BMI measurement-Is it a true universal indication of "healthiness" for all?

Body Mass Index, popularly known as BMI, has been widely used since 1972, after it was coined by the renowned scientist Ancel Keys to assess the health status of human beings using the height and weight parameters. Credit must go to Adolphe Quetelet for inventing the existence of a relationship between body weight, height and health status in 1830 though it was not accepted universally. To day BMI is the golden standard to condemn any person as over weight or obese who are supposed to be more vulnerable to life style diseases like diabetes, CVD, blood pressure etc compared to those with "normal" BMI. This myth is sought to be busted by a recent study by a group of scientists in the US who found out that BMI cannot be relied upon when it comes to assessing the healthiness of an individual and whether the world will accept such a revcolutionary finding remains to be seen. Here is a take on this path breaking development.

"Over the past few years, body mass index (BMI), a ratio of a person's height and weight, has effectively become a proxy for whether a person is considered healthy. However, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), found that using BMI to gauge health incorrectly labels more than 54 million Americans as 'unhealthy', even though they are not. "Many people see obesity as a death sentence. But the data show there are tens of millions of people who are overweight and obese and are perfectly healthy," said lead author A Janet Tomiyama, an assistant professor at UCLA. The scientists analysed the link between BMI — which is calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilogrammes by the square of the person's height in metres — and several health markers, including blood pressure and glucose, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, using data from the most recent US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The study found that close to half of Americans who are considered 'overweight' by virtue of their BMIs (47.4 per cent, or 34.4 million people) are healthy, as are 19.8 million who are considered 'obese'. Given their health readings other than BMI, the people in both of those groups would be unlikely to incur higher medical expenses, and it would be unfair to charge them more for health care premiums, Tomiyama said. The researchers also found that more than 30 per cent of those with BMIs in the 'normal' range — about 20.7 million people — are actually unhealthy based on their other health data. About 15 per cent of Americans who are considered "very obese" by virtue of having a BMI of 35 or higher are actually healthy, researchers said."

What is shocking in these findings is that a significant segment of the population who had high BMI beyond the magical figure of 25 were perfectly healthy with no evident disease symptoms while many others with BMI less than 25 were unhealthy as measured by other health parameters. How can the world get reconciled to this contradictory situation when physicians are put into a dilemma to decide millions of cases requiring medical advice on their health status.? Should there be a reconsideration about BMI and its relation to health and is there not a need to evolve a more accurate paradigm in place of BMI? Now that questions have been raised about the reliability of BMI it is time the health and medical community take note of this crucial development and come out soon with their consensus on the issue.

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

Is being poor an opportunity for the industry to make more money? Seems so in some countries

"Though every one knows that the quality of health is intricately linked to the nutritive value of food one eats, continuous attempts by the food corporates, especially in a country like the US, to feed the population with patently unhealthy high fat and high calorie products with practically zero nutrition are not being resisted by the policy makers. In stead, with their tremendous financial clout and lobbying muscle the fast food industry is trying to kill every challenge thrown at them by a series of small restaurants who offer better products. The latest attempt being tried in this direction involves a war of attrition through steep reduction in prices for many products offered by them, naturally tempting the most resolute consumer with honest intentions to eat only healthy foods! Here is a take on this alarming trend which must be nipped in the bud by whatever policy orchestrations the government can do so that small restaurants are not driven to extinction, snuffing out a healthy alternative to millions of low income consumers.

