Listened to the news this morning to hear of yet another study proving that genetics are to blame for soaring obesity rates! There's a nice linear link between increased car usage, reduction in activity levels and the rise in obesity, but no, it's all to do with genetics. Could someone explain to me how an increasing number of people are being born with this 'fat gene'? Do people with this gene get more sex than the rest of us or are they less careful? The study was carried out for Cancer Research UK and one of the researchers, Professor Jane Wardle of University College London has been quoted saying "it is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility".
Rubbish! It is a parents responsibility to ensure that their child has a healthy diet and spends time being active. I really struggle to see what the usefulness is of research like this. Yes genetics do play a role in the ability to store fat, but surely this means that the parents of a child susceptible to storing fat easily, need to be even more responsible for ensuring they eat healthily and do plenty of exercise.
No mention of chemical exposure in the study. Organochlorines (widely used as pesticides and have previously been used as growth promoters in animals because of their ability to fatten animals quicker and with less feed) can effect people with certain genetics more than others, but no testing for organochlorine levels was carried out in the research.
If someone has an increased genetic risk of heart disease, charities like the British Heart Foundation educate people of the importance of reducing other risk factors by being physically active and having a healthy diet, etc.
So why can't cancer charities spend some of their multi million pound research budgets doing something useful and accept that there is a link between lifestyle/environmental factors and cancers.
I'm only aware of one cancer charity in the UK - www.cancerpreventionsociety.org that is aimed at reducing the incidence of cancer through lifestyle changes rather than research into some 'miracle cure' and they receive only a tiny fraction of the funding received by other charities. I know which charity will be receiving my donations.
Rubbish! It is a parents responsibility to ensure that their child has a healthy diet and spends time being active. I really struggle to see what the usefulness is of research like this. Yes genetics do play a role in the ability to store fat, but surely this means that the parents of a child susceptible to storing fat easily, need to be even more responsible for ensuring they eat healthily and do plenty of exercise.
No mention of chemical exposure in the study. Organochlorines (widely used as pesticides and have previously been used as growth promoters in animals because of their ability to fatten animals quicker and with less feed) can effect people with certain genetics more than others, but no testing for organochlorine levels was carried out in the research.
If someone has an increased genetic risk of heart disease, charities like the British Heart Foundation educate people of the importance of reducing other risk factors by being physically active and having a healthy diet, etc.
So why can't cancer charities spend some of their multi million pound research budgets doing something useful and accept that there is a link between lifestyle/environmental factors and cancers.
I'm only aware of one cancer charity in the UK - www.cancerpreventionsociety.org that is aimed at reducing the incidence of cancer through lifestyle changes rather than research into some 'miracle cure' and they receive only a tiny fraction of the funding received by other charities. I know which charity will be receiving my donations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment