The nutritional significance of cheese in the UK diet

Cheese currently suffers from an adverse nutritional image largely due to a perceived association between saturated fatty acid, cholesterol and the salt content of cheese with cardiovascular disease. However, cheese is also a rich source of essential nutrients such as, proteins, lipids, vitamins and minerals that play an integral part of a healthy diet. This review outlines the composition, structure and physiological characteristics of the nutritionally significant components of cheese, whilst presenting some of the controversies that surround the role of cheese in dietary guidelines and the potential cheese has to improve health in the UK population

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biologicial Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (solipeds)

A risk ranking process identified Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazard in the context of meat inspection of domestic solipeds. Without a full and reliable soliped traceability system, it is considered that either testing all slaughtered solipeds for Trichinella spp., or inactivation meat treatments (heat or irradiation) should be used to maintain the current level of safety. With regard to general aspects of current meat inspection practices, the use of manual techniques during current post-mortem soliped meat inspection may increase microbial cross-contamination, and is considered to have a detrimental effect on the microbiological status of soliped carcass meat. Therefore, the use of visual-only inspection is suggested for “non-suspect” solipeds. For chemical hazards, phenylbutazone and cadmium were ranked as being of high potential concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account Food Chain Information (FCI), covering the specific on-farm environmental conditions and individual animal treatments, and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated and include new hazards. Sampling, testing and intervention protocols for chemical hazards should be better integrated and should focus particularly on cadmium, phenylbutazone and priority “essential substances” approved for treatment of equine animals. Implementation and enforcement of a more robust and reliable identification system throughout the European Union is needed to improve traceability of domestic solipeds. Meat inspection is recognised as a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. If visual only post-mortem inspection is implemented for routine slaughter, a reduction in the detection of strangles and mild cases of rhodococcosis would occur. However, this was considered unlikely to affect the overall surveillance of both diseases. Improvement of FCI and traceability were considered as not having a negative effect on animal health and welfare surveillance

Towards reducing variations in infant mortality and morbidity : a population-based approach

Background: Our aims were (1) to improve understanding of regional variation in early-life mortality rates and the UK’s poor performance in international comparisons; and (2) to identify the extent to which late and moderately preterm (LMPT) birth contributes to early childhood mortality and morbidity. Objective: To undertake a programme of linked population-based research studies to work towards reducing variations in infant mortality and morbidity rates. Design: Two interlinked streams: (1) a detailed analysis of national and regional data sets and (2) establishment of cohorts of LMPT babies and term-born control babies. Setting: Cohorts were drawn from the geographically defined areas of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, and analyses were carried out at the University of Leicester. Data sources: For stream 1, national data were obtained from four sources: the Office for National Statistics, NHS Numbers for Babies, Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries and East Midlands and South Yorkshire Congenital Anomalies Register. For stream 2, prospective data were collected for 1130 LMPT babies and 1255 term-born control babies. Main outcome measures: Detailed analysis of stillbirth and early childhood mortality rates with a particular focus on factors leading to biased or unfair comparison; review of clinical, health economic and developmental outcomes over the first 2 years of life for LMPT and term-born babies. Results: The deprivation gap in neonatal mortality has widened over time, despite government efforts to reduce it. Stillbirth rates are twice as high in the most deprived as in the least deprived decile. Approximately 70% of all infant deaths are the result of either preterm birth or a major congenital abnormality, and these are heavily influenced by mothers’ exposure to deprivation. Births at < 24 weeks’ gestation constitute only 1% of all births, but account for 20% of infant mortality. Classification of birth status for these babies varies widely across England. Risk of LMPT birth is greatest in the most deprived groups within society. Compared with term-born peers, LMPT babies are at an increased risk of neonatal morbidity, neonatal unit admission and poorer long-term health and developmental outcomes. Cognitive and socioemotional development problems confer the greatest long-term burden, with the risk being amplified by socioeconomic factors. During the first 24 months of life each child born LMPT generates approximately £3500 of additional health and societal costs. Conclusions: Health professionals should be cautious in reviewing unadjusted early-life mortality rates, particularly when these relate to individual trusts. When more sophisticated analysis is not possible, babies of < 24 weeks’ gestation should be excluded. Neonatal services should review the care they offer to babies born LMPT to ensure that it is appropriate to their needs. The risk of adverse outcome is low in LMPT children. However, the risk appears higher for some types of antenatal problems and when the mother is from a deprived background

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems