I did not post last week because of a Chemistry EMPA practical and plan to not post this week either for similar reasons!
With the increased workload at this time of year and the upcoming crucial A Level exams I plan to end my blog (most probably permanently) after over a year of posts!
Good luck to anyone else attempting to get into medical school, I hope the exams go well and results day is a good day!
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
The 'five-second rule'
A light hearted post this week which loosely relates to health! Have you ever asked yourself is the 'five-second rule' really true? Surely it can't be true...
For those of you that don't know the theory is this: any food that is dropped on the floor is safe to eat as long as it is picked up within five-seconds.
Three specimens were collected, each was then imprinted individually on a culture plate and then incubated for several days.
The results were as follows;
1.) Pizza dropped on the kitchen floor - culture plate covered in bacteria, even some fecal bacteria present.
2.) Apple dropped on the street - Again lots of bacteria present on the culture plate.
3.) Buttered toast dropped on the carpet - Most bacteria of all the specimens!
Furthermore similar results were also recorded for food that touched surfaces for effectively zero seconds.
The conclusion of the experiment as you may have expected was this, (regardless of how long you drop it for) 'if you drop it, chuck it!'
A short video clip, which includes images of the bacteria samples can be found here.
For those of you that don't know the theory is this: any food that is dropped on the floor is safe to eat as long as it is picked up within five-seconds.
Three specimens were collected, each was then imprinted individually on a culture plate and then incubated for several days.
The results were as follows;
1.) Pizza dropped on the kitchen floor - culture plate covered in bacteria, even some fecal bacteria present.
2.) Apple dropped on the street - Again lots of bacteria present on the culture plate.
3.) Buttered toast dropped on the carpet - Most bacteria of all the specimens!
Furthermore similar results were also recorded for food that touched surfaces for effectively zero seconds.
The conclusion of the experiment as you may have expected was this, (regardless of how long you drop it for) 'if you drop it, chuck it!'
A short video clip, which includes images of the bacteria samples can be found here.
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
April Fools
Yesterday marked the first day of the new NHS structures, GP-led groups (clinical commissioning groups) have taken control of local budgets and a new board, NHS England, has started overseeing the day-day running of services.
The NHS is facing a crucial period, for example, it needs to rebuild public confidence after the recent report into the Stafford Hospital scandal.
Bringing clinical expertise to the forefront of decision making will help however structural changes alone will not suffice.
Savings still need to be made and targets met but this must not get in the way of the delivery of 'compassionate care' which has been mentioned so often in recent weeks.
Finally not everyone agrees with the changes, in particular there are fears surrounding the increased role of the private sector. Will this not lead to fragmented patient care and miscommunication rather than better, compassionate care?
The NHS is facing a crucial period, for example, it needs to rebuild public confidence after the recent report into the Stafford Hospital scandal.
Bringing clinical expertise to the forefront of decision making will help however structural changes alone will not suffice.
Savings still need to be made and targets met but this must not get in the way of the delivery of 'compassionate care' which has been mentioned so often in recent weeks.
Finally not everyone agrees with the changes, in particular there are fears surrounding the increased role of the private sector. Will this not lead to fragmented patient care and miscommunication rather than better, compassionate care?
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Three-person IVF
I was unable to post yesterday as I was playing in the Roslyn Park 7s Tournament and will only be able to post briefly today as I am very busy preparing route cards etc for my D of E Expedition next week so apologises for that!
Three-person IVF features in the news this week as it has done before, in fact it was something I posted about in September 2012.
The time has come round for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to advise ministers and report on the public consultation they carried out looking into techniques to try and prevent serious and often fatal mitochondrial diseases.
As well as the potential moral and ethical issues surrounding the treatment that I mentioned before one potential problem is that eggs with abnormal mitochondria may have other unknown problems in their nucleus.
If you want to find out more refer to this BBC health article!
Three-person IVF features in the news this week as it has done before, in fact it was something I posted about in September 2012.
The time has come round for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to advise ministers and report on the public consultation they carried out looking into techniques to try and prevent serious and often fatal mitochondrial diseases.
As well as the potential moral and ethical issues surrounding the treatment that I mentioned before one potential problem is that eggs with abnormal mitochondria may have other unknown problems in their nucleus.
If you want to find out more refer to this BBC health article!
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
fMRI - A more balanced perspective
In November 2012 BBC Panorama showed a research team using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to detect hidden awareness amongst patients who may be deemed vegetative by observational assessments. This is something I consequently wrote about here.
The programme claimed 20% of patients in a vegetative state show cognitive responses to fMRI however this isn’t strictly true. In addition, around one in five normal volunteers cannot generate fMRI activity on motor imagery tasks so negative results in patients do not necessarily indicate a lack of awareness.
One thing which wasn’t stressed in the programme was the important difference between patients in a ‘vegetative state’ and those who are ‘minimally conscious’. ‘Patients in a vegetative state have no discernible awareness of self and no cognitive interaction with their environment.’ Whereas patients in a minimally conscious state ‘show evidence of interaction through localising or discriminating behaviours although these interactions occur inconsistently.’
The two patients shown in the programme responding to the fMRI techniques may have been minimally conscious rather than vegetative. The reason for this being that one of the patients was filmed responding to a question from his mother by raising his thumb and the other seemed to turn his head purposefully in response to having his earphones put on.
More than 40% of patients in a minimally conscious state are misdiagnosed initially as being in a vegetative state. Currently in the UK the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) and the sensory modality rehabilitation assessment technique (SMART) are used to assess disorders of consciousness.
So again, to finish I ask the same question; In the future will scans such as the one using fMRI be used in addition to observational assessments to decide if someone is in a vegetative state?
The possibility that fMRI might open up potential avenues of interaction with patients with these conditions still exists and the findings are still important however the way in which the tests should be delivered and interpreting the findings still needs to be determined and may not be as significant as originally thought.
Source: Student BMJ
The programme claimed 20% of patients in a vegetative state show cognitive responses to fMRI however this isn’t strictly true. In addition, around one in five normal volunteers cannot generate fMRI activity on motor imagery tasks so negative results in patients do not necessarily indicate a lack of awareness.
One thing which wasn’t stressed in the programme was the important difference between patients in a ‘vegetative state’ and those who are ‘minimally conscious’. ‘Patients in a vegetative state have no discernible awareness of self and no cognitive interaction with their environment.’ Whereas patients in a minimally conscious state ‘show evidence of interaction through localising or discriminating behaviours although these interactions occur inconsistently.’
The two patients shown in the programme responding to the fMRI techniques may have been minimally conscious rather than vegetative. The reason for this being that one of the patients was filmed responding to a question from his mother by raising his thumb and the other seemed to turn his head purposefully in response to having his earphones put on.
More than 40% of patients in a minimally conscious state are misdiagnosed initially as being in a vegetative state. Currently in the UK the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) and the sensory modality rehabilitation assessment technique (SMART) are used to assess disorders of consciousness.
So again, to finish I ask the same question; In the future will scans such as the one using fMRI be used in addition to observational assessments to decide if someone is in a vegetative state?
The possibility that fMRI might open up potential avenues of interaction with patients with these conditions still exists and the findings are still important however the way in which the tests should be delivered and interpreting the findings still needs to be determined and may not be as significant as originally thought.
Source: Student BMJ
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
'UK lagging in Europe health league'
A very short post this week as I have masses of work to be doing this week, as well as dealing with the stress surrounding the upcoming January module results! However I thought it was better to post something rather than nothing. On that note, good luck to anyone collecting results on Thursday...
A study recently published in the Lancet suggests that the UK is worse off on many indicators of poor health when compared to other countries, the full article describing the study can be found here on BBC Health.
The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt feels '30,000 lives a year could be saved if England performed as well as its European neighbours' and the focus should be on the 'big five avoidable killers'. These diseases are cancer, stroke, heart, respiratory and liver disease.
The majority of which link closely to the risk factors associated with lifestyle that appear in the news far too often, tobacco smoke (including second-hand smoke), obesity, inactivity, alcohol consumption and an unhealthy diet.
Its difficult to say what can be done, because if it were simple it would have been done already! One suggestion is that people pay closer attention to their health and make regular health checks in order to spot diseases earlier.
However ultimately I feel it the responsibility of everyone to try and achieve better health. Although this starts with individuals themselves help should come from government (both central and local), charities and employers for example and it must be remembered that certain individuals may need more help than others to either stay healthy or deal with ill health if it arises.
A study recently published in the Lancet suggests that the UK is worse off on many indicators of poor health when compared to other countries, the full article describing the study can be found here on BBC Health.
The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt feels '30,000 lives a year could be saved if England performed as well as its European neighbours' and the focus should be on the 'big five avoidable killers'. These diseases are cancer, stroke, heart, respiratory and liver disease.
