Price/Value Calculations Are Difficult to Make

For the study, the researchers looked into nearly 4,500 different food items. “Healthy foods” were defined as products containing at least half a serving of one of the major food groups recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans of 2010, including vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and proteins, as well as only moderate amounts of saturated fats, added sugars and sodium.

The takeaway from the study is that contrary to popular belief, it can actually cost more to eat badly, said Elisa Zied, a Registered Dietitian and regular contributor to MSNBC. “Comparing the costs of commonly available foods is important because, at a time when two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and many low-income families struggle to control their grocery bills, the belief that healthier foods are always pricier adds to the problem. Although many variables – personal preferences, convenience and cultural factors – play a role in what we buy at the supermarket, cost may play an even greater role in our food choices,” she said.

While I agree with this assessment, it seems to me that these variables cannot easily be changed. Poor eating habits can only be improved with education. Many people who eat unhealthy foods on a regular basis don’t really know what makes these foods detrimental to their health. They just eat what they like and what they are used to. The same goes for convenience and culture. If a fast food restaurant or a food truck is just around the corner, but the next supermarket is miles away, guess what most folks will go for?

Also, the reputation of health food stores to be overly pricey is well deserved. Why, for example, is Whole Foods Market often called “Whole Paycheck Market”? Even if not every item in the store is excessively expensive, perception matters, and price-conscious consumers won’t even try shopping there.

The USDA study is a laudable attempt to shed more light on the true costs of food and, consequently, the affordability of healthy eating. But it’s a theoretical exercise with few practical implications. People don’t calculate like this. They buy the kind of food they can afford and they don’t want to drive long distances to find it. Those who have to get by on a limited budget have to consider expenses for gasoline and electricity as well. Even home-cooking is not cheap when you include energy costs. Plus it’s time consuming and adds to the daily workload (not to mention that you have to learn a few skills with the skillet).

Having said that, it should be pointed out more often to consumers that the costs of fast food, pizza and TV dinners are by no means negligible. A family dinner for four from the drive-through can easily set you back 30 bucks or more. For a similar amount, you could get, for example, a green salad, a whole chicken with some vegetable side dishes, and fruit for dessert. The difference is that a whole lot more preparation goes into a meal made from scratch, and it may be less fun than digging into a pizza that has just been delivered to your door. But those are the real calculations we have to consider before America’s eating habits can change for the better.

Related articles:

1. Sharp Increases of Food Prices Make Healthy Eating Harder
2. Healthy Eating Is Too Expensive for Most Americans
3. MyPyramid.gov – The U.S. Government Endorsed Guidelines to Healthy Eating

A weekly column by Timi Gustafson R.D. on issues of health, nutrition and lifestyle is now available at The Seattle Post-Intelligencer/Seattlepi.com – Go to Articles »

Related articles:

1. At a Newspaper Near You…
2. At a Newspaper Near You…
3. At a Newspaper Near You…

Related articles:

1. In Hard Times, Good Nutrition and Physical Fitness Are Often Among the First Casualties
2. Exercise at a Young Age Has Many Benefits Besides Physical Fitness
3. Nutrition Guidelines Remain Unnecessarily Hard to Decipher

New Worries About Safety of
Meats Served in Restaurants

TG, better known as ‘meat glue,’ is an enzyme that is able to bind proteins together. Pieces of raw meats bound with TG can be handled as if they were whole cuts. It comes in powder form and restaurants reportedly use it as a bonding agent for a number of purposes, including patching smaller meat scraps together to serve them as larger steaks. TG is also utilized for certain culinary creations like bacon-wrapped beef and the likes. After being cooked, the glue lines become invisible, so most consumers would not be able to spot them when their dish is served.

Chefs have long applied such techniques without them ever becoming an issue. So why is there this sudden attention? The current outcry is just another example of consumers not understanding what goes into their food, according to Dr. Michael Batz, a food safety researcher at the University of Florida Emerging Pathogens Institute. People simply don’t know what they are eating and it makes them nervous. Lack of transparency from the consumer’s perspective is what drives the discussion about TG use right now.

That is something that has to change, according to one senator from California, Ted W. Lieu, who has called for a government investigation into the potential health risks of TG. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the senator expressed concerns that ‘meat glue’ may be dangerous for consumers. As reported by the Los Angeles Times (5/2/2012), Mr. Lieu feared the practice of combining different meats could give rise to food-borne illnesses. The USDA has approved the use of TG as “generally safe.”

The senator’s worries are not completely unwarranted. The meat parts most exposed to bacteria during handling, transportation and storage are those on the outer surface. When meat is cooked, those contaminants are eliminated. But the center of the cut remains largely uncooked, especially if you like your steak rare or medium-rare. With single pieces this is generally not a problem. However, when several are glued together, bacteria can get on the inside and cause potential contamination.

