Dietary intake in Australian children aged 4–24 months: Consumption of meat and meat alternatives

Meat/meat alternatives (M/MA) are key sources of Fe, Zn and protein, but intake tends to be low in young children. Australian recommendations state that Fe-rich foods, including M/MA, should be the first complementary foods offered to infants. The present paper reports M/MA consumption of Australian infants and toddlers, compares intake with guidelines, and suggests strategies to enhance adherence to those guidelines. Mother–infant dyads recruited as part of the NOURISH and South Australian Infants Dietary Intake studies provided 3 d of intake data at three time points: Time 1 (T1) (n 482, mean age 5·5 (SD 1·1) months), Time 2 (T2) (n 600, mean age 14·0 (SD 1·2) months) and Time 3 (T3) (n 533, mean age 24 (SD 0·7) months). Of 170 infants consuming solids and aged greater than 6 months at T1, 50 (29 %) consumed beef, lamb, veal (BLV) or pork on at least one of 3 d. Commercial infant foods containing BLV or poultry were the most common form of M/MA consumed at T1, whilst by T2 BLV mixed dishes (including pasta bolognaise) became more popular and remained so at T3. The processed M/MA increased in popularity over time, led by pork (including ham). The present study shows that M/MA are not being eaten by Australian infants or toddlers regularly enough; or in adequate quantities to meet recommendations; and that the form in which these foods are eaten can lead to smaller M/MA serve sizes and greater Na intake. Parents should be encouraged to offer M/MA in a recognisable form, as one of the first complementary foods, in order to increase acceptance at a later age.

Owning omega-3: Monsanto and the invention of meat

In August of 2010, Anna Salleh of the Science Unit of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broke a story about Monsanto seeking to patent the enhancement of meat, including omega-3 fatty acids: ‘Enhanced port is sparking debate over the ethics of placing patents on food. Patent applications covering the enhancement of meat, including pork with omega-3 fatty acids, are stimulating debate over the ethics and legalities of claiming intellectual property over food. Monsanto has filed patents that cover the feeding of animals soybeans, which have been genetically modified by the company to contain stearidonic acid (SDA), a plant-derived omega-3 fatty acid... Omega-3s have been linked to improved cardiovascular health and there are many companies engineering them into foodstuffs. But the new patent applications have touched a raw nerve among those who see them as an attempt by the company to exert control over the food chain.’ This article providers a critical evaluation of the controversy of Monsanto’s patent applications, and the larger issues over patenting food. It first considers the patent portfolio of Monsanto; the nature of the patent claims; and the examination of the claims by patent examiners. Second, it examines the withdrawal and revision of the patent claims by Monsanto in the wake of criticism by patent authorities and the public disquiet over the controversial application. Third, this article considers the larger policy issues raised by Monsanto’s patent applications – including the patenting of plants, animals, and foodstuffs. There is also a consideration of the impact of patents upon the administration of health-care, competition, and research.

Environmental health risk assessment of dioxin in foods at the two most severe dioxin hot spots in Vietnam

Background Bien Hoa and Da Nang airbases were bulk storages for Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and currently are the two most severe dioxin hot spots. Objectives This study assesses the health risk of exposure to dioxin through foods for local residents living in seven wards surrounding these airbases. Methods This study follows the Australian Environmental Health Risk Assessment Framework to assess the health risk of exposure to dioxin in foods. Forty-six pooled samples of commonly consumed local foods were collected and analyzed for dioxin/furans. A food frequency and Knowledge–Attitude–Practice survey was also undertaken at 1000 local households, various stakeholders were involved and related publications were reviewed. Results Total dioxin/furan concentrations in samples of local “high-risk” foods (e.g. free range chicken meat and eggs, ducks, freshwater fish, snail and beef) ranged from 3.8 pg TEQ/g to 95 pg TEQ/g, while in “low-risk” foods (e.g. caged chicken meat and eggs, seafoods, pork, leafy vegetables, fruits, and rice) concentrations ranged from 0.03 pg TEQ/g to 6.1 pg TEQ/g. Estimated daily intake of dioxin if people who did not consume local high risk foods ranged from 3.2 pg TEQ/kg bw/day to 6.2 pg TEQ/kg bw/day (Bien Hoa) and from 1.2 pg TEQ/kg bw/day to 4.3 pg TEQ/kg bw/day (Da Nang). Consumption of local high risk foods resulted in extremely high dioxin daily intakes (60.4–102.8 pg TEQ/kg bw/day in Bien Hoa; 27.0–148.0 pg TEQ/kg bw/day in Da Nang). Conclusions Consumption of local “high-risk” foods increases dioxin daily intakes far above the WHO recommended TDI (1–4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day). Practicing appropriate preventive measures is necessary to significantly reduce exposure and health risk.