The majority of which link closely to the risk factors associated with lifestyle that appear in the news far too often, tobacco smoke (including second-hand smoke), obesity, inactivity, alcohol consumption and an unhealthy diet.
Its difficult to say what can be done, because if it were simple it would have been done already! One suggestion is that people pay closer attention to their health and make regular health checks in order to spot diseases earlier.
However ultimately I feel it the responsibility of everyone to try and achieve better health. Although this starts with individuals themselves help should come from government (both central and local), charities and employers for example and it must be remembered that certain individuals may need more help than others to either stay healthy or deal with ill health if it arises.
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Do hospitals need to do more about junk food?
The “obesity crisis” is a recurring theme in the news and is something I have written about before. I plan to write briefly on it again this week having read an article by a Cardiologist on the BBC news health page.
“A report by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges called for a range of measures...including improving food in hospitals” to try and tackle the so called obesity crisis. Another “report by the group Sustain has also called for hospital food to meet mandatory nutritional standards.”
After all, shouldn’t hospitals be leading by example?
The clinician speaks of their own experiences and feels it is unacceptable to have “fast food franchises on site and corridors littered with vending machines selling junk food.” I can draw parallels with this as the cardiology ward I volunteer on has a ‘fizzy drinks’ vending machine down the corridor, but by contrast the meals on the ward itself appear to be balanced and the menu follows a fortnightly cycle.
Chief executives and senior managers defend such practices by arguing that the revenue from the sale of these products is used to save lives. But is such practice acceptable? These items may well have contributed to the patients admission in the first place! Most would agree that selling cigarettes to produce revenue to treat patients would be unacceptable. So, how different is selling fast food products to produce revenue?
Hospital staff are also suffering from serious weight problems as well as patients. A recent report from the Royal College of Physicians revealed that “half of the 1.4 million people who work for the NHS are obese”
Shouldn’t NHS staff be leading by example?
The article suggests that education alone will not tackle the obesity crisis and that the food industry (for example advertisements,) has a much greater impact on our eating habits than we realise.
In summary the NHS and health campaigners need to try and capture the attention of the public above the food corporations who are driven by profit rather than good health. However perhaps patients will only listen once the message has reached the NHS staff surrounding them. To achieve this the food industry needs to be regulated more strictly and a good place to start would be hospitals. Finally obesity is an ongoing problem and not one which can be fixed quickly and simply.
“A report by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges called for a range of measures...including improving food in hospitals” to try and tackle the so called obesity crisis. Another “report by the group Sustain has also called for hospital food to meet mandatory nutritional standards.”
After all, shouldn’t hospitals be leading by example?
The clinician speaks of their own experiences and feels it is unacceptable to have “fast food franchises on site and corridors littered with vending machines selling junk food.” I can draw parallels with this as the cardiology ward I volunteer on has a ‘fizzy drinks’ vending machine down the corridor, but by contrast the meals on the ward itself appear to be balanced and the menu follows a fortnightly cycle.
Chief executives and senior managers defend such practices by arguing that the revenue from the sale of these products is used to save lives. But is such practice acceptable? These items may well have contributed to the patients admission in the first place! Most would agree that selling cigarettes to produce revenue to treat patients would be unacceptable. So, how different is selling fast food products to produce revenue?
Hospital staff are also suffering from serious weight problems as well as patients. A recent report from the Royal College of Physicians revealed that “half of the 1.4 million people who work for the NHS are obese”
Shouldn’t NHS staff be leading by example?
The article suggests that education alone will not tackle the obesity crisis and that the food industry (for example advertisements,) has a much greater impact on our eating habits than we realise.
In summary the NHS and health campaigners need to try and capture the attention of the public above the food corporations who are driven by profit rather than good health. However perhaps patients will only listen once the message has reached the NHS staff surrounding them. To achieve this the food industry needs to be regulated more strictly and a good place to start would be hospitals. Finally obesity is an ongoing problem and not one which can be fixed quickly and simply.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Stafford Hospital Scandal
Data shows there were between 400 and 1,200 more deaths than would have been expected at Stafford Hospital from 2005 to 2008. However it is impossible to say all of these patients would have survived if they had received better treatment.
But one thing that it is clear is that many were let down by a culture that put cost-cutting and meeting targets ahead of the quality of patient care.
