Big Food without big diets? Food regimes and Kenyan diets

Path-breaking scholarship has described how corporate control of food production and distribution is implicated in the global emergence of diets heavy in fats, meats and sugars. The ‘multinational food and beverage companies with huge and concentrated market power’ can be thought of as Big Food. Big Food’s presence in Kenya has expanded, and organizations have expressed concerns about the number of Kenyans who are obese. Despite these concerns, Kenya’s dietary profile does not show a clear picture of high fats, meats and sugars. This suggests that the structural factors that shape the organization of Kenya’s food supply need to be examined. By looking to the food regime approach, it is possible to understand how dietary patterns are a ‘reconstitution of material culture’, as trade arrangements shape diets in ways that make some foods seem traditional, while others appear to be new or exotic. By using the food regime approach, it is possible to understand how Kenya’s position in international trade influences food production and consumption, as well as how the Kenyan state has played a role in mitigating the Big Food diet. In this respect, the policies and practices that organize Kenyan diets are reflective of global-historical arrangements, but are also particular to Kenya. I base my argument on ethnographic research conducted in 2010 and 2014 in urban and rural areas, interviews, FAOSTAT statistics, scholarship, government documents, agency reports, newspapers and relevant food websites.     

Food safety--who is responsible?

Though scientists believe that issues of risk can be handled without appeal to values in general or ethics in particular, this is demonstrably false. The very notion of risk is enmeshed in a complex of social ethics. This is clearly true with regard to food safety. With this in mind, it is plausible to affirm that responsibility for food safety at a given point in the chain from producer to consumer rests with the person or entity under whose control the management of that risk most plausibly lies. This principle is illustrated with various examples and with clear cases of industry shouldering and avoiding responsibility. An additional ethical concern relevant to food safety arises from genetically modified foods. Given that the situation here is uncertain and risk unknown, it is hard to see who is responsible for managing such risks. It is arguable that this situation militates in favor of labeling, since consumers are in effect research subjects. The reasonable moral approach to risk we have outlined is jeopardized by the societal tendency towards "victimology" and abrogation of personal responsibility. In such a world, it is incumbent on industry to educate the public with regard to consumer minimization of food safety risks, the impossibility of zero-risk situations, and the economic costs to freedom of protectionism.     

Food Parenting Practices That Influence Early Adolescents’ Food Choices During Independent Eating Occasions

ObjectiveTo identify practices that parents use to influence early adolescents’ food choices during independent eating occasions (iEOs) from parent and child perspectives.DesignIn-depth interviews.ParticipantsLow-income parents (n = 49) and early adolescent children (aged 10–13 years; n = 44) from 10 US states and the District of Columbia.Phenomenon of InterestParent and child perspectives on parenting practices that influence food choices during iEOs.AnalysisAudio-recorded interviews transcribed verbatim, NVivo coding, and directed content analysis.ResultsParents reported setting rules and expectations and managing availability or accessibility as the most common practices used to influence iEOs. Other practices included teaching, pressuring to eat, monitoring, and modeling. Children reported that their parents had rules about what they could or could not eat during iEOs and that they used specific strategies (eg, call or text) to monitor their iEOs.Conclusions and ImplicationsAdditional studies are needed to confirm findings from this exploratory study. Future cross-sectional and longitudinal studies could determine whether and to what extent food parenting practices identified in the current study are associated with healthy dietary intake during iEOs, as well as potential racial and ethnic differences.     

Are You Sure? Confidence about the Satiating Capacity of a Food Affects Subsequent Food Intake

Expectations about a food’s satiating capacity predict self-selected portion size, food intake and food choice. However, two individuals might have a similar expectation, but one might be extremely confident while the other might be guessing. It is unclear whether confidence about an expectation affects adjustments in energy intake at a subsequent meal. In a randomized cross-over design, 24 subjects participated in three separate breakfast sessions, and were served a low-energy-dense preload (53 kcal/100 g), a high-energy-dense preload (94 kcal/100 g), or no preload. Subjects received ambiguous information about the preload’s satiating capacity and rated how confident they were about their expected satiation before consuming the preload in its entirety. They were served an ad libitum test meal 30 min later. Confidence ratings were negatively associated with energy compensation after consuming the high-energy-dense preload (r = −0.61; p = 0.001). The same relationship was evident after consuming the low-energy-dense preload, but only after controlling for dietary restraint, hunger prior to, and liking of the test meal (p = 0.03). Our results suggest that confidence modifies short-term controls of food intake by affecting energy compensation. These results merit consideration because imprecise caloric compensation has been identified as a potential risk factor for a positive energy balance and weight gain.     

