Under-sevens should not drink ‘slushies', food safety watchdog warns
The popular summer treat should also be limited to no more than 350ml – roughly the amount of a fizzy drink can – a day for children aged seven to 10, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said.
'Very high' levels of exposure to glycerol – which typically occurs when a child consumes several slushies in a short space of time – can cause shock, very low blood sugar levels and loss of consciousness, the watchdog said.
It advised parents and caregivers to ask sellers if drinks contain glycerol and review product labels or signage at the point of sale.
The FSA said consumers should avoid products if they are unsure about ingredients and seek medical advice if a child develops symptoms.
If a child becomes unwell with headaches, nausea or vomiting soon after consuming slush ice drinks, the caregiver should immediately give them drinks or food containing sugar and call 111 for medical advice.
Urgent medical attention should be sought by calling 999 if a child becomes drowsy or confused.
The advice also applies to ready-to-drink slush ice drinks with glycerol in pouches and home kits containing glycerol slush concentrates.
The FSA has asked retailers to support its advice by not offering free refills to children aged under 10.
It has also reminded manufacturers of slush ice drink concentrates to use only the minimum amount of glycerol necessary to achieve the frozen effect.
The FSA issued the revised guidance ahead of an expected seasonal spike in slush ice drink sales at children's indoor play areas, leisure facilities and outdoor events over the summer holidays.
FSA chief scientific adviser Professor Robin May said: 'As we head into the summer holidays, we want parents to be aware of the potential risks associated with slush ice drinks containing glycerol.
'While these drinks may seem harmless and side-effects are generally mild, they can, especially when consumed in large quantities over a short time, pose serious health risks to young children.
'That's why we're recommending that children under seven should not consume these drinks at all, and children aged seven to 10 should have no more than one 350ml serving.
'We're working closely with industry to ensure appropriate warnings are in place wherever these drinks are sold, but in the meantime we are asking parents and carers to take extra care when buying drinks for young children, particularly during warmer months when consumption of 'slushies' typically increases.'
There have been nine confirmed cases of glycerol intoxication in young children requiring hospitalisation over the past three years in the UK, with seven additional potential cases reported in the media.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The disease which takes 3.5 years to diagnose after symptoms start
A disease that affects almost one million people in the UK takes around 3.5 years to diagnose, researchers have found. Dementia sufferers have to wait a lengthy time from the onset of symptoms to an official diagnosis. And some people with early-onset dementia have an even longer wait of just over four years. A new study by UCL researchers is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of global evidence examining time to diagnosis in dementia. READ MORE: Learner drivers 'struggling to pass' as three Midland test centres among the UK's toughest The researchers reviewed data from 13 previously published studies which took place in Europe, US, Australia and China, reporting data on 30,257 participants. The study, published in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, investigated the average interval between symptom onset rated by patients or family carers using interviews or medical records to the final diagnosis of dementia. Lead author, Dr Vasiliki Orgeta, said: "Timely diagnosis of dementia remains a major global challenge, shaped by a complex set of factors, and specific healthcare strategies are urgently needed to improve it. "Other studies estimate that only 50-65% of cases are ever diagnosed in high-income countries, with many countries having even lower diagnostic rates. 'Timely diagnosis can improve access to treatments and for some people prolong the time living with mild dementia before symptoms worsen.' In a pooled meta-analysis of 10 of the included studies, the researchers found that it typically takes 3.5 years from the first alert of symptoms to a patient receiving a diagnosis of dementia, or 4.1 years for those with early-onset dementia, with some groups more likely to experience longer delays, a spokesperson for UCL said. They found that younger age at onset and having frontotemporal dementia were both linked to longer time to diagnosis. While data on racial disparities was limited, one of the studies reviewed found that black patients tended to experience a longer delay before diagnosis. Dr Orgeta said: 'Our work highlights the need for a clear conceptual framework on time to diagnosis in dementia, developed in collaboration with people with dementia, their carers, and supporters.' Dr Phuong Leung (UCL Division of Psychiatry) said: 'Symptoms of dementia are often mistaken for normal ageing, while fear, stigma, and low public awareness can discourage people from seeking help.' Professor Rafael Del-Pino-Casado, of the University of Jaén, Spain, said: 'Within healthcare systems, inconsistent referral pathways, limited access to specialists, and under-resourced memory clinics can create further delays. For some, language differences or a lack of culturally appropriate assessment tools can make access to timely diagnosis even harder.' Dr Orgeta added: 'To speed up dementia diagnosis, we need action on multiple fronts. Public awareness campaigns can help improve understanding of early symptoms and reduce stigma, encouraging people to seek help sooner. "Clinician training is critical to improve early recognition and referral, along with access to early intervention and individualised support so that people with dementia and their families can get the help they need.' The NHS lists common early symptoms of dementia as: memory loss difficulty concentrating finding it hard to carry out familiar daily tasks, such as getting confused over the correct change when shopping struggling to follow a conversation or find the right word being confused about time and place mood changes
Gizmodo
6 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Diet Swap Study Reveals How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Derail Weight Loss
In case you needed more incentive to cut down on ultra-processed foods, a new diet swap study out today reveals that people experienced greater weight loss while eating minimally processed foods than they did when they ate a nutritionally similar, ultra-processed diet. In a six-month trial led by scientists at University College London, study participants were assigned one of the two diet regimes to follow for eight weeks, and then took a four week break before swapping to the other diet for another eight weeks. Participants lost more weight while eating the minimally processed diet than the ultra-processed one; they also shed more unhealthy fat. The findings, published Monday in Nature Medicine, suggest that, among other things, ultra-processed diets are especially good at stoking people's food cravings, the researchers said. Ultra-Processed Foods Have Disturbing Health Effects, Large Review Finds Although there is some debate over what constitutes an ultra-processed food, there are generally considered products or ingredients that have gone through high levels of industrialized processing, like breakfast sausages, candy, or sodas. There is a growing mountain of evidence that suggests a diet rich in ultra-processed foods is less healthy overall than a diet made up of mostly whole foods, and that ultra-processed foods may raise the risk of certain diseases. Most of this research, however, only shows a correlation between ultra-processed diets and poorer health outcomes, and not a direct cause-and-effect link. Clinical trials can provide stronger evidence, but they're notoriously difficult to do in the world of nutrition science for many reasons, particularly funding, the researchers said. A New Diet Study Confirms Your Worst Suspicions About Ultra-Processed Foods The results highlight the importance of following government dietary guidelines, Dicken said. But the study also indicates that people who want to lose weight may see the most benefit from sticking to minimally processed foods. As to why the ultra-processed foods are worse for dieting, the researchers have their educated guesses. Ultra-processed foods tend to have more appealing textures and artificially boosted flavors, which often means they are softer or easier to eat, and tastier. Their appearance and packaging might also make them more visually appealing to potential customers. Interestingly, the volunteers in this study reported that both diets were equally satisfying to eat on average, but they also reported having better control over their cravings while on the minimally processed diet. Dicken noted that the researchers weren't able to directly test these potential explanations in this trial, though, so more research is needed to know for sure. The team has already launched their next study, which is testing out a behavioral support program to reduce people's intake of ultra-processed foods. But Dicken cautioned that it will take widespread societal shifts, not individual scolding, to change our collective diets for the better.
CNN
6 hours ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers inside a clinic for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.'