Examples include patients being so thirsty that they had to drink dirty water from vases and at times receptionists were left to decide which patients to treat in A&E.
You may have read about investigations into the scandal before because there have actually been five major investigations into care at Stafford Hospital.
The first investigation began in May 2008 and was prompted by complaints and statistics showing unusually high death rates at the hospital. The March 2009 report following this investigation brought the scandal to national prominence for the first time.
The most recent investigation, the public inquiry, was looking at how the lapses could have been allowed to take place and why they were not picked up sooner. The commissioning and regulation of the trust at the time was also being looked at as this is something campaigners felt had not been looked at properly before.
The resultant report argued for "fundamental change" in the culture of the NHS to make sure patients were put first.
The report made a total of 290 recommendations, including making it a criminal offence to hide information about poor care, introducing laws to oblige doctors to be open with patients about their mistakes, a code of conduct for senior managers and an increased focus on compassion in the recruitment, training and education of nurses.
It was also announced that a new post of ‘chief inspector of hospitals’ will be created in the autumn.
However the fundamental change needed does not mean more reorganisation of the NHS. In fact, the report suggests that one of the factors behind the problems at Stafford Hospital was the constant upheaval the NHS is under.
Despite calls from relatives for the individuals involved in the scandal to face sanctions the report states that the board is ultimately responsible. ‘It was the board which took the decision to pursue a cost-cutting drive to achieve foundation trust status and it was the board which refused to listen to the complaints of patients and at times staff.’
But one thing that it is clear is that many were let down by a culture that put cost-cutting and meeting targets ahead of the quality of patient care.
Examples include patients being so thirsty that they had to drink dirty water from vases and at times receptionists were left to decide which patients to treat in A&E.
You may have read about investigations into the scandal before because there have actually been five major investigations into care at Stafford Hospital.
The first investigation began in May 2008 and was prompted by complaints and statistics showing unusually high death rates at the hospital. The March 2009 report following this investigation brought the scandal to national prominence for the first time.
The most recent investigation, the public inquiry, was looking at how the lapses could have been allowed to take place and why they were not picked up sooner. The commissioning and regulation of the trust at the time was also being looked at as this is something campaigners felt had not been looked at properly before.
The resultant report argued for "fundamental change" in the culture of the NHS to make sure patients were put first.
The report made a total of 290 recommendations, including making it a criminal offence to hide information about poor care, introducing laws to oblige doctors to be open with patients about their mistakes, a code of conduct for senior managers and an increased focus on compassion in the recruitment, training and education of nurses.
It was also announced that a new post of ‘chief inspector of hospitals’ will be created in the autumn.
However the fundamental change needed does not mean more reorganisation of the NHS. In fact, the report suggests that one of the factors behind the problems at Stafford Hospital was the constant upheaval the NHS is under.
Despite calls from relatives for the individuals involved in the scandal to face sanctions the report states that the board is ultimately responsible. ‘It was the board which took the decision to pursue a cost-cutting drive to achieve foundation trust status and it was the board which refused to listen to the complaints of patients and at times staff.’
Finally there are still certain questions which remain unanswered for me, for example; Why wasn't the alarm raised earlier? Could an incident like this happen again? Perhaps some of these questions will be answered in the full response to the inquiry due to released next month.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
The Great Abortion Divide
A short post this week on a programme I watched on BBC1 last night, ‘Panorama: The Great Abortion Divide’
The Abortion Act was passed in 1967. Technically the law did not legalise abortions, but rather provided legal defence for those carrying them out. Under the act abortions can be performed legally (in England, Scotland and Wales) under certain conditions. For example if continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical/mental health of the woman than having a termination.
In the UK each year about 200,000 abortions are carried out - as a result some people question whether the legislation passed in 1967 is being abused, did it intended to sanction so many procedures?
When discussing or thinking about medical ethics I try to think back to the four main ethical principles; autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice - how can these be applied to abortion?
As i’m sure you are aware there are two main groups in the ‘abortion divide’, pro-life and pro-choice and both are mentioned and represented in the programme. Something I found interesting was that there was very little talk of the foetus itself in the programme, what about the rights of the ‘child’? However this relates to the most complex issue in the debate - when does life begin, when does the foetus become a human being?
Another interesting aspect of the programme was just how different things are in Northern Ireland. Despite being in the UK a woman cannot get an abortion, even in cases of rape.
The legislation dates from 1861 and a woman can only access abortion services if her life is at risk.
