Not shunning fat and still keeping good health-Another obesity control theory

Food and nutrition sciences seem to be turning upside down if a latest report by a charitable trust in the UK is to be believed! In essence the "scientists" in the trust are saying the eating more fat is the solution to overcome obesity epidemic that is ravaging wealthy nations in the world! It is not that the main stream health experts are sitting quite without challenging this new theory which does not appear to be based on any great scientific study and they have cautioned consumers not to "trust" this Trust for changing their food habits. Here is a take on this report and readers can come to their own conclusions regarding the credibility of the claims made. 

Thirty years of official health advice urging people to adopt low-fat diets and to lower their cholesterol is having "disastrous health consequences," a leading obesity charity warned yesterday. "Eating fat does not make you fat," argues a new report by the National Obesity Forum (NOF) and the Public Health Collaboration, as they demanded a major overhaul of official dietary guidelines. Promoting low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history according to Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist. The report says the low-fat and low-cholesterol message, which has been official policy in the UK since 1983, was based on "flawed science" and had resulted in an increased consumption of junk food and carbohydrates. The document also accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, said the misplaced focus meant Britain was failing to address an obesity crisis which is costing the NHS £6 billion a year. The authors call for a return to "whole foods" such as meat, fish and dairy, as well as high-fat healthy foods like avocados. The report, which has provoked a broad backlash among the scientific community, also argues that saturated fat does not cause heart disease while full fat dairy products such as milk, yoghurt and cheese, can actually protect the heart. Professor David Haslam, NOF chairman, said: "As a clinician treating patients all day every day, I quickly realised that guidelines from on high suggesting high carbohydrate, low-fat diets were the universal panacea, where deeply flawed."Current efforts have failed, the proof being that obesity levels are higher than they have ever been, and show no chance of reducing despite the best efforts of government and scientists." Processed foods labelled "low-fat", "lite", "low cholesterol" should be avoided at all costs and people with Type 2 diabetes should eat a fat-rich diet rather than one based on carbohydrates, the report urges. Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist and member of the Public Health Collaboration, a group of medics, said dietary guidelines promoting low-fat foods "is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history, resulting in devastating consequences for public health". "Sadly this unhelpful advice continues to be perpetuated," he said. Eat fat to get slim. Don't fear fat; fat is your friend says Dr Aseem Malhotra. The current Eatwell guide from Public Health England is in my view more like a metabolic timebomb than a dietary pattern conducive for good health." Dr Malhotra also suggested the scientific integrity of the PHE advice had been compromised by commercial interests. "We must urgently change the message to the public to reverse obesity and Type 2 diabetes," he added. "Eat fat to get slim," he concludes. "Don't fear fat; fat is your friend." Snacking between meals is one of the main causes of the current obesity crisis, the report argues, while added sugar should be avoided because it has "no nutritional value whatsoever".Snacking will make you fat, the report warns. Calorie counting is also a damaging red herring when it comes to controlling obesity, said the NOF report, as calories from different foods have "entirely different metabolic effects on the human body, rendering that definition useless". Similarly, "you cannot outrun a bad diet" the authors state, citing the "incorrect" assumption among the public that the solution to obesity is to burn more calories than are consumed. Our populations for almost 40 years have been subjected to an uncontrolled global experiment that has gone drastically wrong Prof Iain Broom. "Obesity is a hormonal disorder leading to abnormal energy partitioning which cannot be solely fixed by increasing exercise," the report says. Responding to the NOF document, Professor Iain Broom, from Robert Gordon University, said: "The continuation of a food policy recommending high carbohydrate, low fat, low calorie intakes as healthy eating is fatally flawed. "Our populations for almost 40 years have been subjected to an uncontrolled global experiment that has gone drastically wrong."
However, scientists from a range of fields have criticised the report and questioned its evidential basis. Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), said the NOF findings were "full of ideas and opinion" but could not be counted as a comprehensive review of the evidence. The report's main headline – simply to eat more fat – is highly contentious and could have adverse public health consequences says Dr Mike Knapton. "This country's obesity epidemic is not caused by poor dietary guidelines; it is that we are not meeting them," he said. Professor Naveed Sattar, Professor of Metabolic Medicine at Glasgow University, said: "The report's main headline – simply to eat more fat – is highly contentious and could have adverse public health consequences."

It is true that all the actions and programs taken by the countries suffering from obesity have not brought any positive results so far and on the contrary the obesity population is surging at an unprecedented rate. Whether it is low carbohydrate diet or massive promotion of low fat food products, there is no dent in the galloping growth of overweight people. Naturally this has given opportunity to some "queer" people to try to swim against the tide and gain some popularity and attention. But the damage such unproven claims on the health of the people is forgotten by them while propagating such outlandish claims. It is understandable that those practicing low fat diets have to depend on carbohydrates for bulk of their energy needs and white sugar and HFCS provide the same. There are scientific evidence to show that too much carbohydrates in the diet can be a worrisome factor that can precipitate metabolic syndrome disease and other disorders. The lesson that is to be learned is that there is no sure recipe or quick fix for maintaining healthy weight and following a balanced diet giving importance to fat, proteins and carbohydrates derived through natural diet ingredients combined with regular physical activity is the best approach for good health

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

Gluten-free foods are harmful? A reality check

Wheat allergy due to the presence of the protein gluten in it, is well known but those affected by this disorder are not people with normal health but having the disease commonly referred to as Celiac disease. There are also people who are intolerant to wheat for the same reason though this is not as serious as Celiac disease. Whereas allergy can be even fatal if not treated immediately, intolerance to wheat can be temporary. and may manifest only when large quantities are ingested. Similarly gluten allergy is more or less a genetically inherited disease whereas intolerance development is not yet well understood. Though allergy to wheat is often attributed to gluten, one can also be allergic to non-gluten components present in wheat. Allergic foods like wheat when ingested cause several symptoms to manifest due to immunological reactions while intolerance may be purely an gastrointestinal event. Unfortunately gluten has been given a bad name because it is included in the list of major food allergens and due to misconception and ignorance many people try to avoid gluten containing products in the market. It is unimaginable why almost one third of the population in the US is moving towards gluten free foods with no rhyme or reason though those needing these foods constitute just 7%! It is an ungainly scenario where the industry, hell bent on making a fast buck "at any cost", ignoring the well being of the consumers, is exploiting this trend to the hilt without bothering to educate them regarding the implications of wheat allergy and intolerance. What are the consequences of more and more people switching over from normal wheat products to gluten free versions? According to some impartial observers it could be catastrophic in the long run because most of the gluten free products are generally unhealthy with more calories and fat besides being pricier to the extent of 50-75%! Here is a take on this terrible transformation taking place in that country which does not seem to be abating.   

