Mid-COVID, our investigation finds few vulnerabilities in Australia’s supply chains

Blue Planet Studio/Shutterstock

Catherine de Fontenay, The University of MelbourneUntil COVID, Australians had a pretty safe assumption that global supply chains could supply more or less whatever they wanted.

And then it became hard to get sanitiser and masks and other kinds of personal protective equipment.

Most of those supply chains were quickly reestablished, but the sudden appearance of vulnerabilities prompted Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to commission the Productivity Commission to prepare a report identifying significant vulnerabilities and ways of dealing with them which I co-authored.

Terms of referece, Productivity Commission Study Report into vulnerable Supply Chains

We approached the task with a broad scan of the data. The advantage of a data scan is that it can identify products vulnerable to disruption that experts might have missed.

Our approach was to first identify the products that are vulnerable to supply
chain disruptions and then to identify which of them were used in essential industries. Experts can then determine if it’s possible to replace the product in a crisis.

Australia imported 5862 different products from 223 countries in 2016-17. The biggest suppliers were China and the United States. Combined, they accounted for just over one third of the value of goods imported.

---

Australian imports come from many sources

Share of Australian imports from each source by value, 2016-17.
Productivity Commission

---

We found that 1327 of the 5862 products (one in five) came from concentrated import markets.

The most concentrated were chemicals, iron and steel, and equipment.

Imports of other products including seafood and some types of clothing were also highly concentrated.

Market concentration creates vulnerability

We considered how markets were likely to respond to a disruption of supply or a spike in demand. As was experienced during the spike in demand for protective equipment, shortages trigger a period of uncertainty during which existing contracts and personal relationships help determine who gets goods first.

But fairly soon after, who gets what gets determined by the prices buyers are willing to pay.

So a product is vulnerable if much of the world supply is concentrated in one country; if that country experiences a natural disaster or other shock, the remaining world supply is very limited, and prices will be astronomical.

---

A filtering process was used to identify vulnerable imports

Productivity Commission Study Report into vulnerable Supply Chains, August 2021

---

China is the main supplier of about two thirds of the list of vulnerable imported products, although the main source of supply varies by product.

Many of the imports classified as vulnerable were clearly not critical to the wellbeing of Australians; among them Christmas decorations, swimwear, luxury watches and American peaches.

The essential supplies that were vulnerable included personal protective equipment and certain chemicals.

Onshoring can’t always help

Some commentators and some policymakers have recommended onshoring critical supplies.

A problem with this is that onshore manufacturing could not have prepared us for a ten-fold spike in demand for personal protective equipment unless we produced multiples of what we needed.

Onshore manufacturing of the Pfizer vaccine would still require importing 280 components from 19 countries, some of which are the true source of scarcity according to Pfizer.

The principle outlined in our report is that most of the time governments should be responsible for managing their supply chains (for example in hospitals), and private firms should be responsible for managing theirs.

---

Read more:
‘Panic-buying’ is the new normal: how supply chains have adapted

---

The government should intervene in private markets only when the private firm is more tolerant of risk than the nation. The correct response depends on the nature of the risk.

Among the responses possible are measures to encourage firms to build domestic stockpiles, to diversify, to write contracts with contingencies for emergencies, and (in only rare cases) to manufacture domestically.

Income from most exports is safe

Excluding iron ore, only 1.5% of Australia’s exports are at risk of disruption, having no alternative markets.

Iron ore accounts for about 40% of Australia’s goods and services exports to China, and can be thought of a “mutual vulnerability” — China has few other sources of supply for the quantify it needs, and Australia has few other buyers for that quantity.

Australian coal exports have regained losses.
Oleksiy Mark/Shutterstock

Recent natural stress-tests have been positive.

Products such as coal found alternative markets after China blocked Australian shipments in 2020. By March 2021 the value of coal exports had returned to the level before the disruption.

Wine, also disrupted, is growing an alternative customer base.

On the other hand timber exports, identified as vulnerable, have not returned to previous levels.

While demand for iron ore from China will probably fall, it might be a disservice to the shareholders of BHP or Fortescue to encourage them to diversify into other markets now.

Shareholders concerned about risk can diversify into other shares.

Catherine de Fontenay, Honorary Fellow, Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Vitamins and minerals aren’t risk-free. Here are 6 ways they can cause harm

Shutterstock

Geraldine Moses, The University of QueenslandOne reason dietary supplements are so popular is the perception they’re harmless.

But like all drugs, there are many potential dangers from taking vitamins and minerals.

The problem is that, unlike conventional medicines, dietary supplements aren’t required to provide warnings to consumers of their potential risks.

Nor are they required to submit extensive documentation of their risks to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), when they’re licensed for marketing, leaving us all uninformed.

This week, I published a paper in Australian Prescriber identifying six possible harms of taking vitamin and mineral supplements.

What do we mean by supplements?

Dietary supplements are natural health products such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids, enzymes, plant extracts, and algae used to augment people’s diets rather than treat disease.

Although these products are more commonly referred to as complementary medicines in Australia, particularly by the TGA, the term “dietary supplement” is frequently used by consumers and in the research literature.

Dietary supplements dominate the complementary medicines industry in Australia.

Sales reached A$4.9 billion in 2017, having doubled over the preceding ten years.

Complementary medicines are widely used in Australia. A national survey published in 2018 showed 63% of people use them regularly.

Supplements containing vitamins and minerals were the most popular type of complementary medicine, reportedly used by 47% of respondents. Examples include vitamin D, vitamin C, calcium, magnesium and vitamin A.

---

Read more:
Thinking about trying collagen supplements for your skin? A healthy diet is better value for money

---

6 potential harms of dietary supplements

People often say they’ve never heard of harms of dietary supplements. This isn’t surprising, given their marketing is largely based on benefits with little, if any, mention of potential harms.

What’s more, consumer information leaflets are never provided, and few products carry warnings on their packaging of potential serious effects.

Nonetheless, there are well-recognised harms from the ingredients of dietary supplements, which anyone who has studied pharmacology would know, especially when these substances are consumed in high doses.

For these reasons, some higher-dose vitamin A and selenium products are legally regulated by the TGA as Schedule 2 (pharmacy only), Schedule 3 (pharmacist only) and Schedule 4 medicines (prescription only) products.

When contemplating the possible harms that could arise with dietary supplements, most people just think of side effects.

However, as with any medicine, there are at least six types of harm that can occur which I identified in my research:

• Side effects. Side effects from vitamins and minerals can occur from short- or long-term use. Typically side effects emerge from doses that are too high, but not always. They can also cause new disease or upset existing conditions. There are risks from certain supplements during pregnancy and breastfeeding too
• Drug interactions. Interactions with other drugs, certain foods, and some diseases can make other drugs more toxic or less effective
• Cost. The cost of dietary supplements can impact on people’s finances and their ability to afford treatment or other essential items
• Delay more effective therapy. Time spent taking ineffective products may delay more effective interventions, waste valuable time and allow a disease to progress
• False hope or fraud. Falling for fraudulent claims offering false hope can be demoralising and depressing, which for some can make the difference between continuing to manage a health condition and giving up
• Medication burden. As the number of medicines and supplements increases, so too does the chance of something going wrong. This includes the risk of side effects, drug interactions, or making a mistake.

The key to safety is the dose

Many dietary supplements are used safely for medical purposes. Women are prescribed folic acid and iodine in pregnancy, for example, or vitamin and minerals supplements are given for deficiencies, such as iron.

The key to using them safely is the dose, which is determined from research demonstrating the benefits outweigh the risks.

This isn’t the case when people self-medicate with products purchased on the open market. Consumers rarely consider the effective or safe dose and often just take the dose recommended on the label – which could be useless – or whatever they guess is right.

Many people neglect the risk of overdosing on the same ingredient such as vitamin B6 or vitamin A, which is most likley when taken via multiple products.

---

Read more:
New vitamin supplement study finds they may do more harm than good

---

For people to make informed decisions about using dietary supplements, details about the benefits and harms should be evidence-based and readily available. People need to know not only where to look for this information, but also how to critique it.

Health professionals can assist people by openly discussing the risks and benefits of dietary supplements, explain why dose is important for both efficacy and safety, and direct them where to go for good quality information that goes beyond what’s on the manufacturer’s label.

Manufacturers should be required to make this information more readily available.

When assessing the potential benefits and risks of supplements, it’s vital to look beyond the main or well-known ingredient. Identify the exact product being used, all its ingredients, the dose being taken, and the potential for cumulative overdose from repeated ingredients in multiple products.

As with all medicines, if you have any side effects or problems after taking dietary supplements, report them to the TGA.

Geraldine Moses, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A Hungry World

From this week, every mainland Australian state will allow genetically modified crops. Here’s why that’s nothing to fear

Daniel Tan, University of SydneyOn July 1, the New South Wales government will lift a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops after an 18-year moratorium. It will mean GM crops can now be grown in every Australian state except Tasmania.

Major farming groups have welcomed the move. GM proponents say the biotechnology leads to better crop yields and may solve food shortages and reduce infestations of weeds and pests.

But opponents say GM crops are a potential threat to the environment and human health. They fear the technology will encourage superweeds, increase antibiotic resistance and food allergies in humans and may have other unintended effects.

So where does the truth lie? Academic research suggests GM crops are generally safe for humans and the environment, and so I believe the NSW government’s decision should be welcomed.

GM crops will be allowed in all mainland states, despite opposition from some.
Greenpeace/AAP

What is genetic modification?

Genetic modification is the use of technology to change the genes of living things. It involves scientists injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another, to give it a desirable trait such as resistance to drought, extreme temperature or pests.

Genetically modified crops were introduced commercially in the 1990s. The NSW moratorium began in 2003 following concerns from some importers and manufacturers. For example, countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia had been refusing GM grain, and Canada and Saudi Arabia had indicated they did not want GM-fed livestock.

Announcing the lifting of the ban in March, NSW Agriculture Minister Adam Marshall said his government had been working to ensure trade and marketing issues surrounding GM food were well managed. He said the Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulator will assess all applications to grow GM crops, ensuring they are safe for people and the environment.

The NSW decision follows similar moves by other mainland states in recent years, including South Australia, which lifted the GM ban in 2020 (with an exemption for Kangaroo Island). A moratorium remains in the ACT.

The NSW government says allowing cultivation of GM crops will increase agricultural competitiveness and productivity, and bring up to A$4.8 billion in benefits over the next decade.

---

Read more:
Battling misinformation wars in Africa: applying lessons from GMOs to COVID-19

---

Genetic modification involves injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another.
Aleksandar Plavevski

Benefits of lifting of the GM ban

So are the benefits of GM crops real? To answer this question, we can look to three precedents: GM canola, cotton and safflower, which have been grown in Australia for many years. These crops were exempt from the moratoria in NSW and other states, and evidence suggests their cultivation has been a success.

GM cotton has been modified with insecticidal genes, which research shows makes it more resistant to pests. The modified cotton also requires less insecticide use.

GM canola has been transformed to make it resistant to herbicides, which enables better weed control.

State moratoria delayed the introduction of GM canola, including in NSW. Research in 2018 found, across Australia, the environmental costs of the delay included an extra 6.5 million kilograms of active ingredients applied to canola land, and an extra 24.2 million kg of greenhouse gas and other emissions released. Economic costs included a net loss to canola farmers of A$485.6 million.

In recent years, Australian regulators allowed cultivation of canola modified to contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, prized for their health benefits. The canola variety was hailed as the world’s first plant-based source of omega-3 and may reduce reliance on fish stocks.

Safflower has been genetically modified to contain higher amounts of oleic acid. These renewable oils can be used in place of petroleum, a finite resource, in products such as fuels, plastics and cosmetics.

---

Read more:
The quest for delicious decaf coffee could change the appetite for GMOs

---

GM crops can be made resistant to herbicides.
Greenpeace/AAP

What are the risks?

Experts concede there are limits to what can be known about the health effects of any food over the long term. However, scientists broadly agree the evidence so far suggests GM crops are safe to eat. This view is backed by the World Health Organization.

Foods derived from GM plants are consumed by millions of people in many countries. And in Australia, authorities rigorously assess all GM foods before they’re sold to consumers.

However many countries still ban the the cultivation of GM foods. And some people remain worried about the effects on human health. Concerns include that antibiotic resistance may be transferred from plants to humans, or that GM foods will trigger allergic reactions.

---

Read more:
GM crops: to ban or not to ban? That’s not the question

---

Experts have concluded the risk of antibiotic resistance is not substantial. There is some evidence of a small number of GM crops being allergenic. But since GM crops undergo extensive allergen testing, they should not be riskier than conventional crops once cleared for market release.

Other GM opponents say the technology poses environmental risks – for example that herbicide-resistant GM crops can become “superweeds”.

Research has found weed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate is a problem, and there is some evidence of glyphosate-resistant canola persisting outside farms in Australia. Management strategies can reduce the chance of superweeds developing, but more research is needed.

And it should be noted that while the use of herbicide-resistant crops sometimes leads to less herbicide use, the decrease is often not sustained. Researchers also say a reduction in the kilograms of pesticides used does not necessarily predict environmental or health effects.

More research is needed into preventing herbicide-resistant superweeds.
Shutterstock

Some critics oppose GM crops on the basis that they allow a few large companies – which breed and commercialise seeds – to control food supplies. For example, in 2015 it was reported the GM maize seed sector in South Africa was owned by just two companies, which meant small farmers could not compete.

Researchers have proposed measures to counter this corporate concentration of power, by strengthening competition policies, boosting public sector support for diverse food systems and curbing corporate influence in the policy process.

