WEIGHT CONTROL IS NO MORE RELEVANT? IT SEEMS SO!

Overweight and obesity related health disorders are increasingly becoming common, especially among population in wealthy countries who have easy access to cheap but calorie and fat rich food products. Billions of dollars are being invested by consumers affected by these disorders for getting rid of excess weight and fat in the body to escape from the consequences of overweight, scientifically documented by many studies at the international level. While a majority of medical, nutritional and health experts feel that overweight is really dangerous, there is a small segment of scientific community which maintains that over weight people are not at greater risk of dying compared to normal weight persons. Here is a take on this conflicting views which can derail the current aggressive approach on obesity alleviation.

"It's a common medical refrain: Carrying extra pounds raises the risk of ills such as heart disease and diabetes and therefore the risk of a premature death. But does that heightened risk of early death apply across the board to those who are merely overweight? A new analysis of nearly 3 million people suggests maybe not. The finding, published on-line Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., pooled data from 97 studies encompassing adult men and women in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, India and Mexico. A total of 270,000 people died of any cause during the studies. When the scientists crunched the numbers, they found, as expected, that people who were significantly obese — with a body mass index, or BMI, of 35 or more — had shorter life spans on average than those who were of normal weight, defined as having a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9. But the scientists also found that people classified as overweight, with a BMI of 25 to 29.9, died at slightly lower rates — not higher — than those of so-called normal weight. And they found that those who were mildly obese, with a BMI of 30 to 34.9, died in no greater numbers than did their normal-weight peers".

Is it not a disservice to humanity when scientists supposed to be searching for truth in whatever they do, indulge in such semantics putting the consumers in great distress not knowing what to believe? A closer scrutiny of the new findings reveals that the conclusions are based on crunching of health  data of thousands of persons and their past history. Though the data have been statistically analyzed, it is difficult to fully comprehend the significance of the new conclusion because a wrong reading can lead to millions of people presently on diet control, to be less vigilant and disciplined in eating that can have unknown consequences in future. A possible and rational explanation for the above unusual findings can be that those who are overweight might have been suffering from diseases like diabetes, CVD and hypertension, forcing them to resort to good and regular medication making their lives much more protective compared to normal healthy persons.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FISH IN THE DIET-NEW ALARM ON ITS SAFETY

During the last two decades, role of fish in the diet assumed critical importance because it is a rich source of Omega-3 fats considered crucial for preventing heart disease and other related disorders commonly encountered in modern society. Besides, unlike red meat fish meat is not a source of cholesterol making it safe for regular consumption. However the oceans where marine fish breed, are getting heavily polluted with all types chemicals, the most dangerous being Mercury which is known to cause damage to the brain if consumed beyond a limit. Presently an upper limit of 1 ppm is prescribed in the US while many other countries have fixed the tolerable limit at 0.5 ppm. Recent reports implicating Mercury even at lower limits in human disorders call for a rethinking about the safety limit of this toxic mineral. Here is a take on this new revelation which cannot be brushed away that easily.

"Scientists say that consuming fish may be more hazardous to your health than you think, according to new reports published this week. The reports, produced by the Biodiversity Research Institute and an international coalition of environmental campaign groups called the Zero Mercury Working Group, say that mercury contamination of seafood is not only on the rise across the globe, but that "smaller traces of the toxic metal may be enough to cause restricted brain development or other health problems for humans who eat them." "The more we look at mercury, the more toxic it is," David Evers, the executive director of BRI, told the Portland Press Herald. "Threats from mercury are greater at lower levels than we have thought in the past." As the Global Post notes, scientists have long warned consumers about the potential dangers of mercury in fish and other seafood. However, the new reports have revealed that the guidelines for safe seafood consumption in place in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere may now be out of date. "Levels of [mercury] exposure that are defined as safe by the official limits, are actually having adverse effects," environmental health scientist Dr. Edward Groth, who authored one of the three reports, said at a web conference, according to the Post."These are not trivial effects, these are significant effects. There does appear to be evidence now, fairly persuasive evidence, that adverse effects occur from normal amounts of seafood consumption," Groth, who is an adviser to the World Health Organization, continued".

Mercury is thrown into the atmosphere by burning coal in power plants and when the atmospheric mercury is absorbed by the water in the ocean, algae accumulates the same in their cells which then is passed on to fish which feasts on it. When such fish reaches the dining table, mercury is passed on to the humans through their foods. So far consumers and the safety agencies were sure that most fish varieties harvested to day have far less than 1 ppm, except in case of tile fish or Sword fish and crabs which may contain up to 1.5 ppm. The new finding that even low levels of mercury can adversely affect the functions of the human brain is alarming and scary. Unfortunately coal happens to be the most abundantly available cheap source of energy and economic compulsions prevent banning coal powered power plants every where in the world. What is the option before mankind under such circumstances? Banning fish consumption altogether? Not a feasible option. May be curtailing the fish consumption to levels just enough to meet the needs for Omega-3 fats is a possibility but will it be acceptable to the consumers and the fish industry in general. Technological intervention to trap the mercury in the smoke that is spewed by the power plants is another alternative that can be considered.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"WAR" ON CHILDHOOD OBESITY IN AMERICA-THE WINNER IS -----!