"Gluten-free. It's among the hottest trends in food today. It competes with "non-GMO," "local" and "organic" for mindshare among today's health-conscious, price-insensitive, and trend-following foodies, yuppies, and self-anointed amateur nutritionists. It's become so fashionable to be gluten-free that even Fido and Spot have jumped on the bandwagon. Like all such sweeping trends, it has a powerful attractive force that lures innocent bystanders into asking if they too should join the party. Last Fall, The New Yorker ran an article entitled"Against the Grain: Should You Go Gluten Free?" to help readers answer the very question. Grain Brain and Wheat Belly hold entrenched positions on lists of today's best selling books. Gluten-free is clearly on the minds of many. Like financial bubbles, the herd behavior identified by such popular attention is never sustainable. Here's the big disconnect that captures the essence of the problem: less than 1 percent of the population has celiac disease,approximately 6 percent are gluten intolerant, and … drum roll please … almost 30 percent of American adults are trying to avoid gluten.One of the main reasons consumers avoid gluten is they feel it's healthier. It's generally not. The blunt reality is that many gluten-free foods are not healthier for the 93 percent of the population that doesn't have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Consider that a Glutino Original New York Style Bagel has 26 percent more calories, 250 percent more fat, 43 percent more sodium, 50 percent less fiber and double the sugar of a Thomas' Plain Bagel. Further, because many gluten-free products utilize rice flour, they are also at risk of containing higher levels of arsenic than desirable or healthy. And then there's the cost. The Glutino bagel I just described costs 74 percent more than the Thomas' bagel. Nabisco's Gluten-Free Rice Thins cost 84 percent more per cracker than Nabisco's Multigrain Wheat Thins. And when it gets to baking products, the costs are even higher. Betty Crocker's gluten-free brownie mix is more than 3 times the cost per serving of Duncan Hines regular mix. While economic logic might lead you to conclude that higher prices would lead to lower demand, you'd be wrong. In a classic indicator of bubble dynamics, higher prices have been met with higher demand. That's right, despite the facts I've just shared — namely that gluten-free may harm those not needing it for health reasons and that it's more expensive — the gluten-free craze continues. Market research firm Nielsen estimated that sales of products with a gluten-free label have doubled in the past four years, rising from $11.5 billion to more than $23 billion. While the trend is impressive, it's partially driven by marketing efforts. Chobani Greek yogurt and Green Giant vegetables, for instance, added "gluten free" labels onto products that never contained gluten. Add a label, grow your sales! Reminds me of Internet mania when merely announcing a URL increased valuations overnight. Consider Trader Joe's campaign advertising "Gluten-Free Greeting Cards For 99 Cents Each! Every Day!" Another sign the gluten-free bubble is nearing its end is the popular backlash against casual gluten-free diners. None of this is to suggest that there isn't a real underlying need for gluten-free products. There is, and I know from personal experience. In October 2011, my doctor informed me that a blood test indicated I had heightened sensitivity to gluten. The sensitivity was so high he recommended a gluten-free diet. I protested, suggesting he was over-diagnosing my unhealthy diet. I asked: "Have you considered icecreamitis? That's a disease I know I have," bluntly admitting my addiction to the divine creamy frozen sugar to which I was devoted. I insisted he conduct a genetic test to determine if I had a genetic marker for celiac disease. When the results came back, I was saddened to learn that I indeed had the gene. I've been gluten-free for 3.5 years now and I genuinely do feel better. Whether you have celiac disease, are gluten intolerant, or just part of the fashionable trend-following crowd, you can rest assured that this article is certified gluten-free."

How can any one decide whether one has to switch over to gluten free foods? Gluten allergy and sensitivity generally manifest at very early stages of life and there are reliable tests which can reveal the vulnerability of individuals to gluten. Biotechnology tests, to examine the genes regarding the possibility of wheat allergy, can predict the onset of this deficiency which can be helpful to take early precautions and resort to regular consumption of gluten free foods. Interestingly by demonizing gluten.the industry is trying to ride on the fear factor of people to amass a fortune within a short time as it is not sure when the bubble is going to bust! Is there any way to arrest this undesirable trend? Probably in a democracy no restriction can be placed even if policy intervention is possible to dissuade people from consuming gluten free products if they do not need them. The marked price differential between normal and gluten free products should have dampened the frenetic growth of this industry but obviously this is not happening. The possibility of mandatory labeling provision to warn consumers that glten ffree products are intended only for people with gluten allergy may or may not work. That leaves us with the only option of educating the citizens regarding the real picture vis-a-vis gluten free foods.  

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

Can imposition of punitive taxes on high calorie foods have any impact on buying behavior of consumers? The imponderable factors

Three great "sinners" among foods which are held responsible for most of the adverse health conditions in the world are sugar, fat and salt, added to the foods being churned out by the industry. Hardly a day passes without someone or the other indulging in bashing of these so called culprits and calling for policy changes that can make such foods for the citizens too expensive which hopefully would be a disincentive to frequent buying. What is lost in this debate is that escalating the consumer price has never worked as expected where ever such punitive action was taken. Therefore there are doubts whether such fiscal measures can work at all. Most dreaded of all foods are high calorie laden ones which are blamed for many health disorders like obesity, CVD and metabolic syndrome and naturally these foods provide easy targets for imposing extra taxes by the government. Since obesity has assumed epidemic proportion in countries like the US and which defies solution it is assumed that disincentivising purchase of foods rich in sugar and fat may work though no one has any clear answer as to what should be the price differential between lower calorie foods and high calorie foods. Against this background a recent study in the US throws some insight into the buying behavior of consumers when confronted with a market situation where differential pricing was prevalent. Read further to get an essence and significance of the findings to appreciate its relevance in today's world.      

