Category Archives: Diet And Food

Lettuce can be safely grown in space using a unique system for plant cultivation in weightless environments, according to a study published on March 6 in Frontiers in Plant Science. The growing system was designed by NASA scientists with the goal of improving astronauts traditional diet of dehydrated meats, freeze-dried ice cream, and other processed foods that degrade and become less nutritious over time, according to The Guardian.

Veggie, as the system is called, addresses the unique challenges of watering plants in space where we can get too much water or not enough water, coauthor Gioia Massa, a plant scientist at the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida, tells The New York Times. Water coats your surfaces. It will clog the pores of things. It will even crawl up the plants if you have too much water.

Roughly the size of a piece of carry-on luggage, Veggie holds six plants that grow from seeds embedded in wicks on what the authors call plant pillows. These pillows are filled with fertilizer atop a clay foundation that is typically used in baseball fields, reports CNN. The pillows are injected with water, which the wicks then deliver to the seeds. A magenta LED light and a fan contribute to optimal growing conditions for the plants.

In the new study, the scientists looked at batches of lettuce grown between 2014 and 2016, Some of the leaves were eaten by astronauts who cleaned them with sanitary wipes, and others were deep-frozen and analyzed on Earth, according to The Guardian. The researchers found that the space-grown lettuce had a similar composition to Earth-grown lettuce, but was higher in phosphorous, sulfur, zinc, sodium, potassium, and bacteria, likely due to the warm, humid growing conditions, though the plants did not contain E. coli, Salmonella, or Staphylococcus aureus.

Its just a rigorous, careful study on the safety of crops grown in space, environmental plant physiologist Bruce Bugbee of Utah State University who did not participate in the research tells the Times. This kind of research is really helpful for us to feed people away from the planet Earth.

We were delightfully surprised at how much the astronauts enjoyed growing and eating the fresh lettuce! says coauthor Christina Khodadad of NASA's Kennedy Space Center in remarks to CNN. The ability to grow food in a sustainable system that is safe for crew consumption will become critical as NASA moves toward longer missions. Salad-type, leafy greens can be grown and consumed fresh with few resources.

Massa tells CNN that future research will look at growing peppers, tomatoes, and other types of leafy plants in order to add more fresh produce to the astronaut diet.

Amy Schleunes is an intern atThe Scientist. Email her ataschleunes@the-scientist.com.

Read the original post:
Space-Grown Lettuce Is Safe and Astronaut-Approved - The Scientist

WASHINGTON A solution could be in sight for the nations truck-parking crisis. In a bipartisan effort today, U.S. Reps. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and Angie Craig, D-Minn., both members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, legislation to increase truck-parking capacity.

H.R. 6104, the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, would dedicate $755 million to projects designed to increase truck-parking spaces so truck drivers can safely comply with hours-of-service regulations. The legislation proposes constructing new truck-parking facilities and converting existing weigh stations and rest areas to include functional parking spaces for truck drivers. Funding would be awarded on a competitive basis, and applicants would be required to submit detailed proposals to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Right now, there is a lack of places for truck drivers to safely stop, forcing them to pull over to the side of the road, or continue driving, both of which are risky, said Rep. Angie Craig. Thats why I am proud to be working my colleague, Rep. Mike Bost from Illinois to increase truck parking spaces, increasing safety for folks transporting goods to and from Minnesotas Second Congressional District.

Bost, who said he grew up in a family trucking business, is no stranger to the rewards and pitfalls of the industry.

I learned at early age what a rewarding career [trucking] could be, said Bost. However, I also understood that trucking can be a tough, demanding and even dangerous job. One concern for truck drivers is the lack of enough safe parking spots where they can get the rest they need without risking collisions on the shoulder of the highway or being forced to push their limits to find the next rest stop. This puts the truckers and other motorists as significant risk. Thats why Im proud to lead this effort to create sufficient rest parking options for long-haul truckers.

H.R. 6104 is supported by numerous trucking-industry organizations, including American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), the National Association of Small Trucking Companies and the National Motorists Association.

Americas truck drivers work every day to deliver goods to keep our economy moving safely and efficiently, said Chris Spear, president and CEO of American Trucking Associations (ATA). The government mandates drivers pull over and rest to comply with the hours-of-service rules; the least our government can do is work to ensure [the drivers] have a safe place to park to get the rest they need.

Reps. Bost and Craig recognize that in order to do their jobs, truck drivers need paces where they can safely park and rest and we applaud them for their leadership in introducing this important legislation, Spear continued.

Congress and the Federal Highway Administration have tried to address the issue of commercial-truck parking with the enactment of Jasons Law and the launching of the National Coalition of Truck Parking. Even so, nearly half of all truck drivers report being forced to park on the shoulders of highways or other unofficial, unsafe locations due to lack of parking. On average, the cost of looking for parking amounts to $5,500 in lost wages each year.

One of the persistent complaints our drivers have is that they struggle to find safe parking, said Randy Guillot, ATA chairman and president of Triple G Express Inc., New Orleans. This bill will provide the means to help address that concern.

The truck-parking shortage has garnered national media attention in recent days, with the shooting of a truck driver by a security guard at a travel stop in Oklahoma City during a dispute about a reserved parking spot.

After decades of ignoring the problem, Congress is finally getting serious about fixing the severe lack of truck parking across the country. Finding a safe place to park is something most people take for granted, but its a daily struggle for hundreds of thousands of truckers, said Todd Spencer, president and CEO of OOIDA. Congressman Bost and Congresswoman Craig have shown they not only understand truckers are experiencing a crisis, but have the mettle to address it through groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation.

David Heller, vice president of government affairs for TCA, said, Truck parking consistently ranks as one of the most important issues for the Truckload Carriers Association and trucking stakeholders across the country. On a daily basis, our companies drivers face dangerous conditions due to the lack of safe and convenient parking options. TCA applauds Reps. Bost and Craig for their dedication to resolving this critical safety obstacle through this legislation, which will devote significant funding toward the development of suitable parking on our nations highways.

David Owen, president of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, said, The availability of truck parking has become so scarce that, in many parts of the country, its reached crisis levels. The scope of the problem is such that the solution must be multifaceted. The legislation sponsored by Reps. Bost and Craig represents an important part of the solution grants dedicated to putting truck parking along federal roads.

More:
Groundbreaking legislation would create safe, accessible parking for trucks - The Trucker

Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released the2020 Leafy Greens STEC Action Plan, outlining steps the agency plans to take this year to advance the safety of leafy greens. While most strains ofE. coliare harmless, Shiga toxin-producingE. coli, or STEC, can be life-threatening. The most common STEC,E. coliO157:H7, is the type most often associated with outbreaks.

Fresh leafy greens are an important part of an overall healthy diet. While millions of servings of leafy greens are consumed safely every day, this produce commodity has been too often implicated in outbreaks of foodborne illness. Between 2009 and 2018, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified 40 foodborne outbreaks of STEC infections with a confirmed or suspected link to leafy greens in the U.S.

In an FDA Voices article, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas highlight the importance of FDAs action plan and the agencys focus on prevention, response and addressing knowledge gaps.

The FDA intends to hold a webinar in coming weeks to further discuss the action plan with interested stakeholders. More information, including how to register for the webinar, will soon be available on FDA.gov.

For More Information

2020 Leafy Greens Action Plan

FDA Outlines 2020 Action Plan to Advance the Safety of Leafy Greens

E. coliand Foodborne Illness

View original post here:
FDA Releases Action Plan to Advance the Safety of Leafy Greens - PerishableNews

Twenty-seven countries and regions are restricting entry of visitors from Japan in response to the novel coronavirus epidemic, the Foreign Ministry said Saturday.

Additionally, 63 countries and regions are restricting the movement of people who arrive from Japan, the ministry said.

A senior ministry official expressed concern about these measures, saying they may spread an image that Japan is dangerous.

Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said Friday that the ministry has been asking India and other nations to lift their entry restrictions on travelers from Japan.

We are making necessary requests while explaining Japans situation and measures, Motegi said at a Diet meeting.

India has invalidated visas it issued to Japanese before Tuesday. Trinidad and Tobago has banned people from entering within 14 days of leaving Japan, China and some other countries.

On Friday, South Korea said it will suspend its visa waiver program for Japan.

Liberia has decided to quarantine travelers from Japan, China and some other countries for 14 days for monitoring, while Kuwait is asking travelers from Japan to stay at home for 14 days.

On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that America may impose travel restrictions on Japan as well.

Foreign media have been increasingly doubtful that the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics will be held as scheduled.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Masato Otaka told a U.S. newspaper on Monday that Tokyo will take every measure to contain the epidemic and hold the Tokyo Games safely and successfully.

Here is the original post:
27 countries and regions restrict entry from Japan over coronavirus crisis - The Japan Times

If you were to ask a group of medical professionals to name the most significant public health achievements of the past century, antibiotics and widespread vaccination against infectious diseases would almost certainly top the list. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would add motor vehicle safety, fluoridated water, workplace safety, and a decrease in cigarette smoking.

If you were to say pesticides not only belonged on the list, but well toward the top of it, you would likely be greeted with skepticism, if not incredulity. On this topic, highly educated professionals are little different from general consumers, who get most of their information from media stories that overwhelmingly portray pesticides as a health threat or even a menace. At best, some open-minded interlocutors might concede that pesticides are a necessary evil that regulators should seek to limit and wherever possible, eliminate from our environment.

Yet by any of the standard measures of public health reductions in mortality, impairment, and infectious diseases, as well as improved quality of life the contribution of modern pesticides has been profound. An adequate supply of food is absolutely foundational to human health. Denied sufficient calories, vitamins, and other micronutrients, the bodys systems break down. Fat stores are depleted and the body begins to metabolize muscles and other organs to maintain the energy necessary for life. Cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal functions falter and the immune system is seriously compromised.

A 2019 report from the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) found that one-third of children under age five are malnourished stunted, wasted or overweight while two-thirds are at risk of malnutrition and hidden hunger because of the poor quality of their diets. And according to the World Health Organization, undernutrition is currently an underlying cause in nearly half of deaths in children under five years of age. Inadequately nourished newborns who survive early childhood can suffer permanently stunted growth and lifelong cognitive impairment. Death results more often from undernutrition than insect-borne killers like malaria, Lyme disease, Zika virus, dengue and yellow fever combined. In addition, it makes people more susceptible to such infectious diseases. Pesticides help to address all of these problems by increasing the food supply, controlling the growth of harmful mycotoxins, and preventing bites from mosquitoes, ticks, other disease-transferring insects, and rodents.

Food Security is a Recent Phenomenon

The medical community knows all of the broad strokes above, at least in the abstract. But living in a time of unprecedented agricultural abundance, we often take for granted the provision of adequate diets. We shouldnt.

As the economist Robert Fogel noted in a 2004 book, even in advanced, industrialized nations, widespread food security is a relatively recent phenomenon. According to Professor Fogel, per capita calorie consumption in mid-nineteenth century Britain barely equaled what the World Bank would designate today as that in low income nations. The availability of calories in early nineteenth century France would place it today among the worlds most food insecure. It wasnt until well into the twentieth century that even the wealthiest nations reached the level of per capita calorie consumption necessary to escape chronic undernutrition.

What made that possible was a rapid increase in farm productivity following World War II. Crop yields had been improving during the previous two centuries, to be sure, but as can be seen in charts of historical yield trends, progress was slow and uneven. That changed dramatically in the mid-1940s, when the gradually ascending yield curves suddenly turned sharply upward, climbing almost vertically to where they stand today.

Average wheat yields in Great Britain in 1942, which stood a mere thirty percent above their level a century earlier, doubled by 1974. By the late 1990s, they had tripled compared to 1942. Crops throughout Western Europe and the United States followed a similar trajectory: slow growth or stagnation in the pre-WWII era, followed by rapid acceleration starting in the late 1940s. US corn yields per acre, which had increased only eighteen percent between 1900 and 1945, tripled in the next forty-five years, and by 2014, had increased more than 460 percent.

The Essential Role of Pesticides

So, what changed to produce such dramatic improvements? The two factors most often cited are cheaper nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber-Bosch method of fixing nitrogen directly from the air, which came on line after 1910, and new hybrid crops created by Henry Wallace, which were first marketed in 1926 by his seed company, Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Company (later Dupont Pioneer and now Corteva Agriscience). Both innovations were rapidly adopted by farmers in the first half of the nineteenth century the use of artificial nitrogen fertilizer by US farmers increased ten-fold between 1900 and 1944, and sixty-five percent were planting hybrid crops by 1945 but their use and development increased enormously in the post-war years.

Often ignored, however, was the post-WWII introduction of new, synthetic chemical pesticides that dramatically reduced crop losses and made possible much of the yield growth stimulated by new fertilizers and seeds. Farmers had been using chemical pesticides since the earliest days of agriculture, but up until the mid-1940s, these were largely simple chemical compounds containing sulfur and heavy metals. An example was copper sulfate, which organic farmers still rely on today due, ironically, to its high toxicity, indiscriminate pesticidal activity, and long-lasting effects (i.e., persistence in the environment). Advances in organic (i.e., carbon-based) chemistry, however, provided farmers in the post-WWII era with a broad array of highly effective and increasingly targeted pesticides that have revolutionized agriculture.

