Vegan Vending Machine Installed at a Hospital in Vancouver, Canada

Nicole Axworthy wrote . . . . . . . . .

A vegan vending machine was recently installed in Canada’s Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, BC.

Nicknamed the “mending machine,” the machine offers 100-percent organic, gluten-free, plant-based items from The Green Moustache Organic Café, such as Buddha bowls, superfood salads, raw Pad Thai, veggie wraps, and desserts such as lemon cheesecake, chocolate brownies, and caramel date squares, which are made fresh and delivered daily.

“It has been a lifelong dream of mine to get Green Moustache food into hospitals—for healthcare workers and patients,” Nicolette Richer, Green Moustache Juice Inc. founder and CEO, said. “Rates of chronic disease are at epidemic highs and access to nutrient-rich food is vital for helping Canadians stop the progression of chronic health conditions like type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disorders, heart disease, cancer, and more. Our vending machine addresses the much-needed convenience of access to quick and tasty meals that don’t compromise on nutrition and quality. It is a first step towards revolutionizing healthcare.”

Last year, The Green Moustache debuted its first vending machine inside a sports center in Whistler, BC and aims to place the machines in additional communities across Canada.

Source: Veg News

Advertisements

Curried Vegetables with Mango Chutney

Ingredients

1 tablespoon canola oil
1 onion, chopped
1 tablespoon curry powder
1 butternut squash, about 1 lb, peeled, seeded, and cut into cubes
2 rutabagas, cut into cubes
3 carrots, halved lengthwise and cut into pieces
2 cups water
1 cup canned vegetable broth
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
1/2 teaspoon ground pepper
1 lb broccoli, cut into florets
6 tablespoons Mango Chutney

Mango Chutney

2 mangoes
1/2 cup firmly packed brown sugar
1/2 cup cider vinegar
1/2 cup raisins
1 tablespoon fresh grated ginger or 1 teaspoon ground ginger
1/8 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ground allspice

Method

  1. To make the chutney, peel and pit the mangoes and cut the flesh into cubes. In a large saucepan, bring the mangoes, brown sugar, vinegar, raisins, ginger, cinnamon, and allspice to a boil. Reduce heat to low and simmer, stirring occasionally, until the mangoes are very tender and the mixture has thickened slightly, 15-20 minutes.
  2. Cool to room temperature. Spoon 6 tablespoons of chutney into a bowl and set aside. Refrigerate the rest in a tightly covered container for up to 4 days.
  3. In a large saucepan over medium heat, heat the oil. Add the onion and curry powder and saute until the onion is soft, about 5 minutes.
  4. Stir in the squash, rutabagas, carrots, water, broth, thyme, and pepper. Increase heat to high and bring to a boil. Reduce heat to low, cover, and simmer for 10 minutes.
  5. Stir in the broccoli, cover, and simmer until the vegetables are tender, 10-12 minutes.
  6. To serve, mound in a large, shallow bowl. Accompany with the chutney.

Makes 6 servings.

Source: Mayo Clinic

KFC’s Beyond Fried Chicken Completely Sold Out in Five Hours

KFC’s Beyond Fried Chicken launch underestimated consumer demand and sold out in under five hours. In several hours, KFC guests purchased the same amount of plant-based chicken Kentucky Fried Chicken would sell, on average, of popcorn chicken in one week.

Peyton Klemm, a representative for KFC US, told vegconomist that the lines were consistently wrapped around the Atlanta KFC beginning at 8 am. Moreover, the drive-thru lines were also double-looped throughout the day.

For the plant-based chicken debut, the Atlanta restaurant was turned green and topped with a Beyond Fried Chicken bucket.

According to Klemm, KFC will evaluate the results and customer feedback to determine the best way forward beyond the Atlanta test, which could include a more extensive test or national rollout.

Source: Vegconomist

Pureed Peanuts Advised for Infants to Stave Off Allergy

Saumya Joseph wrote . . . . . . . . .

Feeding pureed peanut products regularly to babies before their first birthday could reduce their risk of developing peanut allergies later on, doctors advise.

In a practice guide for health care providers published in CMAJ, a team of pediatricians and allergy specialists encourage introducing peanuts in pureed or powdered form as early as age 4 months for most babies, and making sure the babies continue to get exposure to “substantial” amounts of peanut products in their first years of life.

However, the allergy status of the baby should be checked with a doctor in advance, said one of the guide’s authors, Dr. George du Toit of King’s College London in the UK.

He added that at-home introduction of peanut products is best suited for infants who do not have eczema, or have only a mild form of the skin disorder.

The hardest part of implementing the current guidelines regarding peanut exposure for babies is that they “are a complete reversal from the prior practice of delaying peanut exposure,” said Dr. Ruchi Gupta of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, a pediatrician and food allergy researcher who wasn’t involved in the practice guide.

“There’s also resistance from parents because they’re fearful about doing this at home with their infants and what may happen,” she told Reuters Health in a phone interview.

Peanut allergies typically develop before age 2. These allergies are a constant worry for parents, who need to closely monitor everything their kids eat inside and outside the home.

Allergic reactions to peanuts can include skin rashes and blisters, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, nausea and vomiting, and swelling of the tongue, eyes or face. In severe cases, a peanut reaction can be fatal unless halted with an injection of epinephrine.

As a result, doctors previously advised parents to avoid giving peanut products to babies. But a 2015 study prompted a rethink of the guidelines.

The trial included 640 babies younger than 11 months with either egg allergy or eczema – both risk factors for developing peanut allergy. But researchers found that when these high-risk infants were fed a small amount of peanut butter 3 times a week, only 3% went on to develop peanut allergy after 5 years, while 17% of children who avoided peanuts during infancy became allergic.

In the practice guide, a team of pediatricians and allergy specialists recommends introducing peanut protein to babies aged between 4 and 6 months in the form of paste, butter or powdered puff as one of the first foods during the process of weaning off breast milk.

“A lot of people assume that this just means feed it to (babies) once but it is really important that you feed repeatedly and over a longer period of time so that the immune system actually learns to tolerate it,” said Gupta’s colleague Christopher Warren, also of the Feinberg School of Medicine, who joined her on the phone interview.

Guidelines from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recommend checking the allergy status of high-risk infants through the skin-prick method or specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing before introducing peanuts. The allergy societies of Canada, Australia and the UK don’t mandate this test, the authors write.

The method of early introduction has also been tested with other major allergenic foods such as milk, egg, sesame, fish and wheat, but the protective effect of early introduction of these foods in a child’s diet was most pronounced in the case of peanuts and eggs, experts noted.

Parents should look out for signs of vomiting, choking, rashes, swelling of the lips or an extreme dislike for the food, which could signal the onset of an allergic reaction. But very few infants develop the more severe symptoms such as breathing difficulty or low blood pressure, Gupta said, and doctors are likely to recommend consulting with an allergy specialist to see if the baby could try peanuts again under medical supervision.

Source: Reuters

Dirty Air Is Deadly, Global Study Confirms

Serena Gordon wrote . . . . . . . . .

Air pollution — especially the fine particles that you breathe into your lungs — can shorten your life, a global study reports.

The new research found that short-term exposure to air pollution upped the daily risk of death from all causes. The risk of dying from heart disease, stroke and lung disease also rose with exposure to fine particle air pollution.

Particulate matter (PM) pollution is fine particles in the air. PM pollution can be found in various sizes. PM10 refers to particle matter between 2.5 micrometers and 10 micrometers large. That’s smaller than the width of a single hair. Particles this size are produced during industrial crushing or grinding, or as dust stirred up by vehicles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says.

Smaller particles — PM2.5 — are less than 2.5 micrometers in size. These particles result from all types of combustion. Possible sources include motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning and some industrial processes. These particles are about 30 times smaller than the width of a single human hair, the EPA notes.

The study “found that on average, an increase in 10 micrograms per meter squared in inhalable PM10 and fine particles (PM2.5) is associated with an increase of 0.36% and 0.68% in daily mortality,” said study author Antonio Gasparrini.

That might not sound like much. But in a group of 15,000 people, it would translate to about 54 extra deaths related to PM10, and 102 associated with PM2.5 pollution, said Gasparrini, an associate professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in England.

He explained that while the risk for any one individual is low, it’s worrisome at the population level.

“The main message [from the study] is about the risk associated with pollution and the importance of air quality standards and limits,” Gasparrini said, adding: “There is a substantial excess mortality that occurs with pollution levels below the current limits, which should, therefore, be tightened, not relaxed.”

The study compared daily data on air pollution and mortality for 652 cities from 24 countries or regions. Researchers controlled the data to account for gaseous pollutants.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The author of an accompanying editorial, Dr. John Balmes, said the study was “important, though not groundbreaking.” He said it’s well-known that particulate matter pollution is linked to poor health outcomes.

The strength of this study is its large size and global data, said Balmes, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, and a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

Like other studies on PM pollution, this one cannot definitively show a cause-and-effect relationship.

But Balmes likened it to the association between smoking and lung cancer. It would be unethical to do a study that definitively proves smoking causes lung cancer, because researchers would have to expose people to enough smoke to cause the disease. Yet doctors don’t question the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Likewise, with air pollution, to definitively prove the link, you would need to deliberately expose people to PM pollution. But Balmes said this study and many that have come before it make the link clear.

Particles from pollution deposit in the lungs where they likely cause injury and inflammation, he said. That inflammation then triggers a response throughout the body that can increase the risk of hardening in the blood vessels, which can lead to a heart attack and other serious health concerns.

So, what can be done to reduce the risk of death from particulate matter pollution? Gasparrini said the best way is to adopt specific policies to reduce pollution levels.

“These include, among others, technological developments to reduce emission from traffic and cleaner energy production,” he said. “This has been done successfully in the last decades, in particular in the United States.”

But that may be changing. The Trump administration has proposed rolling back some clean air regulations from the Obama era and even earlier. The proposed changes would likely add pollution and greenhouse gases into the environment, according to published reports. Twenty-nine states are suing to block some of these changes.

Balmes said some areas in the United States are taking matters into their own hands. An example is California, a leader in cleaner air regulations and clean energy sources that also has a booming economy, he said.

“The public needs to realize that air pollution is an important risk factor for public health. We’ve made changes, but we can get cleaner air yet. The co-benefit of cleaner energy and transportation changes for public health is a benefit in terms of climate change, too,” he said.

Source: HealthDay


Today’s Comic