Soft drinks - The Food Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ooksAdolescent HealthBritish Medical Association Board of Scienceand Education (2003, 66pp). Tel: 020 7383 6164.Also available in pdf format at:www.bma.org.ukThis authoritative report from the BritishMedical Association (BMA), the voice of themedical profession, sets out the healthproblems facing UK teenagers, the causes ofill health and likely means to improve thesituation. It considers such weightymatters as drugs, smoking, sexualhealth, mental health and theincreasing rate of obesity.The report states that excess bodyweight ‘is now the most commonchildhood disorder in Europe’, thatadolescents consume too much saltand soft drinks, and that nutrition notonly has an immediate impact on healthbut that there is increasing evidencethat adult susceptibility to disease isSo Shall We ReapColin Tudge, Allen Lane (published by thePenguin Group), 2003, ISBN 0-713-99640-4,£20 hardback.This book’s subtitle runs as follows: ‘Howeveryone who is liable to be born in the next10,000 years could eat very well indeed; andwhy, in practice, our immediate descendantsare likely to be in serious trouble.’Thus the book’s scope is epic, its toneboth erudite and accessible, and it iswonderfully irreverent in parts. Tudge’senthusiasm for his subjects – food,agriculture, the environment, gastronomy,life, the universe and everything – is evidenton every page.His analysis of why agriculture has gonewrong and what can be done about it is quiteclear. As a society we have played fast andloose with biological laws, and allowed ourelected representatives, our scientists andour commercial bodies to pretend that thisdoesn’t matter. It does.Examining thousands of years of humanhistory, Tudge explains that systems haveevolved to ensure that good farmingpractices lead to good nutrition which, inturn, forms the basis of the world’s greatcuisines. In short, people have historicallythrived, and could continue so to do, on ajudicious mixture of cereals and legumes,together with fruits, vegetables and herbsand small amounts of animal products: “Theassociated with nutrition in childhood andadolescence.Of special interest is that the BMArecognises that whilst individuals bear someresponsibility for their own health, ‘It is clear,however, that health is subject to social andeconomic circumstances that are oftenbeyond individual control,’ and that ‘Thesocial environment plays an especiallyimportant role in nutrition,’ making healthychoices more difficult.It also points out that school education hasbeen effective in helping adolescentsunderstand what constitutes a healthy diet,but not in helping them to put that knowledgeinto practice. The reportsuggests that an approachaddressing the structural andenvironmental causes of poornutrition, inactivity and obesityare likely to be necessary, toenhance opportunities forphysical activity, increaseaccess to healthy foods andlimit exposure to unhealthyfood and unhealthy foodmarketing.mixed farm is the keyto the future of allhumanity,” he says.But mixed farmsare rapidlydisappearing, to bereplaced by largerand largerspecialised units inthe name of‘efficiency’. Although Tudge is far from beingan advocate of vegetarianism, he is clearthat ‘…over-emphasis on meat…has beenthe most pernicious of all trends inagriculture’. By 2050, if current trendscontinue, the world’s population of livestockwill eat more food than was eaten by thehuman population – 4 billion of us – asrecently as 1970.Similarly, although he is a trenchant criticof our current industrialised agriculturalsystem, he is not convinced that organicfarming can necessarily solve all theproblems he has identified. Perhaps hisdeliberate association of organic farming withan anti-science approach has colouredTudge’s analysis. But this is a minor criticism.For although he is a passionate advocate ofthe value of science, Tudge is no apologist forthe misuse of science in the service of badhusbandry.He is equally passionate about the needfor change: ‘We are not angry enough,’ hesays. ‘Not by far.’ We can’t help but agree.Smoke: Thekiller in thekitchenHugh Warwick andAlison Doig, ITDGPublishing, 2003, ISBN 1-85339-588-9, £7.95.Also available in pdf format at: www.itdg.orgFor millions of people around the world, wood,crop residues, charcoal and dung are themain sources of fuel for cooking, and asignificant cause of respiratory diseases andpremature death. This hard-hitting report fromthe Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup (ITDG) states ‘the smoke from burningthese fuels turns kitchens in the world’spoorest countries into death traps’. ITDGcalculates that indoor air pollution from theburning of solid fuels kills over 1.6 millionpeople each year, predominately women andchildren – a death toll almost as great as thatcaused by unsafe water and sanitation, andgreater than that caused by malaria. And whatmakes these figures all the more alarming isthat the people worst affected are those fromthe poorest communities – often in rural areasof India, China and Africa who