What Happens to Patterns of Food Consumption when Food Prices Change? Evidence from A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Food Price Elasticities Globally

Recent years have seen considerable interest in examining the impact of food prices on food consumption and subsequent health consequences. Fiscal policies targeting the relative price of unhealthy foods are frequently put forward as ways to address the obesity epidemic. Conversely, various food subsidy interventions are used in attempts to reduce levels of under‐nutrition. Information on price elasticities is essential for understanding how such changes in food prices affect food consumption. It is crucial to know not only own‐price elasticities but also cross‐price elasticities, as food substitution patterns may have significant implications for policy recommendations. While own‐price elasticities are common in analyses of the impact of food price changes on health, cross‐price effects, even though generally acknowledged, are much less frequently included in analyses, especially in the public health literature. This article systematically reviews the global evidence on cross‐price elasticities and provides combined estimates for seven food groups in low‐income, middle‐income and high‐income countries alongside previously estimated own‐price elasticities. Changes in food prices had the largest own‐price effects in low‐income countries. Cross‐price effects were more varied and depending on country income level were found to be reinforcing, undermining or alleviating own‐price effects. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Food Biotechnology: Boon or Threat?

The use of techniques of genetic engineering in the food system is the source of some debate. Proponents stress the potential biotechnology has for reducing the need for agricultural chemicals and improving the production, quality, safety, cost, and convenience of food products. They consider special labeling unnecessary and potentially misleading. Opponents raise a variety of food safety, ecological, social, and ethical issues and call for labeling, sometimes at any cost. Both ranges of views make valid points and overlook important realities. Nutrition education professionals, who are seen as trusted sources of information about food biotechnology, can help consumers understand issues raised by genetic engineering and facilitate cooperative dialogue among consumer, industry, and regulatory groups with the ultimate goal of promoting a safe, nutritious, and sustainable food system.     