"Professors Romana Khan at Northwestern University, Kanishka Misra at University of Michigan, and Vishal Singh at the New York University Stern School of Business looked at situations that mimic a "fat tax", a peculiar pricing pattern of milk in the U.S., where relative prices for milk across fat content - whole, 2%, 1% and skim - vary depending on where you live and which store you happen to patronize. At some stores, prices are equal across all fat content; at others, prices decrease with fat content, with whole milk the most expensive and skim the cheapest option. "The question that comes to mind is whether these different price structures have an impact on people's choices To put it simply, do people switch to lower fat milk for a price difference as small as 15 cents per gallon?" said Khan. "The answer to this question is of interest because it relates to the hotly debated issue of whether a 'fat' or 'sugar' tax can be an effective mechanism to curb obesity."  The study finds that in markets where milk prices are equal across fat alternatives, people tend to choose whole milk over lower calorie alternatives, particularly in low income zip codes: at equal prices across fat content, the market share of whole milk is 52% in lower income areas compared to 25% in higher income areas. What happens in markets where whole milk is priced at a premium? Although the average price difference for a gallon of milk is just 14 cents (5%), it causes a significant shift in market share away from whole milk to lower-fat options. This shift to the lower calorie options is significantly more pronounced in low-income neighborhoods. Besides income, the analysis accounts for other factors such as age profile, racial mix, and educational attainment of the local customer base. A critical factor in the analysis is that the prevailing price structure--whether prices across fat content are the same or not -- is determined by the chain's policy at the regional level and does not vary with local demographics or competition. "This provides us with a quasi-experimental setup to analyze how small price differences impact people's choices," said Misra. "Studies addressing similar questions are often conducted with small, non-representative populations, often university students. What distinguishes our work is the real-world field setting covering sales across the US and observed over a long time period -- mimicking what a potential 'fat-tax' would look like and what the long term consumer choices would be," added Misra. "Our results have significant implications for health experts and policy makers, since interventions in the form of taxes on high calories foods are highly contentious," according to Vishal Singh of New York University. "The general perception is that these taxes need to be substantial, at least 20% and often as high as 50%, to have a meaningful impact. This would be highly regressive since low-income consumers spend a greater proportion of their disposable income on food. Here, we have compelling field-based evidence that such taxes don't need to be high to be effective," noted Singh. The study finds large shifts in demand toward the lower-calorie option are achieved with a price difference of just 5-10%. Consumers respond to small price incentives; and more importantly, low income consumers who are at higher risk for obesity are particularly responsive. The authors also examine implications of a fat-tax and the inherent trade-offs for different segments of society from such interventions: while there are economic losses from taxes to some segments, the health benefits from shifting to the lower calorie option outweighs these costs. The authors' recommendation is a selective taxation mechanism designed to induce substitution within a narrowly defined product category (e.g., baked versus fried chips), rather than to discourage consumption of the category as a whole. This has the additional advantage of mitigating the regressive nature of food taxes since some options within a narrowly defined product category can be made less expensive. Importantly, these taxes should be imposed as an excise tax so that they are reflected in the shelf price at the point-of-purchase, rather than imposed as a post-purchase sales tax where they become less salient in the decision process."

Their findings that even a marginal increase in the sticker price for a higher fat content milk produced a significant shift in the purchasing pattern with people preferring to buy lower calorie milk costing less. In other words it is not necessary to increase the price very high as is being considered by food market gurus and according to the authors of the above study a difference of 10-12% can achieve a significant shift away from the high fat milk. Probably this may be true considering the experience of tobacco and spirits industries where prices were increased exorbitantly through imposition of punitive taxes with the avowed purpose of  dissuading the buyers from buying these products. Neither cigarettes nor spirits have disappeared from the market though their sales must have dipped somewhat. Obviously making high calorie foods marginally dearer can achieve the desired results while there will be less opposition from the industry to such a move. It for the policy makers to ponder over it and orchestrate appropriate policy changes to reduce consumption of high calorie foods or high salt foods in order to improve the health of the population. 

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

Cholesterol is no more a villain, so say the experts now!-Can we believe it?

After fat in the food was exonerated from its villainous role in CVD, Obesity and other life style disorders, it is now the turn of the Cholesterol to be liberated from the plethora of indictments in the past implicating it in heart disease. It was a gospel truth till recently that Cholesterol containing foods like meat and egg must be consumed very moderately and if possible must be avoided all together if one has to maintain good health. Same is true with dairy products like butter and cheese also avoided altogether or consumed less frequently for fear of Cholesterol build up and the consequent presumed arterial plaque development. It was only recently that health experts came out with a clear cut stand that butter and cheese need not be considered as unhealthy food and therefore can be consumed regularly by normal healthy consumers. The Cholesterol story also follows essentially the same logic and scientists seem to have realized rather late that after all Cholesterol is a biological nutrient present in the cells required for making Vitamin D by the sun light. Here is a commentary on this new twist in the nutrition science making people more comfortable with foods like egg without any guilty feeling.    . 