While acknowledging the widespread use of TG in restaurant kitchens, a spokesperson for the National Restaurant Association (NRA) said the practice of combining smaller or inferior meat pieces together to sell them as bigger cuts of superior quality is not what reputable restaurants do. “It is illegal to misrepresent one cut of meat as another,” said Joan McGlockton, Vice President for Food Policy at the NRA. Considering the costs of TG, which is around 40 dollars a pound wholesale, it would also make little economic sense.

In terms of food safety, even glued-together meats pose no greater risk than so-called ‘non-intact’ cuts like blade-tenderized steaks or ground beef. If meat isn’t handled properly, transfer of bacteria is always a possibility.

Unlike in restaurants, the use of TG in meat products sold in supermarkets must be disclosed. “Formed” or “reformed” meats, as they are identified, have to list TG enzymes as an ingredient.

Related articles:

1. Growing Concerns About Eggs
2. Putting Red Meat in Perspective
3. Everything You Need to Know…

Related articles:

1. At a Newspaper Near You…
2. At a Newspaper Near You…
3. At a Newspaper Near You…

A spokesperson said Kellogg wants to include new categories of food and flavors for “snacking occasions” because that is where eating trends are going right now, according to the New York Times reporting on Kellogg’s acquisition plans (4/22/2012). “What Kellogg is saying is we’re buying a snacking mentality with a good brand with global exposure,” it said in the article.

Constant Snacking Contributes to Obesity Crisis

It’s this snacking mentality that gives nutritional health experts a headache. Through aggressive advertising and marketing, the snack food industry tries to seduce Americans to consume ever more of its products and the consequences are devastating, said Dr. Barry Popkin, author of a study titled “Tends in Snacking Among U.S. Children,” which was published in the journal “Health Affairs.”

The study tracked the eating habits of over 30,000 children and adolescents between 1977 and 2006. The researchers found that calorie intake from snack foods increased by almost 30 percent over that time period. While portion sizes of meals eaten at home and at restaurants have also become larger, the real reason why we eat more is that we eat more often than we used to, according to Dr. Popkin. “Food is there, it’s available all the time. It’s not very healthy, but it’s tasty. It’s sweet, it’s salty, it’s fatty – all the things we love,” he said.

Snack food is uniquely addictive, according to J. Stanton of gnoll.org. “Why can we demolish entire tubes of Pringles, boxes of donuts, trays of chocolates, and bags of goldfish crackers, when we would never finish the same number of calories in the form of meat and vegetables? Because snack food is a magic trick, played on our senses of taste. Snack food is designed to [give] our taste buds a supernormal stimulus… we can’t resist,” he wrote.

In addition, the industry does everything it can to shift our eating patterns from the traditional three square meals a day to near-constant eating, said Dr. Popkin. “It’s all about making people think they want to have something in their hands all the time.”

Naturally, the youngest customers are the easiest targets. Among the most striking trends are the snacking habits of preschoolers, according to the study. Children ages two to six are consuming as much as six snacks per day. Pediatricians warn that constant snacking at a young age often leads to poor eating patterns that last a lifetime.

Easy access to snack foods is also an issue. People used to go to the gas station to get gasoline and nothing else. Now there are salty crackers, candy bars, fruit juices and soft drinks staring at you everywhere you turn. “The ubiquity of snack foods in particular has helped drive overeating,” said Dr. Lisa Young, professor for nutrition at New York University and author of “The Portion Teller.”

It is not only the constant exposure to merchandise that increases people’s consumption. It is also the culture we live in. Even those who want their families to eat healthily feel the pressure to buy snack foods on occasion. “Not a month goes by without someone somewhere asking me to serve up some snack for an event that one of my children will attend,” wrote Jennifer Steinhauer in an article for the New York Times. “Snacks must be served at every sporting event, even those taking place an hour before lunch. Apparently, we have collectively decided as a culture that it is impossible for children to take part in any activity without simultaneously shoving something into their pie holes.”

Once the expectation has been created that snacks are always available, it is almost impossible to redirect a child’s behavior. The reason why so many parents pack ample amounts of pretzels, crackers and fruit bars whenever they leave the house is “to stave off tantrums” as one mother was quoted saying. Snacks are used as pacifiers. For a little peace and quiet, parents quickly give in to their offspring’s demands and it sets a pattern that becomes hard to break.

Still, parents are responsible for setting boundaries in and outside the home. Guidelines work best, of course, when everyone follows them equally. It is up to the adults what kinds of foods and drinks come into the house, what meals are being served, and how often treats are allowed. They should also set a good example by their own behavior. Time is of the essence. Once kids are grown up and gain more independence, it is usually too late to make any changes.

