I work in a nutrition department that has begun to look at sustainability within our agricultural system. So what does it mean to be truly sustainable? I was curious too and happened to find the following article…enjoy!

Sustainable Agricultre

(Article source: Seed Magazine; Image source: Berkeley )

What does “sustainable agriculture” truly mean—and what should it look like? The outlines of this long-running debate will be familiar to many. One side argues that modern, industrialized farming, for all its flaws, has mostly been a force for good, vastly improving yield, reducing food-borne illness, and saving the world from Malthusian disaster.  Building upon this foundation, modern farming should be science-based and highly capitalized, employing the arsenal of innovations in chemistry, biotechnology, and satellite systems—from biotech seeds to laser-leveled fields. The other side rebuts that given the enormous environmental and social costs of intensified agriculture, a paradigm shift is needed: one that takes a whole-systems approach based on traditional knowledge, alternative agriculture, and local food system experience.

Source: Medical News Today

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will devote $1.5 billion over the next five years to maternal and child health,family planning and nutritionprograms in developing nations with high maternal and infant death rates, theNew York Times reports.

Melinda Gates, who announced the planned spending at an international women’s health conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday, said the money will be used to train health workers, develop improvedantibiotics to treat infections in newborns and find better ways to treat hemorrhage in mothers.
Gates noted the example of Malawi, one of Africa’s poorest nations, which has started to lower its child and maternal mortality rates. She said pregnancy and childbirth in developing nations often “end in tragedy,” but many deaths could be prevented at a “stunningly” low cost (Grady, New York Times, 6/8).

Gates also said the problem is not caused by a lack of medical knowledge but because “we haven’t tried hard enough.” She added, “Policymakers in both rich and poor countries have treated women and children, quite frankly, as if they matter less than men. They have squandered opportunities to improve the health of women and babies” (Burns, AP/CBS News, 6/7).

The Gates Foundation, which has assets totaling roughly $35.2 billion, already has spent $10 billion on global health projects, including $1.8 billion for maternal, newborn and child health efforts. The foundation’s primary focus to date has been vaccines and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS (New York Times, 6/8).

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also spoke at Monday’s conference to promote a joint action plan intended to improve women’s and children’s health. He called on business leaders, lawmakers and health experts to submit ideas and proposals before the action plan is finalized in the next few months (AP/CBS News, 6/7).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of theNational Partnership for Women & Families.

Truly shocking when put into perspective of the migration of the spill, where oil has made landfall, efforts attempted to stop the leak, and effects on the wild life. The original animated image and full report can be found HERE.

These three articles are significant to me as they are relevant to events that have happened to me in the past week. The first article is due to my recent visit to the dentist…I was curious about the effects of eating late night, as I tend to do. Dentists seem very against it for the reasons mentioned in the article. The second article came about after I read a research paper that found an association with higher levels “food insecurities” in low-SES families whose mother experienced mental health problems – depression being a significant contributor. Therefore, the authors suggested that research is needed to assess whether “interventions that address women’s mental health symptoms can help to reduce the burden of food insecurity and its consequences on families” (Melchior et al., 2009). I agree, as interventions that focus on improving family nutrition emphasis education too much – which is not a bad thing. However, education should derive from understanding root problems or barriers (e.g., mental health barriers). Lastly, the third article expresses a concern that I have when I shop at a health food store or supplement store like GNC. It’s either hit or miss when it comes to getting recommendations from employees…so I just tend to ask a nutritionist or look up information on-line.

People sometimes ask me if they should consume natural sugars or substitute for artificial sweeteners when dieting. So I found the following article to address the concern.

Original Source: Nutrition Data Blog

Do artificial sweeteners lead to weight gain? A lot of people rushed to judgment against artificial sweeteners based on preliminary evidence that they might increase appetite or sugar cravings, or even cause elevated blood sugar levels. But the ensuing research has failed to deliver a definitive indictment.

Although there seems to be a correlation between diet soda consumption and weight gain, it is hard to say whether this is a biochemical effect. It could just be that people prone to weight gain are more likely to choose sugar-free foods in an (apparently ineffective) attempt to stem the tide.

I’ve also always suspected a behavioral component. Maybe people unconsciously over-compensate for the calories they save with the diet soda. (”I’m having a diet soda so maybe I can afford to have dessert.”)

Last summer, a large study found that artificially-sweetened foods appeared to be helpful for weight loss. But artificial sweeteners were just one of many tools that the successful dieters used to manage their calorie intake. What the study really shows is that those who employ the most weight management strategies are the most successful.  In other words, for those who are not fully committed to dietary restraint across the board, artificially-sweetened foods probably don’t lead to weight loss.

Meanwhile, other researchers have been trying to pin down the biochemical aspects. For example, studies in rodents showed that sucralose (Splenda) speeds the uptake of glucose eaten at the same meal–leading to a sharper rise in blood sugar. That’s not good.  At the same time, this rise in blood sugar also appeared to trigger release of a hormone that signals fullness.  That could be helpful.

Whether the upshot of all that ends up being positive or negative for weight loss turns out to be moot. The latest study indicates that sucralose doesn’t seem to have the same effect on blood sugar uptake or appetite-regulating hormones in humans as it does in mice.

Clearly, we don’t have the final answer on how artificial sweeteners might support or sabotage weight loss. According to the research, artificially sweetened foods appear to be a helpful tool for some; less so for others. But I think the effects (both biochemical and psychological) vary greatly from individual to individual.

Ultimately, however, my bias towards less-processed foods makes me suspect that we’d really be better off without them.