"(TRFW News) For over decades the nation's top nutrition advisory panel has debated the health benefits of cholesterol. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a group that provides dietary guidelines based on scientific findings, has portrayed cholesterol as the worst food one can consume, but several other studies have conflicted their notion. The guidelines for cholesterol have been recommended to keep it as low as possible in order to avoid potential consequences. However, recently the DGAC reconvened for their meetings to examine the recommendations on cholesterol and they reported that cholesterol should no longer be considered as a "nutrient of concern for overconsumption," which is a stark contrast from five years ago. (1) Eggs may no longer have to be feared Ever since 1961, cholesterol has been established in the dietary warnings developed by the American Heart Association. Years later, the federal government adopted the guidelines a,h these guidelines, a single yolk of an egg contains 200 milligrams leaving only a small amount to spare. (1,2) As a result, eating habits among Americans have shifted. Per capita egg consumption dropped about 30% and the egg farmers' business suffered. In addition, through various studies, the scientific community still remains divided due to differential research conclusions. (1) It is still unclear what the final decision for the new guidelines that will be due by the end of this year. According to Reuters, Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, stated that there is not enough evidence to make a good recommendation yet, however, "no evidence doesn't mean the evidence is no." (2) For a long while, fats were feared and the guidelines established with cholesterol levels came as a result. It is unfortunate that the myths of cholesterol is actually harming people's health since biologically cholesterol is one of the most important molecules in the human body. It's vital for building of cells, and producing vitamin D, stress, and sex hormones. (3,4) Over the years, the recommendation for low-fat, low-cholesterol, and cholesterol lowering medications including statins, has been doing more harm than good. (3) When viewing cholesterol, one must consider the following:
    1. Vital for health. Cholesterol is found the body cells, which helps produce cell membranes, hormones, and bile acids, as well as in the bloodstreams. It helps the skin convert sun into vitamin D. It also insulates the nerve cells and protects brain health.
    2. No such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol. Cholesterol is divided into two parts HDL and LDL, containing lipoproteins, which are fats combined with proteins. Rather, there are "good" or "bad" lipoproteins and large LDL particles can be harmful causing damage and inflammation. It's good to focus on raising HDL levels.
    3. Focus on food quality. Replace processed foods with whole, plant-based foods. Stop obsessing on low-fat or no-fat foods and increase healthy consumption of fats. Optimize your vitamin D levels with sun exposure or good quality supplements. Consume plenty of fermented foods to keep your gut healthy. Get plenty of exercise (a good way to get more sun exposure is to go outdoors). Avoid statin drugs. And if you must, consume meat and eggs that come from organic, grass-fed sources. (5)"

Though this 180 degree turn by the health pundits can cause some outrage among consumers, it is better late than never. The erstwhile "guidelines" seem to have helped the pharmaceutical industry which have been hawking its Statin formulations to unsuspecting consumers based on certain maximum levels fixed arbitrarily by safety agencies few years ago.Between 1994 and 2006 massive promotion of statin drugs brought down the high cholesterol population (65-74 age bracket) from 87% to 54% in the US but did it bring down the number of people dying because of CVD? Absolutely not! It remained almost the same! However the statin industry world over increased their business reaching $ 29 billion per year at present. Probably most people taking statin drugs regularly may not need them at all but massive promotions, motivated or well financed scientific "findings" put out by the industry and unwary physicians have contributed this euphoria or mysteries about cholesterol! Will the 200 mg maximum limit under the present guidelines continue to be held as "sacred" as before? Probably we will have to wait to achieve unanimity on this issue before throwing our much revered statin drugs from the medicine chest at home.

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

Losing weight through daily injection! A new therapy being commercialized

Losing weight is a multibillion dollar business in western countries and there  are many specially designed foods and dietary regimes offered in the market place to help overweight and obese people to trim down. In-house treatment of obese people in specialty centers is also becoming popular though they are called by the romantic name "Wellness Centers". While those with BMI figures slightly higher than normal limits can manage with minor adjustments in the diet and better eating discipline, it is those who score BMI values beyond 30 who need special attention. Extreme measures like Bariatric surgery and other interventionist procedures are increasingly being resorted to by desperate patients to get relief from the dangerous outcome of uncontrolled weight gain. Recently even an implantation procedure to interfere with the hunger signals from the brain through the vagus nerves in the stomach has been cleared for application in highly obese people.  Against this backdrop comes the news that the EU has cleared a new therapy using daily injections that will help people to reduce their food consumption at least by 10% and shed excess weights with assured results. Here is a take on this new development.

"A treatment of injections that can help people lose a stone more than they normally would by dieting or exercising more has been approved by health watchdogs. Liraglutide, which has been described by doctors as life-changing, could be available on prescription in months. Slimmers typically lose almost a stone more than they would by simply watching how many calories they consume and doing more exercise. Trials showed that some severely obese patients lost so much weight they were able to abandon their wheelchairs and walk normally for the first time in years. Liraglutide also lowers blood pressure, raises good cholesterol and prevents diabetes. According to its makers, Novo Nordisk of Denmark, the drug even produces a 'feel-good factor', making dieting a pleasure. But some experts have already warned it does not provide a long-term solution to the growing problem of obesity in Britain. Novo Nordisk will apply for it to be prescribed on the NHS after Friday's ruling by the European drugs regulator that it is safe and effective. There are fears however that Nice – Britain's drugs rationing body – will judge it too expensive for routine use on the NHS. Liraglutide costs from £2.25 a day, which is roughly double the price of Orlistat, the only other prescription diet drug. Patients inject the drug into their stomach before breakfast every day. It works by suppressing appetite. Liraglutide, which will be given the brand name Saxenda, is already used at a lower dose to treat diabetes. It is based on a hormone found in the gut and sends signals to the brain that trick it into feeling full. As a result, people eat 10 per cent less food than normal. Trials of Liraglutide found that men and women who injected themselves daily lost an average of 19lb in 12 months. This is almost a stone more than they would lose by being on a diet and increasing the amount they exercise. Furthermore one third or those who took part in the trials shed 23lb – more than a stone and a half. For a 14 stone woman that kind of weight loss would usually mean dropping two dress sizes. The drug which, like insulin, comes in an injectable pen, also has such a significant effect on blood pressure that patients can dispense with the drugs they use to keep it under control. Like Orlistat, its prescription is likely to be limited to those who are obese or who are overweight and have another health problem such as high blood pressure."

The fact that this drug is already in use to treat diabetics is a plus factor as there may not be any serious side effects. Also encouraging is the fact that Novo Nordisk of Denmark, a reputed international firm has developed this therapy adds further confidence in the product. As a bonus it seems patients using this drug had also lower blood pressure and higher HDL values.besides preventing on-set of diabetes. Of course there is this uncomfortable feeling when patients have to administer this injection in the stomach before breakfast. The innovators have cautioned that the new drug is not for use by healthy individuals for indulging in gluttony but for obese patients who have difficulties in moving and doing their daily chores.

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

Another escalation in the fight against diabetes and obesity- A "Silver Bullet" in the making?