The issue of cross-contamination is also a concern for organic farmers and consumers. In a well-known case from Western Australia, organic farmer Steve Marsh’s crop was contaminated in 2010 with GM canola, causing him to lose his organic certification.

Looking ahead

The lifting of the NSW ban on GM crops means Australian mainland states have a consistent approach, and provides new opportunities for Australian growers and consumers.

There are still issues with GM crops to be ironed out, and there’s a need for continued stringent regulation to ensure human and environmental safety. Opposition to the practice will no doubt remain in some quarters. However this may lessen over time as the technology develops and long-term outcomes become clearer.

Daniel Tan, Professor of Agronomy (Agriculture), University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

COVID-19 revealed flaws in Australia’s food supply. It also gives us a chance to fix them

Penny Farrell, University of Sydney; Anne Marie Thow, University of Sydney; Helen Trevena, University of Sydney; Sinead Boylan, University of Sydney, and Tara Boelsen-Robinson, Deakin UniversitySince COVID hit, many Australians have seen first-hand what shocks to the food system can do.

Uncertainty around panic-buying, food supply and pricing have thrown our national food system into the spotlight. And it was already under extreme pressure from climate change and prolonged drought.

The pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in the Australian food system, but it also presents an opportunity to make it more resilient.

---

Read more:
Victoria’s COVID lockdown reminds us how many rely on food charity. Here’s how we plan for the next inevitable crisis

---

Global ructions, local effects

Australia produces enough fresh food to feed the nation. In fact, more than 90% of the fresh food sold in supermarkets is produced here.

However, the pandemic and its effects on global economies has made it hard, at times, to maintain the supply of food we are used to due to workforce and logistics issues.

In particular, agricultural workforce shortages resulting from international border closures continue to threaten supply of fruit and vegetables, and may also affect price stability.

Food insecurity

Before the pandemic, more than 20% of Australians were estimated to be experiencing food insecurity. Since COVID, food insecurity has increased in Australia.

In Victoria, household budget pressures during the first lockdown forced one in four families to live without healthy food.

Food insecurity can worsen diet quality and increase the risk of various health conditions, including excess weight, obesity and diabetes. These conditions also put people at increased risk of getting very sick or dying from COVID-19.

Unhealthy diets are a leading cause of poor health and death worldwide, so the rising number of people without sufficient access to healthy diets should ring alarm bells for anyone interested in the health of Australians.

---

Read more:
No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits

---

But along with these newly exposed vulnerabilities, there are many examples of agility and resilience across the Australian food system.

The agriculture sector has successfully shifted many businesses online. Charities in Victoria moved quickly to provide culturally appropriate food to communities in lockdown.

And the federal government has provided significant support to older people isolating at home, including roughly A$50 million for the “Meals on Wheels” program. There’s also been extra targeted support to farmers.

An opportunity for a coordinated approach

The COVID pandemic has forced many of us to appreciate the complexity and scale of the food production and distribution system in Australia.

Yet Australia currently lacks a national food policy, leaving us vulnerable to future shocks and limiting our capacity to protect vulnerable groups.

Integrated policy with buy-in of government sectors and portfolios beyond health (such as business, trade, agriculture, economics, and education), can maximise the economic, social, nutritional and environmental outcomes of our food system.

We need to encourage innovation and coordination between national, state, and local government levels to support food supply systems that deliver healthy food across the population.

We have already seen it’s possible to make significant policy changes to strengthen food systems in time of crisis. For example, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission temporarily relaxed anti-collusion rules for big supermarkets during the pandemic, so they could coordinate to “ensure essential supplies get through to vulnerable and isolated people”, as one media report put it.

A more resilient food system

In Australia, an integrated policy could help make our food system more resilient in the face of future shocks.

Perhaps the pandemic provides an opportunity for us to stop and take stock of what worked well, what didn’t, and where the biggest impact could be made.

For example, we could consider introducing food distribution warehouses in remote Australia so these communities can get healthy, minimally processed foods at affordable prices, even in times of crisis.

Lawmakers should place food security and access to nutritious food at the heart of agriculture, fisheries and trade policies.

We need to ensure nutrition is prioritised in any pandemic response efforts. One approach, advocated by researchers in a recent Nature comment piece, argued:

Cash provision could be coupled with incentives for recipients to participate in well-targeted, culturally sensitive food literacy programmes based on an understanding of barriers to consumption of nutritious foods.

In addition, public distribution programmes, state-managed stores, public restaurants, and other forms of subsidy programmes could focus on providing diverse nutritious foods and meals and minimizing less-healthy foods.

We note that the NSW government’s “Dine and Discover” program has been critiqued for including the fast food giants.

