegemite from Australians as they entered the US. The FDA, charged with policing America's food supply, has not issued an "import alert" to border officials to halt the import of Vegemite. Mr Herndon said the FDA was surprised by the media reports.

The controversy centres on folate, an ingredient in Vegemite. Under US regulations, folate can be added only to breads and cereals. "One of the Vitamin B components (in Vegemite) is folate," Mr Herndon said. "In and of itself, it's not a violation. If they're adding folate to it, boosting it up, technically it would be a violation. "But the FDA has not targeted it and I don't think we intend to target Vegemite simply because of that."

Joanna Scott, spokesperson for Vegemite's maker, Kraft, reportedly has said, "The Food and Drug Administration doesn't allow the import of Vegemite simply because the recipe does have the addition of folic acid". But Mr Herndon said, "Nobody at the FDA has told them (Kraft) there is a ban". To eradicate any grey areas or potential regulation breaches, Mr Herndon said, Kraft could petition the FDA, something other food manufacturers have done.

While many Aussies living in the US rely on visiting Australian relatives and friends to bring them a jar or two of Vegemite from Australia, the product is available in some US supermarkets. The price slapped on Vegemite, however, is tough to swallow. A tiny, four ounce jar of Vegemite sells for around $US4.80 ($6.33) in US supermarkets.

Source





Lack of sunlight causes asthma?

That does fit with the apparent upsurge in asthma in recent years

Sunshine could be a saviour for asthma sufferers, according to world-first Australian research suggesting rays can relieve symptoms. But the team at Perth's Telethon Institute for Child Health Research warns against sunbaking to reap the benefits before a safer therapy is developed.

Scientists used mice to test the effects of ultraviolet light on the development of asthma-type signs such as inflamed airways and lungs. Preliminary results show that if the animals had a 15 to 30-minute dose of light before being exposed to a common allergen, their chance of developing symptoms was "significantly reduced". Research leader Professor Prue Hart said UV exposure produced a cell type in a mouse that, when transferred into other mice, suppressed the immune reaction and halted symptoms. She said the research was the first to prove sunlight was among the environmental and genetic factors that influenced the disease.

Source




BEER RULES!

Beer-loving blokes of the world, rejoice - three pots a day could put you at far less risk of a heart attack than staying teetotal. A new study, confirming what many experts have been telling us for years, suggests that not only is a daily tipple good for the heart but abstinence could be harmful to your health. The American survey charting the health of nearly 9000 men over 16 years revealed that risk of heart attacks was lowest among healthy men who drank moderately - up to three drinks a day. A standard drink is measured as a pot of full-strength beer, a stubby of medium-strength beer or a spirit nip.

Published today in Archives of Internal Medicine, the study showed that of the 106 men who had heart attacks, eight consumed 1.5 to three standard drinks a day compared with 28 who drank no alcohol. All men in the study - conducted by doctors at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston - were between the age of 40 and 75, took regular exercise, did not smoke and had a balanced, nutritious diet.

The results show that those who drank no or very limited amounts of alcohol were more likely to suffer heart problems - 34 men who drank half a standard drink or less suffered heart attacks and 27 who drank between half and 1® were afflicted. Only nine men who drank more than three drinks had heart attacks. Researchers believe the results can be explained by increased levels of "good" cholesterol in the blood.

VicHealth chief executive Rob Moodie said the results should be viewed with caution. "Socially and from a health point of view moderate drinking in this case looks to be beneficial but the problem is over-consumption," he said. "Managing it socially and in moderation is great, but drawing the line between the two is the big issue and as a society we're not doing that at all well because year on year we're seeing rises in binge drinking."

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

THIS HAS TO BE THE SCARE OF THE DAY

Men who are heavy users of mobile phones have significantly lower sperm counts than those who are not, according to research that suggests radiation from handsets could be damaging male fertility. Both the quantity and quality of a man's sperm decline as his daily mobile phone use increases, a study of 361 infertility patients in the United States indicates. The greatest effects were seen among very heavy users who talked on a mobile phone for more than four hours a day. They produced about 40 per cent less sperm than men who never used a mobile phone at all. Smaller falls in sperm count were also found among those who used the phones less frequently.

The findings, from a team led by Ashok Agarwal, of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, could indicate that the electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phone handsets are interfering with sperm production. Previous studies have shown that close and heavy exposure to this form of radiation damages sperm in the laboratory, though an effect has never been demonstrated convincingly outside this environment.

Other researchers, however, cautioned that the study showed only an association between mobile phone use and sperm counts, but established no causal link. It was more likely that heavy phone use was linked to another factor, such as stress or obesity, which was responsible for the effect, they said. "The findings seem pretty robust, but I can only assume that mobile phone use is a surrogate for something else," said Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield. "If you are holding it up to your head to speak a lot, it makes no sense it is having a direct effect on your testes. "Maybe people who use a phone for four hours a day spend more time sitting in cars, which could mean there's a heat issue. It could be they are more stressed, or more sedentary and sit about eating junk food getting fat. Those seem to be better explanations than a phone causing the damage at such a great distance."

Dr Agarwal, who presented the results yesterday at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference in New Orleans, said that they were worrying because of the wide extent of mobile phone use. "Almost a billion people are using cell phones and the number is growing in many countries at 20 to 30 per cent a year," Dr Agarwal said. "People use mobile phones without thinking twice what the consequences may be. It is just like using a toothbrush but mobiles could be having a devastating effect on fertility. It still has to be proved, but it could have a huge impact because mobiles are so much part of our lives."

In the study, 361 men whose sperm was being analysed before fertility treatment were asked about their mobile phone use, and split into four groups: those who never used a phone, those who used a phone for less than two hours, two to four hours, and more than four hours a day. Median sperm counts were measured at 85.89 million per millilitre for non-users, 69.03 million for the second group, 58.87 million for the third and 50.30 million for the fourth. Sperm motility, or swimming ability, also fell as phone use increased, as did other measures of quality. "The main finding was that on all four parameters - sperm count, motility, viability and morphology - there were significant differences between the groups," Dr Agarwal said. "The greater the use of cell phones, the greater the decrease in these four parameters. That was very clear and very significant."

The results are similar to a previous study by researchers at the University of Szeged, in Hungary, which suggested a 30 per cent reduction in sperm count among men who kept a mobile phone on standby in their trouser pockets. The research, however, failed to control for lifestyle. Such controls are important because sperm production is sensitive to a number of factors, including obesity and heat: lorry drivers and travelling salesmen, for example, tend to have low sperm counts because the long hours that they spend sitting increases the temperature of their testes.

Dr Agarwal said that if the effect was caused by mobile phones, several explanations were possible. Studies have shown that electromagnetic fields can damage Leydig cells in the testes, and mobile phones are also known to cause a heating effect on tissue that may be hazardous to sperm. Both phenomena occur over short distances, so holding a phone to the head while speaking should not be dangerous.

Source

The obvious explanation -- that infertile men need more social support -- seems not to have been considered





BRITISH FOOD NOT SO BAD?

I remember vividly the first time I offended an American. I was living in New York at the time and feeling a bit homesick, so I dragged the US citizen in question to an expat fish’n’chip shop in Greenwich Village. There, I ordered the homesick Northerner special: a chip butty, smothered in a thick curry sauce — just like the butties I used to inhale at the bus stop in Alnwick on a school night.

My friend thought this was all very cute and, like, totally British, until she realised exactly what I was eating. “You put the French fries . . . in a bread roll?” she asked, her throat tightening. “And then you pour Indian sauce all over it?”

Through molten, brownish-green mouthfuls, I mumbled something about the Queen. “That might be okay in Britain, but it’s definitely not okay here,” she choked. “You have to get rid of it. Now.” When I realised she wasn’t joking — she began to dry retch loudly — I threw the butty away, half eaten.

It’s been a hard few years for us butty lovers in America. Not only have we had to contend with the Americans’ general lack of respect for British food — they’ll happily eat a Spanish empanada, but will vomit on command at the thought of a Cornish pasty — but we’ve also had to deal with the low-carb fad that has essentially outlawed the very staples of the British diet. Fancy a pub lunch of lasagne and chips? Not a chance.

A move from New York to Los Angeles simply made it worse. I found myself eating soyburgers with alfalfa sprouts, and drinking low-calorie lager, which, to quote the great Eric Idle, is like making love in a canoe: f*****g close to water.

It is, therefore, with a happy (but not necessarily healthy) heart that I bring you news of a breakthrough. Yes, carbs are back. A nutritionist from New Zealand has found that feasting on potatoes, rice and white bread at bedtime does not necessarily make you put on weight. Meanwhile, the US Department of Agriculture has tweaked its food pyramid to allow 9oz of various grains per day (and 3.5oz of veggies, which can include white potatoes). What’s more, the return of the carb has been trumpeted on this season’s trend-setting television show, Ugly Betty. Bread consumption, which suffered a 7.5 per cent decline between 1997 and 2003, is already on the rise.

