<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 4</title>
	<atom:link href="http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/</link>
	<description>The truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:11:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford and the Vitamins for Asthma That Become All About Food Intolerance and YorkTest &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-19001</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford and the Vitamins for Asthma That Become All About Food Intolerance and YorkTest &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-19001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] to comment. Sadly, despite the additional writing practice, Holford&#8217;s ability to provide accurate references or even link to the correct paper has not improved. We also have a splendid example of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to comment. Sadly, despite the additional writing practice, Holford&#8217;s ability to provide accurate references or even link to the correct paper has not improved. We also have a splendid example of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford, GL Diet and Satiety Plus the Misrepresentation of Some Research: Same Old, Same Old &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-17922</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford, GL Diet and Satiety Plus the Misrepresentation of Some Research: Same Old, Same Old &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-17922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] vital part of the paper&#8217;s contents (see the discussion of Khan): other favourites include making up references that don&#8217;t exist or citing it in a completely inappropriate context; plus the always exciting accusations of incompetence or a lack of integrity when Holford&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] vital part of the paper&#8217;s contents (see the discussion of Khan): other favourites include making up references that don&#8217;t exist or citing it in a completely inappropriate context; plus the always exciting accusations of incompetence or a lack of integrity when Holford&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 3 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8985</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 3 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chair of FFTB Scientific Advisory Board acknowledges that their research hasn&#8217;t been &#8220;a proper job&#8221; and hasn&#8217;t been &#8220;rigorous&#8221; &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chair of FFTB Scientific Advisory Board acknowledges that their research hasn&#8217;t been &#8220;a proper job&#8221; and hasn&#8217;t been &#8220;rigorous&#8221; &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Survey&#8217;s literature review is riddled with errors and wholly inadequate: the authors thus fail to give due consideration to [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Survey&#8217;s literature review is riddled with errors and wholly inadequate: the authors thus fail to give due consideration to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 10 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 10 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] and authors of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). We have previously examined the overview of the literature in this report and found that it was misleading and irrelevant. Unfortunately, the reporting and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and authors of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). We have previously examined the overview of the literature in this report and found that it was misleading and irrelevant. Unfortunately, the reporting and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 8 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8235</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 8 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] and authors of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). We have previously examined the overview of the literature in this report and found that it was misleading and irrelevant. Unfortunately, the reporting and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and authors of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). We have previously examined the overview of the literature in this report and found that it was misleading and irrelevant. Unfortunately, the reporting and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wulfstan</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8223</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wulfstan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And, isn&#039;t the lovely colour of strawberry ice-cream and such down to beetroot juice? It adds artificial colour but is not essentially artificial? 

I would be fascinated to learn what counts as a non-essential preservative. Given the number of products like ketchup and jam that still have to be stored in the fridge and must be discarded after 4 weeks or so.

Slightly OT, I recently read an &lt;a href=&quot;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DF1339F933A05755C0A960958260&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1996 defence of some of the packaging excesses of the food industry in the West&lt;/a&gt;. Basically, in places like Mexico, people buy larger volumes of fresh, unpackaged food, but end up throwing more away because it spoils. So - it is wastage of package v. food wastage and which is the greater abuse of resources.
&lt;blockquote&gt;The typical household in Mexico City buys fewer packaged goods than an American household, but it produces one-third more garbage, chiefly because Mexicans buy fresh foods in bulk and throw away large portions that are unused, spoiled or stale. Those apples in Dittersdorf&#039;s slide, protected by plastic wrap and foam, are less likely to spoil. The lightweight plastic packaging requires much less energy to manufacture and transport than traditional alternatives like cardboard or paper. Food companies have switched to plastic packaging because they make money by using resources efficiently. A typical McDonald&#039;s discards less than two ounces of garbage for each customer served -- less than what&#039;s generated by a typical meal at home. 
&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And, isn&#8217;t the lovely colour of strawberry ice-cream and such down to beetroot juice? It adds artificial colour but is not essentially artificial? </p>
<p>I would be fascinated to learn what counts as a non-essential preservative. Given the number of products like ketchup and jam that still have to be stored in the fridge and must be discarded after 4 weeks or so.</p>
<p>Slightly OT, I recently read an <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DF1339F933A05755C0A960958260&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">1996 defence of some of the packaging excesses of the food industry in the West</a>. Basically, in places like Mexico, people buy larger volumes of fresh, unpackaged food, but end up throwing more away because it spoils. So &#8211; it is wastage of package v. food wastage and which is the greater abuse of resources.</p>
<blockquote><p>The typical household in Mexico City buys fewer packaged goods than an American household, but it produces one-third more garbage, chiefly because Mexicans buy fresh foods in bulk and throw away large portions that are unused, spoiled or stale. Those apples in Dittersdorf&#8217;s slide, protected by plastic wrap and foam, are less likely to spoil. The lightweight plastic packaging requires much less energy to manufacture and transport than traditional alternatives like cardboard or paper. Food companies have switched to plastic packaging because they make money by using resources efficiently. A typical McDonald&#8217;s discards less than two ounces of garbage for each customer served &#8212; less than what&#8217;s generated by a typical meal at home.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LeeT</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8220</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LeeT]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the report reference Claire which was interesting to skim through.

It states:  “We recommend that regulations should be introduced to prohibit all artificial colours and non-essential preservatives in food products and soft drinks.”

Are they aware that tinned peas contain a colour called green S (E142) which means they don&#039;t come out of their container looking really grey ...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the report reference Claire which was interesting to skim through.</p>
<p>It states:  “We recommend that regulations should be introduced to prohibit all artificial colours and non-essential preservatives in food products and soft drinks.”</p>
<p>Are they aware that tinned peas contain a colour called green S (E142) which means they don&#8217;t come out of their container looking really grey &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford Flip-Flops on Sugary Drinks? (FFTB Survey Review Part 7) &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8218</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford Flip-Flops on Sugary Drinks? (FFTB Survey Review Part 7) &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] their eating habits to Food for the Brain (FFTB) so that they could turn it into a Kiss and Tell denunciation of the diet of british children. You might have trembled with shame as you confessed just how many times a week the scions of your [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their eating habits to Food for the Brain (FFTB) so that they could turn it into a Kiss and Tell denunciation of the diet of british children. You might have trembled with shame as you confessed just how many times a week the scions of your [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 6 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/01/30/food-for-the-brain-child-survey-review-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-8203</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 6 &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.info/?p=327#comment-8203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). Holford Watch was disappointed by the report&#8217;s literature overview. We approached Patrick Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisors who had approved the data [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of the Food for the Brain Child Survey, September 2007 (pdf). Holford Watch was disappointed by the report&#8217;s literature overview. We approached Patrick Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisors who had approved the data [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