We must incentivise healthy food policies for businesses. For example, “naming and shaming” companies’ commitments to nutrition has resulted in policy and practice changes in Australia. There is recent evidence from that healthy merchandising in food stores can meet both commercial and public health goals in Australia.

The pandemic has highlighted how easily our food supply can be disrupted by crisis. Now, it’s up to us to lean into that disruption and find ways to build resilience into the food system.

---

Read more:
The coronavirus pandemic requires us to understand food’s murky supply chains

---

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay foundation. You can read the rest of the stories here.

Penny Farrell, Research Fellow and Lecturer, University of Sydney; Anne Marie Thow, Associate Professor in Public Policy and Health, University of Sydney; Helen Trevena, Adjunct lecturer, University of Sydney; Sinead Boylan, Research Associate, University of Sydney, and Tara Boelsen-Robinson, Research Fellow, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits

Shutterstock

Gary Sacks, Deakin University and Sally Schultz, Deakin UniversityPublic health experts have long argued that when it comes to preventing obesity, we need to stop blaming individuals.

Our new online tool, released today, confirms we live in an environment where the odds of having a healthy diet are heavily stacked against us.

Unhealthy foods are readily available and heavily marketed to us by the food industry. This makes it very easy to over-consume unhealthy foods. It also makes it very difficult to consistently select healthy options.

Our online tool – Australia’s Food Environment Dashboard – brings together the best-available data to describe Australia’s food environments. For the first time, we have a clear picture of the ways our environment drives us to consume too much of the wrong types of foods.

How healthy are Australia’s food environments?

Supermarkets heavily promote unhealthy food

Australian supermarkets are a key setting in which unhealthy foods are pushed at us.

More than half of the packaged food on Australian supermarket shelves is unhealthy. At end-of-aisle displays, unhealthy products are promoted much more often than healthier products.

---

Read more:
Supermarket price deals: the good, the bad and the ugly

---

Unhealthy products are also “on special” almost twice as often as healthy foods. What’s more, the discounts on unhealthy foods are much larger than the discounts on healthier foods.

And at checkouts, it’s almost impossible to pay for groceries without being exposed to unhealthy foods.

All of this intense marketing for unhealthy foods contributes to the unhealthy mix of products in our supermarket trolleys.

It’s difficult to ignore all the prompts to buy junk food.
Shutterstock

Children’s exposure to junk food promotion

Australian children cannot escape unhealthy food marketing. As they travel to school, and play and watch sport in their community, kids are exposed to a constant barrage of promotions for unhealthy food and drinks.

When they turn on the TV they will see more than twice as many ads for unhealthy food compared to healthy food.

And when kids are on their mobile devices, they are hit with as many as ten unhealthy food and drink ads every hour.

It’s worse in more disadvantaged areas

Our dashboard shows food environments in disadvantaged areas are less healthy than those in advantaged areas. The cost of a healthy diet is generally higher in low socioeconomic areas and is much higher in very remote parts of Australia.

Critically, the cost of a healthy diet is simply unaffordable (meaning it costs more than 30% of a household’s income) for people on low incomes and those living in rural or remote areas.

---

Read more:
Supermarkets claim to have our health at heart. But their marketing tactics push junk foods

---

People living in low socioeconomic areas are also exposed to more promotions for unhealthy food. A study in Perth, for example, found low socioeconomic areas had a significantly higher ratio of unhealthy food ads to healthy ads within 500m of schools, compared to high socioeconomic areas.

Some good news stories

While almost all the key aspects of food environments in Australia are currently unhealthy, there are some areas that support health.

Our major supermarkets are leading the way in displaying the Health Star Rating on their home-brand product labels, which helps consumers make more informed food choices.

---

Read more:
We looked at the health star rating of 20,000 foods and this is what we found

---

Some state governments have shown great progress in creating healthier environments in their hospitals and other health services, by offering water and nuts in vending machines, for example, rather than sugary drinks and lollies.

Some hospitals are providing healthier options in their vending machines.
Shutterstock

Greater monitoring is needed

Unhealthy diets and obesity are leading contributors to poor health in Australia. For that reason, it’s critical to closely monitor the key drivers of our unhealthy diets.

We’re pretty good at monitoring our exposure to other key health risks and taking public health action accordingly. For example, the government has successfully reduced road fatalities through a range of measures, including prominent identification and eradication of traffic “black spots”.

Now we need the same level of attention paid to our food environments, where there are still some key gaps in our knowledge.

For example, while most state governments have policies to guide foods available in schools, only Western Australia and New South Wales monitors and/or reports adherence to policies.

In many other areas, such as food promotion, data is not routinely collected. This means we often need to rely on data that’s a few years old and that might only be relevant to small geographic regions.