According to one of the worlds leading experts in plant diseases, E.-C. Oerke of the University of Bonn, these pesticides were responsible for nearly doubling crop harvests, from forty-two percent of the theoretical worldwide yield in 1965 to seventy percent by 1990. It has been estimated by others that herbicides (which are a subset of pesticides) alone boosted rice production in the United States by 160 percent and are responsible for a full sixty-two percent of the increase in US soybean yield. Modern fungicides contributed somewhere between fifty and one hundred percent of the yield increases in most fruits and vegetables.

Yet even these numbers vastly understate the contribution of modern pesticides. As Professor Oerke and others have pointed out, many of the critical attributes of modern crop varieties that enable higher yields make modern crops more attractive to pests; these include shorter stalks (which prevent damage from the elements but increase competition from weeds), increased resistance to cold (which enables earlier spring planting and double-cropping), higher crop density and increased production of nutrients stimulated by synthetic fertilizers. Without the innovation of new pesticides, much of the benefit of enhanced fertilizer use and even the survivability of new plant varieties that define agriculture today would be severely curtailed or even blocked.

The Green Revolution

In the 1960s, rapid population growth worldwide raised alarms of mass starvation. Many of the fears were exaggerated, but the urgency was real. Over the next half century, world population doubled, with much of the increase taking place in poor nations already chronically unable to feed their populations. That the world averted widespread famine is largely credited to one man: Norman Borlaug. Known as the Father of the Green Revolution and the man who saved a billion lives, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his tireless efforts to export the benefits of agricultural technology to struggling farmers around the world. The effects were dramatic: New high-yielding, disease-resistant wheat hybrids Borlaug introduced in Mexico, Pakistan and India doubled yields within a matter of years and helped turn those nations into net exporters.

Borlaug was adamant throughout his life that the success of the Green Revolution was only possible because of modern pesticides. In a speech he delivered a year after receiving the Nobel Prize, he forcefully condemned the environmental movements vicious, hysterical propaganda campaign against agricultural chemicals. Insisting that chemical inputs were absolutely necessary to cope with, he expressed alarm that legislation then being pushed in the US Congress to ban pesticides would doom the world to starvation.

Starting in the 1960s, led by dramatic gains in developing nations, global crop production began an impressive ascent. Tufts University Professor Patrick Webb has calculated, In developing countries from 1965 to 1990, there was a 106 percent rise in grain output, which represented an increase from roughly 560 kilograms per capita to over 660 kilograms per capita. And according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the rapid rise in food production caused a reduction in world hunger which is defined as not having adequate caloric intake to meet minimum energy requirements by more than half between 1970 and 2014. Behind that single statistic are billions of premature deaths averted, billions of lives rescued from chronic disease and suffering, and whole communities and even nations saved from an endless cycle of underdevelopment and grinding poverty. From a public health perspective, those achievements can hardly be overstated. Unfortunately, they are rarely stated at all these days.

Fear, Not Facts, Prevail

The discussion of pesticides today largely ignores the challenges inherent in producing food at the necessary scale and focuses instead on inflated fears surrounding them, although they are among the most rigorously tested and tightly regulated of any class of products. The result is a growing political and public backlash that retards the innovation of new products, restricts, and even bans from the market perfectly safe, effective, and established products.

The increasing momentum toward expanding bans on pesticides in Europe has called into question the very viability of agriculture on that continent. An avalanche of lawsuits in the United States against pesticides (such as the herbicide glyphosate) universally deemed safe by regulators could put our country on a similar path. Meanwhile, international development agencies such as the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization which once championed the Green Revolution are pushing the worlds poorest farmers to adopt agroecological approaches that prohibit modern pesticides (and other technologies and products) and are as much as fifty percent less productive. That is a prescription for potentially deadly challenges to food security.

It would be one thing if this broad-based attack on modern pesticides approved by regulators had scientific merit, but the obsessive focus by politicians, activists, and media on the perceived risks to consumers collapses under scientific scrutiny. In this, it closely parallels the public health challenge presented by the anti-vaccination movement, which is led by many of the same environmental groups. A critical difference is that the anti-pesticide movement is supported by billions of dollars of annual funding from wealthy non-profits, governments (largely in the EU), and a burgeoning organic agriculture/food industry that seeks to increase its market share by spreading false and misleading claims about conventional farming.

And unlike anti-vaccination propaganda, the media reflexively repeats and amplifies the anti-pesticide message with little qualification. (If it bleeds, it leads.) Even seemingly authoritative voices in the health community, such as the American Pediatrics Association, advise the public to eat organic food, mistakenly assuming that organic farmers dont use pesticides (they do,lots of them) or perhaps believing that natural pesticides made with heavy metals are somehow less toxic than synthetic ones. (The EU has considered banning copper sulfate due to its human and environmental risks, but has continued to reauthorize it because organic farmers have no viable alternatives.) Ironically, many organic pesticides are considerably more damaging to the environment.

One of the most successful examples of anti-pesticide propaganda is the annual Dirty Dozen list produced by the US activist Environmental Working Group (which also spreads vaccine fears), highlighting fruits and vegetables that have the highest detectable pesticide residues. The ability of modern technology to detect substances measured in parts per billion or even per trillion is extraordinary, but the infinitesimal residues found on food are almost certainly too small to have any physiological effect and by any reasonable measure, represent a negligible risk to consumers.

Pesticide regulatory tolerances (safety levels) are calculated by dividing the highest dose of a pesticide found to have no detectable effect in laboratory animals by a safety margin of one hundred to one thousand, which sets a maximum exposure limit on the cumulative amount of residue from all approved products meaning regulators consider the sum of current tolerances while determining the tolerance level for a new product. For trading purposes, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set based on safety levels multiplied by an additional safety margin. So even if MRLs are exceeded, there is very low risk of any health effect.

For example, the European Food Safety Authority noted in its most recent annual monitoring report on pesticide residues (2017), that more than half (fifty-four percent) of 88,000 samples in the European Union were free of detectable residues. In another forty-two percent, residues found were within the legal limits (MRLs). Only about four percent exceeded these limits, which still were unlikely to pose a safety issue due to their trace amounts and built-in safety margins.

Paradoxically, regulators dont apply such large, conservative safety factors to other, more toxic substances we consume safely in much larger quantities every day. Consider, for example, the difference between drinking one or two cups of coffee and drinking one hundred to one thousand cups all at once. Given that a lethal dose of caffeine is about ten grams and a cup can easily contain 150 milligrams, sixty-six cups might well be fatal. Similarly, the absurdist nature of the Environmental Working Groups claims is seen in the calculations of the impossible quantities one would have to consume in a single day e.g., 1,190 servings of apples, 18,519 servings of blueberries, 25,339 servings of carrots per the Alliance for Food and Farming just to reach the no effect level.

Similarly, discussions of cancer risks commonly fail to acknowledge that most of the fruits and vegetables that are part of a healthy diet naturally contain chemicals that are potential carcinogens at high enough doses. Many, such as caffeine and the alkaloids in tomatoes and potatoes, are natural pesticides produced by the plants themselves for protection against predators. Dr. Bruce Ames, who invented the test still used today to identify potential carcinogens, and his colleagues estimate that 99.99 percent of the pesticidal substances we consume are such natural pesticides which, of course, we consume routinely and safely.

Disease Prevention

The role of pesticides in protecting public health is broad, varied, and sometimes unobvious. For example, the addition of the pesticide chlorine to public drinking water kills harmful bacteria. Hospitals rely on pesticides called disinfectants to prevent the spread of bacteria and viruses, and fungicides in paints and caulks prevent harmful molds, while herbicides control allergen-producing weeds such as ragweed and poison ivy. Rodenticides are used to control rodents that spread diseases such as bubonic plague and hantavirus, and there are over 100,000 known diseases spread by mosquitoes, ticks and fleas, which infect more than a billion people and kill more than a million of them every year; those diseases include malaria, Lyme disease, dengue fever, West Nile Virus, and Zika.

Even as the numbers of tick- and mosquito-borne infections in the United States have surged, the CDC warns that we are dangerously unprepared in large part because of opposition to state-of-the-art pesticides by well-funded environmental organizations and the organic food and natural products industries, and the public fears they arouse.

Finally, naturally occurring toxins called mycotoxins, produced by certain molds (fungi), can grow on a variety of different food crops, including cereals, nuts, spices, dried fruits, apples and coffee beans. The most concerning of them are genotoxic aflatoxins, which can cause acute poisoning in large doses. Crops frequently affected by aflatoxins include cereals (corn, sorghum, wheat and rice), oilseeds (soybean, peanut, sunflower and cottonseed), spices (chili peppers, black pepper, coriander, turmeric and ginger) and tree nuts (pistachio, almond, walnut, coconut and Brazil nut). Pesticides are effective in controlling the growth of these and other mycotoxins.

Epilogue

Certainly, just as with pharmaceuticals and medical devices, pesticides need to be well-regulated and monitored, especially for potential effects on certain segments of the population, such as farmers, who have the most direct contact (but have lower rates of cancer than the general population). (See here,here,here, and here.)

The control of pests has come a long way. The toxicity of modern pesticides has already dropped ninety-eight percent and the application rate is down ninety-five percent since the 1960s. I grew up in the era of Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry (DuPonts advertising slogan from 1935 to 1982) and lived through the worst of the backlash toward chemicals spawned in large part by the publication of Rachel Carsons compelling but often dishonest book Silent Spring. Now, chemicals are being complemented, and sometimes supplanted, by biotechnology, but thats beside the point; the net benefit of pesticides, whether chemical or biological, is irrefutable.

Our greatest public health challenge today isnt chemicals; rather, it is the institutionalized ignorance and fear-mongering that threatens to undo some of the twentieth centurys greatest technological and humanitarian uses of them.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was the founding director of the FDAs Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter at @henryimiller

This story originally ran at Science 2.0 asIs It Immoral To Oppose The Use Of Pesticides? and has been republished here with permission.

Read the original here:
Viewpoint: Unprecedented abundance obscures the 'profound' public health benefits of pesticide use - Genetic Literacy Project

By: Lifestyle Desk | Pune | Updated: March 9, 2020 4:43:34 pm Cholera is a bacterial infection caused by drinking contaminated water or consuming contaminated food. (Photo: Representation Image)

Over the past week, six cholera cases have been reported from Bengaluru raising concerns about the safety of drinking water. Except for one case in 2019, no cholera case has been reported in the city in the past few years, as per Bengalurus municipal corporation records.

Cholera is caused by a bacteria called Vibrio cholera and is usually spread through contaminated drinking water or food. It causes severe diarrhoea and dehydration. If left untreated, cholera can be fatal, even in healthy people.

The deadly effects of the disease are due to the toxin produced in the small intestine which causes the body to secrete enormous amounts of water which results in diarrhea and a rapid loss of fluids and salts or electrolytes.

Cholera bacteria might not cause illness in all the people who are exposed to them, but they still pass the bacteria in their stool, which can contaminate food and water sources.

While modern sewage systems have been known to have eliminated cholera in most countries, there is a potential risk in situations of inadequate sanitation and unnatural circumstances like war and poverty.

While most people exposed to the cholera bacterium might not know they have been infected, they can still infect others through contaminated water as they shed cholera bacteria in their stool for seven to 14 days.

Some of the symptoms are diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting and dehydration. Signs of cholera include fatigue, sunken eyes, dry mouth, extreme thirst, dry skin, little or no urination, low blood pressure and electrolyte imbalance which can cause muscle cramps and lead to rapid loss of salts such as chloride, sodium and potassium.

If you have diarrhoea, especially severe diarrhoea, seek treatment right away. Severe dehydration is considered a medical emergency that requires immediate care.

Dr Samrat Shah, MD-internal medicine, Bhatia Hospital Mumbai told indianexpress.com the following pointers to prevent cholera.

*Drink and use safe water.*Wash your hands often with soap and safe water.*Use proper toilet facilities and sanitation measures do not defecate in a waterbody.*Cook food well (especially seafood). Keep it covered, eat it hot. Peel fruits and vegetables.*Clean your kitchen and toilets thoroughly and safely.*FDA has approved live oral cholera vaccine (OCVs) for adults between ages 18-64 yrs for people who are travelling in cholera endemic areas.

During a meeting of the World Health Organizations Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunisation that was held in October 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland, cholera control was identified as a priority in areas with endemic cholera, since outbreaks of the disease can disrupt health systems, as per WHOs Cholera in India: an analysis of reports, 19972006 report.

While long-term intervention to improve water and sanitation should be the mainstay of cholera control measures, the group recommended the use of OCVs to obtain a short-term effect for an immediate response, stated the report.

It is advisable to include fluids in the routine diet while ensuring that solid and uncooked foods including raw veggies are avoided until there is a complete recovery. Dr Shah suggested these handy tips.

*Avoid raw food (salads, cold cuts) and non-vegetarian especially sea food.*Eat absolutely cooked food and see to it that it is heated before being served.*Peel the skin of fruits before eating.*Drink boiled /filtered water.*Avoid leftovers in the refrigerator. If at all kept, make sure it is kept at -4 degree celsius and reheat the leftovers thoroughly before eating.

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Lifestyle News, download Indian Express App.

