Search results

To outline the benefits of the ratio of the waist to height ratio (WHTR) and its graphical representation in the Ashwell® shape chart for the assessment of the health risks of obesity. To show that it has potential to be used in all ethnic groups and in adults and children.

A review of the benefits and limitations of the use of some different anthropometric measures to assess the health risks of obesity. Those covered are the body mass index (BMI), the waist to hip ratio (WHR), the waist circumference (WC) and the waist to height ratio (WHTR).

Waist to Height Ratio (WHTR) has the potential to be globally applicable to different ethnic populations and to children as well as adults. Further validation, particularly of the suggested boundary values of 0.5 and 0.6, as used within the Ashwell® shape chart to indicate different levels of risk, is required.

This is the first paper to summarise the accumulating evidence for the benefits of using WHTR and the Ashwell® shape chart to assess health risk.

Summarises the reasons behind the formation of a network and support group for self‐employed nutritionists (SENSE). Discusses the pros and cons of self‐employment, and shows how the formation of SENSE is one way in which a con can be turned into a pro. Gives points of contact for potential members and users of the services that SENSE members offer.

The scientific basis of MAFF′s policy on the chemical safety of food is described. Examples are provided of the independent advisory committee structure which depends on scientific information and advice in formulating proposals to Government. This science takes the form of pre‐market evaluations of chemical products such as food additives, pesticides and veterinary products and subsequently extends to the monitoring of their presence in the diet as part of a wide‐ranging surveillance programme of the UK′s food supply for food additives, nutrients and contaminants.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.