"THE NATION'S FAST-FOOD giants certainly weren't going to allow a new breed of smaller "fast-casual" chains to eat their lunch without taking action. The industry's fast-casual segment has steadily been winning over customers with products that typically are made with less fat and fewer processed ingredients than the legacy restaurants use. Over the next five years, most of the fast-food market's revenue growth is expected to come from these kinds of outlets — companies such as Panera Bread, Shake Shack, Cosi, and, yes, Chipotle. Instead of taking a cue from the modestly encouraging nutritional trend, fast-food's founding fathers have decided to counter the upstart competitors' higher quality by pitching quantity. They're doubling down on the same high-calorie strategies that for decades have, at least in part, helped make Americans overweight and unhealthy. McDonald's, Burger King, and others are running advertising campaigns that promote fat-rich meals at newly discounted prices. Wendy's started the feeding frenzy in October with a "4 for $4" deal that packages chicken nuggets, a bacon cheeseburger, a drink, and fries. McDonald's earlier this month introduced its "McPick 2," Burger King followed by hyping a $4 promotion that features five items, and Pizza Hut's $5 "Flavor Menu,"includes four 20-oz. sodas, and a Hershey's Triple Chocolate Brownie — "9 squares of warm, oven-fresh goodness." Faced with this kind of marketing onslaught, do fresh fruits and vegetables stand a chance? Many time-stressed Americans can't resist the temptation of relatively inexpensive prepared food they can grab at a drive-through window. And given the choice between spending $5 on food that fills the kids up, or buying a single organic tomato, it's understandable why a budget-conscious consumer might opt for the former. That behavior won't easily be changed. Making wholesome food more affordable and available has long posed a major challenge for health-policy makers. The reasons a burger and fries cost less than lettuce are many and complicated. Food-industry critics often start by pointing to the billions of dollars in federal subsidies that go to corn farmers. Corn is used to feed cattle and chickens, and to produce high fructose syrup. It's key to fast-food profits. "For the last 50 years we've worked on making corn as cheap as possible," says renowned food writer Michael Pollan, who is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. "Our agricultural policies are at war with our health policies and objectives." Realigning government priorities to encourage farm products with greater nutritional value might help tip the scales, but fresh-food advocates acknowledge that overhauling the subsidy system is politically daunting. "A handful of corporations control our food system from farm to fork," reads a statement on the website of Farm Aid, a nonprofit that backs the so-called Good Food Movement. Indeed. The food industry spends tens of millions of dollars annually on lobbying lawmakers to keep it that way. Lower-income people — many of whom work in fast-food restaurants — are often reliant on processed food out of necessity. Better choices are either not easily accessible, or they're too expensive. Improving the standing of those at the bottom of the economy would give them options. "It's a myth that low-income people don't want to eat healthy," says Pollan. "McDonald's allows many of them to eat meat who otherwise would not be able to afford to. For a lot of people, cheap food is keeping them whole." He suggests it's time to "change the calculus" on pricing. That could be accomplished by requiring fast-food companies to pay the true cost of producing their products, while adding financial incentives — perhaps through subsidies — for commercial sellers and buyers of nutritious food. That could help level out price differences between good and bad food, minimizing cost as the primary factor in consumers' purchasing decisions. More emphasis also should be placed on the savings that could be realized throughout the nation's health care system by turning fast food into an occasional indulgence instead of a diet staple. One example: Obesity increases the chances of developing diabetes, a disease that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated cost about $245 billion to treat in 2012 alone. The opposition to all of these measures is practiced and well-funded, as evidenced by the barrage of ads. For some corporations, Americans' poor health is good business.  The previously slumping McDonald's on Monday exceeded analysts' expectations by reporting strong sales for the last quarter, mainly because it began offering breakfast all day. That sent the company's stock up at the start of trading. Wall Street, like most of the country, can't resist a Sausage McMuffin."

Many experts believe that the giant corporates selling unhealthy foods are able to sustain their business for long time because of their deep pockets and economic resilience in absorbing financial losses. Besides the mainstay raw material used by the meat industry, Corn is heavily subsidized by the American government in the name of supporting the farmers which is enabling them to make their products at ridiculously low prices. Compare this to the dilemma of the small players who have to buy healthy but costly food ingredients like fruits and vegetables which naturally pushes the cost of the prepared products and unfair competition from low cost junk foods makes their existence precarious. It is time government there comes out with a policy to heavily tax such products with proven unhealthy credentials such as high sugar and high fat containing products and no dietary fiber. Such foods must be put on a par with tobacco when it comes to taxing and there is salvation only if this issue is tackled fearlessly without succumbing to pressures from the "bad food" industry.

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

Do we buy foods in the market because of their color? It appears so!

Quality of a food is manifested in many dimensions that include appearance, flavor and nutrition. It is said that consumers first "eat" a food through their eyes by perceiving what is attractive in appearance without realizing whether it is safe or healthy for him. The consequences are the deliberate or some time ignorant action by the processors in adding colors of various hues to the foods they make for attracting them or using inedible mineral oils to give them a gloss. Whether the fact that the colors added are permitted or banned probably never enters the mind of the consumer. Invariably unscrupulous food handlers, be it the processor or trader or the farmer, use these unnatural substances to camouflage low quality or blemishes or non-uniform color and fleece the customers by charging a premium. India has a dubious record of harboring such unscrupulous elements in great numbers with apparently no resistance or control at any point of the supply chain. Probably the tortoise like speed with which adultrators and fraudsters are hauled up and punished naturally encourage the fraud industry to indulge more and more into such heinous activities. Here is a report from a town in Tamilnadu which reveals how even every day foods like boondi, bhujia etc are colored bright by using bright colors which are not permitted by the law of the country.    