There are three hormones in human system that control the metabolism and absorption of glucose and they are now the focus of attention in developing appropriate therapy to attack the diabetes and obesity syndromes widely considered to be reaching epidemic proportions in many countries. These are glucagon, glucagon like peptide (GLP) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) working in different ways in different locations in the body. In a remarkable breakthrough scientists have now achieved integration of these three hormones in a single molecule to derive all the benefits from them. While glucagon balances any hypoglycemia condition by releasing glucose from glycogen in the liver, GLP inhibits gastric secretion delaying carbohydrate absorption creating a satiety effect. GIP has a major role in neutralizing stomach acid besides slowing down transfer of food across the intestine. GIP also plays a role in insulin secretion enabling the body to metabolize glucose faster and its influence on lipid metabolism is recognized for its potential use against obesity. By combining these three hormones the researchers seem to have succeeded in creating a "silver bullet"  that can deal with both diabetes and obesity. Here is a gist of these findings which appears to be really path breaking in its impact.

"In 2012, we covered work led by Professor Richard DiMarchi that showed linking two hormones into a single molecule held promise as a treatment for obesity. DiMarchi followed this up last year by combining the properties of two endocrine hormones to provide an effective treatment for both obesity and adult-onset diabetes. Continuing in this vein, DiMarchi has now co-led a study whereby obesity and diabetes were effectively cured in lab animals by adding a third hormone to the molecular mix. Clinical work carried out last year, which included human clinical trials, showed a peptide combining the properties of two endocrine hormones, GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) and GIP (gastric inhibitory polypeptide), provided an effective treatment for adult-onset diabetes. Now the team, co-led by DiMarchi, the Indiana University (IU) Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, and Matthias Tschöp, director of the Institute for Diabetes and Obesity at the German Research Center for Environmental Health, has developed a new molecule that includes a third hormone, glucagon. GLP-1 and GIP are involved in enhancing insulin action and reducing blood glucose in the body, with GLP-1 also acting to reduce appetite. Meanwhile, glucagon is involved in improving liver function and increasing the long-term rate at which calories are burned. Molecularly combining these three hormones forms what is known as a triple agonist, which can bind to and activate receptors in the body and produce certain biological responses. "This peptide represents the first rationally designed, fully potent and balanced triple agonist ever achieved in the treatment of any disease," says DiMarch. "The benefits of the previously reported individual co-agonists have been integrated to a single molecule of triple action that provides unprecedented efficacy to lower body weight and control metabolism." The researchers say that in preclinical trials, this new peptide lowered blood sugar levels and reduced body fat better than all existing drugs. By triggering improved glucose sensitivity, reducing appetite and enhancing calorie burning, it was able to reduce body weight in rodents by around 30 percent, (nearly twice as much as the preceding GLP-1/GIP double hormone), and essentially cured the animals of obesity, diabetes and associated lipid abnormalities. "This triple hormone effect in a single molecule shows results never achieved before,"said co-first author Brian Finan, a scientist at the Helmholtz Diabetes Center. "A number of metabolic control centers are influenced simultaneously, namely in the pancreas, liver, fat depots and brain."

According to the innovators of this novel 3-in-1 hormone peptide molecule, extensive animal studies and limited clinical trials have more or less confirmed about its efficacy in increasing glucose sensitivity, reducing appetite significantly and enhancing burning of calories dramatically. Reduction of body weight to the extent of 30% is a remarkable achievement which will gladden the hearts of millions of people with BMI beyond 30. Hopefully this hormone combination will become the standard bearer in the coming years for world wide use in bringing down obesity, curing diabetes and correcting many lipid abnormalities for which there are no satisfactory treatment protocols at present. Though lot has been said about the efficiency and effectiveness of the new peptide molecule, nothing is mentioned as to how it is produced or how stable it is when administered in human beings. Since only GIP works at the intestinal level, how effectively the peptide is absorbed in the blood is also not clear. As human clinical trials have been carried out one can assume that the claims made by the innovators are valid. Whether there will be any other side reactions in some people is also not known. Let us hope we will have one of the most effective medicines to overcome the twin curses in the form of diabetes and obesity soon and association of one of the giants of pharma industry with this study further reinforces our hope.  

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

A worm's way of controlling fat production at cellular level-Can this work in humans?

Furious research by different scientific groups at different places are slowly unfolding many ways to control uncontrolled fat deposits in human body which hopefully will lead in too distant a future some practical and universal treatment protocol for obesity affected people. Though there is almost unanimous agreement that consuming a healthy diet containing whole grains, fruits, vegetables and moderately eating animal derived food products, can preempt unnecessary accumulation of fat in the body, humans are not that strong willed to think about good health while opting for their daily foods. Organoleptic quality of food overwhelms them and tasty, flavorful and palate tingling foods are invariably made using high levels of ingredients like saturated fat, sugar, salt added singly or in combinations that can convert a healthy food into a "risky" one capable of spawning deadly diseases like CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, cancer and others. If obesity levels have reached dangerous proportions we have thank ourselves as well as the food industry as a whole for bringing about reckless changes in out dietary habits. One of the on-going studies for evolving a treatment regime for obesity affected "patient", published recently looked at a worm for getting the necessary "inspiration" to achieve the desired result. Read further below for getting an idea about the thinking process in the minds of these researchers and how successful they have been so far. 

"Research around how the body's fat levels are regulated and ways in which they might be manipulated has uncovered numerous potential fat switches. The latest is a particular protein that has long been known to regulate protein synthesis and has now been demonstrated to also control fat levels in worms. This has lead researchers at the University of Southern California (USC) to believe that the version found in the human body could provide a new target for fat-fighting pharmaceuticals. Scientists have studied the MAF1 protein for some time, but this has largely been limited to its ability to control the production of other proteins. In a study conducted at the USC Davis School of Gerontology, scientists found that the protein is actually capable of much more. "We've known about MAF1 for over a decade, but so far people have only studied it in single cells, where it is known to regulate protein synthesis," says Sean Curran, assistant professor at USC Davis and on of the study's co-authors. "No one really looked at its effect on the whole organism before." Curran and his team modified the MAF1 levels in transparent worms known as C. elegans and found that adding a single copy of the gene expressing MAF1 lowered stored lipids by 34 percent. Conversely, lowering MAF1 levels saw lipids boosted by 94 percent. The fact that the version of MAF1 in humans has the same protein-producing properties leads the researchers to suspect that it, too, could control the storage of fat cells. If this proves correct, the protein could offer a target for a new breed of pharmaceutical treatments for obesity and weight-related health problems. One other notable finding was that the MAF1 protein can also impact on lipid metabolism in cancer cells, suggesting that it could be used in suppressing cancer cells. Curran's team next plans to test the fat-fighting ability of MAF1 in mice. If successful, they hope to eventually investigate its potential in humans." 

