A healthy intervention
Tang Yuankai

AFTER living all these years, now I find that I do not know what is the right food to eat,” lamented Ye Feilang, a 61-year-old retiree living in Beijing. Ye said he had so many misconceptions about food in the past. Ye’s sudden enlightenment came after he thumbed through a dietary guide, in which nutrition experts give suggestions on how to maintain a healthy diet. Thousands of years ago, there was a saying in China, “Food is the most valuable thing under heaven.” China has a rich and colorful culinary art. Chinese people often greet each other by asking, “Have you eaten?” Now, many people are living a reasonably prosperous life, and meals are no longer their top concern. As to how food can affect one’s health and longevity, many still are not clear about what to eat, how to eat and how much to eat.
Research by the Chinese Nutrition Society suggests that with the rapid growth of China’s economy, dietary related chronic diseases are increasingly threatening people’s health. The book that Ye read was Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents (2007). The guidelines, compiled by a panel of food and nutrition experts, were commissioned by the Ministry of Health. The guidelines were published in early 2008. Unlike other books on the subject, the guidelines are a “national dietary standard.” The Ministry of Health recommended the guidelines to Chinese residents in its first circular released in 2008.
“The guidelines are more authoritative than ordinary nutrition books on the market,” said Zhang Yuping, the book’s eidtor. The book is the product of meticulous research. The government and other organizations have invested financial and human resources in this research project. Thousands of data used in the book were obtained in experiments. Many readers feel that the book is like a dictionary. Ge Keyou, President of Chinese Nutrition Society, explained that people could refer to the guidelines in choosing what to eat. Ge pointed out that the health effect of a balanced diet could not be felt overnight. “If you stick to a healthy diet, your health will improve,” he said.
Healthy intervention
“The Ministry of Health will promote the book to residents all over the country. Experts will also offer their help,” Ge said. He believes that the government’s advice will be effective because the public thinks it is credible. Governments in more than 20 countries have published food-based dietary guidelines. The earliest such official dietary guidelines were published by Sweden in 1968, and had a positive health impact. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recommend other countries follow the example of Sweden.
International experience shows that when per-capita GDP comes between $1,000 and $3,000, residents tend to change their diet drastically, and it is the time when the government should step in. China is currently in this phase. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics demonstrate that China’s per-capita GDP in 2000 was 7,078 yuan ($856 in 2000). If the goal of quadrupling GDP is realized in 2020, then the per-capita GDP in China will approximate $3,500.
“Every year, China suffers from an economic loss of billions of yuan due to the health impact of an unreasonable diet,” noted Hans Troedsson, Representative of the WHO in China. A population with good health is important to maintain sustained rapid economic growth. A reasonable diet and exercise are the most low cost and effective ways to good health. Troedsson congratulated China on the publication of the guidelines on behalf of the WHO. “It is important for the future of each individual in China and for the future of China,” he said. The Chinese Nutrition Society published its first Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents in 1989, and revised it in 1997. “The views in the 1997 version are basically correct,” Ge said. “In the past decade, the dietary composition of Chinese residents has changed, so the guidelines needed to be updated. The guidelines have expanded from a book with 16,000 Chinese characters to one with 240,000 characters.”
Food pagoda
The new guidelines present a “balanced diet pagoda,” sorting foods into five levels. The placement and area of each level of the pagoda reflects the importance and proportion of each group of foods in the daily diet. Previously, beans and bean products were placed on the fourth level. In the new pagoda, soybean stays on the fourth level, while other beans have been driven to the first level. Soybean gets special treatment because of its higher nutrition and health value. The guidelines also advise residents to cook soybeans in porridge or drink fresh soybean milk daily.
On the first level of the old pagoda, cereal dominated. In the new pagoda, two newcomers have moved onto the first level-sweet potatoes and legumes. This has happened because a WHO study over more than three years listed sweet potatoes at the top of the list of 13 most nutritious vegetables. Onother addition to the new pagoda is water. The guidelines recommend residents to drink more than 1,200 milliliters of water each day. Water should be drunk many times and each time only a little. “One needs to drink water proactively, not only when you feel thirsty,” the guidelines say.
The top level of the old pagoda included only oil and fat, while the new pagoda has added 6 grams of salt. The latest survey on the nutrition and health condition of Chinese residents conducted in 2002 illustrates that the average daily salt intake was 12 grams, 2.4 times the salt intake recommended by the WHO. Chronic disease associated with high salt intake has increased rapidly in China. More and more people have realized that physical activity increases appetite and facilitates food digestion and nutrition absorption. A healthy diet complemented with exercise helps a person to keep fit.
Full without fat
The new guidelines have also dispelled people’s misconceptions about certain foods. A typical case is misconception about potatoes. Potatoes used to be regarded as a fattening food rich in starch. “A potato only contains 0.1 percent of fat. It can make people feel full without burdening them with too much fat,” said Fan Zhihong, a Professor at the College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University.
Professor Zhao Faji, Honorary President of Shanghai Nutrition Society and a member of the panel of experts that devised the new guidelines, said that people should take a new look at potatoes which are rich in soft edible fiber that makes us feel full. “Eating potatoes helps to control weight, and prevents constipation and bowl cancer.” The new guidelines advise citizens to increase consumption of potatoes. The recommended intake is a 50 to 100-gram portion, five times a week. The guidelines also note that compared with apple, potato is richer in protein and other minerals such as calcium, phosphate, magnesium and potassium. Potassium contained in food can be used to lower blood pressure. Potato could be used as vegetable or staple food, said Zhao.
“Potato is a major ingredient in the diet of athletes,” said Cao Jianmin, Director of the Sport Biology Research Center of Beijing Sport University, who is working on several sport nutrition projects sponsored by the General Administration of Sport of China. Carbohydrates are the major fuel for muscles. Currently, many countries recommend athletes consume at least two types of carbohydrates per meal. “We are familiar with carbohydrates such as cereals or grains. In addition to those, I would like to recommend potato to you,” Cao said. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization made 2008 “the year of the potato,” and nicknamed potatoes the “buried treasure.” The UN has only ever bestowed that honor on one other food-rice-in 2003. China has also participated in international cooperation related to potatoes. Recently, China and the United States Potato Board jointly hosted the “2008 Potato Nutrition Seminar” in Guangzhou of Guangdong Province. The theme of the seminar was, “Read the New Guidelines, and Understand Nutrition.” Nowadays, Chinese residents can get enough calories from cereals, and they often forget potatoes. Statistics show that in the past two decades, although potato output has been growing, its consumption has dropped. This phenomenon has worried some experts.
A Healthy Law
The National People’s Congress (NPC) published China’s new draft Food Safety Law on April 20 for public discussion. The draft law covers food safety evaluation, monitoring, and recall and information release. In recent years, food related incidents such as poisoning or deaths have caused public concern over food quality and safety, and sometimes gave rise to international disputes. According to the draft, producers of substandard food products face fines, the confiscation of their incomes and revocation of production certificates. In serious cases, they could face prison terms ranging from three years to life.
The draft law was placed on website of the NPC (www.npc.gov.cn) and will also be published by major news media in China. This is the first draft law made public by the 11th NPC since it held its first annual session in March. The public is welcome to provide their comments before May 20. Feedbacks to the draft law will be submitted to the NPC Standing Committee for further studies.
Largest Potato Producer
China has an annual output of 75 million tons of potatoes, making it the largest potato producer in the world. According to the China National Food Industry Association, in the past decade the plantation area of potatoes has increased 30 percent, reaching 5.3 million hectares, which accounts for a quarter of all potato farming land in the world. Potato is the fourth most important crop in China, after wheat, rice and corn. Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Yunnan and Guizhou are the largest potato producing regions in China, with a combined output accounting for 45 percent of the country’s total.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