Neurocognition: The Food–Brain Connection

This article summarizes presentations from “Neurocognition: The Food–Brain Connection” symposium held at the ASN Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2014 in San Diego, CA on 28 April 2014. Presenters reviewed research from several disciplines, including neurobiology, neuropsychology, cognitive neuroscience, and nutrition, concerning the role of the brain in food-intake regulation, reward, and addiction. A transdisciplinary approach was taken to evaluate the state of the science regarding addiction models, as well as research gaps and future research necessary to understand neurocircuitry and pathways involved in food-intake control and behavior in humans.Obesity prevalence in the United States remains elevated in both pediatric and adult populations. Concern about obesity led to public policies designed to discourage excessive caloric intake, especially from foods high in calories, sugars, and fats. These palatable foods were speculated recently to have addictive properties. However, there are several new human studies that fueled debate regarding the role of the brain in eating behavior.The objectives identified for the speakers were as follows: 1) to introduce topics on relations between the brain and food-related behaviors; 2) to discuss the quality of evidence; and 3) to identify gaps in the literature and directions for future research.The first speaker, Dr. Berridge, gave a presentation entitled “Food Reward and the Brain: Current Perspectives, Controversies, and Applications.” He said that it has become clear that the brain does not differentiate between food homeostatic and reward circuitry. Indeed, limbic and hypothalamic systems interact intimately in many regulatory pathways.The limbic system of the brain separates food reward into liking vs. wanting. Increases in “wanting” to eat can occur in the absence of increases in “liking” for the same food being eaten. Wanting without liking is similar to incentive sensitization in drug addiction. Wanting to eat more food (e.g., extremely focused pursuit and consumption of sugar pellets) without liking it more can be produced in animals in the laboratory by microinjections of dopamine into the nucleus accumbens and even by opioids in some accumbens subregions. Alternatively, opioid, endocannabinoid, or orexin stimulation of hedonic hotspots throughout the limbic system increase both liking and wanting. Both liking and wanting are also increased together by most natural hungers. Therefore, wanting and liking circuits work together to increase eating behavior.Extremely obese humans have reduced amounts of dopamine receptors, especially D₂ receptors. However, whether this is the cause or consequence of obesity and overeating is unknown. The cause of the overeating may be more likely due to hyper-reactivity in dopamine-related limbic circuitry. This would be similar to incentive sensitization in drug addiction. Nevertheless, whether food addiction exists remains a compelling question.Dr. Avena’s presentation, “Empirical Evidence Supporting the Construct of Food Addiction: A Focus on Animal Models,” centered on what she termed hyperpalatable, ultraprocessed foods that might overactivate brain circuits linked to the reinforcement of food intake and reward.Although drugs of abuse act on brain systems that reinforce natural behaviors, overlapping brain regions are activated by palatable foods and drugs of abuse. Her research suggests that normal-weight rats consuming excess sugar and rats that become overweight on a cafeteria-style diet show alterations in the mesolimbic dopamine and other brain systems that are consistent with what would be seen in animals using drugs of abuse.In humans, the Yale Food Addiction Scale was used ostensibly to measure addiction-like responses toward food. Several studies were conducted using this scale, and, depending on the specific population studied, different percentages of people meet the criteria of the scale for food addiction. For example, ∼11% of a general population meets the criteria for food addiction, but 56% of those who are obese with comorbid binge-eating disorder (BED) meet the criteria of the scale for having food addiction. Subsequent studies identified neurocorrelates between food addiction scores and activation of brain reward areas in response to the receipt or a cue for food, which maps to rat study findings.After presenting evidence for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for substance dependence, when the substance of abuse is palatable food, Dr. Avena dispelled areas of controversy in the comparison of food and drug addiction and then summarized where the field currently stands: “This is really just the start of a better understanding of food reward and brain mechanisms associated with eating, and how they may or may not lead to addictive-like behaviors.”Dr. Ziauddeen’s presentation, “Obesity and the Brain: How Convincing is the Addiction Model?”, drew on research in humans on the role of the brain reward system and normal and abnormal eating behavior. He noted that the brain–environment interaction in obesity development is a complex picture and that food addiction may have a specific place in it, albeit a small one.Drug addiction/dependence results from the combination of a drug and a susceptible individual over time. Indeed, 85% of people who use an addictive substance never develop dependence. In addition, food addiction may not be associated with obesity. In fact, if there is a food addiction, one might expect to see more obesity in individuals who have had the condition for longer.Long-term prospective studies are needed to develop a comprehensive model of food addiction that includes an addictive agent and charts the interaction between that agent and a susceptible individual over time, leading to the development of the addiction. However, typical research is cross-sectional, building models based on circumstantial evidence.Evidence for food addiction to date includes the following: 1) the clinical overlap between drug addiction and BED/obesity; 2) familial co-occurrence of obesity/BED and substance use disorders; and 3) neuroscientific evidence. Many issues surrounding the concept of human food addiction need to be addressed. The addictive agents are not always clearly identified. The clinical overlap is unconvincing, and evidence from animal models does not translate well beyond the laboratory. Receptor and neuroimaging studies in humans are inconsistent. Despite this, comparisons and superficial similarities are noted with drugs, and these are misleading. According to Dr. Ziauddeen, “At present there is little evidence to support a human food addiction syndrome.”Dr. Alonso-Alonso agreed, noting that, beyond extreme phenotypes related to the BED spectrum, there is limited evidence for food addiction in humans. In his presentation, “Beyond Food Reward: Broadening the Picture, Cognitive Influences,” he summarized key issues in the food addiction model and discussed the importance of cognition as a moderator of responses to food reward.Human fMRI studies indicate that palatable foods activate reward-related brain regions similar to other sources of pleasure in healthy individuals and drugs of abuse in the case of addicts. The majority of research focused on the identification of similarities, but recent studies comparing brain changes associated with drug addiction vs. obesity and eating disorders suggest that these overlaps are incomplete.Dr. Alonso-Alonso reviewed several shortcomings in the use of functional neuroimaging in this field, including the following: 1) the impossibility to diagnose addiction on the basis of these data because addiction relies on the subjective experience of an individual; and 2) the limited external validity of the method.Unlike laboratory rodents, humans live in a complex food environment that calls for >200 food-related decisions per day. These decisions rely on cognitive resources and, typically, the ability to balance immediate gratification against delayed reward on health or body image. Cognition influences rewarding responses to food via top-down mechanisms that are particularly developed in humans. Dr. Alonso-Alonso mentioned potential strategies to promote healthy eating via enhancement of cognitive control with interventions based on physical activity, meditation, neuromodulation, or drugs. He highlighted recent research suggesting that certain foods and nutrients potentially strengthen the status of brain regions underlying cognitive control, such as the lateral prefrontal cortex.According to Dr. Alonso-Alonso, there is a need for integrated research to understand the interplay and relative contribution of 3 key factors underlying response to food reward: 1) the food itself, including the impact of different food types, nutrients, doses, thresholds, and patterns of consumption; 2) individual characteristics, such as genetic influences and phenotypes that can predispose or protect from overeating; and 3) the context, which refers to situational factors, personal attitudes toward food, and social norms, cultural values, and other environmental contributors.The presentation also covered implications for treatment associated with the food-addiction model. Dr. Alonso-Alonso provided examples from past research in obesity to illustrate that abstinence may not be an adequate solution to reduce overeating and obesity in the general population. Additionally, numerous studies in the treatment of eating disorders concluded that, rather than advocating rigid dietary restrictions, the focus should be on addressing underlying issues and managing relations with food. There is also the potential for adverse unintentional consequences of defining food as addictive, including increased food-related anxiety and risk of reinforcing the overeating cycle.The final presentation, by Dr. Allison, was “Neurocognition: The Food–Brain Connection—Methodologic and Epistemologic Considerations.” He addressed questions pertaining to the following: 1) determining appropriate research designs and how to do them well; and 2) defining food addiction. He lauded previous speakers for not just showing data but for considering its relevance: “This is a fairly new level of sophistication in the conversation about food addiction, and the first step toward a scientifically meaningful definition of addiction.”An issue in the neuroscientific study of obesity is being “blinded by the light” of new technology. He cited the value of good experimental design principles and advised researchers to take a deep breath and ask themselves some questions when they evaluate studies, such as “Would I be convinced of this conclusion if it only showed a bar graph instead of brain images, and, if not, why do the pictures somehow make it seem like there’s something more here?” “No matter what approach is used,” said Dr. Allison, “we still need to correct multiple comparisons and publish the corrected results. We still need to stay grounded in the principles of sound investigation.”He noted the value in considering differences between experimental conditions and reality and encouraged that outcomes be accurately presented to the media. Topics such as obesity and addiction draw great media attention. “By putting accuracy-reducing spin in abstracts, press releases will almost always pick it up, as will the news,” he said, adding that scientists need to be aware of their own complicity in misleading the public.Other issues covered included skepticism about tools, such as the Yale Food Addiction Scale. “These approaches have been shown to be reliable and therefore measure something.” he said, “The question is what.” He emphasized the need to ensure that questions are meaningful, sample sizes are adequate, designs are valid, analyses are done properly, and results are interpreted fairly. “New technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging may seem magical,” he said, “but they’re not magic and do not change the fundamental logic and statistics of experimental design.” Importantly, only with an objective and logically coherent definition of what it means for a thing to be addictive can we ask whether food is addictive. He noted that Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders definitions are intended to determine whether specific persons are addicted to specific things and not whether specific things can, in general, be judged to be addictive or not.In summary, speakers evaluated the knowledge of the neurocircuitry and pathway physiology for food intake, addiction, and overlap with neurocognition. Whereas pathways of food addiction were well demonstrated in animal studies, the challenges that arise when translating animal addiction models to humans were acknowledged. The speakers evaluated research on brain reward systems and food intake and underscored the need to stay grounded in the basics of sound experimental design and data analyses. All presenters agreed that the study of the food–brain connection has some way to go before science develops a meaningful definition of food addiction.     