Data isn’t routinely collected on food promotion.
Shutterstock

Governments need to take stronger action

The unhealthy state of our food environments indicates much stronger policy action is needed from all levels of government in Australia.

The National Obesity Strategy which is currently in development and now overdue, can provide the framework for Australian governments to fix up the “black spots” in our food environment.

Improvements can be made by introducing globally recommended policies, such as taxes on sugary drinks and higher standards for how the food industry markets its unhealthy food and drink products.

These actions can help ensure all Australians have access to food environments that support healthy diets.

---

Read more:
How much longer do we need to wait for Australia to implement a sugary drinks tax?

---

Gary Sacks, Associate Professor, Deakin University and Sally Schultz, PhD Student, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s Sugar Addiction

Clear evidence for a link between pro-inflammatory diets and 27 chronic diseases. Here’s how you can eat better

Shutterstock

Meghan Hockey, Deakin University and Wolfgang Marx, Deakin UniversityAlmost half of all Australians live with a chronic disease, which contribute to some 90% of deaths.

It’s no secret our diet can have a major impact on our health. But our new umbrella review, published this week in Advances in Nutrition, provides compelling evidence that pro-inflammatory diets increase the risk of 27 chronic diseases and premature death. An umbrella review is a review of multiple reviews, and is among the highest levels of evidence.

What’s more, reducing inflammation by eating better could cut our risk of developing certain chronic diseases.

---

Read more:
The rise of ultra-processed foods and why they’re really bad for our health

---

Clear evidence

A pro-inflammatory diet is one that, over the long-term, may lead to increased inflammation in the body. Such a diet often includes high amounts of commercially baked goods, fried foods and fatty meats, and at the same time is low in fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods.

We reviewed and pooled data from 15 meta-analyses, which is a type of study that summarises data from lots of individual studies. All up, we looked at 38 health outcomes from four million people from across the world.

We found strong evidence for a link between pro-inflammatory diets and heart attacks, premature death and certain cancers including bowel cancer, pancreatic cancer, respiratory cancers and oral cancers. There was also evidence pro-inflammatory diets were linked with depression.

---

Read more:
Plant-rich diets may help prevent depression – new evidence

---

By bringing together data from populations all over the world, we were able to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of the research to date. We also looked at the strength of the evidence of studies and found that for most outcomes, evidence was limited, highlighting the need for more research.

Because of the type of study we did, we were unable to determine cause and effect, so we can’t conclusively say pro-inflammatory diets cause these chronic diseases yet. But we found clear evidence a pro-inflammatory diet is linked with an increased risk of developing certain chronic diseases and premature death.

Dietary patterns that contain lots of calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods can contribute to inflammation and increase your risk of certain chronic diseases.
Shutterstock

But what is inflammation, and what role does our diet play?

Inflammation is part of our body’s natural defence processes. It’s our immune system’s response to an irritant, be that an infection or injury, and is often a welcome sign our body is working to protect us. For example, swelling when you roll your ankle delivers resources to help repair the damage.

But when inflammation can’t be turned off, this process may start to work against us.

Persistent low levels of inflammation (known as chronic inflammation) can be problematic and is linked to premature death and conditions including coronary heart disease and depression, to name a few.

We can detect whether chronic inflammation exists by a simple blood test that looks at levels of inflammatory markers in the blood. Our diet is one factor that influences levels of these inflammatory markers, among many.

Take the “Western diet”, for example, which consists of calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods and is low in fruits, vegetables and other plant-foods. This type of dietary pattern has been linked to higher levels of inflammation.

Conversely, healthy dietary patterns have been linked to lower inflammatory markers. This includes the Mediterranean diet, which is high in fruits, vegetables, legumes, olive oil and oily fish, and low in ultra-processed, refined foods.

---

Read more:
Mediterranean diet increases gut bacteria linked to healthy ageing in older adults

---

The potential for diets to be pro- or anti-inflammatory can be measured using a tool known as the Dietary Inflammatory Index.

The index takes into account a number of nutrients, compounds, and foods that have been identified in research as having either anti- or pro-inflammatory properties.

Using foods to fight inflammation

Despite promising marketing claims you might see online, there’s no magic supplement or superfood to combat all our inflammation woes.

Instead, you should focus on improving your overall diet quality, rather than on a single food or nutrient. This is because many nutrients and foods interact with one another and can work together to improve inflammation.

A Mediterranean diet full of oily fish, fruit, vegetables and legumes has been linked with lower levels of inflammation.
Shutterstock

As for what to eat?

