CO-EXISTENCE OF OVER NUTRITION AND UNDER NUTRITION-IRONY OF TO DAY'S WORLD!

Wonder as to how many people have heard of the "Bellagio Declaration" which became a rallying point for awakening all the countries in the world to fight against the money and muscle power of the giant and brutal multinational food companies against health safety policies of the national governments? International Congress of Nutrition held at Granada in Spain recently focused on the health problems created by the wrong products churned out by the food industry causing uncontrolled obesity among the population, young and old alike. The Bellagio Declaration was made at Bellagio in Italy earlier exhorting developing countries to be on the guard against the steam rolling tactics and strategies of food giants in sabotaging good and useful government policies intended to safeguard the health of their citizens. A look at the declaration contained in the following commentary will reveal the dangers posed by the industry created obesity epidemic while rampant under nutrition is widely prevalent in these countries.

"In June, a meeting on the progress of obesity prevention efforts in low and middle income countries was held in Bellagio, Italy. The Bellagio Declaration was released yesterday at the International Congress of Nutrition in Granada, Spain, calling for greater efforts from organisations and governments to protect healthy food policies from the lobbying efforts of large food corporations, or 'Big Food and Big Soda.' Professor Barry Popkin from the University of North Carolina said, "Governments see the rising tsunami of obesity flooding over their countries, but as soon as they put up serious policies to create healthier food environments they get hammered by the food industry." The policies which provoke this response are regulations to reduce the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, front-of-pack labelling systems to help consumers readily assess the healthiness of the food, and taxes on unhealthy foods like sugar-sweetened beverages, said Professor Carlos Monteiro, University of Sao Paulo, a co-convener and one of Brazil's leading public nutrition researchers. Different countries' experiences were published this week in Obesity Reviews, and showed that the obesity epidemic is rising very fast in many developing countries, rapidly catching up or overtaking undernutrition as the dominant nutrition problem. "This is creating a double burden of co-existent overnutrition and undernutrition within many populations or even within households," reads a statement from the International Association for the Study of Obesity. The director general of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Dr Margaret Chan, has recently called the lobby forces of 'Big Food and Big Soda' one of the biggest challenge that countries face as they try to reduce obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. She outlined some of the tactics the food industry has been using such as lobby groups, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and industry-funded research. The Bellagio Declaration calls on WHO to develop norms for government engagement with the private sector so that partnerships are not detrimental to nutrition goals. "The first priority for food policies is to improve nutritional outcomes for the population, not the bottom lines of multi-national corporations," said Professor Boyd Swinburn, co-chair of the International Obesity Task Force. Earlier this week Oxfam updated its Behind the Brands scorecard ranks, and found that leading food brands are being very sluggish in improving their social and environmental policies. No company performed better overall than the 'fair' category, with companies including Nestle, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone and General Mills experiencing slight increases in their scores. Associated British Foods, General Mills and Kellogg's are at the bottom of the scorecard with few signs of progress".

It is understandable that in a rich country like the US, the government is influenced overwhelmingly by the powerful food industry due to election politics. But what is shocking is the unimaginable influence the same industry through its multinational food giants is exerting in many under developed and developing countries like India where malnutrition and under nutrition are widely prevalent, in deciding about food safety policies! Also true is the scant disregard these food companies have for the life and welfare of the citizens in these countries where they operate. One must remember the Union Carbide caused Bhopal gas tragedy where thousands perished and a few more thousands were crippled but the multinational got away with barely a rap on their knuckles! History is being repeated when MNCs are again trying to influence these governments to allow GMO food crop cultivation with no control over the long term consequences of these crops on the health of the population. It is the responsibility of the governments in these less fortunate countries to stand up against the machinations of the industry which is more concerned with its bottom line than the well being of the citizens who consume their products!  

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

FOOD-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP-A GENETIC NEXUS!

One of the riddles that has been defying rational scientific explanation is why some people gain weight while others are immune to weight gain when same amount of food with identical composition is consumed. It is too common to hear many people lamenting about their body system that does not readily respond to reduction of calories though physical exercise has often been cited as the most important critical factor that decides how much body weight is put on from a given diet. According to some recent scientific studies such aberrations can be explained by the peculiarities of the genes present in people whose response to food intake defies current logic. Here is a take on this new development vis-a-vis obesity epidemic that is haunting the world to day.   

The mice were eating their usual chow and exercising normally, but they were getting fat anyway. The reason: researchers had deleted a gene that acts in the brain and controls how quickly calories are burned. Even though they were consuming exactly the same number of calories as lean mice, they were gaining weight. So far, only one person — a severely obese child — has been found to have a disabling mutation in the same gene. But the discovery of the same effect in mice and in the child — a finding published Wednesday in the journal Science — may help explain why some people put on weight easily while others eat all they want and seem never to gain an ounce. It may also offer clues to a puzzle in the field of obesity: Why do studies find that people gain different amounts of weight while overeating by the same amount? Scientists have long thought explanations for why some people get fat might lie in their genes. They knew body weight was strongly inherited. Years ago, for example, they found that twins reared apart tended to have similar weights and adoptees tended to have weights like their biological parents, not the ones who reared them. As researchers developed tools to look for the actual genes, they found evidence that many — maybe even hundreds — of genes may be involved, stoking appetites, making people voraciously hungry. This rare gene-disabling mutation, though, is intriguing because it seems to explain something different, a propensity to pile on pounds even while eating what should be a normal amount of food. Investigators are now searching for other mutations of the same gene in fat people that may have a similar, but less extreme effect. The hope is that in the long term, understanding how this gene affects weight gain might lead to treatments for obesity that alter the rate at which calories are burned. "The history of obesity for many many years has been one of blaming people for lack of self control," said Dr. Joseph Majzoub, chief of endocrinology at Boston Children's Hospital and lead author of the new paper. "If some of it is due to a slow metabolism, that would completely change the perspectives of parents and patients. It really would change the way we think of the disease."

Of course the above findings are only an indicator that needs to be pursued further but it definitely gives hope of tackling obesity ultimately at the gene level. It is some what scary to know that slow metabolic system can make the utilization of dietary components more efficient resulting in accumulation of weight and such situation can exist in many people with mutated genes, either inherited or formed during early childhood. Probably genetic scientists need to pursue this line of research much more vigorously to clinch the issue with least delay. If such studies can result in evolving tools to attack diseases like diabetes and obesity through genetic manipulation, mankind will greatly be benefited!

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

"BACTERIAL THERAPY" FOR BODY WEIGHT CONTROL-WILL IT WORK?

It is inconceivable to believe that a tiny bacteria residing in human guts can influence the metabolism so dramatically as the one recently identified in Belgium by a group of scientists. Interestingly this bacteria, not very well known but yet a part of the typical microbiome associated with human beings can startlingly alter the absorption of sugar and fat from the guts if present in adequate numbers. It is well known that there are hundreds of microbial species, numbering trillions, residing in different parts of human body and maintaining a balance among them can ensure normal health. The rampant use of antibiotics and antibacterial chemicals for treating diseases and maintaining hygiene invariably upsets such a fine balance and almost all problems to day mankind faces can be attributed to this reckless living style. The bacteria presently under the scanner is reported to be very effective at least in rat experiments in reducing the weight of obese rats dramatically and the hope is that a suitable treatment protocol may eventually emerge based on these beneficial bugs. Here is a take on this important development. 

"Researchers at the Catholic University of Louvain, in Belgium, worked with a single species of bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila. It normally makes up 3-5% of gut bacteria, but its levels fall in obesity. Mice on a high fat diet - which led them to put on two to three times more fat than normal, lean, mice - were fed the bacteria. The mice remained bigger than their lean cousins, but had lost around half of their extra weight despite no other changes to their diet. They also had lower levels of insulin resistance, a key symptom of Type-2 diabetes. Prof Patrice Cani, from the Catholic University of Louvain, told the BBC: "Of course it is an improvement, we did not completely reverse the obesity, but it is a very strong decrease in the fat mass."

World to day recognizes Diabetes and Obesity as most debilitating life style disorders that affect the quality of daily life causing misery to millions of people across the Globe and in spite of many drugs emerging during the last two decades to fight them, their onslaught does not seems to be abating. There are many dietary regimes propounded by different interest groups which might be helpful in ameliorating the conditions to varying extent. Still a substantial segment of the affected population does not respond to them in a way that is desirable. Therefore the microbial route to tackle them offers a novel way of attempting to bring solace to such people. One hopes that the new findings will be confirmed using human subjects and carrying out appropriate clinical studies. Hundreds of health foods, already in the market boast of probiotics and prebiotics that can improve the gut health though claims made by many of them are not substantiated by clinical data. A time has come probably to re-evaluate the effectiveness of these foods after including the newly discovered Akkermansia bacteria.     

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

AN ALTERNATIVE TO BMI-IS IT RELIABLE?