The press, naturally, has gone wild. Profiles have been written about John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich, who created the British lunch when he was too busy gambling to stop for a meal (he asked instead to be served roast beef between two hunks of bread). Other publications have invited Americans to dust off their bread-making machines and start baking their own carbs, using everything from leftover vegetables to overripe fruit for extra flavour.

Nothing, however, prepared me for the reaction of The Los Angeles Times, which put together a full-page feature telling gourmands where to find the most carbtastic British treats. It recommended no fewer than 36 British themed pubs across LA, including joints called Scotland Yard, the Beckham Grill (it has wing back chairs!) and Lucky Baldwin’s, which is patronised by the rocket scientists of Nasa’s jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena.

The best-known pubs of the bunch, however, are Ye Olde King’s Head in Santa Monica, where the paparazzi go drinking, and the Cat & Fiddle on Sunset Boulevard, where the same Ladies and Gentlemen of the British press play darts and eat Yorkshire puddings. The LA Times declared the Fiddle’s Scotch egg to be “iconic” and “hilarious but delicious with beer”. It also raved about the English bangers and the meat-filled pies. What it should have said, of course, is that it all tastes better when you’re cross-eyed and dribbling.

I’m hoping this is the start of a wider trend. After carbs, what else can make a comeback? Cigarettes? Snuff? Tinned meatballs? But I fear that our culinary heritage will be forever changed by the embrace of the carb loving Americans. The Whale & Ale pub in Long Beach, for example, is already serving a bastardised version of steak pie, filled instead with oysters. Inevitably, we will soon have to call this kind of thing “British-American” food.

As for the chip butty, I remain confident that there is absolutely nothing about this delicious abomination that can be tweaked to make it acceptable to LA yuppies. Which is probably why I haven’t been able to buy one since leaving New York.

Source





Veggies good, fat good, fruit bad

I can't be bothered to poke holes in this bit of silliness

Vegetables are brain food, according to new US study showing vegies can help prevent cognitive decline in the elderly. "Compared to people who consumed less than one serving of vegetables a day, people who ate at least 2.8 servings of vegetables a day saw their rate of cognitive change slow by roughly 40 per cent," study author Martha Clare Morris of Rush University Medical Centre in Chicago said. "This decrease is equivalent to about five years of younger age."

Researchers followed the eating habits of 3718 senior citizens over a six-year period and found that consumption especially of green leafy vegetables were linked to a slowing of cognitive decline. They also found that the older the person, the greater the impact of eating more than two servings of vegetables a day.

Researchers said they were surprised that fruit showed no link to reducing memory loss. "This was unanticipated and raises several questions," said Ms Morris. "It may be due to vegetables containing high amounts of vitamin E, which helps lowers the risk of cognitive decline. Vegetables, but not fruits, are also typically consumed with added fats such as salad dressings, and fats increase the absorption of vitamin E. Further study is required to understand why fruit is not associated with cognitive change.

The study is published in the October 24 issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************

PETER SINGER'S FOOD GOSPEL

A review of "Eating: What we eat and why it matters", by Peter Singer and Jim Mason, Arrow Books, 2006

The news that the Pope is thinking about abandoning limbo, the place to which the souls of unbaptised babies who have never heard the message of Christian salvation have been consigned over the centuries, must have been a big disappointment to Peter Singer, the philosopher champion of animal rights, and Jim Mason, his journalist collaborator.

Limbo would seem to be the ideal fate for the family from blue collar Mabelville, Arkansas, whose commitment to the `standard American diet' is subjected to detailed analysis and withering moral scrutiny in Eating. They eat cheap chicken, meat, eggs and milk, shop at Wal-Mart and eat out at McDonalds. Their diet is judged to be damaging to their family's health and to render them complicit in the cruelty of factory farming, environmental destruction, pollution and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad. But like those benighted pagans who never have heard the word of Jesus, these decent American citizens are considered to be in a state of primeval innocence: `nothing in the television they watch or the newspapers they read suggest that there is anything unethical about the choices they are making. Doesn't all of America shop at Wal-Mart? How can it be wrong to do as everyone else does?'

If limbo is the destiny of the blamelessly ignorant, hell is for fat people, for whom there can be no escape from righteous condemnation. Singer and Mason demand the restoration of the `deadly sin' status accorded to gluttony in the traditional catechism of the Catholic Church: `along with the old-fashioned virtue of frugality, the idea that it is wrong to be a glutton is in urgent need of revival.'