1. Load up your plate with a wide variety of plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, wholegrains and legumes, like chickpeas and lentils. These foods are high in anti-inflammatory nutrients, such as fibre and a range of vitamins. They also contain unique “phytochemicals”, such as polyphenols which are plant compounds that have potential antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects
2. Flavour your food liberally with herbs and spices, and sip on tea and coffee regularly. These are also great sources of polyphenols
3. Enjoy oily fish regularly, such as salmon, sardines and mackerel, which are rich in anti-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids
4. Reduce your intake of foods that may fuel inflammation. These include foods high in trans and saturated fats, found in commercially baked goods, fried foods and fatty meats.

---

Read more:
Phytonutrients can boost your health. Here are 4 and where to find them (including in your next cup of coffee)

---

Given almost half of us live with a chronic disease, and many more are likely at risk, adopting an anti-inflammatory diet could be very beneficial for your health, and may help you live longer too.

Meghan Hockey, PhD Candidate, Accredited Practising Dietitian, Deakin University and Wolfgang Marx, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Not feeling motivated to tackle those sneaky COVID kilos? Try these 4 healthy eating tips instead

Shutterstock

Clare Collins, University of Newcastle and Rebecca Williams, University of Newcastle

In Australia and around the world, research is showing changes in body weight, cooking, eating and drinking patterns associated with COVID lockdowns.

Some changes have been positive, such as people cooking at home more, and eating more vegetables.

But many people have also reported snacking more, and eating and drinking in response to stress.

As the new year starts, you may be planning to tackle COVID-related weight gain. Before you do, consider that it may be better to focus on your eating patterns, rather than looking to the latest fad diet.

Emotional eating and weight gain

A survey of 13,829 Australian adults found one in five reported drinking more alcohol during COVID. In a survey of over 22,000 drinkers in the United Kingdom, one-quarter reported drinking more than usual over the previous week.

In Italy, of 602 people surveyed about changes in their eating habits during isolation, almost half said they sought “comfort foods” and ate more to feel better.

Eating and drinking alcohol boosts the release of “feel good” chemicals in your brain, making you feel better in the short term.

During times of stress, anxiety and boredom, like during lockdown, food and alcohol can seem like a quick fix. But overindulging isn’t going to help you in the long term.

A new year can be a good time to think about your eating habits.
Shutterstock

According to a global WebMD poll on self-reported weight gain during the pandemic, about one-quarter of people in Hong Kong and Germany reported gaining weight, roughly 45% in Australia, Canada and the UK, and over 60% in Brazil and Italy.

United States respondents who reported putting on weight were asked to estimate how much weight they thought they had gained. Some 49% said less than 3 kilograms, 26% said 3-4kg, and 25% reported more than 4.5kg.

Participants believed a lack of exercise, stress eating and drinking more alcohol were contributing factors.

---

Read more:
Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

---

It’s not just about weight

While weight gain can increase your risk of health problems, recent research suggests having healthy eating patterns is more important than weight.

A US study of 210,000 adults followed for up to 32 years found that irrespective of body weight, having a high diet quality was associated with lower risk of heart disease and stroke compared to having low diet quality.

A “high-quality” diet includes lots of variety within the basic food groups of vegetables, fruit and wholegrains, and includes limited junk food. A “low-quality diet” is the opposite.

Similarly, a Swedish study followed 79,000 adults over 21 years and found that among people with a higher body weight, also having a high-quality diet was protective against dying from any cause. But having a body weight in the healthy range was not protective among those who had a low-quality diet.

While higher diet quality is associated with better overall health, increasing your diet quality can also help reduce weight.

---

Read more:
Health Check: six tips for losing weight without fad diets

---

4 tips to improve your diet and beat COVID kilos

Home cooking and eating together

If you spent more time cooking and eating meals at home during the pandemic, keep doing it. As well as being better for you than eating take-away foods and ready-made meals, it promotes well-being.

A study of 160 adults found people who ate healthy foods cooked at home experienced more intense positive emotions and worried less, compared to people who ate away from home.

For adolescents, a review found frequent family meals were associated higher self-esteem and other indicators of better mental health.

Many people were cooking and eating at home more during lockdown.
Shutterstock

Eat more vegetables and fruit

A US study of 133,468 adults found those who increased their vegetable and fruit intakes lost weight. Every extra daily serve of fruit was associated with a weight loss of 250 grams over a four-year period, and every extra daily serve of vegetables with a loss of 110 grams. People who ate more berries, apples, pears, cauliflower, green leafy vegetables and carrots experienced greater weight loss.

This has well-being benefits too. For example, an Australian study which followed 12,385 adults from 2007 to 2013 and found greater life satisfaction, happiness and well-being among those who increased their intake of vegetables and fruit.

