January « 2010 « Shine on Scotland

People who have more vitamin D in their blood are less likely to develop bowel cancer than those with low levels, researchers have said.Skip related content

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, those with the highest levels of the vitamin were at 40% lower risk of developing the disease compared with those with the lowest levels.

It comes after medical experts expressed concern on Thursday about the rising number of cases of rickets – caused by vitamin D deficiency – and called for it to be added to milk and other food products.

The main source of vitamin D is sunlight, through skin exposure, but it is also present in a small number of foods, such as oily fish or cod liver oil.

The research team said that although the latest study provides evidence of a link between vitamin D and bowel cancer, it does not prove that taking vitamin D supplements prevents the disease.

More studies are needed to find out the potential impact on other cancers and the effects of taking extra vitamin D doses, scientists said.

Dr Panagiota Mitrou, science programme manager for the World Cancer Research Fund, said: “This is the biggest ever study on this subject and there is now quite a lot of evidence from studying populations that people who have low levels of vitamin D are more likely to develop bowel cancer.

“The next step is to carry out new clinical trials to try to confirm whether vitamin D supplementation can reduce the risk of bowel cancer and whether there are any harmful effects of higher levels of vitamin D.

“But we need to emphasise that, for the moment, the findings need to be treated with caution and they are certainly not enough evidence to suggest that we should be taking supplements to increase levels of vitamin D.

“The best advice for reducing risk of bowel cancer remains to stop smoking, maintain a healthy weight, be regularly physically active, to eat more fibre and less red and processed meats and to cut down on alcohol.”

Vitamin D should be added to milk and other food products to halt a rise in cases of rickets in children, say experts at Newcastle University.

The vitamin, produced when skin is exposed to sunlight, is also found in a small number of foods, and deficiency can cause bone deformation.

One reason for an increase in cases is thought to be the popularity of indoor activities, such as computer gaming.

Professor Simon Pearce said a change in public health policy was needed.

A lack of the vitamin within the traditional UK diet is also thought to be a factor – it can be found in oily fish such as salmon, mackerel, sardines and herring.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Pearce and colleague Dr Tim Cheetham said Vitamin D deficiency had become “disturbingly common” in the UK in recent years.

‘Entirely preventable’

Dr Cheetham said: “I am dismayed by the increasing numbers of children we are treating with this entirely preventable condition.

“Fifty years ago, many children would have been given regular doses of cod liver oil, but this practice has all but died out.”

Half of all adults in the UK have a deficiency in the winter and spring, with one in six having severe deficiency.

The problem is worse in northern regions and could be part of the reason for the health gap between the north and south, according to the university figures.

Professor Pearce said health professionals have been slow to deal with the problem.

He added: “We believe that a more robust approach to statutory food supplementation with vitamin D, for example in milk, is needed in the UK, as this measure has already been introduced successfully in many other countries in similar parts of the world.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “Vitamin D supplements are recommended for some people at risk of vitamin D deficiency and people at risk of not getting enough exposure to sunlight.

“The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has advised that research into the link with chronic disease is inconclusive and further work is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8472469.stm

A rebuff for Heinz over an outrageous baby formula TV ad is bad news for food corps and their ever-more-sophisticated tweaks of parental guilt. But Heinz needs a proper spanking

Heinz has received an embarrassing ticking-off from the Advertising Standards Authority for the nauseating TV advert for its baby milk, Nurture, above. The ASA said on Monday that the claim that the formula would support growth in the brain, body and immune system of a baby was “unsubstantiated” and “unacceptable”.

Campaigners for honest food are delighted. This is a boost in the next front in the long-running war over children’s food claims: promises that food supplements can aid mental development. (How long-running? In the 1890s John Harvey Kellogg said that his cornflakes would prevent masturbation in young men, while in 1903 Grape Nuts promised a cure for malaria and loose teeth.)

Already Nestle’s Gerber brand in the United States is marketing follow-on purees for toddlers with the words “helps support brain and eye development” prominent on the packet. This claim – accepted by the authorities in the US – is based on research around DHA and other forms of Omega-3 oils.

Gerber baby food which, the manufacturers claim, helps support brain and eye development. Photograph: Alex Renton

Despite scepticism over on this side of the Atlantic – one eminent scientist told me recently the claim that DHA could help nerve system development and cognitive function was “bullshit” – manufacturers have been preparing for what they believe will be a positive ruling from theEuropean foods standards body soon. Will the ASA ruling upset that process?

For now, it is three cheers for the ASA, which has been showing its teeth on food manufacturers’ porkies lately. Christine Haigh of the Children’s Food Campaign points out the resemblance with the case last October in which Danone’s adverts claimed that Actimel was “scientifically proven to help support your kids defences” were ruled against. “We believe the Food Standards Agency needs to investigate how widespread this practice is,” says Haigh.

Sadly the ASA, like the Press Complaints Commission, is more bark than bite. It cannot make Heinz and its ad agency Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO say sorry to those poor parents it bullied to buy Nurture, which costs 70% more than the Farley’s product it replaced when launched in July 2008. In fact, a proper self-regulatory body would make “agency of the year 2009″ AMV BBDO pay back their fee to the mums and dads. Shouldn’t it?

A TV ad campaign for Heinz baby products that made misleading claims about their health benefits has been banned by the advertising watchdog.

The TV ad, by the agency Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, promoted Heinz Nurture infant formula and milk by stating that a baby needed a “special combination of nutrients to sustain the incredible growth in its brain, body and immune system”. It claimed that Heinz had developed Nurture to “provide for those three essential aspects of growth” and that it helped “nourish, protect and develop your baby”

The Advertising Standards Authority received three complaints that the ad made claims about immunity and development in children that the product could not justify.

Heinz said that the “nurture” claim was based on the formulation’s milk protein for growth and calcium for healthy teeth and bones; the “protect” claim came from elements including iron, prebiotics and nucleotides that protect the immune system; and “develop” came from the inclusion of omega-3 and omega-6, which helped brain and eye development.

The ASA said that Heinz’s ad strategy implied a specific health benefit from the use of Nuture. The watchdog pointed out that the ad was broadcast in July 2008 – after new European regulations came into force relating to nutrition and health claims for foods, and said it was “concerned that the evidence submitted was not sufficiently robust to support the product’s claims in relation to children’s immunity and development. We concluded, therefore, that the claim was unsubstantiated and the ad was unacceptable.”