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

See the original post here:
Cholera cases reported in Bengaluru: Know symptoms and prevention of this water-borne disease - The Indian Express

Timothy J Key and colleagues describe the evidence linking diet and nutrition to cancer risk, concluding that obesity and alcohol are the most important factors

Scientists have suspected for decades that nutrition has an important influence on the risk of developing cancer. Epidemiological studies as early as the 1960s showed that cancer rates varied widely between populations and that cancer rates in migrants moving from low to high risk countries could rise to equal or sometimes exceed the rates in the host population.12 These observations implied the existence of important environmental causes of cancer, and other studies showed strong correlations between many types of cancer and dietary factors; for example, countries with high intakes of meat had high rates of colorectal cancer.3 Furthermore, experiments in animals showed that cancer rates could be altered by manipulating diet, with compelling evidence that restricting energy intake causes a general reduction in cancer development.45

Cancer is predicted to be the leading cause of death in every country of the world by the end of this century.6 Although dietary factors are thought to be important in determining the risk of developing cancer, establishing the exact effects of diet on cancer risk has proved challenging. Here we describe the relatively few dietary factors that clearly influence risk of cancers along the digestive tract (from top to bottom) and of other common types of cancer,78 as well as challenges for future research.

Nasopharyngeal cancer is common in a few populations around the globe, such as the Cantonese population in southern China and some indigenous populations of South East Asia, the Arctic, north Africa, and the Middle East.9 Consumption of foods preserved with salt has been linked with this cancer, and the mechanism might be through nitrosamine formation or reactivation of the Epstein-Barr virus.10 Based on case-control studies, Chinese style salted fish has been classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization.10

For oral and pharyngeal cancers overall, eating more fruits, vegetables, and related micronutrients such as vitamin C and folate is associated with lower cancer risk (boxes 1 and 2). These associations, however, might be influenced by residual confounding by smoking (a major non-dietary risk factor714) and alcohol consumption, so the evidence is only suggestive of a protective effect.814

Early case-control studies indicated that higher intakes of fruit and vegetables were associated with a lower risk of several types of cancer.11 But subsequent prospective studies, which are not affected by recall or selection bias, produced much weaker findings. In the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund report neither fruits nor vegetables were considered to be convincingly or probably associated with the risk of any cancer.8 There was suggestive evidence for protection of some cancers, and risk might increase at very low intakes. Specific components of certain fruits and vegetables might have a protective action.

Vegetarians eat no meat or fish and usually eat more fruit and vegetables than comparable non-vegetarians. The risk of all cancer sites combined might be slightly lower in vegetarians and vegans than in non-vegetarians, but findings for individual cancers are inconclusive. 12

By definition, deficiencies of vitamins and essential minerals cause ill health; this might include increased susceptibility to some types of cancer, but establishing the details of any such effects has proved difficult. High dose vitamin or mineral supplements have not reduced cancer risk in well nourished populations and might increase risk; for example, high dose carotene might increase the risk of lung cancer.13 Vitamin and mineral supplements should not be used for cancer prevention, although they can be important for other aspects of health, such as folic acid supplements for women before conception.

There are two types of oesophageal cancer: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The squamous form predominates in most of the world, whereas adenocarcinoma is relatively common only in Western countries, where rates have recently increased. Obesity is an established risk factor for adenocarcinoma, probably partly owing to reflux of stomach contents into the oesophagus.1516 Alcohol increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma but not of adenocarcinoma.17 Smoking increases the risk of both types, with a larger effect for squamous cell carcinoma.17

Oesophageal cancer incidence rates are very high in parts of eastern and southern Africa, Linzhou (China), and Golestan (Iran).617 People in high risk populations have often consumed a restricted diet, low in fruit, vegetables, and animal products, so deficiencies of micronutrients have been postulated to explain the high risk (boxes 1 and 2). Despite several observational studies and some randomised trials, however, the relative roles of various micronutrients are not yet clear.17181920 In Western countries early case-control studies indicated a protective role for fruit and vegetables,2122 but more recently published prospective studies show weaker associations, which might be due to residual confounding from smoking and alcohol consumption.16

Consumption of drinks such as tea and mate when scalding hot is associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer,232425 and drinking beverages above 65C is classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic to humans.26

Stomach cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with the highest rates in eastern Asia.6 Eating large amounts of salted foods, such as salt preserved fish, is associated with an increased risk27; this might be caused by the salt itself or by carcinogens derived from the nitrites in many preserved foods. Salted food might increase the risk of Helicobacter pylori infection (an established cause of stomach cancer)28 and act synergistically to promote development of the disease.29 Some evidence indicates that eating large amounts of pickled vegetables increases the risk of stomach cancer because of the production of N-nitroso compounds by mould or fungi, which are sometimes present in these foods.3031

The risk of stomach cancer might be decreased by diets high in fruit and vegetables and for people with high plasma concentrations of vitamin C (boxes 1 and 2).32 A trial in Linzhou, China, showed that supplementation with carotene, selenium, and tocopherol resulted in a significant reduction in stomach cancer mortality,18 and other trials have indicated enhanced regression of precancerous lesions with the use of supplements of vitamin C, carotene, or both.3334 Prospective studies in Japan have also shown an inverse association between stomach cancer risk and green tea consumption in women (the majority of whom are non-smokers), perhaps related to polyphenols.35 These studies indicate a protective role of antioxidant micronutrients or other antioxidant compounds, but these associations need clarification.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world.6 Overweight and obesity increase risk,83637 as do alcohol and smoking.7

Ecological analyses show striking positive correlations between eating meat and colorectal cancer rates.338 In 2015 IARC classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans and unprocessed red meat as probably carcinogenic,3940 partly based on a meta-analysis reporting an increase in risk of 17% for each daily 50 g increment in consumption of processed meat and 18% for each 100 g increment in consumption of red meat.41 More recent systematic reviews have reported smaller increases in risk for unprocessed red meat.842

The chemicals used to preserve processed meat, such as nitrates and nitrites, might increase exposure of the gut to mutagenic N-nitroso compounds.40 Both processed and unprocessed red meat also contain haem iron, which might have a cytotoxic effect in the gut and increase formation of N-nitroso compounds. Cooking meat at high temperatures can generate mutagenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.40 Whether any of these putative mechanisms explain the association between eating red and processed meat and risk for colorectal cancer is unclear.3940

Higher consumptions of milk and calcium are associated with a moderate reduction in risk of colorectal cancer.8434445 Calcium might be protective by forming complexes with secondary bile acids and haem in the intestinal lumen. Higher circulating concentrations of vitamin D are associated with a lower risk,46 but this might be confounded by other factors such as physical activity. Mendelian randomisation studies of genetically determined vitamin D have not supported a causal relation.4748

In the 1970s Burkitt suggested that the low rates of colorectal cancer in parts of Africa were caused by the high consumption of dietary fibre.49 Prospective studies have shown that consuming 10 g more total dietary fibre a day is associated with an average 10% reduction in risk of colorectal cancer; further analyses suggest that cereal fibre and wholegrain cereals are protective, but not fibre from fruit or vegetables.5051

High dietary folate intake has been associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer, and adequate folate status maintains genomic stability,8 but high folate status might promote the growth of colorectal tumours.52 Whether folate or folic acid have any material impact on the risk of colorectal cancer is uncertain. Most randomised trials of folic acid supplementation have found no effect,5354 and although studies of the gene for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase have indicated that lower circulating folate is associated with a slightly lower risk, the interpretation of these genetic data is not straightforward. 55

Alcohol is the main diet related risk factor for liver cancer, probably through the development of cirrhosis and alcoholic hepatitis.7 Overweight and obesity also increase risk.8 Aflatoxin, a mutagenic compound produced by the fungus Aspergillus in foods such as grains, nuts, and dried fruit when stored in hot and humid conditions, is classified as a carcinogen by IARC and is an important risk factor in some low income countries (for people with active hepatitis virus infection).56 The major non-dietary risk factor is chronic infection with hepatitis B or C viruses.