Is it not a pity that man has to be guided by a worm to overcome his weakness vis-a-vis food gluttony and its disastrous consequences? May be man is a fast learner from the nature and this little worm might show the way to go, though the vastly complex human system may not be as receptive as the worm to new ideas to stop or reduce fat manufacture in the body. Still it is worth trying as for those "drowning", even a straw can be a relief! There are bound to be innumerable practical difficulties in repeating the positive results obtained with worms and it may take a few years before clinical trials are completed after further studies with animals. As MAF1 is a protein, how it can be delivered to cell sites in humans through the oral route remains to be seen. Any how the above study does raise a ray of hope for millions of fatty people with high BMI requiring urgent treatment to save their lives!   

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Calories restricted diets-Do they ensure good quality life also besides longevity?

Man's search for longevity is endless and no one has yet found the magic bullet that will ensure or guarantee a life at least up to 100 years. Among the most talked about regime to live long is the notorious Calorie Restriction diet (CR) being promoted by some segments of health experts  and many consumers seem to be convinced about its efficacy. But CR is not scientifically proved to be capable of extending one's life span without contracting some of the most debilitating diseases that afflict mankind to day. It is true that in animal experiments with short duration using Rhesus monkeys, supposed to be similar in their metabolic system to that of man, the longer life span was reported when CR was used but the same conclusion was also found to be untrue by other similar studies. Here is a critique on this subject which has far reaching implications either way. 

Caloric restriction, defined as reducing calorie intake by at least 30 percent, has gained a cult following since it was first studied in the 1930s. Scores of people swear that by dialing consumption way down, and eating far less, you can gain vitality and longevity. And while studies cited by the National Institutes of Health report that caloric restriction (often referred to as "CR") did have some positive effects on health in rhesus monkeys, the NIH announced in 2012 that it has not been shown to boost overall longevity. (These findings conflicted with those published in 2009, which found that caloric restriction did, in fact, extend life in monkeys.) The final word on these studies has yet to be published. But I don't believe we need to wait for it. If you want to live a longer, better life, portion control plays a role, sure— but the reason I'm not one for the CR diet is because I believe you should be far more focused on what's ON your plate, rather than what isn't. The danger inherent to the idea of caloric restriction is the belief that simply consuming less food is enough to fend off chronic disease and give you optimal health— without much concern for the food itself. If this were true, we'd all be able to eat cheeseburgers and french fries in smaller portions every day and call ourselves healthier. If you put emphasis on what you're not eating rather than what you are, you're missing the mark. A great example of what I mean is the popular diet program Weight Watchers and similar plans such as Nutrisystem, which completely flop in terms of nutritional benefits. They certainly restrict your daily caloric intake and you may lose weight, but with Weight Watchers, you could still end up eating a slice of pizza at each meal and stay within your allotted "points" for the day. You're still consuming a high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient diet— essentially an inflammatory diet— and this puts you at risk of all the top killers, including cancer, heart disease, and even Alzheimer's disease and dementia later in life. Eating a limited number of calories does not necessarily equal a health-promoting, life-extending diet.

The point raised by the above commentator about the inadequacy of many calorie restricted formulated diets with respect to some of the vital nutrients required by the body is very valid. No one can expect to lead a quality life by consuming 30% less calories ( about 1400 calories per day) if the diet is made of junk foods with empty nutrition. After all man does not live on calories alone and nutrients like proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals are required at certain minimum levels to ward of ill health and infectious diseases. All said and done there is no effective substitute to living a disciplined life, eating a mixed diet that includes adequate calories, proteins, vitamins, minerals and fiber. Physical activity that moves the limbs and the body regularly besides other routine activity in life is a prerequisite for a good quality life. People must realize without delay the cardinal principle that there is no short cuts to maintain their health and they must go through the drill of adopting balanced diet and regular exercise day in and day out.

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

Ornish diet-Last refuge for obese people?

Dieting is an accepted way of achieving reduction in body weight though even to day no one is sure which diet will work on different individuals. There are many dietary schemes available to day from commercial companies, none of them being absolutely fool proof to get desired results. Atkins diet took an early lead in cornering major business from the weight reduction enthusiasts while many others followed it subsequently. Basically the principle of weight reduction is restriction of intake of food, mainly calories coming from daily foods and one really does not need any expertise to adopt a life style with diets balanced in calories, protein and other nutrients. There are well accepted dietary recommendations globally established and all one has to do is follow them with strict eating discipline. Unfortunately too much food and too less of an exercise by many people lead them to a situation where the calories, especially the fat calories are not burned enough due to sedentary life style, causing fat deposits all over the body. Whether it is a low carbohydrate diet or a low fat diet, human body must receive enough nutrients like proteins and micronutrients for sound health. One of the popular diets which seems to be gaining acceptance among obese people is the Ornish diet based mostly on fruits and vegetables excluding fat and carbohydrate to a great extent. Here is a commentary on this seemingly different approach to weight reduction. 

