No abstract

No abstract

Processed foods are increasingly under the spotlight since the development of classification systems based on proxies for food processing. Published critical reviews and commentaries suggest different views among professional disciplines about the definition and classification of processed food. There is a need to further understand perspectives of professionals on the conceptualisation of processed food and the agreements and disagreements among experts, to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue and aid communication to the public. The aim of this research was to elicit views and understandings of professionals on processed food, their perceptions of lay people's perceptions of the same, and their perspectives on the challenges of communicating about processed foods to the public. The online discussion groups brought together a range of professionals (n = 27), covering the fields of nutrition, food technology, policy making, industry, and civil society, mixed in 5 heterogenous groups. Through thematic analysis the following themes relating to the conceptualisation of processed food and challenges for communication were identified: (1) Broad concepts that need differentiation; (2) Disagreements on scope and degree of processing; (3) The role of food processing within the food system: the challenges in framing risks and benefits; and (4) The challenge of different perspectives and interests for risk communication. Throughout the discussions blurred lines in the characterisation of processing, processed foods, and unhealthy foods were observed. Participants agreed that consensus is important, but difficult. Participants identified a need for further interdisciplinary dialogue, including public engagement, to break down the observed issues, and work towards a mutual understanding and develop clear communication messages.

The gut microbiota coexists in partnership with the human host through adaptations to environmental and physiological changes that help maintain dynamic homeostatic healthy states. Break-down of this delicate balance under sustained exposure to stressors (e.g. unhealthy diets) can, however, contribute to the onset of disease. Diet is a key modifiable environmental factor that modulates the gut microbiota and its metabolic capacities that, in turn, could impact human physiology. On this basis, the diet and the gut microbiota could act as synergistic forces that provide resilience against disease or that speed the progress from health to disease states. Associations between unhealthy dietary patterns, non-communicable diseases and intestinal dysbiosis can be explained by this hypothesis. Translational studies showing that dietary-induced alterations in microbial communities recapitulate some of the pathological features of the original host further support this notion. In this introductory paper by the European project MyNewGut, we briefly summarize the investigations conducted to better understand the role of dietary patterns and food components in metabolic and mental health and the specificities of the microbiome-mediating mechanisms. We also discuss how advances in the understanding of the microbiome's role in dietary health effects can help to provide acceptable scientific grounds on which to base dietary advice for promoting healthy living.

Here, we describe the molecular and immunological characterization of the bdr gene family of Borrelia turicatae, a relapsing-fever spirochete. Nine bdr alleles belonging to two different subfamilies were sequenced and localized to linear plasmids. Anti-Bdr antiserum was generated and used to analyze Bdr expression in pre-and postinfection isogenic populations. The analyses presented here provide a detailed characterization of the Bdr proteins in a relapsing-fever spirochete species, enhancing our understanding of these proteins at the genuswide level.

No abstract

No abstract

The provision of energy information for menu items, at the point they are ordered, in chain restaurants has been mandated across the US (1) . Current policy in the UK is encouraging a voluntary scheme. This is intended to be a 'first step' to 'provide consumers with clear and simple information that will enable them to make informed choices and identify foods that help them to meet their energy needs, and enable them to better maintain energy balance and a healthy weight' (2) . There is little evaluation of energy labelling and controversy over whether it is wanted or needed. Mintel said only 16 % want to see energy information (3) v. 40 % reported by a UK postal survey (4) . IGD (5) reported that just under half did not appear to consider balancing energy intake with expenditure. It has been reported that consumers understand the concept of energy, but closely link it to weight-loss, rather than healthy weight, and can overestimate the energy used during exercise (6) .This study aimed to gauge consumers' perceptions of energy information. Dining consumers (n 92; 60 % female) were surveyed in Aberdeen; the main sample in a central food-court was combined with the initial sample (n 16) from a casual dining restaurant. The questionnaire, based on the theory of planned behaviour (7) , explored intention to use the information for managing their weight. The survey included an example menu including energy information. Participants were questioned about using energy information to choose lower energy from the menu, determine wider diet or for physical activity.Evaluations were positive; 49.5 % thought energy information is very helpful, and the majority would use it for managing their weight (P < 0.001). Attitudes towards choosing lower energy from the menu (about 65 % positive), and the rest of the d/week (about 64 % positive) were related to intention (r = 0.417, r = 0.403, respectively, P < 0.01). Half believed avoiding weight gain is very important; this also related to intention (r = 0.381, P < 0.01). Less than half thought using energy information would be easy, approximately 30 % thought it would be difficult. Again the majority said choosing to expend energy by being physically active is good (73%), and that it was neither difficult nor easy (30%) or quite easy (34 %).There was wide variation in estimates of how long it would take walking (3 mph) to burn 100 Calorie; which ranged from 4 to 120 min. Overall the mean was 30.62 (SD 22.41) min. This suggests individuals are not knowledgeable about energy used in physical activity, which agrees with other research (6,8) .The results suggest that consumers think energy information is helpful and they intend to use it. Actual use depends on contextual factors involved in food choice. Caterers should make choosing lower-energy options easier. A process evaluation of the energy labelling scheme trial (5) concluded that its usability is dependent on visibility, understanding and engagement. Understanding of energy balance is needed for people to have a realistic view ...