can least affordto lose working days to ill health. ITDG callsfor a Global Action Plan, coordinated by theUN, ‘to address this neglected killer’.Future Foods for WellbeingInstitute of GroceryDistribution (2003,43pp). Tel: 01923 857141; email:igd@igd.com. Alsoavailable in pdf formatat: www.igd.comThis new report fromthe industry body,the Institute ofGrocery Distribution,coins the phrase ‘wellbeingfoods’ to describe food products with addedingredients to offer particular nutritionalbenefits – sometimes referred to as ‘functionalfoods’ or ‘nutraceuticals’.The report is the result of discussions byan expert panel of scientists and nutritionexperts to discuss ‘health enhancement andmaintenance’ over the next 25 years.The panel projects that policy will shiftfrom the treatment of chronic degenerativedisease to the avoidance of risk factorsthrough improved diet. Technologists, theysay, will identify ‘active compounds’ that canbe added to food to help them enhance health.The report also assesses how legislationand education can help or hinder publicacceptance of ‘functional foods’.Food Magazine 64 20 Jan/Mar 2004
sugarSweets in a bottleExactly how much sugar are childrenunwittingly drinking when they swallow abottle of Coke or a can of Fanta?With bottled water costing as much ormore than a soft drink, and with the demise ofthe freely-available drinking fountain in parksand school playgrounds, children inevitablyturn to the colourful, flavour-boosted, fruitylookingproducts as a widely-availablequencher of thirst.But soft drinks do morethan quench thirst. Theyadd hugely to a child’sdaily sugar intake.As our survey shows,typical drinks provide theequivalent to severallollipops or a pack or twoof sweets, in everyportionsold.Enough is enough...The World Health Organization and the UKGovernment recommend no more than anaverage of 10-11% of daily calories from nonmilkextrinsic (e.g. not in the cells of fruit)sugars in adult diets. No specific guidance ispublished for children, but there is littleevidence that they havegreater requirements for sugar.In terms of grams a day for atypical child this equates toCoca-Cola: A 330ml bottlecontains 35g sugar,equivalent to one-and-aquarterpacks ofRowntrees Fruit Gumsthe figures in the table below. Remember,these are the top amounts consistent withhealth – lower levels are preferable.Sugar limits per dayage 5 age 10 age 15Boys 50g 60g 80gGirls 45g 50g 65gVimto: A 250ml carton contains22g sugar and the artificialsweetener saccharine. The sugarcontent is equivalent to awhole pack of Fruit Gums.This 380mlbottle ofLucozadeEnergypacks a realpunch with 64g of sugar,equivalent to two packs ofBassetts Jelly BabiesFanta Orange: This 330ml can contains34g sugar as well as two artificialsweeteners, aspartame and saccharine. The sugaris equivalent to one-and-three-quarters packs of ChewitsDoctors want soft drinks banned from US schoolsPediatricians have urged US schoolauthorities to take their child protection dutiesseriously by restricting children’s access tosoft drinks in vending machines and schoolcanteens.In a strongly worded statement from theAmerican Pediatric Academy, doctors areurged to contact superintendents and schoolboard members and ‘emphasise the notionthat every school in every district shares aresponsibility for the nutritional health of itsstudents’.The statement goes on to say that‘advertising of sweetened soft drinks withinthe classroom should be eliminated’.Currently, Channel One, an in-schoolmarketing programme, regularly advertisessugar-sweetened drinks to its captiveaudience of 8 million children in 12,000schools across the US.Sweetened soft drinks sold in schools arean increasingly popular target forinterventions aimed at reducing childhoodobesity. In October, the Australian governmentannounced that sugary soft drinks would beexcluded from regular sale in canteens instate schools, although the schools will beable to sell them up to twice per term.In Canada, the soft drinks industry hasagreed to remove carbonated drinks fromschool vending machines and replace themwith fruit drinks and sports drinks. Whetherthis will reduce sugar intake remains to beseen, as many such products have just asmuch added sugar as other drinks marketed tochildren.■ For more on the sugar content of softdrinks, see our Liquid Candy story on page 1and above.A statement from American paediatriciansurges schools to act responsibly on nutritionFood Magazine 64 21 Jan/Mar 2004
Page 1 and 2: The Food Magazine is virtually fat
Page 3 and 4: ..continued from page 1newsSuccess!
Page 5 and 6: healthToy adverts promotephysical i
Page 7 and 8: GMNew GM labelsexclude meat and mil
Page 9 and 10: claimsDubious science -but who care
Page 11 and 12: INQUIRYCause obesity? ‘Not us’f
Page 13 and 14: INQUIRY‘innocent’According to t
Page 15 and 16: food taxesFight fat the fiscal way!
Page 17 and 18: environmentdisasterEmissions genera
Page 19: scienceWhat the doctor readsThe lat
Page 23 and 24: feedbackletters from our readersLow

Soft drinks - The Food Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?