"Dean Ornish, MD, president and founder of the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., was considered revolutionary in the early '90s when he suggested that a basically vegetarian diet can reverse symptoms of heart disease. Plus, Ornish and his research team argued, a vegetarian diet coupled with exercise can reduce stress and help people lose weight. Since that time, Ornish's diet has caught on, winning such high-profile fans as former President Bill Clinton. Far from being a diet fad, many doctors and nutritionists now recommend this popular diet to people who need to lose weight and who may have heart conditions. The diet's popularity partially stems from the fact it's evidence-based. One study showed that after five years, participants had lost an average of 24 pounds on the Ornish Diet, and most had managed to keep the weight off. "Few other major diet systems have managed to match this feat," says Susan Weiner, RD, MS, CDE, CDN, a nutritionist who practices in New York. However, the Ornish Diet has a major drawback: It may be difficult for some people to follow, especially over the long-term. The popular diet is essentially a vegan diet, Weiner says, and people may find it hard to avoid all meats, chicken, fish, and egg yolks. Also, she says, the diet is extremely low in fats of all types, and it's often fat that adds flavor to foods and makes people feel satiated."

Though Ornish diet has proved to be effective in losing weight very significantly and it is based on scientific principles, adhering to it may pose practical problems, especially in the long run. After all man does not live for the sake of living alone and there are many pleasures in life he does not want to miss. Eating good food in terms of taste, aroma, texture is an important aspect of good living and ruthless exclusion of fat from the daily diet as demanded by Ornish diet may be too much to be asked for. Use of fat is linked to flavor, taste and texture in the food and to day's food industry thrives because of the attraction of consumers to high fat food products. Shunning the same may be difficult for most people and therefore it is doubtful whether people will readily accept Ornish diet unless they are desperate, as in the case of high risk obese people. Many nutritionists advocate regular consumption of 'balanced" diet from early child hood which can ensure maintenance of normal body weight and BMI, avoiding dietary intervention at later stages of life for dealing with life style diseases that may emerge due to undisciplined eating and lack of exercise.

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

Another UN Conference-Will any thing substantial come out it?

It is an irrefutable fact that we have side by side hunger as well as obesity, co-existing, with each passing day the latter cases growing at an alarming rate. This is attributed to inequitable distribution of wealth which is mostly concentrated in rich industrialized countries like the US, Europe, japan and a few others. While ways and means to tackle poverty and hunger are routinely discussed the progress towards a world free of people with starvation and near starvation is still a mirage. Global aid to ameliorate this ugly situation does bring down hunger significantly and food aid can never be the answer to banish the scourge of hunger on a permanent footing. The key to overcome this curse is enabling people in affected countries to earn more through economic development so that they can access to the food with ease. Agricultural productivity to day is more or less satisfactory growing sufficient food to meet the needs of the entire planet and new technologies are continuously emerging to help the farmers to attain higher and higher land productivity. If it is a question of generating income among not well to do population what a UN conference can achieve through a conference is a debatable point. Nonetheless if the forthcoming UN conference in Rome can continue to sensitize the governments in various countries regarding the food problem and health issues arising out of food it can keep them in focus, lest they are forgotten. Here is a take on this development which is billed as path breaking for the future of this plant  .

"An upcoming international conference on nutrition will focus on the twin evils of malnutrition and obesity.  Representatives from at least 140 governments, including 90 ministers and members of private institutions and civil societies, will gather in Rome next week to devise strategies for improving the nutritional status of hundreds of millions of people around the world. The conference, which is jointly organized by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization will address multiple issues related to nutrition.  These include the problems of under-nutrition, obesity, and chronic diseases related to poor diet. Global statistics are not encouraging.  WHO reports more than 800 million people suffer from chronic hunger.  More than 160 million children are affected by chronic malnutrition or stunting.  At the same time, it says 42 million children under age five are overweight.  These figures tell an even more dramatic story when statistics on adult under and over-nutrition are factored in. FAO and WHO agree the global food system is broken and must be fixed to provide healthy nutritional diets for those who are deprived.  They say it is possible to enact policies that can improve the quality of the food supply, provide healthy foods and intervene directly in life-saving therapy when needed. Xiangjun Yao, the director of the FAO Liaison Office in Geneva, says good nutrition is composed of many strands.  Therefore, she says there must be a holistic approach to cover the whole food chain. "To us, the food system, it should be something from the farm to the table, from what we call farm to fork and, that covers production, processing, storage, distribution, preparation and also consumption,"  Yao said. The U.N. agencies will be proposing a large, comprehensive list of strategies to the conference for approval.  The plan of action will call for greater focus on the nutrition of children from birth to age two to avoid malnutrition and stunting.  It also calls for greater attention to the needs of pregnant and lactating women as well as to the most neglected and socially marginalized groups in society. The centerpiece of the conference, which will run from November 19 to 21, will be a political declaration asking governments to commit themselves to eradicate hunger and prevent all forms of malnutrition worldwide by 2025.  Director of the WHO's Department of Nutrition, Franceso Branca, tells VOA that the so-called SDG II or Sustainable Development Goal will go beyond the Millennium Development Goals, which have succeeded in halving hunger in at least 63 countries by 2015". 

While number of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition is coming down as per the statistics provided by FAO, it is the obesity problem that haunts many developed and developing countries which does not show any abatement in spite of a slew of measures to arrest its growth and reduce such population significantly. Though over eating is more like a disease which may need a medical approach, what is intriguing is why people indulge in gluttony knowing pretty well that it is dangerous to their health. Modern food industry is often blamed for tempting people with highly palatable but nutritionally deficient food products in most convenient formats.but personal choices are important and younger generation needs to be "intensely" educated to shun high calorie, high fat, high salt foods illustrating the dangerous consequences of opting for such foods. Industry cannot be expected to do much as it is a profit center constantly trying to ensure adequate returns to its investments and the industry will always cater to the demand from the market regarding what foods consumers want. The forthcoming conference must focus on an international commitment to upgrade the curriculum and educational practices to obviate the situation. Along with policy supports which can subtly change the product mix coming out of the industry, a new era must emerge where "conscious" eating may become a norm.      

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

FOOD-GOOD, BAD AND INDIFFERENT!

