Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report the perceived impact of various health concerns on the academic performance of health sciences graduate students.

The American College Health Association's National College Health Assessment (ACHA‐NCHA), a 58‐item anonymous survey, was distributed to all graduate health science students during a five‐week period in the spring semester.

Students (n=1,355) were most likely to report a negative perceived academic impact related to psychosocial concerns such as stress, depression/anxiety, and relationship problems. The students' most pressing felt concerns were upper respiratory infections, stress, concerns about troubled loved ones and sleep difficulties. Clinical graduate students (n=712) were significantly more likely to report negative academic impacts related to upper respiratory infections (p=0.001), concern about a troubled friend or family member (p=0.001), sleep difficulties (p=0.005), relationship difficulties (p=0.030), and internet use/computer games (p=0.015) than non‐clinical graduate students. However, the magnitude of those differences was small.

This paper adds to one's knowledge of student health concerns, which may help to address health‐related barriers to learning.

This paper presents findings that further explicate the reciprocal relationship between student health and learning by suggesting methodology to identify priority health issues among a graduate student population. Findings from this study of over 20 different health concerns indicate that the priority health concerns of graduate health science students are primarily psychological and psychosocial health issues.

The Plant Breeding Institute was founded in 1912, as the Cambridge University Plant Breeding Institute, under the directorship of Sir Rowland Biffen, who had demonstrated by that time that Mendel's newly discovered laws of heredity were applicable to characters of agricultural importance and had proved this by the introduction of the winter wheat variety Little Joss. During the next forty years, the Institute was principally concerned with work on the improvement of the cereal crops and produced such varieties as the winter wheats Yeoman and Holdfast and the barleys Pioneer and Proctor. Shortly after the 1939/45 war, it was decided to expand the work of the Institute. As a result its official connection with the University of Cambridge was broken, and it was established as a grant‐aided institute under the Agricultural Research Council in new premises at Trumpington, two miles south of Cambridge. These were opened by the Minister of Agriculture in 1955.

Lord Woolton, the Minister of Food, stated in the House of Lords, on March 11th, that “to reduce the tonnage used for the transport of wheat” the Government had decided to increase to 85 per cent. the ratio of flour from the wheat milled in this country; and that it will be illegal to sell, except under licence, any “white” bread from April 6th. In the discussion that followed, Lord Horder stated that he and his medical colleagues were satisfied that no other step concerning the nation's food was so calculated to raise the level of the nation's nutrition. He added that there was no evidence that 85 per cent. extraction flour is indigestible; and that where bread of any kind is permissible in diseases of the digestive system, it may be given with impunity. Moreover, Sir Ernest Graham Little, M.D., has rendered a great service to the public by his oft‐repeated and strong advocacy, in the House of Commons, of better bread than that which constitutes the “white loaf.” The unanimous verdict of those who are best qualified to express an opinion supports the conclusion that adequate nutrition is the prime requirement for the physical well‐being of mankind. Neglect this and all other hygienic props fail to support us. It is deplorable, therefore, that so little has been done hitherto in the sphere of national welfare to support the findings of science in favour of the more adequate loaf which has been so powerfully advocated for years. It is no exaggeration to state that the “white loaf” has been a real impediment to an improvement in the hygienic development of the growing child; as the “national loaf” (which will be superior to the “standard bread” of the last war) will not only reduce the tonnage for the transport of wheat, but will also greatly benefit the children, more especially those of the poorer section of the community with whom bread is the main food. Although from a standpoint of nutrition the “National” loaf falls short of the desirable “Wholemeal” loaf, it certainly represents a valuable step in the right direction. As the much impoverished wheat of the “white loaf” is a matter for considerable national concern, it is an anomaly that it should be permitted, seeing that similar impoverishments of natural foodstuffs have for long been punishable by law. For instance, prosecutions and fines for the watering of milk occupy pages of most issues of The British Food Journal. Why, then, should the serious reduction of the valuable mineral matter and vitamins of the wheat used for the wheaten loaf be suffered to continue? The general public do not readily accept guidance upon what they should eat, and it is unlikely that they will have displayed a concerted predilection for the “national loaf” by the time the war ends. But by then much will have been gained by the reduction of prejudice and the increased accommodation which even short phases of custom can confer. Therefore the war‐time expedient of a “national loaf” may very usefully contribute to the perpetuity of its advantages. If we are wise, propaganda to this end will be maintained meanwhile, and be made to develop in power and authority during the early clays of peace. If the Government and the Local Health Authorities are in default in impressing, and (if need be) imposing such a major interest to the nation, the passing of the “white loaf” will soon be followed by its return. Especially is it to be hoped that the Ministry of Health will then give greater support to the advocacy of a better loaf than hitherto. The British Food Journal has often given expression to the public need for an improved loaf, and if this is destined to become an accomplished fact it will partake of the nature of a crowning event to our modest efforts.

The information which has hitherto appeared in the daily press as to the evidence laid before the Departmental Committee which is inquiring into the use of preservatives and colouring matters can hardly have afforded pleasant reading to the apologists for the drugging of foods. It is plainly the intention of the Committee to make a thorough investigation of the whole subject, and the main conclusions which, in the result, must bo forced upon unbiassed persons by an investigation of this character will be tolerably obvious to those who have given serious attention to the subject. At a later stage of the inquiry we shall publish a full account of the evidence submitted and of the Committee's proceedings. At present we may observe that the facts which have been brought forward fully confirm the statements made from time to time upon these matters in the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and amply justify the attitude which we have adopted on the whole question. Representatives of various trade interests have given evidence which has served to show the extent to which the practices now being inquired into are followed. Strong medical evidence, as to the dangers which must attach to the promiscuous and unacknowledged drugging of the public by more or less ignorant persons, has been given; and some medical evidence of that apologetic order to which the public have of late become accustomed, and which we, at any rate, regard as particularly feeble, has also been put forward. Much more will no doubt be said, but those who have borne the heat and burden of the day in forcing these matters upon the attention of the Legislature and of the public can view with satisfaction the result already attained. Full and free investigation must produce its educational effect ; and whatever legal machinery may be devised to put some kind of check upon these most dangerous forms of adulteration, the demand of the public will be for undrugged food, and for a guarantee of sufficient authority to ensure that the demand is met.

The prominence of wheat as the world's largest crop (in 1981 world production was almost 1.7 thousand million tonnes, of which about 40% went directly to human food use) owes much to its almost unique ability to be baked into bread. This ability is largely attributable to the physico‐chemical properties of wheat proteins, which enable a leavened dough to rise by trapping the carbon dioxide, produced during yeast fermentation, as discrete, small gas cells — a structure that is ‘set’ during baking. Another important type of food made from wheat is pasta and the suitability of wheat for this end use is also governed by the properties of wheat proteins. The suitability of wheats for other uses, such as cracker, biscuit and cake manufacture and domestic flour is also affected by these proteins.

Some misconception appears to have arisen in respect to the meaning of Section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1899, owing, doubtless, to the faulty punctuation of certain copies of the Act, and the Sanitary Record has done good service by calling attention to the matter. The trouble has clearly been caused by the insertion of a comma after the word “condensed” in certain copies of the Act, and the non‐insertion of this comma in other copies. The words of the section, as printed by the Sanitary Record, are as follows: “Every tin or other receptacle containing condensed, separated or skimmed milk must bear a label clearly visible to the purchaser on which the words ‘Machine‐skimmed Milk,’ or ‘Skimmed Milk,’ as the case may require, are printed in large and legible type.”