Body Mass Index or more commonly known by its acronym BMI is considered a sacred cow which no one wants to question. It is supposed to make a value judgment regarding the status of health one enjoys and what dietary modifications are called for in rectifying any abnormalities reflected by the BMI value. Though it was evolved 150 years ago, many suggestions made from time to time were not acceptable to a vast majority of health pundits and medical community. One of the uncertainties about the reliability of BMI is that it does not differentiate between weight caused by fat and muscle with the possibility some normal persons may be bracketed as over weight while some unhealthy persons may be categorized as normal. Also questionable is the arbitrary figures adopted in different countries for classifying people a over weight and obese. Latest suggestion to modify calculation of BMI uses a different equation to factor the height more realistically into the calculation. How far the new formula will yield better and more accurate result remains to be seen. Here is a take on this new development.      

"Any system that tells people whether they are "normal", "underweight", "overweight" or "obese" is bound to be controversial, but one obvious weakness of the BMI is that it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle.First devised by Adolphe Quetelet more than 150 years ago, BMI is calculated by taking your weight (in kilograms) and dividing it by your height squared (in metres). The body-mass index that you (and the National Health Service) count on to assess obesity is a bizarre measure... As a consequence of this ill-founded definition, millions of short people think they are thinner than they are, and millions of tall people think they are fatter.
    * Prof Trefethen's letter in full (third in list)
    * His explanation of his formula
But mathematician Nick Trefethen, Professor of Numerical Analysis at Oxford University, thinks that the old formula is wrong, as he explained in a letter to the Economist newspaper published earlier this month. He thinks that people have put too much trust in it in part because it looks so precise - like, say, Einstein's famous equation E=MC². "That's an equation of physics and it's really right. The BMI formula looks similar. It seems to have the same character but it doesn't reflect a precise truth about our world, it's an approximation to a very complicated reality," he told the BBC.
With that in mind he has proposed a new formula: 1.3 x weight, divided by height to the power 2.5".

No matter which equation is used human body is so diverse that it will be difficult to classify them based on any single formula. The extent of muscle and fat present in the body is difficult to be assessed and therefore BMI can at best be an approximation of the state of health of a person at any given time. In the case of fat too, quality and the location of this component will decide whether weight contributed by fat is good or bad. Under such an uncertain situation BMI is still a good reckoner or indicator regarding the health status of most people. Those with high BMI can always go for further diagnostic tests to decide whether they are healthy or not.    

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

ANOTHER ATTACK ON OBESITY-WILL IT BEAR FRUIT?

Whether one can call it a miracle finding or just the result of an academic study, recent reports from a group of scientists from Singapore that Myostatin, an integral part of muscle activity, can play a vital role in enabling the body to go for a fat-burning mode of energy generation, will have some far reaching implications. According to this group if Myostatin synthesis can be some what blocked or slowed down, muscle loss encountered during the aging process can be arrested enabling the humans to live longer. Here is the interesting hypotheses being put forward with a promise that further studies in this area can result in development of Myostatin blockers to achieve the desired result.

"Associate Professor Ravi Kambadur and his team from NTU's School of Biological Sciences found that a protein called Myostatin, which controls muscle cell growth, is responsible for initiating muscle loss. When excess levels of Myostatin is bound to a muscle cell, it induces heavy loss of mitochondria (the part of the cell responsible for energy production that keeps a cell alive), which in turn causes the muscle cell to waste or lose muscle tissue (atrophy) due to the 'lack of energy'. Under normal healthy conditions, small loss of Mitochondria is needed for the regeneration of new cells, but when a patient is suffering from chronic diseases or is bedridden (and muscles are not used often), this process is disrupted due to high levels of myostatin which results in increased mitochondrial loss and muscle atrophy. Prof Kambadur said recent studies have shown that extreme muscle wasting can lead to death. "For example, about 30 per cent of cancer patients die not because of cancer, but because of muscle loss also known as cachexia," said Prof Kambadur. "When someone is suffering from a chronic disease and doesn't eat enough, the body starts to generate energy by breaking down muscle proteins and that is the reason we see a lot of muscle wasting under chronic disease conditions," he added. "Over the years, our research has revealed that this type of muscle wasting is initiated by excess levels of myostatin in the body. If we block myostatin from binding to cells, then muscles won't waste away and we can then mitigate the effects of ageing and chronic diseases," he added. Apart from regulating the growth and loss of muscle, myostatin also regulates whether the body will burn fat or carbohydrates during fasting and meal times. Blocking myostatin keeps the body in "fat-burning mode" and promotes muscle growth at the same time - which could potentially make obesity a thing of the past. Because obesity is one of the main causes of the most common form of diabetes, Type 2 diabetes, blocking myostatin could also treat diabetes. In the US, 90 to 95 per cent of diabetes cases are Type 2, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to Singapore's Health Promotion Board, diabetes is among the top ten causes of death locally. In 2010, it was reported by Ministry of Health that 11.3 per cent of the Singaporean adults aged 18 to 69 years are affected by diabetes while 10.8 percent were obese. "In near future, myostatin blockers could increase fat utilisation in the body and give you the benefits of exercise, without actually doing intense physical activity," Prof Kambadur explained."

Obesity control is another area of concern and Myostatin blocking can indeed persuade the body to burn more fat, those struggling to control or lose their body weight will have great hope for overcoming this scourge. Similarly diabetes patients, most of whom are obese or over weight, may also be benefited by possible Myostatin blockers for which search is still on. An uncertainty that can still pre-empt the use of such blockers is whether such a treatment regime can have any deleterious consequences vis-a-vis other metabolic functions of the body. The above studies have given a ray of hope to millions of obese as well as diabetic patients to restore their health through this possible route. Losing weight without undergoing rigorous exercise is also an attractive proposition to many people including sick and convalescing patients. Also the old and aged people will stand to benefit by recourse to possible Myostatin blocker which is supposed to prevent undesirable muscle loss during the aging process cutting short their productive lives.  

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

FRUCTOSE, THE VILLAIN FOR OBESITY- NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS

The fructose vs glucose controversy surrounding obesity development is of a relatively recent origin. If a poll is taken on this issue probably the result may be evenly balanced with 50% condemning fructose while the other half doubting its role in over weight problem! What is the truth? If the latest report on the subject is to be believed, fructose definitely behaves differently. first because of its ability to cross brain barrier and the second due to its influence hypothalamus which controls the appetite. Here is a take on this subject which provides interesting insight into the on going controversy. 

Subjects showed substantial differences in their hypothalamic activity after consuming the fructose-sweetened beverage versus the one sweetened by glucose within 15 minutes. Glucose lowered the activity of the hypothalamus but fructose actually prompted a small spike to this area. As might be expected from these results, the glucose drink alone increased the feelings of fullness reported by volunteers, which indicates that they would be less likely to consume more calories after having something sweetened with glucose than something sweetened with more fructose.Fructose and glucose look similar molecularly, but fructose is metabolized differently by the body and prompts the body to secrete less insulin than does glucose (insulin plays a role in telling the body to feel full and in dulling the reward the body gets from food). Fructose also fails to reduce the amount of circulating ghrelin (a hunger-signaling hormone) as much as glucose does. (Animal studies have shown that fructose can, indeed, cross the blood-brain barrier and be metabolized in the hypothalamus.) Previous studies have shown that this effect was pronounced in animal models.

It is always an intriguing situation considering that the common sugar which is a chemical combination of fructose and glucose was being consumed by mankind for centuries and the obesity problem as being seen to day was never an issue of the old society. The coincidence between the commercialization of cheap high fructose syrup (HFCS), a product containing predominantly fructose and quantum jump in the obese population in the US cannot be wished away simply and the study brings out the stark reality that scientifically HFCS with high fructose proportion can influence appetite in a way that in spite of no need for food, consumers are "forced" to eat mechanically by the brain due to its negative influence on two hunger controlling hormones, insulin and ghrelin. These findings must spur further research to confirm the results which are indeed disturbing.

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

BEETROOT JUICE AND HYPERTENSION-NEW FINDINGS

Managing life style disorders like diabetes, blood pressure, ischemic hear disease etc through appropriate diet is always a cherished dream of every affected person. To exploit such a consumer sentiment there have been umpteen number of advice, suggestions, publications, scientific studies, aggressively promoted health products etc and the helpless consumer, who cannot discern what is truth, becomes more frustrated. From time to time reports appear in literature and public media advocating some food or the other as palliative to overcome, "manage", "prevent" or cure certain diseases with very scanty evidence to support the claim. Here is the latest finding from researchers that beetroot juice can lower blood pressure and whether it makes any sense, the readers can come to their own conclusion.    