Some studies indicate an inverse association between coffee drinking and risk of liver cancer.8 Coffee might have a true protective effect because it contains many bioactive compounds,5758 but the association might be influenced by residual confounding, as well as by reverse causation if subclinical liver disease reduces appetite for coffee.

Obesity increases risk of pancreatic cancer by about 20%.8 Diabetes is also associated with increased risk, and a mendelian randomisation analysis indicates that this is due to raised insulin rather than diabetes itself.59 Studies of dietary components and risk have been inconclusive.8

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world, and heavy smoking increases risk around 40-fold.67 Prospective studies have indicated that diets higher in fruits and vegetables are associated with a slightly lower risk of lung cancer in smokers, but not in never smokers.6061 The weak inverse association of fruit and vegetables with lung cancer risk in smokers might perhaps indicate some true protective effect, but it might simply be due to residual confounding by smoking (box 1). Trials that tested supplements of carotene (and retinol in one trial) to prevent lung cancer showed an unexpected higher risk of lung cancer in participants in the intervention group.1362

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer in the world.6 Reproductive and hormonal factors are key determinants of risk.63 Obesity increases breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, probably by increasing circulating oestrogens, which are produced by aromatase in adipose tissue.64 Most studies have shown that obesity in premenopausal women is associated with a reduction in risk, perhaps due to lower hormone levels related to an increased frequency of anovulation. 65 Alcohol increases risk by about 10% for each drink consumed daily866; the mechanism might involve increased oestrogens.

Much controversy has surrounded the hypothesis that a high fat intake in adulthood increases breast cancer risk. Early case-control studies supported this hypothesis, but prospective observational studies have overall been null,8 and two randomised controlled trials of a reduced fat diet were also null.6768

Studies of other dietary factors including meat, dairy products, and fruit are generally inconclusive.8 Some recent studies have indicated an inverse association between vegetable intake and risk of oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer86970 and between dietary fibre and overall risk.871 Isoflavones, largely from soya, have been associated with a lower risk of breast cancer in Asian populations.72 These associations are potentially important and should be investigated for causality.

Prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the world.6 The only well established risk factors are age, family history, black ethnicity, and genetic factors.73 Obesity probably increases the risk for more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.8

Lycopene, primarily from tomatoes, has been associated with a reduced risk, but the data are not conclusive.8 Some studies have indicated that risk might be reduced with higher levels of other micronutrients including carotene, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium, but the findings from trials and mendelian randomisation analyses are overall null or inconclusive.47747576

Isoflavones, largely from soya foods, have been associated with a reduced risk for prostate cancer in Asian men,77 and plasma concentrations of the isoflavone equol might be inversely associated with prostate cancer risk in men in Japan.78

Substantial evidence shows that prostate cancer risk is increased by high levels of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1, which stimulates cell division, and further research is needed to determine whether dietary factors, such as animal protein, might influence prostate cancer risk by affecting production of this hormone.79

Given the huge variation in diets around the world and the large number of cancers that diets can influence, how do we know which foods or diets should be avoided and which should be recommended? The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and IARC have reviewed the carcinogenic risk of foods and nutrients using systematic reviews of the evidence and evaluation by expert panels. As with much nutritional research the topic is complex, but the WCRF and IARC have identified nutritional factors with convincing evidence or probable evidence of cancer risk.

WCRF and IARC concluded that obesity and alcohol cause cancer at several sites (fig 1). For overweight and obesity, increases in risk for every 5 kg/m2 rise in body mass index (BMI) vary from 5% for colorectal cancer to 50% for cancer of the endometrium (IARC also considered the evidence to be sufficient for meningioma, thyroid cancer, and multiple myeloma).80 For alcohol, risk increases for each 10 g rise in consumption a day vary from 4% for liver cancer to 25% for squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus.

Body mass index (BMI), alcohol, and cancer risk. Convincing associations according to the World Cancer Research Fund8 or the International Agency for Research on Cancer (marked by asterisks), or both,1080 with relative risks from meta-analyses.8 We also consider the association between BMI and risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women to be convincing.65 RR, relative risk (plotted with squares proportional to amount of statistical information); CI, confidence interval

Processed meat was judged to be a convincing cause of cancer by both WCRF and IARC; in the most recent WCRF report the relative risk for colorectal cancer was 1.16 (1.08 to 1.26) for each 50 g/day increment.8 IARC judged Chinese-style salted fish to be a carcinogen (with a relative risk of nasopharyngeal cancer of 1.31 (1.16 to 1.47) for each additional serving per week), 810 as well as foods contaminated with aflatoxin.56 Neither expert body judged any dietary factor to be convincingly protective against cancer.

WCRF and IARC judged some associations between nutritional factors and cancer risk to be probably causal or protective (table 1). Some researchers might think that the criteria for probable are not stringent enough. Further evidence might change the conclusions, and this should be kept in mind when using the reports to estimate the likely effects of diet or to make dietary recommendations. Notably, WCRF also categorised adult and young adulthood body fatness as probably protective for premenopausal breast cancer; with new evidence65 we consider this convincing, so the association is shown in figure 1 rather than table 1.

Still uncertain: dietary and nutritional factors that expert groups have classified as probable causal or protective factors for cancer

Obesity probably increases the risk of cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx and of aggressive prostate cancer. Alcohol probably increases the risk of stomach cancer but is inversely associated with the risk of kidney cancer, which might indicate a true biological effect or reflect residual confounding or bias.81 Very hot drinks probably increase the risk of cancer of the oesophagus, foods preserved by salting probably increase the risk of stomach cancer, and several dietary factors probably reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. The expert panels also concluded that the risk of endometrial cancer is probably increased by a diet with a high glycaemic load. Coffee was judged to probably be protective for liver and endometrial cancer, but some of the current authors think that this conclusion is too strong and that the data on coffee and endometrial cancer might be affected by selective publication of only part of the evidence.82

Independently from overweight and obesity, greater adult height is associated with the risk of several cancers (box 3).