Factors which influence consumer spending, among the most sought after in any field of market research, things people buy and why, is valuable data on which much industrial planning, advertising techniques and marketing is based, but in no other field of trade is consumer preference so closely related to pure economics, i.e., value received in money terms, as in food. With most other commodities, from clothes to cars, hair‐do's to houses, factors affecting consumer choice have different results; appearance, aesthetic quality and neighbourly competition, all play a part, though appearance in a few foods is not entirely without significance, e.g., white bread. Present high levels of consumer spending are said by politicians to be a danger to the country's economy; a more prosaic thought would be that Government spending, or squandering, constituted the greater threat. In the main, factors which influence household food expenditure are essentially down to earth—palatability, digestibility, keeping quality and how far a food will go in the preparation of meals, its value in money terms. The king‐pin in all market research on food must be the woman of the house; it is her laying out of the household purse that determines the amount of food expenditure and the varieties purchased week by week. A housewife's choice, however, is a complex of her family's likes and dislikes, rarely her own, and also determined by the amount allocated from her purse for this part of the household budget and the number of mouths she has to feed. Any tendency to experiment, to extend the variety of food, is only possible with a well‐filled purse; with a large family, a common complaint is of monotony in the diet. A factor of immense importance nowadays is whether the housewife is employed or not, and whether whole‐time or part‐time, and which part of the day she can be in her own home. To this may be attributed, as much as anything, the rise in consumption of convenience foods. Fortunately for the purposes of reasonable accuracy in the results of enquiries, housewives form a class, reliable and steady, unlikely to be contaminated by the palsied opinions of the so‐called lunatic fringe in this unquiet age. Any differences in food choice are likely to be regional, and settled dietary habits, passed on from one generation to another. Statistics from the National Food Surveys show the extent of these, and also consumer preferences as far as food commodity groups are concerned. The Surveys have been running long enough to show something of consumer trends but, of course, they do not exhibit reasons—why consumers buy and use certain foods, their attitudes to food marketing practices, and, in particular, to advertising. Advertising claims, misleading undoubtedly but within the law, have long been a source of controversy between those who worship at the shrine of truth and others less particular. Elsewhere, we review a special study of consumer reactions to aspects of the grocery trade in the U.S.A., and note that 32 per cent do not accept advertisements as being true, but 85 per cent find them interesting and informative. Advertising practices are probably subject to less statutory control in the United States than here, and the descriptions and verbiage certainly reach greater heights of absurdity, but the British housewife is likely to be no more discerning, able “to read between the lines”, than her counterpart in that country. A major difference, however, is that in Britain, more houswives prepare and cook meals for their families than in the United States. The greatest importance of advertising is in the introductory phase of a commodity; new and more vigorous advertising is necessary later to delay the onset of the decline phase of the commodity's life cycle; to ensure that sales can be maintained to prevent rises in supply costs. Advertising helps considerably in the acceptance of a branded food, but housewives tend to ignore cut‐throat competition between rival brands, and what weans a consumer from a brand is not competition in advertising, nor even new and more attractive presentation, but reduction in real price. The main pre‐occupation of the woman of the house is food adequacy, and especially that her children will have what she considers conforms to a nutritious diet, without argument or rebellion on the part of her progeny and without distinction. She knows that bulk foods, carbohydrates, are not necessarily nutritious, although her ideas of which foods contain vitamins or minerals or other important nutrient factors tends to be hazy. She does not pretend to enjoy shopping for food and therefore tends to follow a routine; it saves time and worry. Especially is this so with young married women, who may have to take small children along. Each housewife has her own mental standard of assessing “value”, and would have difficulty in defining it. Nutritional value forms part of it, however, in most women, who connote their food provision with health. The greatest concern is not necessarily positive health, but prevention or reduction of obesity, which is seen among adult members of the family, especially growing girls, as an adverse effect on their appearance, and the types of clothes they can wear. A few of the more intelligent families have an indefinable fear of ischaemic heart disease and its relation to food. When they take positive steps to control the diet for these purposes, they are quite frequently in the wrong direction and rather confused even when this is done on medical advice.

An important step towards ousting the Germans from a lucrative branch of West African trade in which Germany has hitherto held almost a monopoly has been proposed by a Colonial Office Committee and adopted by the Government. This Committee was appointed a year ago by Mr. BONAR LAW, with Mr. STEEL‐MAIT‐LAND, M.P., as chairman, “to consider and report upon the present condition and the prospects of the West African trade in palm kernels and other edible and oil‐producing nuts and seeds, and to make recommendations for the promotion in the United Kingdom of the industries dependent thereon.”

With reference to the report of the Annual General Meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain, which was published in the February issue of THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and to the speech delivered by MR. GOSLIN upon the proper handling and purveying of meat, an article which has subsequently appeared in The Standard is of considerable interest. It is pointed out that no one who gives the matter serious consideration can approve of the present methods. “Many years ago Oxford made its protest against carcasses or joints being exposed in open‐fronted shops. It is just possible that when the powers that were objected to and forbade this proceeding they thought more of the æsthetics than the science of it, but they most certainly did a good thing when they took flesh foods away from the contamination of street dust and the variations of temperature that are dependent on every gust of wind or every moment of sunlight or shadow.”

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.