The programme describes two options available to women in Northern Ireland with an unwanted pregnancy, a trip to England for a private procedure or breaking the law by taking abortion pills with the knowledge they could be charged with murder.
So, currently there are two very different laws governing abortion within the UK but perhaps this will change in the future? What about a reduction in the number of weeks after which you can have an abortion? (Something the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt revealed he would favour last year.)
If you can watch the programme on BBC iPlayer!
The Abortion Act was passed in 1967. Technically the law did not legalise abortions, but rather provided legal defence for those carrying them out. Under the act abortions can be performed legally (in England, Scotland and Wales) under certain conditions. For example if continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical/mental health of the woman than having a termination.
In the UK each year about 200,000 abortions are carried out - as a result some people question whether the legislation passed in 1967 is being abused, did it intended to sanction so many procedures?
When discussing or thinking about medical ethics I try to think back to the four main ethical principles; autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice - how can these be applied to abortion?
As i’m sure you are aware there are two main groups in the ‘abortion divide’, pro-life and pro-choice and both are mentioned and represented in the programme. Something I found interesting was that there was very little talk of the foetus itself in the programme, what about the rights of the ‘child’? However this relates to the most complex issue in the debate - when does life begin, when does the foetus become a human being?
Another interesting aspect of the programme was just how different things are in Northern Ireland. Despite being in the UK a woman cannot get an abortion, even in cases of rape.
The legislation dates from 1861 and a woman can only access abortion services if her life is at risk.
The programme describes two options available to women in Northern Ireland with an unwanted pregnancy, a trip to England for a private procedure or breaking the law by taking abortion pills with the knowledge they could be charged with murder.
So, currently there are two very different laws governing abortion within the UK but perhaps this will change in the future? What about a reduction in the number of weeks after which you can have an abortion? (Something the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt revealed he would favour last year.)
If you can watch the programme on BBC iPlayer!
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Meningitis B vaccine gets European licence
But isn’t there already a vaccine for meningitis? Yes, there are many vaccinations against bacterial meningitis however a vaccine for meningitis B has not been available. Until now...
The ‘Bexsero’ vaccine is the first to cover meningococcal B meningitis
To begin with here are some facts and figures about meningitis B in particular:
- About 1870 people contract the infection each year and one in ten die as a result
- However around a quarter of all survivors are left with life altering side effects such as brain damage or limb loss
- This is caused by inflammation of the cell membranes of cells in the brain and spinal cord caused by the bacterial infection.
Secondly some more information about the ‘Bexsero’ vaccine itself:
- Developing a vaccine against meningitis B has been particularly challenging as it is caused by thousands of subtly different strains of bacteria. This consequently makes it very difficult to find a single jab that could cover them all.
- As a result the genetic structures of the varying strains were analysed in search of a common shared feature which could be targeted
- The product is a jab likely to be effective against 73% of the different variations of meningitis B
Finally when (and even if) the vaccine will be introduced in the UK is unknown, however now the vaccine has obtained a licence a decision may be made to introduce the vaccine into the childhood vaccination schedule in the UK. Meningitis Trust feel it should be introduced as quickly as possible but we will have to wait and see what happens
(Source: NHS Choices)
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Clever bacteria
I plan to write very briefly this week as I am in the middle of exams and should be revising! I hope everyone else’s exams have/are going well.
Infectious bacteria have for the first time been caught performing "biological alchemy" to transform parts of a host body into those more suited to their purposes, by a team in Edinburgh.
The study showed leprosy-causing bacteria turning nerve cells into stem cells and muscle cells.
Furthermore as these stem cells are “self” they can reach their desired location undetected by the immune system.
It is hoped that findings such as these could lead to new ways of developing stem cells in humans and/or improve the treatment of bacterial disease. However views on the clinical relevance of these findings are mixed.
Infectious bacteria have for the first time been caught performing "biological alchemy" to transform parts of a host body into those more suited to their purposes, by a team in Edinburgh.
The study showed leprosy-causing bacteria turning nerve cells into stem cells and muscle cells.
Essentially these bacteria are transforming nerve cells, which are static, into something which is more valuable to them. These stem cells can then be grown and transported around the body.
Furthermore as these stem cells are “self” they can reach their desired location undetected by the immune system.
It is hoped that findings such as these could lead to new ways of developing stem cells in humans and/or improve the treatment of bacterial disease. However views on the clinical relevance of these findings are mixed.