"Researchers from Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia, found that within six hours of drinking beetroot juice lowered systolic blood pressure by an average of four to five points among a small group of healthy men. Researchers say that drop may seem small, but on a public health level a reduction like that would equate to a 10 per cent reduction in deaths due to heart disease, website WebMD reported. "It's promising that we can see an effect from a single dose. That effect might be even greater over the long term if they are drinking it day upon day," said researcher Leah Coles. Researchers said this is the first study to look at the effects of adding beetroot juice to a healthy person's diet without making any other diet or lifestyle changes. In the study, 15 men and 15 women drank either 500 ml of a beetroot juice beverage consisting of about three-fourths beet juice and one-fourth apple juice, or a placebo juice. They were then monitored for 24 hours. The same procedure was repeated two weeks later, with those who drank the placebo on the first round receiving beetroot juice on the second. Among both men and women, the results showed a trend to lower systolic blood pressure six hours after drinking the beetroot juice. When researchers limited their analysis to men only, they found a significant reduction of about 4.7 points among those who drank the beetroot juice. Previous studies have also suggested that beetroot's blood-pressure-lowering effects may not be as strong in women".

Can any one really make sense by reading the claims of the scientific group which published their findings in reputed journals? Though the finding by this limited study may be true with regard to the 30 people who were used for the study, there is no guarantee that it will work on others. Unless such studies are conducted using viable number of subjects under different dietary and living conditions, one cannot accept the data as holistic and universally applicable. Why scientists rush to the media to promote their half baked findings is one of the riddles of modern life. Are they not giving false hopes to millions of unfortunate victims of blood pressure disorder? There must be integrity, ethics, codes of conduct and behavioral standards for researchers and as pursuers of truth their honesty should never be compromised.

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

ABOLITION OF "FAT TAX" IN DENMARK-WHAT IS THE LESSON LEARNED?

"Taxing your way to health" is a favorite slogan for may health purists, the idea being to make unhealthy foods too costly for the consumers to buy in the market. It was Denmark, one of the more affluent countries coming under the umbrella of European Union which was the first nation to introduce a fat tax on products containing more than a certain percentage of fat in the product marketed by the industry. But surprisingly it withdrew this new tax recently after coming to the conclusion that such punitive taxes just do not work. A larger question that remains unanswered is whether the tax policy, tried out in a country with no borders as that exist between independent countries, could have been more successful in any other country? For example, what would have been the result if such a policy was tried out in India where consumers cannot go to a neighboring country like China that easily and which is the world capital of "cheap" consumer goods, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or Nepal? Probably it would have had a better chance of success. Here is a report about the experience of Denmark in imposing a fat tax and later withdrawing it.

"About a year ago, the Danish government tested out a policy never before seen in the world. It implemented an across-the-board tax on all foods with a saturated fat content above 2.3 percent, with the hopes of reducing consumption of unhealthy foods. But it didn't quite work that way. Some Danes did indeed switch to lower fat cheeses  and dairy products, The Wall Street Journal's Clemens Bomsdorf reports. But a lot of them simply began to do their grocery shopping internationally, heading to countries that didn't levy a fine on fat: There is little evidence the tax impacted consumers financially, but it did spark a shift in consumer habits. Many Danes have bought lower-cost alternatives, or in some cases hopped the border to Germany, where prices are roughly 20% lower, or to Sweden. >The Sky supermarket located in northern Germany was one company benefiting from the trend. Last week, more than half the cars in the crowded parking lot had Danish license plates. >"We did not use to buy cheese here, but the price difference for our favorite type is now more than 30%," Anitha Nissen said, while helping her husband load groceries into their silver Suzuki. The Danish couple now crosses the border three or four times a year to stock up on goods. The Danish government announced Saturday it would abolish the fat tax as part of budget negotiations there. Denmark's experience suggests one of the big challenges with regulating unhealthy foods: People can always switch to an alternative, that's a bit less expensive".

There are two consumer items in the world which are taxed heavily-Cigarette and Alcohol but what has been the experience? It is true that neither consumption of alcohol nor cigarette has disappeared though a few were forced to reduce the consumption for economic reasons but is the number of those stopping the consumption significant enough to make an impact? This point requires in-depth analysis to shape any future options mankind may think about in tackling these undesirable consumption trends. Besides fat, other food ingredients like sugar and salt are also under scrutiny as they are implicated in many human disorders and a coherent action plan is the need of the hour for overcoming such food related health contingencies in future. Education at an early stage regarding the adverse consequences of consuming unhealthy foods, social pressure, public policies and incentives by the government may still have a chance to de-addict people from unhealthy practices.

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

THE GREAT CHEESE STORY-WHY AMERICANS ARE OBESE!

Does any government has a role to play in deciding what its citizens must eat or what should not be eaten? This issue received a sharp focus recently when some of pro-active policies are being taken up by governments in a few countries to discourage consumption of patently unhealthy foods. Higher taxation, limiting large sized packs and more forceful labeling regulations have been the chosen routes for achieving the goal of herding the consumers to live more responsibly and avoid social burden through diseases like diabetes, CVD, obesity, cancers etc. The on-going tussle between the farming lobby and consumer interests invariably ends up in favor of the former because of close nexus between agriculture lobby and the governing political class. Here is an interesting commentary by a critic regarding the systematic blows being delivered to the consumers by the American government through some of the most idiotic policy orchestrations to oblige its farming lobbies with almost all multinational giants investing heavily on an agenda of protecting their financial flanks.   