"The Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 clearly states that 'unsafe food' is an article in which there is 'presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified for its category' or if the 'article is being coloured to make it appear better than it really is'. "This point was included in the Act because long-term consumption of such artificial colours is harmful to health, because they often contain colours made of chemicals," said Kathiravan. While colour is permitted to be added to ice-creams, lolly pops, jelly crystal and North Indian sweets, it is banned in South Indian sweets and savouries. "However, in some cases, approved artificial colour is allowed," he clarified. Though food makers admit that colours do not play a part in the taste, they find it hard to change the public's mindset. "They are used to seeing specific foods in specific colours," said Vivekanand Natraj of Moti Mahal Delux. "So we have tried to work around this by using Kashmiri Chilli which gives the red colour but is not as spicy as our local chillies. We use beetroot to add colour to vinegar soaked onion, so the difference is just 10%," he said. "Even after all this we have irate customers upset over the colour of food served or purchased," said a staff member at Nellai Muthu Vilas Sweets."

World over artificial colors are being banned one by one after their safety credentials were doubted and food processing industry progressively switched over to natural colors where ever color addition is unavoidable for technical reasons. The classical case is that of tomato ketchup in India and stout resistance by the industry to the ban of artificial colors to this product was over ruled resulting in breeding new varieties with more intense red color. This goes to show that under compelling situations food scientists can come out with alternatives for most of the chemical additives used in foods for aesthetic appeal. There are thousands of sweet meat shops in the country using unnecessary bright colors so that when these products are displayed openly or in glass cases, they can attract customers to these outlets. While use of color is absolutely unnecessary in any of our foods, if for any reasons they are to be used natural substances must be considered. Chilli, beetroots, annatto, safflower, curcumin etc are some of the natural sources from which colors are to day extracted with no taste or odor. In stead of depending on the government to protect him, consumer must be proactive in shunning such foods as part of a movement to punish those still using them. Though we can blame the governments for shirking their responsibility, in to day's India such blame game will have no effect at all as safety enforcement is yet to get the attention it deserves. 

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

Traffic lights system for choosing right foods-Will it really work as expected?

Food package labeling system is intended to make transparent the nature of food inside a pack to the consumers and this is working reasonably well in many countries. Different countries follow different formats to compel manufacturers to disclose a few critical information about the contents inside a sealed food pack. There might not be 100% satisfaction among some consumers because many facts printed on such labels are "Greek and Latin" to them except may the expiry date! But it has to be conceded that the extent of information provided on labels reveal a lot about the nutritive value and type of additives added which give a fairly good idea about the contents and their nature provided these are given in a language that can be discerned by them. Still it is now believed that more than words and figures many consumers understand better if the same facts are presented through symbols or graphics. It is here the so called "traffic light" symbol system of presenting food as very good, good or not so good with each category represented by green, amber and red color. A recent news report from Australia that some schools are adopting this traffic light symbol format to guide the students to buy most nutritious food is indeed heartening. Here is a take on this encouraging development. 

"A "traffic-light" system ranking foods and drinks according to their nutritional value has been introduced to ACT school canteens, events and activities. Education and Training Minister Joy Burch will launch the new ACT Public School Food and Drink Policy on Friday. Under the policy, food will be placed into green, amber or red categories depending on nutritional value, with the traffic-light system to be applied to the sale of all food and drinks in school canteens and to all public school activities and events in Canberra.  There will be some exceptions for events such as school fetes or birthdays. The policy also prevents sugary drinks from being sold in public school canteens and bans vending machines on public school sites.  School staff will also be encouraged not to eat "red" or low nutritional value food or drinks in view of students while principals will be responsible for ensuring "red" food or drinks are not used as rewards or incentives for student learning.  Ms Burch said the government was committed to improving access to healthy food and drinks  in ACT schools.  She will announce a series of fact sheets  developed to support the food and drink policy and ensure it is consistently implemented across schools.  The fact sheets - which were developed following community consultation last year - include resources for canteens and parents about healthy lunchboxes and how to eat fresh. Ms Burch said the policy was part of a range of initiatives to improve healthy eating at ACT schools. "Our attitudes towards food are formed during childhood so it makes sense that once a child begins school, the school environment plays a role in influencing their food preferences," she said. "This new policy promotes a consistent, whole school approach to healthy food and drinks and will help develop healthy eating and drinking habits from an early age." ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations vice-president Hugh Boutler said the new policy provided support to parents looking to reinforce the importance of healthy eating to their children." 