Terrorism or resistance?
Claude Salhani

FORMER US president Jimmy Carter set out to prove a point after meeting twice with Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based leader of Hamas, and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk. Carter hoped to convince the Palestinian Islamist movement to renege on violence and to join the peace process. The two Hamas leaders are considered terrorists by the United States and Israel and of being responsible for attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians in the ongoing Middle East conflict.
The Bush administration and the Israeli government opposed Carter’s initiative on the grounds that terrorism must not be rewarded by treating its representatives as legitimate interlocutors in peaceful negotiations. But in defying US and Israeli warnings against meeting with Hamas, Carter has demonstrated that there can be a difference between “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” terrorism. The principle of refusing to talk to terrorist groups is a noble one; this article should not be misunderstood as anything but a strong condemnation of terrorism and those who resort to its use. Terrorism should not and must not be rewarded. Yet the harsh reality is quite different. Recent Middle East history reveals a very different picture. The unfortunate truth demonstrates great contradictions between the official stance adopted by governments — that of not negotiating with terrorists — and the facts revealing that terrorism seems to have paid dividends. A few examples: Israel’s fight for independence from British mandated Palestine; groups such as the Irgun, were labelled terrorists by the British; that did not prevent one of its leaders, Menahem Begin, to become prime minister. And the question may be raised as to whether the Palestinians would have gotten as far as they have, politically, had they not resorted to the use of terrorism?
Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 tens of thousands of Palestinians were parked in refugee camps set up by the United Nations and strewn across the Middle East. Anyone with an ounce of foresight who has spent more than a few minutes — let alone several years — in one of these wretched camps could realise they were ideal breeding grounds for extremism, read here terrorism. Calls to settle the Palestinian issue went unheeded. Israeli leaders until recently refused to admit the existence of such a thing as a Palestinian people. The international community chose largely to ignore the problem, wishing it would simply go away. Except it didn’t. Instead, the Palestinians took their problem to the international community by exporting terrorism to Europe. Although they did not invent airline hijackings, the Palestinian resistance certainly took it to new heights, to bring attention and international recognition to their cause. Would the Palestinians have ever been able to establish the basis of what hopefully will be a legitimate state in the West Bank and Gaza had it not been for the struggle began by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the subgroups it spawned, and their use of violence?
Would Israel have ever conceded in allowing the PLO leadership, including its archenemy Yasser Arafat, to enter the Palestinian territories were it not for the Intifada? It is quite understandable from an Israeli perspective that Carter’s meeting with the Hamas leadership is seen negatively. Hamas, after all, continues to call for the destruction of Israel, refusing to recognise Israel’s right to exist. However, the Palestine Liberation Organisation had adopted the same stance until not very long ago. It was through negotiations — not through violence — that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority leadership were convinced to alter their charter and their stance regarding Israel, made to recognise the right of Israel to exist; and accept to engage with Israel in peaceful dialogue. And although Israel says it does not engage terrorists in negotiations, the Israelis have been involved in talks, albeit via Egypt’s good grace, with Hamas for the liberation of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured and detained by Hamas. Similarly, the United States, who also says it will not negotiate with terrorists, has managed to make peace with Sunni groups in Iraq who until just a few months ago were fighting alongside Al Qaeda against US forces.
The pertinent question should not be whether one engages or not with terrorists in the hope of bringing about a peaceful resolution to a longstanding violent conflict. Rather the challenge should be how to prevent terrorism from developing and flourishing in the first place. That should be the major preoccupation of all governments today. And if any leader, past or present, can contribute towards a peaceful resolution, no matter how small that contribution may be, that action should be encouraged and not censured. A distinction must be made between “negotiable terrorism,” such as with Hamas, where a peaceful resolution is still possible and “non-negotiable terrorism” such as Al Qaeda, with whom there can be no dialogue.