"Also, the Golden Age of Cheese was not purely the result of individual choices. It reflects decades of pro-cheese U.S. agriculture policy. I am not making this up. The nation's cheese binge is a case study in the broader dysfunctionality of federal farm legislation, the latest iteration of which is being debated in Congress. Yes, there are real social trends at work, too. An aging population consumes less milk as fluid and more in solid form; a wealthier population can afford a richer diet, including cheesy dishes eaten at restaurants. But the country's appetite for cheese also reflects U.S. policy. Since the New Deal, Washington has tried to protect dairy farmers through price 

supports and production controls so arcane that only specialists can understand them. As a 2004 Agriculture leaving Department report explained, the net effect of dairy programs is to prop up fluid milk prices even when producers make more of it than people want to drink — plenty of excess to dump on cheese manufacturers. "Thus, consumers see lower butter and cheese prices and higher fluid milk prices than would appear in the absence of the programs," the USDA found. Not surprisingly, fluid milk consumption has stagnated while cheese consumption has grown. Of the 188.9 billion pounds of milk produced in 2008, some 82 billion were sold to cheese makers, according to the USDA. On top of those warped incentives, the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorized the Agriculture Department to collect a fee from all dairy farmers and turn the money over to a corporation known as Dairy Management, which promotes consumption of cheese and other dairy products".

Cheese and ice cream are two products liked universally and one of the reasons for this phenomenon in a country like the US is the ridiculously low prices at which they are offered in the market. In contrast fluid milk consumption is deliberately depressed by making it much more costlier which has the effect of stagnating consumption by those who find it increasingly difficult to buy it due to escalating prices. The twin objectives of satisfying the farmer as well as the industry are achieved by increased retail prices of milk to the consumer and supply of excess milk production to the dairy processing industry to turn out products like cheese, butter and ice cream at relatively low prices. It is the consumer who is left behind in this convoluted situation as drinking milk is progressively reduced and consumption of high calorie and high fat foods is increased putting the consumer health in jeopardy. This explains the tripling of the population that has become over weight and obese in the last 40 years and to day more than two thirds of American population are categorized as either over weight or obese! It is the unfortunate political compulsions that make the ruling class blind to the dangers of wrong and unhealthy food and environmental degradation due to pollution, global warming and other scientifically proven findings. If the US is facing frequent hot weathers, droughts, floods and similar abnormal situations to day, one must thank its government for the wrong policies being pursued by it. 

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

"DIABESITY"-A NATION HIJACKED!

The alarming increase of childhood diabetes in the United States is a worrying issue for all those concerned with the overall health of the population in a country where the per capita income is one of the highest in the world. Added to this is the worrisome increase in over weight and obesity among the US children which probably must be contributing to faster development of Type 2 diabetes in them. Imagine the dimension of the tragedy and the trauma of a child, when it is supposed to be eating ice creams and enjoy life, is compelled to swallow pills or subjected to insulin shots every day to manage diabetes! If statics tell the true story America is facing a daunting task in saving the child population and save the country from a catastrophe of Himalayan dimension. Though diabetes is treatable by very effective medications, the ground reality is that while "managing" diabetes, a life time drug regime deployed, adversely affect other systems in the body leading to many health complications which are highly debilitating. Here is a graphic commentary about the fast deteriorating health scenario in that country about which practically nothing is being done.

"This study should be a national wake-up call. A siren blaring the insanity of our current medical approach to obesity and Type 2 diabetes for both children and adults. When a 5-year-old has cirrhosis and an 8-year-old has a stroke this is not about personal choice or better medication. Now that scientists have proven that fast food and sugar are biologically addictive, we can't blame the individual or the family. Can a heroin addict just cut down? We need a massive call to action, a national coordinated multi-pronged campaign. We need President Obama and all the Republican candidates to stand before the nation and declare we will end Type 2 diabetes in children by the end of this decade, just like President Kennedy mobilized our nation to get a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. The food industry must be held to account. Simple policy changes could have enormous impact. The food industry tries to convince us that all calories are the same, that a snack of carrots or Oreos is the same as long as they are 100 calories each. The science proves otherwise. Sugar calories act differently in the body, driving biology toward diabetes. And carrots aren't addictive, but sugar is. The food industry has hijacked our taste buds, our brain chemistry, our kitchens, our homes, our schools and our communities. When children have nearly unlimited access to sugar and processed food, when we have 600 calories more per day of sugar calories per person than 30 years ago, we have to have an honest accounting of the playing field. The food environment is designed for kids and adults to fail".