The risk for most types of cancer increases with height. A WCRF systematic review showed that increases in risk for each 5 cm increment in height ranged from 4% for prostate cancer to 12% for malignant melanoma.83 The mechanism is uncertain but might be related to taller people having more stem cells at risk of cancer or a factor such as insulin-like growth factor 1 having effects on both height and cancer risk.84 Undernutrition causes restricted growth, and some aspects of adequate nutrition during childhood and adolescence, such as an ample intake of energy and protein, might lead to relatively greater height and a higher overall cancer risk.83 It is not clear, however, whether better understanding of this pathway could lead to strategies for reducing cancer risk.

Acrylamide, a chemical produced during high temperature cooking and in the manufacture of many types of carbohydrate-rich foods (such as potato chips, cereal crispbreads, and coffee), is classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic to humans.85 This conclusion was based largely on studies in experimental animals; epidemiological studies have been mostly null or inconclusive86 but are limited by the difficulty of estimating long term exposure and by confounding owing to smoking. Recent research on possible mutational signatures of this chemical indicate that it might contribute to risk.87

Figure 2 shows recent estimates of the proportions of cancer cases in the UK attributable to modifiable risk factors, including dietary factors classified by WCRF or IARC as convincing causes of cancer. 88 Overweight and obesity is the second largest attributable cause, responsible for 6.3% of cancers in the UK, and is the largest cause in non-smokers. Alcohol (3.3%), dietary fibre (3.3%), and processed meat (1.5%) are also among the top 10 causes (although dietary fibre is currently classed by WCRF as only probable). Analyses from some other countries have produced broadly similar estimates; recent estimates for Brazil were 4.9% for overweight and obesity, 3.8% for alcohol, 0.8% for dietary fibre, and 0.6% for processed meat. 89 In Japan, however, where the prevalence of obesity is lower, estimates were 1.1% for overweight and obesity and 6.3% for alcohol (and 1.6% for salt). 90

Percentages of cancer cases in the UK attributable to different exposures.88

Research into the effects of nutrition on health is difficult. 91 We have summarised here the relatively few well established clear links between nutrition and cancer, but future research might show further important risk factorsperhaps for specific food components or for broader dietary patterns, such as so called plant based diets. To move forward, the new generation of studies needs to improve estimates of long term exposure with, for example, repeated dietary records, which are now feasible using web based questionnaires.92 Biomarkers of dietary intake and nutritional status can be used more extensively, and new biomarkers might be found through metabolomics, for example, but they will need to be validated and interpreted in the light of possible confounding and reverse causation. For some exposures, both for intake and nutritional status, mendelian randomisation will help to clarify causality,93 and randomised trials will be needed to test specific hypotheses. It will also be important to attempt to coordinate systematic analyses of all the data available worldwide, to reduce the risk of publication bias.94 For public health and policy, the top priority should be tackling the known major diet related risk factors for cancer, particularly obesity and alcohol.

Obesity and alcohol increase the risk of several types of cancer; these are the most important nutritional factors contributing to the total burden of cancer worldwide

For colorectal cancer, processed meat increases risk and red meat probably increases risk; dietary fibre, dairy products, and calcium probably reduce risk

Foods containing mutagens can cause cancer; certain types of salted fish cause nasopharyngeal cancer, and foods contaminated with aflatoxin cause liver cancer

Fruits and vegetables are not clearly linked to cancer risk, although very low intakes might increase the risk for aerodigestive and some other cancers

Other nutritional factors might contribute to the risk of cancer, but the evidence is currently not strong enough to be sure

Contributors and sources: All authors contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and provided critical revisions. All authors gave intellectual input to improve the manuscript and have read and approved the final version. TJK is the guarantor. The authors all have experience in nutritional epidemiology, with particular expertise in cancers of the gastrointestinal tract (KEB, RS, ST), breast cancer (TJK), prostate cancer (TJK, APC), cancer in Asia (RS, ST), and mendelian randomisation (KKT). Sources of information for this article included published systematic reviews and primary research articles based on prospective observational studies and randomised controlled trials.

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

This research was partly supported by Cancer Research UK (C8221/A19170) and the Wellcome Trust Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People, LEAP 205212/Z/16/Z). KEB is supported by the Girdlers New Zealand Health Research Council Fellowship. KKT is supported by WCRF (2014/1180).

Chang ET, Adami HO. Nasopharyngeal cancer. In: Adami H-O, Hunter DJ, Lagiou P, Mucci L. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, Third edition. Eds, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018:159-181.

Rider JR, Brennan P, Lagiou P. Oral and pharyngeal cancer. In: Adami H-O, Hunter DJ, Lagiou P, Mucci L, eds. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018:137-157.

Abnet CC, Nyrn O, Adami HO. Esophageal cancer. In: Adami H-O, Hunter DJ, Lagiou P, Mucci L, eds. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018:183-211.

Ye W, Nyrn O, Adami HO. Stomach cancer. In: Adami H-O, Hunter DJ, Lagiou P, Mucci L, eds. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018:213-241.

Bamia C, Stuver S, Mucci L. Cancer of the liver and biliary tract. In: Adami H-O, Hunter DJ, Lagiou P, Mucci L, eds. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018:277-307.

View post:
Diet, nutrition, and cancer risk: what do we know and what is the way forward? - The BMJ

Anyone who turned on the radio in the 2000s has probably heard of JoJo. She was a young singer who became popular with hit songs like Leave (Get Out) and Too Little Too Late.

However, after a few years of immense fame, JoJo seemingly disappeared from the limelight. She recently made a triumphant return to the music industry. The singer also opened up about what happened during those years when fans did not hear much from her, which included a dangerous diet and some substance abuse.

JoJo was recognized for her musical talent in the late 1990s when she was just a kid. She competed onAmericas Got Talent Kids and attracted the attention of executives at Blackground Records. After she auditioned for them, she was signed to the company and started recording music professionally.

In 2004, JoJo released her first single, Leave (Get Out), which quickly became an international success. The song peaked at number 12 on the Billboard Hot 100 but landed in the top five in several countries.

Two years later, JoJo returned with her second album,The High Road. It included the song Too Little Too Late, which became her next hit single. The track charted at number 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and became JoJos most successful song to date.

JoJo seemed like she was heading for superstardom in the late 2000s. She was also making herself known as an actress in movies like Aquamarine(2006) andRV (2006).However, after a while, JoJos name practically disappeared off of the radio.

JoJo was recording a lot of songs after her second album, but her record label was keeping them from being released. At the time, JoJo did not understand why and she attributed the reason to her body.

She shared in a recent interview with Uproxx: I thought that maybe it was the way that I looked because when I was 18, I remember being sat down in the (now defunct Blackground Records)office and the president of the label being like, We just want you to look as healthy as possible.'