Scientists and policy makers world over are struggling to wrestle with the increasing dangers posed by the obesity epidemic which is not showing any abatement in spite of several measures taken by their governments. Food was compared with Tobacco and every body thought that making bad food costlier would persuade consumers from buying them frequently but this has not worked in a few countries which tried this approach. Industry was targeted in some countries to compel it to make only "good" foods though no one is sure what is a good food! No matter how much pressure the government puts on the industry, it is not to be forgotten that industry does not work for charity, being profit driven after heavy investments. One of the biggest mysteries of modern times is why obesity is more or less prevalent in economically rich countries, that too in the western continents though Japanese are least prone to obesity in spite of being a rich country. Same is true with Scandinavian countries where economic growth has not distorted their diets. It is a tragedy that many countries emerging as neo-rich ones are emulating the bad example of the US where the diets are predominated by red meat, fried foods and fat rich products churned out by the industry. On the other end too much dependence on starchy foods based on cereals can also be disastrous when it comes to good health. Here is a sharp analysis about the dynamics of obesity seen from the perspectives of dispassionate health pundits.

"Where is the best place in the world to eat? It all depends, as new calculations from Oxfam show, on what you mean by 'good'. Food in the United States is cheap, abundant, varied and tasty, but it might not be all that good for you - too much fat and sugar have led to 36 percent of Americans being diabetic and 46 percent obese. Japan's food, by contrast, is much healthier, but it's extremely expensive and not as varied. At the bottom end of the Oxfam table are countries like Chad and Angola, where food can be unaffordably expensive and not very nutritious. It can also be quite dull. In Madagascar (fourth from bottom) 79 percent of the food eaten comes from grains and starchy roots, with very little meat, fish, fruit or vegetables. Perhaps the most interesting figures are not from the richest or poorest countries, but those in between - emerging economies making the transition to middle- or higher-income status. Some of the unhealthiest diets of all are in places like Fiji and Mexico, where more than 40 percent of adults are not merely overweight, but obese. The mechanism is no mystery. As people get richer, they want to eat more meat, fish and dairy products, more fried food, more sweets and cakes, washed down with fizzy drinks. Favourite foods vary from country to country, but the dietary transition is the same all over the world. Combined with moving to the cities, having less time to cook and leading less active lives, the dietary shift has brought expanding waistlines and an epidemic of ill-health.The number of overweight or obese people in the developing world tripled between 1980 and 2008."

Sugar and fat are by far the most indicted food components that are implicated in high BMI among people in countries like the US. As the industry turns out more and more mouth watering varieties of processed foods with high convenience factor and rich in these two food ingredients, that too at a fraction of the cost of a nutrition dense fruit or vegetable, consumer just loses his appetite for buying healthy foods, in spite of knowing that sugar and fat rich foods are not good for the health! Obesity is a personal choice if one looks at the freedom consumers enjoys in buying what food is good for him though the food "environment" can over ride his logical choice. Recent revelation that the food habits are formed during the early childhood when kids are enrolled in kindergarten and improper handling of them during these formative years can create future obese people is indeed scary. Similarly cravings for high calorie foods are controlled by the brain and the way it is wired in different people! All these can only further make the world desperate vis -a-vis obesity and as of now the only route for attaining better sanity is through appropriate education at the appropriate time.  

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

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBESITY? INDIVIDUALS, SOCIETY OR THE GOVERNMENT?

The word "Obesity" is one of the most widely used jargon in modern times because of the concern in many parts of the world regarding the health and economic consequences of this human affliction. Though tons of papers have been published during the last 2 decades, nothing concrete has been achieved to control the obesity epidemic as no consensus exists regarding the root cause that is responsible for this modern tragedy. It is true that obesity is caused by undisciplined eating by a section of the population while hereditary factors also play some part. Governments in various countries are breaking their heads as to how this epidemic can be controlled and a few well meaning intervention programs were launched in different countries with some what indifferent results. It is now being realized as reflected by the report below that consumers them selves are to be blamed for causing this havoc though government agencies can contribute in some measures to help him out with suitable policies.

"A new survey by two food economists confirmed that even obese people don't blame restaurants, grocery stores, farmers, or government policies for obesity, which means that creating and enforcing public policies to reduce obesity or encourage/mandate healthier food is probably not going to be effective. University of Illinois researcher Brenna Ellison and Jayson Lusk at Oklahoma State University note that many of the food policies designed to improve food choices, such as requiring calorie information on restaurant menus and taxing sugar-sweetened beverages, don't produce the intended results. Their question: Why aren't these policies working? Why aren't consumers responding to increased soda prices or calorie information on menus"Obesity is in the news every day so it would be hard to say that people are unaware of the policy initiatives in place to reduce U.S. obesity rates," Ellison said. "Based on our study results, the more likely conclusion is that consumers' beliefs about who is to blame for obesity don't necessarily align with the beliefs of policy makers and public health advocates. In the United States, we're known for being an individualistic-based society, so it's  so it's not exceptionally surprising that we would put this responsibility for obesity on ourselves." An online survey was administered by Clear Voice Research whose registry of panelists is representative of the U.S. population in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, gender, and region. Of the more than 800 people in the United States who took the survey, 774 were usable. The main question of interest asked survey participants was, "Who is primarily to blame for the rise in obesity?" Respondents were asked to classify seven different entities (individuals, parents, farmers, food manufacturers, grocery stores, restaurants, and government policies) as either primarily to blame, somewhat to blame, or not to blame for obesity.  Results of the study showed that 94 percent of people believed individuals are primarily or somewhat to blame for the rise in obesity, with parents coming in second at 91 percent primarily or somewhat to blame. Survey respondents felt farmers and grocery stores were relatively blameless for the rise in obesity."

While obesity is a choice by individuals, one has to define what makes a responsible individual? After all a new born child has neither the will nor the means to choose his foods and depends heavily on the parents to give him good food. Is it possible then that parents who do not fulfill their responsibility to provide balanced and nutritious foods to their children during early years of development, has to bear the brunt of the blame for creating a population with wide spread obesity? There are indications proved by science that children who are lean and normal with respect to BMI during their preschool days invariably escape obesity later when they grow into adults. No wonder that the above study brings out emphatically the role of parents in the obesity saga while normal adults becoming obese due to their sedentary life style and gluttony have to bear the responsibility themselves. The blame game however does provide a solution to this vexed problem though ultimately salvation lies in preparing a future citizenry well educated vis-a-vis the nuances of obesity. 

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

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