减盐食品的钠含量不一定少 看好营养标签购买低钠食品******
“早起开门七件事,柴米油盐酱醋茶”,盐的重要性在人们日常生活中不言而喻,但摄入过量的盐也有可能引发高血压等慢性病。近年来,随着人们健康意识的不断提升,“减盐”成了生活新风尚。
最近,国内各大电商平台纷纷启动年货节线上促销活动,减盐酱油、减盐榨菜、减盐蚝油等被打上“减盐”标签的食品,颇受消费者的欢迎。
既然是减盐食品,里面的盐少了,那是不是就能敞开肚子放心吃了?对此,科技日报记者采访了科信食品与健康信息交流中心科技传播部主任阮光锋。
减盐食品的钠含量不一定少
普通食盐的主要成分是氯化钠。很多消费者觉得,减盐食品就是低钠食品,这可大错特错了,因为一些减盐食品的钠含量不一定低。
记者通过调查发现,在某些减盐食品外包装的营养标签上,每百克食品含钠量甚至超过2000毫克,这个量已经和人体每日所需的钠含量(2000至2500毫克)相接近了。
为什么在减盐食品中,还含有这么多钠?
阮光锋告诉记者,这是因为“国家对减盐食品的含钠量没有统一标准”,具体减盐减了多少全靠行业自律。记者了解到,根据我国《预包装食品营养标签通则》,宣称钠(盐)含量减少的食品与参考食品相比,前者钠含量必须减少25%以上。简单来说,一款食品想宣称“减盐”,只需找一款大家熟悉的同类食品进行对标,让减盐食品的钠含量比对标食品低25%以上即可。
换句话说,减盐减的是相对的百分比,而非减到某个绝对值。如果对标食品含钠量过高,即使减少25%以上的钠含量,减盐食品的钠含量依然可能偏高。
“另外,减盐食品的口感也可能让消费者在不经意间摄入更多盐。”阮光锋补充道,不少消费者在挑选食品时注重口感,一些减盐调味品的减盐量一般,但口感却可能清淡很多,这导致人们在做饭时要放更多的减盐调味品,才能达到让人满意的口感。“比如,近几年减盐酱油很火,但是它的味道会差一些。原先放一勺酱油就能调出的味道,现在可能需要放2至3勺才行。这样计算下来,盐的总摄入量可能是增加的。”
看好营养标签购买低钠食品
相关专家提醒,科学减盐需要从“源头”做起,尽量购买低钠食品。
“低钠不是减盐。”阮光锋强调,“根据《预包装食品营养标签通则》的要求,每100克食品中钠含量小于等于120毫克方可被称为低钠食品。因此,减盐食品并不一定是低钠食品;相反,很多减盐食品仍然属于高钠食品范畴。”
识别哪些食品属于低钠食品,归根结底要关注的是钠含量本身。预包装食品包装袋上的营养标签,为消费者了解食品钠含量提供了帮助。
专家表示,消费者应重点关注食品外包装上营养成分表中钠的含量,看清其单位是“每100克”还是“每份”;若单位是“每份”,则还要看清每份是多少克,以此来计算食品中的钠含量。
“食用低钠食品、低钠盐等,在一定程度上可以控制钠的摄入,但肾脏疾病患者需要征询医生的意见,不要盲目选择低钠盐。”阮光锋补充道。
除此之外,科学减盐还需要从厨房做起,减少烹饪过程中盐的使用。
阮光锋表示,可以在厨房中使用限量盐勺,巧妙选择天然食材和调料增味、提鲜,这样可以在增加食物多样性的同时减少盐的使用。例如,可以用葱、姜、蒜、辣椒、花椒、柠檬和醋等增味;鸡精、酱油、蚝油、酱料等调料含有较高的钠,用它们提鲜时应适量、合理搭配。
“研究表明,减少5%至10%的烹调用盐通常不会对菜品口味产生明显影响,且有助于人们逐步适应并养成清淡少盐的饮食习惯。”阮光锋表示。
最后,减盐不仅要控制食盐、鸡精、味精、酱油等“看得见的盐”的摄入量,还要注意减少“隐形盐”的摄入。饼干、薯片等食品由于制作工艺的限制,含钠量较高,即使吃起来不咸,也不宜多吃。
“盐吃多了虽然不好,但盐中的钠是调节人体生理机能不可或缺的元素,对维持身体正常的生理活动和功能起着重要的作用,摄取太少或缺乏会出现疲劳、虚弱、倦怠等现象。”阮光锋总结道,“我们需要科学减盐,但不能矫枉过正。”(实习记者 裴宸纬)
中新网评:处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事******
中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称,将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对,企图将核污水“一倒了之”,把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。
资料图:日本福岛第一核电站。2011年,福岛核电站事故发生后,大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋,对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害,数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日,作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。
日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由,在2021年4月13日,正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多,日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。
日本政府辩称,这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全,甚至“可以喝”,这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。
事实上,经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质,核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收,长期来看,将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁,最终危害人类健康。
因此,核污水排海计划推出后,遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示,福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中,约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场,反对该计划。
日本政府认为,核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案,但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海,核污水会随着洋流流动,其影响势必会跨越国界,危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。
《韩国经济新闻》发文称,相关研究认为,福岛核污水如果排放入海,约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域,该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。
德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告,若日本将所有核污水排入海中,不到半年,整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁,包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。
日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国,有义务保护海洋环境。然而,在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上,日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。
国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估,但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论,并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下,日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设,这是极不负责任的行为。
太平洋不是日本的下水道,日本必须正视各方合理关切,在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后,制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远,若只顾眼前,执意将核污水排放入海,不仅其自身,周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单,其后果必将会危害数代人。
Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business
By John Lee
(ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year.
Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business.
The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year.
The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public.
In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run.
Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public.
The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution.
The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community.
The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses.
According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan.
As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment.
However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact.
Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad.
The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies.
If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
(文图:赵筱尘 巫邓炎) [责编:天天中] 阅读剩余全文() |