Lot has been said and written about the villainous role played by the processed food industry in raising a nation of children with distorted body shape due to over consumption of fat and calories served by the former. No matter what any body says the industry seems to be least bothered because of its "money power" that has kept national governments under the thump! Every time a proposal is mooted to impose stringent regulatory control over the industry, the strategy has been to coddle up to the government promising voluntary action to curb the manufacture of patently unhealthy but organoleptically mouth watering foods, only to break the same with neither remorse nor fear of retribution. Here is the latest instance of the destructive way the industry deals with issues that concern the health and lives of citizens in that "great" country, all call as the United States of America!

In the political arena, one side is winning the war on child obesity. The side with the fattest wallets. After aggressive lobbying, Congress declared pizza a vegetable to protect it from a nutritional overhaul of the school lunch program this year. The White House kept silent last year as Congress killed a plan by four federal agencies to reduce sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children. And during the past two years, each of the 24 states and five cities that considered soda taxes  to discourage consumption of sugary drinks has seen the efforts dropped or defeated. At every level of government, the food and beverage industries won fight after fight during the last decade. They have never lost a significant political battle in the United States despite mounting scientific evidence of the role of unhealthy food and children's marketing in obesity. Lobbying records analyzed by Reuters reveal that the industries more than doubled their spending in Washington during the past three years. In the process, they largely dominated policy making -- pledging voluntary action while defeating government proposals aimed at changing the nation's diet, dozens of interviews show. In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last year -- roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13 hours, the Reuters analysis showed.


While the above case pertains to USA, the experience is not different in other countries where the food industry has a free run with no modicum of respect for the regulatory agencies whose activities are tailor made to the needs of the big industry. Take the case of India where a clear dichotomy exists and it is the small enterprises which are "punished" for minor violations while the big fish never gets caught, no matter. how serious the violation is! Standards and specifications are manipulated such a way that only manufacturers with deep resources can "manage" them while the small players become the victims of the system. One thing is very clear that India always likes to be a country with strong rules on paper but with weak implementing infrastructure, few personnel and callous approach to safeguard the health of citizens!


V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ANOTHER LOOK AT "VEGANISM"-CAN IT SUSTAIN?

Debate about the pros and cons of Omnivores way of dieting as compared to that of Herbivores is a never ending one with each side having sound science behind their respective way of living. However the fact still remains that world is slowly moving, albeit at a snail's pace, towards plant foods for sustaining this planet, if for nothing else. But whether this is a permanent feature cannot be determined considering many difficulties that come in the way of changing the dietary style. There are fierce defenders of Omnivores who are thoroughly convinced that man has been designed to eat animal based foods and over many millenia  this has been going on. But equally vociferous are plant food protagonists who aver that there is absolutely no need for animal foods for maintaining good health. Here is a view by one of the most prolific writers on food from the US arguing the case of vegetarianism with some passion and conviction.   

"From Bill Clinton to Ellen DeGeneres, celebrities are singing the benefits of a vegan diet. Books that advocate plant-based eating are best sellers. But is eliminating meat and dairy as simple as it sounds? As countless aspiring vegans are discovering, the switch from omnivore to herbivore is fraught with physical, social and economic challenges — at least, for those who don't have a personal chef. The struggle to give up favorite foods like cheese and butter can be made all the harder by harsh words and eye-rolling from unsympathetic friends and family members. Substitutes like almond milk and rice milk can shock the taste buds, and vegan specialty and convenience foods can cost two to three times what their meat and dairy equivalents do. And new vegans quickly discover that many foods in grocery stores and on restaurant menus have hidden animal ingredients. "The dominant social-cultural norm in the West is meat consumption," said Hanna Schösler, a researcher in the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije University in Amsterdam, who has studied consumer acceptance of meat substitutes. "The people who want to shift to a morevegetarian diet find they face physical constraints and mental constraints. It's not very accepted in our society not to eat meat." Still, the numbers are substantial, according to according to a 2008 report in Vegetarian Times. Three percent of American adults, 7.3 million people, follow a vegetarian diet, and one million of them are vegans, who eat no animal products at all — no meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, even honey. (And 23 million say they rarely eat meat.) No one knows how many people have tried and failed to switch to vegan or vegetarian diets, but the popularity of books like "The China Study" and the "Skinny Bitch" series suggests that interest is growing. New vegans often cite Robert Kenner's 2008 documentary "Food, Inc.," which offers an unsettling view of corporate farming and the toll it takes on animals, the environment and human health". 

Whether one is convinced or not by the telling points put forward above, it is a fact that Mother Earth cannot support the Omnivores life style with out destroying herself! One of the most practical constraints working against spread of vegetarianism is the affordability, with plant foods costing 2-3 times more in the present market environment. Why this is so is a matter every country must find out to bring about necessary changes that will make fresh foods like fruits and vegetables cheaper than meat foods. Whether the omnipotent and powerful meat industry will permit the governments to do so is a million dollar question! After all many food giants to day are larger than national governments in terms of financial muscle and with their "money" clout they have the capacity to sabotage any efforts that will hit their own financial "health"!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com