What is intriguing is the increase in the consumption of sugar calories by the children through sugar sweetened beverages and relatively easy access to these high sugared products for them. Why there is no parental control on child's selection of foods in the market place or why the industry is serving to the vulnerable palates of children with more and more such products cannot be understood, knowing pretty well that they are courting dangers in the long run in the form of health deterioration from life style disorders. All the more reprehensible is the reaction of the consumers to any meaningful restraint of consumption of such bad foods by the government as reflected by the recent happenings in New York where a modest policy of banning the sale of jumbo sized sodas has attracted hostile response from a section of the citizens there! There does not sem to be any alternative for the US government but to restrain a booming food and beverage industry from marketing patently unhealthy products with high calories and fat. Parents also have equal responsibility in grooming their children on a healthy diet rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables so that they do not repent later in life.

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

FOOD "JUSTICE"-A CONTROVERSIAL THEME!

The new policy being implemented in New York state for banning sale of sugary beverages in sizes beyond 16 oz is considered a controversial one because some civil rights activists feel it restricts the personal freedom conferred on them by the constitution to eat what they want without any interference from the government. Probably these critics have a case but they forget that beyond an individual, one has to think of the society in which the individual lives and it is inconceivable that unfettered personal freedom can impose misery on the society as a whole. Obesity may be a problem with an individual but what does it cost the society when its members become bloated figures because of "irresponsible" eating? Mind boggling medical costs and unbearable welfare costs to support such a population! There is no way a responsible government can act other than putting in reasonable restrictions on individual freedom vis-a-vis food consumption. After all the new policy does not bar an individual from consuming more than one unit of 16 oz bottle, if he or she is hell bent on developing obesity! Here is a commentary on the latest Soda sale restriction in the US. 

"The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you," said Bloomberg. "If it's a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less." Plates or bowls?  Sounds like six inch dinner plates and tiny forks are right around the corner. These enlightened and progressive ideas aren't confined to the City of New York. In San Francisco, McDonalds can no longer have a toy in its Happy Meals because it makes kids want to buy them. That's just the kind of common sense legislation we need. "We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.  Who could disagree with the noble idea of "food justice"? Parents can't be expected to know what's best for their children. We need wise government officials to force us to make the right decisions. But why stop there? Obesity has reached epidemic proportions, costing this country billions in health care. Let's take our quest for "food justice" to the local grocery store. Why should anyone need to buy a pound of bacon all in one package? Let's sell it by the slice. If you want a bunch of bacon, you're going to have to buy and unwrap each slice. That ought to slow you dummies down. The days of buying huge bags of potato chips are over; four ounce maximum from here on out. We're not going to take away your right to buy lots of bacon and chips, just make it really annoying.  Our lack of exercise is also a major contributor to our bulging waist lines. We have turned into a nation of couch potatoes. In the days of sixty inch, high definition televisions, who can resist watching our favorite programs for hours on end? Certainly, the average Joe is just too weak and ignorant to resist the lure of the Lazy-Boy. From this point forward, no television should be any bigger than twelve inches, and we should go back to black and white. But that's probably not enough. We need to get people to the gym. Don't worry, we're not going to round you up and drag you to the State Fitness Center. But, if you don't join a gym, you're going to have to pay a small tax or fee. Maybe we could even have the people running on tread mills that generate electricity. We could support the green movement and defeat obesity all at the same time. Who could be against that?

The Soda sales ban should be applicable to every other food considered not healthy including sweetened products, high fat foods and meat preparations. The new trend in the food industry in downsizing the pack sizes to make the food affordable to more and more people because of economic recession, may be a blessing in disguise because it can have some influence in restricting the quantity consumed by individual consumer. In this context one has to appreciate the developments in India where, for economic reasons, consumer pack sizes are being tuned to the buying capacity of the majority consumers and if Indian market is flooded with mini packets costing Rs 2 to Rs 5 containing comparatively smaller quantities, it is bound to have a health benefit also! American food Industry is learning this lesson late and the philosophy of New York state in controlling the sales of jumbo packs must be translated into practice by the manufacturing sector as well as the food service organizations.

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

WILL TAXATION REDUCE SODA CONSUMPTION?-YES AND NO!

After the New York initiative to ban selling of sugar sweetened drinks with serving size beyond 16 ounces being taxed, many more cities are considering similar approach in tackling obesity among children who are the primary targets of the soda industry. The angst among the parents and policy makers is understandable when the stark statistics of soda consumption reveal a reality that cannot be brushed under the carpet any more. Is it not a horror when a city declares that more than half of its kid population are obese measured by the established yardsticks and on an average a kid gobbles up 1.8 units of soda each and every day? In the face of such a reality, can the community sit quiet and watch the emerging catastrophe without doing any thing? Probably such fiscal measures as being proposed or contemplated in many parts of USA should be viewed in this context. Whether such a policy will succeed in reversing the trend is another matter. At least these policy orchestrations must be given a chance to buck the trend. Here is a peep into the efforts of a community in California to stem the rot that was ushered in by the beverage industry. 

"As in other places, soda consumption is highest among teenagers, with more than two-thirds downing 1.8 sugar-sweetened beverages a day. Based on 242 calories a serving for a 20-ounce bottle of Coke, that equals roughly 150,000 extra calories and can lead to more than 20 pounds of weight gain a year, Dr. Brunner said. A recent study found an average of five retail food outlets within a quarter mile of every Richmond school. Alongside the announcement last week by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York supporting an outright ban on the sale of sweetened drinks larger than 16 ounces, the coming vote in Richmond may be a sign that soda and similar beverages are becoming the new tobacco in terms of public perception of health risks. "Both are pretty bold moves that wouldn't have been imaginable even five years ago," said Kelly M. Brownell, the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, which conducted much of the research supporting the efficacy of a one-cent beverage tax. "It shows that government is beginning to stand up to the food industry and there is more public support for doing so." If the Richmond ordinance passes, it will be the first of its kind in the country intended specifically to combat obesity. But soda taxes have failed elsewhere — most notably in Philadelphia, where Mayor Michael A. Nutter's attempts to impose a 2-cents-per-ounce charge on sugary drinks have sputtered twice. Nevertheless, Mr. Nutter is scheduled to be the keynote speaker this week at the nation's first Sugary Drinks Summit in Washington, sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest".

Many skeptics may feel that such measures will not work, given the past history when similar attempts in alcoholic beverages and tobacco did not bring much relief in curbing their consumption. With economic recession causing immense misery, especially among the low income group, probably such attempts to make soda costlier may succeed, at least to some extent. Some diversion of purchasing power from soda sector to other more pressing daily needs may have the effect of over all reduction of soda consumption but how far this change will impact on the health front is some what uncertain. One can only wish success to these types of earnest efforts at addressing the problem of obesity.

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

FOOD INSECURITY AND OBESITY-A "WEIRD" RELATIONSHIP!

Common sense tells that shortage of food or inaccessibility to food is associated with hunger, bad health and under nourished conditions and there is a direct relationship between poverty and under nutrition. Naturally talking about poverty as a cause of obesity does not make any sense. Unfortunately many families with low income and food insecurity have members tending to be over weight or obese, a contradiction hard to understand. This riddle is sought to be resolved by a recent study where it was found that poverty modulates the eating practices with children being fed with more food than it is necessary by the mothers under the impression that they are protecting their children from under development. Here is a take on this issue as reported recently from the US.

"Being worried about not having enough food to feed one's family, a situation called food insecurity, is common in low-income families. These families often are overweight, too. "Understanding the reasons why poverty puts families at greater risk of obesity is essential to addressing the epidemic," said study lead author Rachel Gross, MD, MS, FAAP, assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and The Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York. Dr. Gross and her colleagues at the New York University School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital Center, interviewed 201 low-income mothers with infants younger than 6 months about their feeding styles (whether they tried to control how much the child ate), feeding practices (e.g., breastfeeding, adding cereal to bottles) and concerns about their child becoming overweight. Studies have shown that feeding patterns leading to obesity often begin in infancy. The mothers primarily were Hispanic, and all participated in the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Results showed that about one-third of the mothers reported food insecurity". 

Probably there may be some truth in this paradoxical situation as every mother considers her children precious gift to be nurtured at any cost and what else is more important than food? Therefore early feeding practices shape the attitude of the growing children to food and the habit of gorging on food continues during adulthood and later. How such a seemingly contradictory situation can be addressed is a complex question requiring inputs from sociologists, psychologists, nutritionists and government administrators. Constant help from the medical community in the form of counseling to such families may be of some help but the logistics to arrange such services are considered difficult. Ultimately education is the right answer and more literate the family, better will be the chances for understanding the nuances of eating healthy food in correct proportions. 

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