Nonetheless the finding is very interesting and shows just how complex the interactions between humans and bacteria can be! You can read the full article here…
(Alchemy: The medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter, esp. that of base metals into gold.)
(Alchemy: The medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter, esp. that of base metals into gold.)
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
The Social Care Question
Evidence suggests around three quarters of us will need some form of support in our old age, combine this statistic with the fact that our population is “ageing” and it is clear that care of the elderly is a very important issue.
Unlike NHS care, such help and support is not free - there is simply not enough money for it to be free..
So, how much should such care cost an individual? And how is it/how should it be regulated?
Well, essentially that is 'the social care question'...! The degree of care needed (part time/full time), savings and the availability of care home spaces/carers are all considered. To see a more interesting and detailed breakdown of how the system works click here (Source: BBC)
Unlike NHS care, such help and support is not free - there is simply not enough money for it to be free..
So, how much should such care cost an individual? And how is it/how should it be regulated?
Well, essentially that is 'the social care question'...! The degree of care needed (part time/full time), savings and the availability of care home spaces/carers are all considered. To see a more interesting and detailed breakdown of how the system works click here (Source: BBC)
For one in 10 people these care costs could amount to more than £100,000 over a lifetime. Costs like these mean that some people are forced to sell their homes or use up their life savings to pay for help in their old age.
The government’s intention is to cap the costs - at £75,000 - however this is more than double the £35,000 suggested cap based on careful consideration and calculation by an independent commission two years ago.
Although still a considerable amount, it is believed that at £35,000 people would engage and begin to plan for old age however at £75,000 there is a danger that the public might not do so as the figure is simply too high and they’re better off running the risk of not investing.
If people began to invest the insurance industry would follow suit, developing policies knowing that any catastrophic costs would be covered by the government.
To conclude, the economics is over my head in truth but I think the problem in question is very simple - how are we going to provide care and support for the elderly in the future? The current government hopes to address this growing problem and I am interested to see what their final suggestions will be. It is thought that a plan will be mapped out properly in the next month.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Tackling unhealthy eating
In my previous post I mentioned that the coalition
government will target ‘unhealthy habits’ in this new year to try and improve
health nationally and this would consequently lead to treatment savings within the NHS.
This is something which has featured in the news
this week (week one of the new year!), the ‘unhealthy habit’ being unhealthy eating, one of the main causes
of obesity. “Obesity costs the NHS £5bn each year and the latest figures from
the Department of Health show that the number of children who are overweight or
obese doubles during their time at primary school.”
‘Healthy’
food can often be the more expensive option and therefore access to such food
in certain areas or certain families can be difficult and limited. As a result
certain food firms are involved in a recent scheme by ‘Change4Life’ and offers
on their food products will be available at more than 1000 Asda, Aldi and
Co-Operative food stores across the UK.
Although a “responsibility deal” is currently in
place (as well as schemes such as Change4life) and has managed to improve food content
and labelling, a labour representative has asked whether a legal limit on the
amount of fat, sugar and salt should be established. Especially in foods aimed
at children given the statistic above for example. Essentially, is the current voluntary approach doing
enough to regulate what our food contains or is it time for the introduction of
legislation?
Here are five potential food 'targets' that could be affected by such legislation if it were introduced:
1.) Breakfast cereals - reduce sugar content
2.) Fruit juice - not pure fruit juice but the ones which are not pure fruit juice and can have large amounts of sugar added
3.) Ready meals - stop the addition of too much salt in certain brands
4.) Crisps - reduce salt levels
5.) Biscuits, cookies and cakes - rethink with regards to fat levels
To give a more detailed example, the party says measures could
include a 30% cap on sugar content in cereals aimed at children – significantly
lower than in several well-known brands.
To give an example of legislation elsewhere,
in French schools all food and drink is controlled, following the introduction
of these measures studies have shown that the number of overweight children
have decreased from 18.1% in 2000 to 15.5% in 2007. How telling is this statistic? Is the decrease really that significant and what changes have occurred since 2007...
Finally a few thoughts on the idea, for example is such a scheme realistically controllable? Would legislation have its desired effect, just because the healthy food is more readily available does not mean it will be purchased by families and would the products be affordable for all families? Could the money be invested elsewhere, perhaps education or accessible exercise facilities? Compulsory education on healthy eating with examples of which meals are 'healthy' in all secondary schools in the UK?
Source: BBC Health News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)