Purgatory would appear to be the appropriate place for the subjects of Singer and Mason's second case study: a family of `conscientious omnivores' from affluent Fairfield, Connecticut. This family buys organic food from local farmers' markets and tries to use its consumer power to uphold `fair trade' and `workers' rights'. Though they eat meat `only when it satisfies certain ethical standards', they are found to be at fault in buying seafood (which the authors consider should be avoided on the grounds of sustainability and cruelty - with the exception of sustainably obtained simple molluscs). But these earnest environmentalists are spared the wrath of Singer and Mason, who proclaim, with truly divine forbearance, that `it seems more appropriate to praise the conscientious omnivores for how far they have come, rather than to criticise them for not having gone further'.

Heaven is reserved for the vegans, such as the family living in the prosperous suburbs of Kansas City, who provide the third case study. Vegans, of whom there are more than one million in the USA, refuse all animal products, and are regarded by Singer and Mason as paragons of individual and environmental virtue. Their lifestyle `completely avoids participation in the abuse of farm animals' and they act as beacons of integrity and incorruptibility in a world of moral turpitude. For example, if people inquire why they are refusing to eat meat, `that often leads to conversations that influence others, so that the good that we can do personally by boycotting factory farms can be multiplied by the number of others we influence to do the same'.

Sensitive to contemporary hostility towards fundamentalism, the authors conclude with a section entitled `ethical not fanatical' which demonstrates their capacity to apply what appears to be a rigid doctrinal code with a spirit of flexibility. They are keen to reassure the faithful that `a little self indulgence, if you can keep it under firm control, doesn't make you a moral monster'. (One is reminded of St Augustine: `give me chastity and continence - but not just yet!') Combining the dogmatism and authoritarianism of old style Catholicism with the slack relativism of contemporary Anglicanism, Singer and Mason are the self-appointed high priests of the twenty-first century environmentalist cult.

`We don't usually think of what we eat as a matter of ethics' declare Singer and Mason in their introduction. This is true: in the past, ethics has been largely concerned with questions of how we behave in relation to other people. Eating has generally been regarded as largely a matter of biological survival, an activity of some anthropological concern, but of little philosophical or political interest. The elevation of eating to become a major focus of individual and social attention implies reducing the scope of human endeavour to the level of biology. While seeking to raise the status of animals, by making the banal activities required to maintain the integrity of the human body the central preoccupation of personal and family life, these authors degrade humanity.

The elevation of a priestly hierarchy over a society of individuals preoccupied by the quest for basic biological survival should alert us that modern society is in danger of retreating into the clerical obscurantism of the pre-modern era.

Source




THE LATEST ATTACK ON TV WATCHING

A new study claims to have found "strong support" for the theory that too much television for small children may trigger autism. The study - which has sparked an angry debate in America, where it was carried out - found a correlation between the number of hours that children younger than three spend watching television and the rates of autism in a county-by-county analysis of four states. [Cause or effect?]

The study provides the latest controversial theory to explain the estimated 10-fold rise in reported cases of autism over the past 30 years. There are now approximately 90,000 British children with autistic disorders. Other hypotheses have included a largely discredited claim by Dr Andrew Wakefield, a British researcher, that the onset of autism may be caused by the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination.

The American researchers - led by Michael Waldman, an economics professor at Cornell University - admit that their findings are not "definitive evidence" because they could find only indirect evidence of the amount of time that autistic children spend viewing television. In the report Does Television Cause Autism? the researchers claim to have found a significant link between rates of rainfall, which is presumed to have kept children indoors, the spread of cable television networks with round-the-clock children's programming and the level of autism diagnoses.

The researchers say their figures are so closely correlated that they "indicate that just under 40% of autism diagnoses in the three states studied (California, Oregon and Washington) is the result of television watching due to precipitation". They also found that 17% of the growth in autism cases in two of the states in the 1970s and 1980s might be due to television watching.

While television has long been regarded as potentially harmful for under-threes, most research has found only limited links between viewing and child development problems. However, many parents have reported that the behaviour of autistic children is affected adversely by television. Lisa Jo Rudy, mother of a nine-year-old autistic boy and a consultant on child behaviour, was critical of the Cornell theory, saying the "really bad science" was likely to "dig ever deeper into the morass of guilt that seems to surround the diagnosis of autism".

Meanwhile, a study by Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, of 743 families, in which 1,200 members were diagnosed with autism, has found evidence of a mutated gene that is involved in brain development, the immune system and the gastro-intestinal system - all of which may be damaged in autistic children.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

*********************