Kak, a player widely regarded as the best in world football, has dedicated his participation in the UEFA Champions League Final tomorrow to the cause of hungry children. Kak combines his role as an attacking midfielder for AC Milan and Brazil, with work as an Ambassador Against Hunger for the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).

When he steps out onto the field for AC Milan in their match against Liverpool at the Olympic Stadium in Athens tomorrow evening, Kak will have just two things on his mind: “Obviously, Wednesday night is all about winning the Champions League trophy for AC Milan,” he said. “But personally, I also want to dedicate my appearance in the Athens final to the cause of hungry children.”

As WFP’s youngest Ambassador Against Hunger, Kak has used his profile as a successful international sportsman to draw attention to the challenge of addressing global hunger.

“As professional footballers, we are very privileged,” said Kak as he prepared for the final in Athens. “From time to time we have a chance to help others because of who we are and what we do. I want to use my position as a WFP Ambassador Against Hunger to make more people aware of the challenges of feeding hundreds of millions of hungry children in some of the poorest, least developed parts of the world.”

“It’s an incredible asset to have the world’s best player in the world’s favourite game on our team,” said WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran. “Kak has shown that he can combine the skills and dedication needed to be at the very top of the game with a commitment to a worthy humanitarian cause.”

Kak’s dedication of the Champions League final follows the decision earlier this year, by Paul Tergat, the world marathon record holder — and another WFP Ambassador Against Hunger — to dedicate his participation in the 2007 Flora London Marathon to the cause of hungry children.

WFP is the world’s largest humanitarian agency: on average, each year, we give food to 90 million poor people to meet their nutritional needs, including 58 million hungry children, in 80 of the world’s poorest countries. WFP - We Feed People.

http://www.wfp.org

Q. Recently, my wife and I decided to become lacto-vegetarians. We already have a one-year-old daughter, but we want one more baby. Should my wife give up vegetarianism, or at least postpone it for some time? Should she use supplements?

A. Your question in particularly timely in the wake of the recent verdict handed down in Atlanta, in which vegan parents were found guilty of the murder of their six-week-old son, who died of malnutrition. Whether it was the result of ignorance or indifference on the part of the parents, the jury was clearly outraged by the preventable death of a helpless infant.

People choose veganism for a variety of reasons: For many, the choice is dictated by religious, moral, environmental, or ethical convictions. For others, it is a matter of preference or necessity. Of all the arguments for veganism, however, the notion that veganism is healthier than diets containing animal protein is perhaps the shakiest.

There’s no question that the human body is designed to eat animal protein. Then again, as denizens of the 21st century, we do lots of things that run contrary to our biological blueprint. And there are plenty of studies that show vegetarians are frequently healthier than their meat-eating counterparts. With proper education and some extra effort, healthy adults can thrive on a vegan diet. (For more information on constructing a healthy vegan diet, consult the http://vrg.org/).

But is veganism healthy for infants? In an editorial for this week’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html), Nina Planck writes:

“I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.”

Of particular concern with pregnant and nursing women and their babies is that they get enough protein, iron, vitamins B-12 and D, calcium and zinc. Essential fatty acids are also critical to proper fetal development and infant growth. These nutrients are all primarily found (in or best absorbed from) foods of animal origin.

It is possible to get all the nutrients needed for human health from plant or synthetic sources, but it requires strict attention to your diet, and usually at least some supplementation or fortified foods. For example, many infants thrive on a fortified soy-based infant formula–but regular soymilk is not an appropriate substitute. Those who feel that supplements or fortified foods aren’t “natural,” should remember that a vegan diet is also not “natural” for our species.

You mention that you and your wife are lacto-vegetarians, and that’s a somewhat different story. Milk contains high-quality protein, vitamin B-12, and is usually fortified with vitamins A and D. Dairy products are not terrific sources of iron or zinc, however. As a nutritionist, I would have far fewer qualms with a pregnant patient or a young child following an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet, containing both eggs and dairy products. Whatever you decide about your own diet, its very important that you share that information with your obstetrician and pediatrician, so that they can counsel you appropriately and monitor your health and the health of your children with that in mind.

Most physicians recommend prenatal vitamins for all pregnant women, in part because of the increased need for certain nutrients during pregnancy. I think a multi-vitamin it would be a particularly good idea for pregnant or nursing women who follow vegetarian diets.

The ND community includes a large number of vegetarians, who I’m sure have some thoughts on these issues as well. So let’s open up the floor to comments!
http://www.vizu.com/ & http://answers.vizu.com/market-research.htm

Add your thoughts below by clicking on the “Post a Comment” link below.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2007, 4:20doi:10.1186/1479-5868-4-20

Published 23May2007

Abstract (provisional)

The complete article is available as a http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/pdf/1479-5868-4-20.pdf. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

Background

For high-risk individuals and their healthcare providers, finding the right balance between promoting physical activity and minimizing the risk of adverse events can be difficult. More information on the prevalence and influence of adverse events is needed to improve providers’ ability to prescribe effective and safe exercise programs for their patients.