Food‐sharing among young children†

A study of food‐sharing among young children in a non‐experimental setting is reported. Boys and girls aged 5–8 years attending a city day camp were observed for a two‐week session. On the basis of daily observations of children in dyads, each child was ranked by the amount of his equal (peer) and unequal (dominant) relations with other members of his group. The nature, amount, and direction of food sharing was observed, and the relationship of equal and dominant behavior to food‐sharing activity was considered. Not only did girls tend to share food more often than boys, but they also tended to share food with more other children. The implications of these findings for the development of friendships and cliques among young children are discussed, and the importance of food exchange for children in peer groups is considered.     

Food Brands: Friend or Foe?

Food brands are household words to many Americans but some are anathema to nutritionists and they would gladly banish them. Here's a look at the pros and cons of some of the old favorites from our nutrition business editor.     

Canadian Dietitians’ Understanding of Food Security

The Canadian Dietetic Association (CDA) has identified food security as a key action issue for its members. Since any course of action depends on how an issue is understood, we undertook a telephone survey of 487 CDA members to assess their understanding of food security. Dietitians were asked which of the following list they include in their definition of food security: (1) food safety; (2) food as a basic human right; (3) adequate food to maintain health; (4) sustainable agricultural systems; (5) affordability; (6) charitable food distribution systems; and (7) individual choice of personally acceptable foods. Overall, there was a fairly high level of awareness and broad conceptualization of food security. Ninety-three percent included food safety; 87% included food as a human right, adequate food for health, and sustainable agriculture; and 81% included affordability of food. Fewer dietitians included charitable food sources (62%) and individual choice of personally acceptable foods (51%) in their definition. Understandings of the term differed by area of practice but not length of time in practice. Different understandings of food security may lead dietitians to take different, but equally important, courses of action.This may make dialogue confusing and collaboration difficult until the differences are clarified and appreciated.     

Food policies: a threat to health?

Food policies deliver large quantities of food relatively safely, but they are failing to deliver healthy diets. Policies fall into three broad categories: the supply of sufficient amounts of food (food security); the provision of food free from contamination (food safety); the provision of a healthy diet available to all (nutritional quality). These three aspects are dealt with by institutions that rarely engage with each other, let alone coordinate their strategies. Greater financial support has been given to agricultural policy than to any other joint EU endeavour. In the last decade food safety has dominated headlines and has influenced recent changes to EU food policies. New food authorities and agencies have been established and ministerial responsibilities have been redefined. Yet, it is nutrition, or rather 'mis-nutrition', that is the largest single cause of death and disease within the region, and indeed worldwide. This need not be the case. Nutrition and dietary policies may find themselves in close alliance with policies for sustainable agriculture. However, the change in thinking that will be required will mean reconsidering the role of commercial food production. Successful nutrition policies may yet prove to be the next major step in the improvement of public health.     

Food Composition Programme of ASEANFOODS 1995–1999

ASEANFOODS was established in 1986, with six member countries including Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Institute of Nutrition, Mahidol University (INMU) was designated as the Regional Centre. In 1996, Vietnam was included as a new country member. This report emphasizes the main activities carried out in 1995–1999 at the regional centre to fulfill the specific objectives of ASEANFOODS. To strengthen the analytical performance of food analysis laboratories in ASEAN, a new set of reference materials, weaning food (AS-FRM5) and fish flour (AS-FRM6) with consensus values of mandatory nutrients for nutrition labelling was developed. The reference materials were used as test materials for the third round of laboratory performance study, including government and private laboratories in ASEANFOODS member countries and laboratories in other regions. A collaborative programme involving three countries — Indonesia (LIPI, Bandung), Thailand (INMU) and Australia (QHSS) was conducted in 1997–1998, with support from AusAID to strengthen the technical and analytical capabilities and quality assurance programme in Indonesia. This programme can eventually strengthen laboratories to generate good quality food composition data. Such activities will be extended to other member countries. In keeping with the need of the members, the first regional food composition data are being developed. Current activities on development of national food composition tables are also summarized.     

Caffeine Transiently Affects Food Intake at Breakfast

Background

Caffeine is frequently added to dietary supplements with claims it facilitates weight loss.