NEWS
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Dr Emma Derbyshire Independent Consultant Emma heads Nutritional Insight Ltd, an independent consultancy to industry, government and PR agencies. An avid writer for academic journals and media, her specialist areas are maternal nutrition, child nutrition and functional foods. www.nutritionalinsight.co.uk @DrDerbyshire
If you have important news or research updates to share with NHD, or would like to send a letter to the Editor, please email us at info@network healthgroup.co.uk We would love to hear from you.
New sugar tax approved It has now been announced that a new sugar tax on the soft drinks industry will take place. This was announced as part of the Chancellor’s budget and has been the topic of conversation for a long time, but, nevertheless, came as somewhat of a surprise to the soft drinks industry. Jamie Oliver and his team have played a key role in driving and getting this levy. He was the first to introduce a sugar tax levy in his restaurants and establish an e-petition which was signed by more than 150,000 people backing such a tax. Putting the new tax into practice, sugary drinks are to be graded into two bands. The highest band will contain more than 8g total sugar per 100ml and be levied at 24p per litre. The second band will have a total sugar content of more than 5g per 100ml and cost an extra 18p per litre. So, will this really make a difference? That has been much divided opinion about this approach. One of the criticisms is that there is no evidence that taxing a single food or ingredient can help to reduce obesity levels. Also, foods such as chocolate are not to be taxed as these are regarded as a treats rather than everyday foods and drinks - though it is questionable whether this is really the case. There is potential to extend such a levy to other foods. A simple supermarket online search for ‘children’s/kids cereals’ undertaken by Nutritional Insight, identified more than 100 brands that were chocolate or ‘cookie’ flavoured. For me, starting the day with sugary, chocolate-flavoured breakfasts doesn’t sit well. Equally, there is scope to look at the ‘treat market’ as a whole and fuel investment and marketing into this. So, it seems that this is a step in the right direction. That said, it is also important to establish a data collection scheme alongside the new levy, to evaluate whether such a levy leads to measurable effects or not. This can then lead to future modifications - be it levy adjustments or the application to other products. So, perhaps we should stave of judgements until we find out whether this works or not. For more information, see: www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Ingredients/Sugar-tax-announcement-praised-andcondemned; www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35824071
UNHEALTHY TREAT CULTURES HAVE LASTING EFFECTS Imaging studies reveal that obese individuals show greater reward and reduced inhibitory region responsivity to food, which may predict future weight gain. New research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has examined whether the brainreward response is related to future weight variability. A total of 127 healthy-weight adolescents, aged 14-18 years, were assessed annually for three years. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, neural responses to cues of impending and actual receipt of high-calorie, palatable foods were measured over the follow-up period. Findings revealed that cognitive reappraisal strategies - particularly those focusing on the benefits of not eating certain highly palatable, calorific foods, could potentially assist in the design of obesityprevention programs for young people. For more information, see: Winter S et al (2017). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 105. No 4, pg: 781-789
6
www.NHDmag.com June 2017 - Issue 125