JoJo did not understand it because she believed that she looked like a healthy girl who eats and is active. However, JoJo also knew that in showbiz, being healthy was not the only thing that mattered. Thus, she agreed to be put on a diet of just 500 calories a day.

I was on these injections that make you have no appetite, JoJo revealed. I was like, Let me see how skinny I can get, because maybe then theyll put out an album. Maybe Im just so disgusting that no one wants to see me in a video and that they cant even look at me. Thats really what I thought.

It was later revealed that Blackground Records was going through difficult times as it was losing important distribution rights. JoJos career was being severely affected, and this had a lot of negative impacts on her self-esteem.

She shared with Uproxx that she turned to other places for affirmation. The star said: I started getting really (expletive) up, drinking, making out with strangers, looking for validation and attention and looking to feel pretty, looking to feel good, looking to feel worthy. I mean, there were definitely nights that I stumbled out of clubs and that I blacked out and was just completely reckless, did not care I need to be buzzed to feel OK.

JoJo decided to change when she realized that she did not want to end up like her father, who died from substance abuse in 2015.

Since JoJo admitted that she was not in a cushy situation with a home that she could return to, she decided to strengthen herself and learn how to work out problems on her own.

In February 2019, JoJo released the song Say So with singer PJ Morton. It put JoJos name back on the map as the pair won a Grammy Award for Best R&B Song.

JoJo has plans to release her album,Good to Know, in May of this year. She will also embark on a tour in April.

The rest is here:
'Leave (Get Out)' Singer JoJo Reveals the Dangerous Diet that Led to Substance Issues - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

An animal expert has warned pet owners could bekilling their dogs and cats byfeeding thema vegan diet.

TV and radio dog guru, Anna Webb, has issued the stark warning after some pet food brands released vegan ranges claiming that it is nutritious to feed dogs and cats in this way, and helps to reduce their 'carbon pawprint'.

Anna has studied natural nutrition and therapies with the College of Integrated Veterinary Therapies (CIVT).

She said:You would never give a rabbit a steak, and its the same thing.

Dogs and cats are carnivores and by feeding them diets which dont contain meat, instead of being ethical you are actually being very unethical, and putting your pets at risk of health issues overtime.

All of these products are very processed, and just like humans are being discouraged to eat processed foods, the same logic applies so are our pets.

Obesity related conditions like heart disease and diabetes in dogs is at record levels and that is because most complete pet food is 30 to 70 per cent grains, which dogs cannot metabolise.

"These foods are bulked out with ingredients like rice, barley and beet pulp, which are all sugars. Not only bad for their teeth, these grain heavy foods pile on the pounds, evident with one in two dogs now considered obese or overweight in the UK ."

Anna advocates feeding dogs and cats a biologically appropriate raw food diet, and practices what she preaches with her own pet dogs, Mr Binks and Prudence, and her cat, Gremlin.

The animal guru,who is a vegetarian herself, added: You should feed a natural diet to dogs and cats, ideally organic meat.

"Vegans think that they are giving a vegan diet to their pets because they love animals, but the irony is they are being unethical, even cruel to their own canine best friends.

I cannot bear the thought of the unethical treatment of animals, and Im not a fan of industrial farming. I choose to be a vegetarian, but I wouldnt impose my diet choices onto my dogs as I understand that were different species.

Dogs have to eat meat, and we dont. Humans consume 75 per cent of the meat produced globally, so if every human became a vegetarian or a vegan we just might make a difference and save the planet.

Meat is actually bad for humans, because it causes high cholesterol, but dogs - because they are carnivores - cannot get high cholesterol.

Anna advises that, if vegans feed plant-based diets to their dogs and cats for long periods of time, the pets will lack key fatty acids and amino acids only found in meat and be prone to disease.

She continued:Cats in particular will die being a vegan because they are obligate carnivores and they need taurine in their diet, which they can only get from meat.

You would think they were fine for a year, maybe longer but eventually they will begin to fall apart.

Excerpt from:
Anna Webb: Dogs and cat owners who feed their pets a vegan diet could be killing them - Glasgow Times

Ive recently stumbled upon a few articles touting a return to the diets of the 1950s, which were influenced by war-time rationing. They say people ate healthier. What are the pros and cons of following a typical diet from that era?

Sincerely,

Rick

Dear Rick,

These days there are several ways to eat healthy and sometimes this can be confusing for people. Recently, there has been an interest in returning to a 1950s style of eating, but did people really eat healthier back then?

While it is true that foods were rationed, whether or not this led to healthier eating is unclear. Careful planning was in place so that everyone was allowed enough to eat, with men having a 3,000 calorie per day allotment, which is more than is recommended today. While rations were meant to be used by the named recipient, a bartering system developed so that people were sure to obtain the commodities they felt they needed. Even though sugar was restricted, corn syrup was substituted in recipes. It is more likely the difference in lifestyle that contributed to a healthier diet than rationing of goods.

There are several differences in American life today as compared to the 1950s. For starters, the median American household income was $5,000. That means that half the population made more than $5,000 a year and half made less.

In 2019, the median household income was $63,000. For every dollar spent on food in 1955, 25 cents went to restaurants; now it is more than half. Much of this includes high-calorie foods like pizza, burgers and fries, which brings us to another big difference: portion sizes. Compare portion sizes of foods from the 1950s to today:

Interestingly, there are some areas of diets that are actually healthier today than back then. Vegetables were often overcooked, decreasing their nutritive value. Today people are careful to prepare vegetables al dente in order to preserve nutrition. The public has also been educated to choose lean proteins, even if sometimes they prefer not to. Seldom is animal fat used as a seasoning. When I was growing up, people kept a tin of bacon grease on the stove to season vegetables and fry meats. There is no such tin in my kitchen today.

People could definitely benefit from getting back to the basics. Enjoy a home-cooked meal for dinner with fruits and vegetables filling half the plate. Eat dinner as a family; it is one of the most important activities you will share with your children. Dine out as a treat instead of a convenience. And as always, keep it simple and be healthy!

-

Leanne McCrate, RDN, LD, CNSC,

aka Dear Dietitian, is an award-winning

dietitian based in Missouri.

Historically, we Americans have been among the worlds most optimistic people. Why? One reason could be that ...

A week ago, the candidacy of Joe Biden was at deaths door. On a taping of The McLaughlin Group, this ...

Six hours is a good, long time. You could do a lot of things in six hours.You could drive from San Francisco to ...

People really seem to struggle with the word coup.During the impeachment ordeal of Bill Clinton, Democrats ...

If youve always wished that you had the qualifications required to be a successful entrepreneur, heres good ...

Interest rates collapsed this week as markets continued to absorb the impact of the spread of COVID-19.On ...

Read this article:
Diets of the 1950s pros and cons | News, Sports, Jobs - Marshalltown Times Republican