Related articles:

1. Eating Out and Frequent Snacking Seen as Main Causes for Obesity
2. Food Industry: Walk the Talk to Protect Our Kids’ Health
3. Healthy Snacking for Everyday Families

A weekly column by Timi Gustafson R.D. on issues of health, nutrition and lifestyle is now available at The Bellevue, WA, Examiner.com blog – Go to Articles »

Related articles:

1. At a Newspaper Near You…
2. At a Newspaper Near You…
3. At a Newspaper Near You…

The study report was presented at a conference sponsored by the CDC, titled “Weight of the Nation” (May 7 to 8, 2012) in Washington D.C. and simultaneously published in the American Journal for Preventive Medicine.

Two U.S. Government Agencies
Warn of Dire Prospects for
The Nation’s Health

While it is difficult to make these kinds of forecasts, it is clear that obesity trends that started in the 1980s and 1990s continue on their paths. Currently, over 60 percent of Americans have weight problems and over 30 percent are diagnosed as obese. Even more worrisome are the growing rates among young people. Over 20 percent of children and adolescents are obese today.

Obesity can cause a host of chronic health problems such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and also certain forms of cancer. Many people who develop weight-related illnesses during childhood are likely to face at least some of the consequences throughout their adult-lives.

“The prospect of such increasing rates, particularly those of severely obese Americans, is alarming, especially since efforts aimed at helping people to lose weight have so far proven relatively ineffective,” said Dr. Eric Finkelstein, one of the authors of the CDC report.

For a long time, the causes of obesity have been in dispute. One popular explanation is that people just eat too much and exercise too little. Some health experts say it’s not that simple. In a separate report on America’s obesity epidemic that was also released at the “Weight of the Nation” conference, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that the crisis is deeply rooted in the environment we live in, which is, as the report called it, “obesogenic.” According to the IOM, it is not so much people’s behavior that has changed over the past few decades but rather a number of factors that are beyond any individual’s control, including agricultural policies and food manufacturing.

“When you see the increase in obesity, you ask, what changed? The answer is, the environment,” said Dr. Shiriki Kumanyika, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania of Medicine and IOM committee member in an interview with Reuters. “The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment.”

Instead of appealing to “personal responsibility,” the report suggests for policy makers to pursue structural changes like shifting subsidies from corn and wheat farms to fruit and vegetable growers, creating more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and limiting the number of fast food outlets near schools and residential areas and so on. The hot-button-issue of imposing surtaxes on sodas to curb consumption was also mentioned.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group for the food manufacturing and restaurant industry, rejected the IOM report and argued that Americans should be free in making their own food choices but should act responsibly. It accused the IOM of joining forces with the nation’s “food nannies,” according to a Reuters report (5/8/2012).

By contrast, the IOM panel said that blaming obesity on a failure of personal responsibility and individual willpower has long been used by the industry as the basis for resisting legislative and regulatory efforts to address the problem.

The costs for treating obesity and obesity-related diseases are responsible for about 20 percent of all spending on healthcare today, about $190 billion annually, not counting rising insurance premiums, lost productivity and missed work days due to illness. The IOM urges employers and insurance companies to participate more aggressively in the fight against obesity, if for no other reason than their own bottom line.

Related articles:

1. Americans Are More Realistic About the Quality of Their Diet
2. F.D.A. Considers Obesity Surgery for Less Obese Patients
3. Almost Half of All Cancer Cases May Be Preventable

Obesity is commonly associated with increased health risks, reduced quality of life and rising health care costs. Diseases in connection with weight problems include diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and some forms of cancer.

African-Americans and Hispanics
Have the Highest Rates of Weight Problems

The current obesity rate of Mexican-American adults is about 41 percent, significantly higher than the overall national average of about 36 percent of Americans who are obese, which is considred as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight range, according to the NCHS special report on nutrition and chronic health conditions of Hispanics living in the U.S. (3/28/2012).

African-Americans have the highest obesity rates at almost 50 percent. Among African-American women, the numbers are especially dramatic. Four out of five are overweight or obese, according to the Office of Minority Health (OMH), a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In response to these alarming statistics, the U.S. government set as a specific goal the elimination of health disparities among racial and ethnic populations. “Given the overall high prevalence of obesity and the significant differences among non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics, effective policies and environmental strategies that promote healthy eating and physical activity are needed for all populations and geographic areas, but particularly for those populations and areas disproportionally affected by obesity,” states a CDC report in 2008, titled “Differences in Prevalence of Obesity.”

Health problems affecting minorities are a grave concern for the country as a whole. The Hispanic population is the fastest-growing ethnic group in the U.S., and Hispanics of Mexican origin account for the largest portion. It is estimated that by 2050 over 130 million Hispanics will be living here.