—Khaleej Times





India & Pakistan don’t share US assessment of Iran
Randeep Ramesh

NAPOLEON is said to have observed that geography is destiny. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be emphasizing the truth of the emperor of France’s words in the next two days as he makes surprise appearances in Pakistan and India. The president’s visits will last just a few hours and are likely to set in train big changes for the region. Sensing that the clock is ticking for the Bush administration, Iran wants to press ahead with a long-proposed 1,700-mile pipeline to deliver gas to Pakistan and India, at a cost $7.5bn. Understanding that such a project would see a shared strategic interest develop between three nations straddling the world’s main oil and gas artery, the US peddles a rival scheme: The $7.6bn gas pipeline from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad field through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan, and finally into India.
Both may go ahead but it is Iran’s proposal that has momentum. Oil ministers met in Islamabad last week and agreed to sign a bilateral agreement and to start construction of the pipeline by 2010. India also wants to put back on track a floundering $25bn deal for getting 5 million tons of liquefied gas from Iran every year for the next 25 years. In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the US has been unable to crack the Persian puzzle. The US’s attempts to ostracize Iran over its nuclear program have so far yielded little. Washington’s sanctions strategy has also been undone, principally by China’s announcement that it would develop oil and gas fields in southwestern Iran for $2bn late last year.
None of this has gone unnoticed in New Delhi and Islamabad. Pakistan has had a fractious relationship with Iran in recent years. India’s dealings with Iran have been bedeviled by baubles dangled by the US: Principally a deal that would legitimate Delhi as a nuclear-weapons power in return for the inspection of civilian atomic energy plants. To Tehran’s annoyance, India also voted with the US and against Iran’s nuclear program twice — in October 2005 and February 2006 — at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Indians are likely to be seeking to make amends with President Ahmadinejad in a big way. Nukes have long been at the center of Iranian dealings with South Asia.
India has never shared Washington’s assessments of Iran as an aggressive regional power. India’s reason is simple: My neighbor’s neighbor is my friend. Hence it sees Iran as offering a road to Central Asia — a key Indian concern — that bypasses Pakistan. To this end New Delhi has been building up Iran’s Chahbahar port and constructing roads that skirt Pakistan’s border. India and Iran’s energy, strategic and diplomatic ties, likely to be revived this week, may also see more private sector dealings between the two nations. In the past this has led to revelations of Indian transfers to Iran of high-technology goods that could be useful for Iran’s atomic program. The truth is that in the past few months, Tehran has emerged as the Gulf’s main power center. In Iraq, Tehran has outfoxed competitors, gaining influence at their expense. Iran’s intervention a few weeks ago to end a bloody Shiite conflict on the banks of Iraq’s Tigris did not go unnoticed in Washington.
In Afghanistan both Indian and Pakistani diplomats have noted that the West’s position is becoming seriously eroded, leaving Iran to shape the debate. This means they have to take seriously President Ahmadinejad’s recent questioning of NATO’s legitimacy in Afghanistan. There is also a feeling that the Western alliance has become lopsided: The US has accepted it will need to airlift more troops because the Europeans will not. If America ends up as the sole defender of the Kabul regime then the attacks on the “coalition” can be construed as a resistance army fighting an occupier.

—Arab News