Try buying bigger quantities and a greater variety of vegetables and fruit when you do your grocery shopping.

Keep a food diary

Recording what you eat and drink and then checking the kilojoule and nutrient content helps boost your knowledge of what’s in various foods and drinks. It also increases awareness of your eating habits, especially snacking. You can use an app or pen and paper.

Once you’ve recorded your food and drink intake for a few days, you will notice areas to target for improvement.

You might also consider keeping a mood diary. This can help you identify other ways to improve your diet quality. The mood you’re in affects your food choices and your food choices affect your mood. Keeping track of both food and mood helps to identify triggers for eating.

Plan meals and snacks ahead

Check what ingredients you already have and plan meals and snacks to use these up. Next write a grocery list, just for what you need. Even if you’re staying home, prepare your lunch and snacks for the day in advance. This saves you time, money, limits food waste and reduces the number of times you have to think about food.

---

Read more:
How we cook changed during lockdown – and we can learn from this for life after the pandemic

---

Visit the No Money No Time website to check your diet quality score using our free healthy eating quiz and find simple, inexpensive and healthy recipes.

If you’d like to learn more about food, nutrition and weight management, enrol in our free online course, The Science of Weight Loss – Dispelling Diet Myths, which starts on January 27.

Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle and Rebecca Williams, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

No more than 10 standard drinks a week, or 4 on any day: new guidelines urge Aussies to go easy on the booze

Shutterstock

Kate Conigrave, University of Sydney

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has today released new guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. Under the new recommendations, healthy adults should drink no more than ten standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any one day.

I’m chair of the Alcohol Working Committee that for the past four years has worked on revising the Australian drinking guidelines.

These replace the previous version published in 2009, and come at the end of a year upended by a pandemic, and just before the festive season. That might sound like a curious time to release the alcohol guidelines, but it actually makes sense.

During the pandemic, some people have been drinking less because they are going less often to pubs. Others are drinking more at home. Of these, some have turned to drinking for stress relief and run into major strife with it.

---

Read more:
Women are drinking more during the pandemic, and it’s probably got a lot to do with their mental health

---

But these guidelines are not just for the pandemic year. They are to help all Australians make informed decisions about how much they drink, at any time.

Alcohol contributes to a major health burden in Australia. Harms related to drinking result in more than 4,000 deaths and 70,000 hospital admissions every year.

The new NHMRC alcohol guidelines.
NHMRC, Author provided

Alcohol is a key cause of injuries, including road trauma, falls, burns, violence and self-harm. It contributes to drownings and other short-term harms. But much of the damage alcohol causes is less visible, and less immediate.

In the past decade, international research has shown even low levels of consumption are linked with an increase in several common cancers, including those of the breast and bowel. And we’ve known for a long time that alcohol consumption can contribute to high blood pressure, liver disease and many other conditions. The risk increases as more alcohol is consumed.

So, in line with its mission to provide robust evidence-based health advice, NHMRC has now released a set of three guidelines so Australians can make informed decisions about their health.

Healthy adults should have no more than ten standard drinks per week.
NHMRC, Author provided

What do the new guidelines say?

The first guideline recommends healthy adult men and women consume no more than 10 standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any given day.

The less you drink, the lower your risk. If this advice is followed, there is a less than one in 100 chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition across your lifetime.

Guidelines two and three concern people under the age of 18, and women who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. In all these cases, the recommendation is to drink no alcohol at all.

The guidelines were developed by a group of 14 health experts, including clinicians, public health professionals, researchers, and consumer representatives.

If you follow these guidelines, evidence suggests you’d have a less than 1% chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition.
NHMRC, Author provided

But doesn’t light drinking have a protective effect? The jury is out

After a thorough review of research evidence, NHMRC’s Alcohol Working Committee released draft guidelines for public consultation in December 2019. We received many responses, some asserting the guidelines didn’t go far enough, and others claiming they went too far.

Some studies mentioned suggested a possible protective effect of low-level consumption of alcohol, in particular against coronary heart disease.

These issues were scrutinised by our committee. The evidence for a protective effect has been challenged by research in recent years. Some researchers dispute its existence.

But at the least, any protective effect is not as strong as previously thought. Nonetheless, the guidelines do allow for a potential protective effect – if they hadn’t, the recommended maximum would have been far lower! Potential protective effects were balanced against the increased risk of certain cancers.

These guidelines are not trying to tell you what you can and can’t do. Rather, we’re providing advice on how you can reduce your health risks from drinking alcohol. That way, we can all make informed decisions in our daily lives.

Kate Conigrave, Senior Staff Specialist and Professor of Addiction Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.