Already over 20 percent of Mexican-Americans suffer from high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels caused by weight problems, and by all indications these numbers will keep rising. In terms of future health care costs, the prospects are dismal as well. Only about half of the Mexican American population has health insurance, according to the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). For many, emergency care will be their only option for treatment.

First generation immigrants seem to be less prone to develop weight problems due to changing environments and lifestyles than their descendents. Second and third-generation Mexican-Americans are more than twice as likely to become obese, according to a study conducted by the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina and published in the Journal of Nutrition. One reason may be changing preferences from a traditional Mexican diet, dominated by fresh foods like corn, beans and vegetables, to an American-style diet based on meat products and processed foods.

Socio-economic circumstances and lack of nutritional education may also play a role. Healthier food items like fresh produce are often too expensive for low-income immigrant families. Many minority women are completely unfamiliar with concepts like counting calories, balancing food groups and adopting leaner cooking techniques. “The typical Mexican recipe calls for ‘enough’ or ‘not too much’ of an ingredient, rather than specific measurements, said Dr. Nangel Lindberg, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Oregon, and lead author of a study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which was published in the Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health.

In connection with the study, a “culturally tailored weight management program” was established to help participating Hispanic women better understand how portion sizes and calorie intake can be controlled and educate them about healthier cooking styles. The one-year program, named “De Por Vida” (For Life), by itself was a success as it helped most participants to lose on average over 15 pounds.

Related articles:

1. Despite of the Obesity Crisis, the Eating Habits of Most Americans Remain Unchanged
2. BMI Found Insufficient for Measuring Obesity
3. Obesity Rate in America Keeps Rising With No End in Sight

According to the CDC, asthma ranks among the leading chronic illnesses affecting young people. It is one of the most frequent causes of school absenteeism. About 10 percent of school children miss classes because of asthma at least once a year.

Chronic Airway Disorders Are on The Rise

Especially low-income populations are at an increased risk. 11.2 percent of Americans living below the poverty line are reportedly affected. Females seem more prone to developing the disease than males.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways. This can include narrowing of the bronchial tubes, swelling of the bronchial tube lining and an increase of mucus secretion to the point where the airways become blocked. In case of a so-called asthma attack, a person’s airways are so obstructed that it becomes difficult to breath, which can lead to a life-threatening situation. Thanks to faster intervention and preventive treatments, death rates in connection with asthma have dropped by a third compared to 10 years ago.

Asthma is often misdiagnosed as allergies. Not all people who experience allergy symptoms have asthma. Like allergies, asthma is associated with exposure to allergens and also smoking, chemicals and air pollution.

Identifying and controlling potential triggers of asthma attacks is crucial for effective treatment. Although there is no known cure or even prevention of asthma, multiple steps can be taken to limit exposure to allergens and other irritants.

The CDC recommends the creation of more asthma-friendly environments such as schools by implementing policies and procedures that allow students to successfully manage their asthma. These can include providing access to asthma care clinicians and school nurses, educational and awareness-building programs, training of teachers and school staff, community outreach and so forth.

In the home, it is recommended to keep dust and dirt from accumulating. Dust mites are notorious asthma attack triggers. Ventilation and air filtering is equally as important. Pet animals can be a significant source of allergens and should be kept away from asthma sufferers. Exposure to a whole range of potential irritants, including tobacco smoke, wood and coal fire smoke, strong odors from cooking, household chemicals, paint fumes and cosmetic products should be avoided as well.

Even dietary precautions may be necessary. Some food-borne allergens can become triggers and it is crucial to identify and eliminate them as much as possible. Some people may be able to tolerate smaller amounts of foods they are allergic to. Only experience can determine the limits.

There is no medication that can cure asthma. But medications are available to control asthma symptoms. There are different types and they come in different forms such as pills, aerosol inhalers, powder inhalers, liquids and injections.

The two main types of medications are anti-inflammatories and bronchodilators. Anti-inflammatories reduce swelling and mucus production in the airways. They can lower the intensity of asthma symptoms and allow for better airflow. Bronchodilators relax the muscles around the airways, thereby easing breathing. Bronchodilators are especially effective during asthma attacks.

The primary purpose of taking asthma medications is to control and relieve. Most asthma medications must be taken regularly, often daily. So-called reliever or rescue medicines are only to be used during acute attacks.

How often an asthma patient has to take medications depends on the severity of his or her symptoms. Some are affected only during certain times of the year, e.g. in the spring. However, no one should experiment with asthma medication dosages without prior consultation with a doctor.

Related articles:

1. A Sharp Rise of Asthma in the U.S.
2. One Out of Five Americans Found to Be Mentally Ill
3. Nearly Half of All Americans Will Be Obese Within Two Decades, Study Projects