Methods

This study describes the type and severity of adverse events reported by participants with cardiovascular disease or at-risk for cardiovascular disease that occurred during an unsupervised, home-based walking study. This multi-site, randomized controlled trial tested the feasibility of a diet and lifestyle activity intervention over 1.5 years. At month 13, 274 eligible participants (male veterans) were recruited who were ambulatory, BMI> 28, and reporting one or more cardiovascular disease risk factors. All participants attended five, face-to-face dietitian-delivered counseling sessions during the six-month intervention. Participants were randomized to three study arms: 1) time-based walking goals, 2) simple pedometer-based walking goals, and 3) enhanced pedometer-based walking goals with Internet-mediated feedback. Two physicians verified adverse event symptom coding.

Results

Enrolled participants had an average of five medical comorbidities. During 1110 person months of observation, 87 of 274 participants reported 121 adverse events. One serious study-related adverse event (atrial fibrillation) was reported; the individual resumed study participation within three days. Non-serious, study related adverse events made up 12% of all symptoms - predominantly minor musculoskeletal events. Serious, non-study related adverse events represented 32% of all symptoms while non-serious, non-study related adverse events made up 56% of symptoms. Cardiovascular disease events represented over half of the non-study related adverse event symptoms followed by musculoskeletal complaints. Adverse events caused 50 temporary suspensions averaging 26 days in duration before physician medical clearance was obtained to resume walking.

Conclusions

Men at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events can safely be advised to start a progressive walking program. Results suggest that minor to serious medical problems unrelated to exercise are a major barrier to walking adherence. Helping individuals with chronic illness return to physical activity quickly but safely after an adverse event is an important component of any physical activity intervention targeting this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00123435

April 19, 2007 — A former art teacher was bounced from one of the city school system’s so-called “rubber rooms” by cops yesterday after he began filming for a documentary inside without permission, police said.

Jeremy Garrett, 30, working on a film called “The Rubber Room,” was charged with criminal trespass for entering the reassignment center at 25 Chapel St. in Brooklyn and turning on his camera to the chagrin of dozens of teachers.

“There’s a stigma surrounding the reassignment of teachers to a place called the rubber room,” said one teacher at the center. “He was surrounded by people who objected.”

Thirteen such centers scattered throughout the city act as holding pens for some 500 teachers who are either facing administrative charges or are unwanted by the system but cannot be fired outright because they are tenured.

Garrett taught at Graphic Communication Arts HS in Manhattan from September 2000 until his resignation in January 2006, according to the Department of Education. There is no record of him ever being assigned to a rubber room.

The European Commission’s Better Training for Safer Food initiative got off to a strong start in 2006, with 1400 participants from around 100 countries attending workshops on a wide variety of topics linked to EU food and feed controls. The aim of the training workshops is to ensure that official control authorities fully understand and properly enforce EU food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules and plant health legislation. The first annual report on Better Training for Safer Food, which was published today, gives a detailed outline of the training activities carried out in 2006 are. It also provides some information on the feedback that the Commission received from attendees. Finally, the report describes the planned programme for 2007 and looks at how future training programmes should be carried out in order to achieve the best results.

Markos Kyprianou, Commissioner for Health, said: “The Better Training for Safer Food programme is another example of concrete action taken by the Commission to ensure that European consumers are delivered the safest food possible. The annual report reveals a busy and productive first year for this programme, and I am confident that it will continue to grow and develop over the coming years to produce impressive results in terms of food safety.”

Better Training for Safer Food

Better Training for Safer Food is an ambitious programme to provide training to EU and third country officials responsible for checking that EU food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health rules are applied. In providing this training, the Commission aims to ensure that the control authorities have a full and uniform understanding of EU rules in these areas, so that food and feed put on the EU market meets the high safety standards expected. The programme also aims to encourage the exchange of information and development of new professional relationships between participants. A budget of 4 million was allocated for the Better Training for Safer Food initiative in 2006.

A busy start

In 2006, 34 different training events took place under the framework of Better Training for Safer Food. The EU-based training covered five areas, namely HACCP ; animal welfare at slaughter and in disease control situations; animal by-products; veterinary checks at airport border inspection posts; and veterinary checks at seaport border inspection posts. The majority of participants in these sessions were from EU control authorities nominated by their respective Member States and funded by the Commission.

In these cases, the main aim of the Better Training for Safer Food is to familiarise official control staff with EU import requirements, thereby facilitating access to the EU market for third country products and ensuring the safety of EU imports.

However, a number of candidate and third country representatives, and some members of the private sector, also took part. Moreover, two programmes designed specifically for third countries were carried out in 2006, focussing on EU standards for fishery products and for fruit and vegetables. EU experts were also sent to South East Asia to help authorities in affected countries to develop strategies to control Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.

Looking ahead

In 2007, the Better Training for Safer Food programme is expanding, with 62 different training events scheduled, covering 12 topics. The annual report outlines how the training for 2007 was sculpted largely on the basis of feedback and experience from the previous year, and following consultation within the Commission and with Member State representatives. It was decided that the training programmes which ran in 2006 should continue during 2007. In addition, five new training programmes have been introduced for 2007. Three of these are EU-based and cover zoonoses and microbiological criteria in foodstuffs, controls on food contact materials, and the evaluation and registration of plant protection products. Two new training programmes have also been devised for third countries: a training session on food testing for laboratory staff in Association of South-East Asian Nations member states, and training on the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. A budget of 7.5 million has been allocated to Better Training for Safer Food activities in 2007.

For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/training/ann_report2006_en.htm

1 - Hazard analysis critical control points