The traffic light system for food labels is a relatively new initiative not liked by the food industry because of their apprehension that the market will be adversely affected. Unqualified support from British Medical Association and Food Standards Agency in UK lends it much credibility and reliability. Consumer is delighted about this development and wants this to be made mandatory. According to this system, a food product is classified into 3 categories based on the contents of total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in 100 g portion, Green light indicates that the product has total fat less than 3 g, saturated fat less than 1.5 g, sugar less than 5 g and salt less than 0.3 g per 100 g. On the other end, a red light will indicate that fat is more than 17.5 g, saturated fat more than 5 g, sugar more than 22.5 g and salt more than 1.5 g per 100 g. Amber color will indicate values in between the two extremes. Imagine what pleasure it could be for the families to shop looking for products with mostly green light as far as possible and avoid red light altogether. Over a period of time industry will learn to avoid red light on their label by making more nutritious and better products. In India the "green dot" printed on a label of a product denotes it is 100% vegetarian, containing no animal derived ingredients and population, especially those shunning animal products find this a great help in avoiding foods without this symbolic green dot. Government of India must now consider to introduce the traffic lights system to help its citizens, many practically illiterate, or at least unable to read English to wade through the isles of the super markets to pick and choose what they want without wasting too much time in deciphering what a product contains or does not contain through the verbose label! 

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

CHEAP FOODS-CAN THEY BE HEALTHY TOO?

There is a belief that cheaper the food, worse will be its nutritional quality. Probably there may be some truth in such a perception. It is common sense that the price of any product can be brought down by replacing costly ingredients with low cost replacements with inferior credentials. For example in a product containing costly Almonds as one of the ingredients, the cost of the final product can be brought down either by using lesser levels of Almond or partially substituting it with other nuts or using artificial Almond essence to compensate for lower level of this expensive ingredient. Same applies to any food that has to be made cheaper compared to its standard counterpart. This question must be upper most in the minds of the consumers when the international Mexican fast food chain introduced a cheap meal for just USD 2 recently.

"Today Taco Bell introduces its new $2 Meal Deals, which includes: A choice of one of four taco or burrito entrees, a medium soft drink, and a bag of Doritos ...Call me elitist, but I'm calling BS on this marketing ploy: One low-quality taco, one cup of watered-down sugar water, and one bag of chips aren't in any way, shape, or form a "meal." Yes, the down economy has hit people hard, and diners are clamoring for cheap eats. But just because you can buy something for $2 doesn't mean you should. In the case of the Beefy 5-Layer Burrito (one of the featured entrees included in the deal), $2 gets you 550 calories, 22 grams of fat, and 1,640 mg of sodium -- and that's before the chips and soda! You know what? Looking at it this way, $2 seems high to me! Why would you spend any of your hard-earned money on low-quality crap with practically zero nutritional value?"

While the feat is considered quite revolutionary and timely under the prevailing economic atmosphere, the health aspect seems to have been ignored as can be seen by the above report. In a country like the US where fresh fruits and vegetables are priced high, the temptation for many low income consumers to go for the USD 2 meal must be irresistible. Low quality meat (probably ground offal from Abattoirs), cheap fat source, plenty of salt (which is any how costs practically nothing), HFCS based soft drinks (which are cheaper than drinking water) and mass produced potato chips which go in designing such a meal will be a disaster if allowed to be marketed without changing its nutritional profile. As for taste, any product containing 22 g of fat per serving can be expected to be a hit amongst many consumers. Taco Bell has established the cardinal truth that if one is looking for healthy food there is no way it can be obtained cheap, especially in a country like the US, sending the message loud and clear that remaining healthy is an expensive proposition under the prevailing market environment.

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