Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) account for the largest burden of early mortality and are predicted to cost the global community more than US $30 trillion over the next 20 years. Unhealthy dietary habits, in large part driven by substantial changes to global food systems, are recognised as major contributors to many of the common NCDs, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. Recent evidence now indicates that unhealthy diets are also risk factors for mental disorders, particularly depression and dementia. This affords substantial scope to leverage on the established and developing approaches to the nutrition-related NCDs to address the large global burden of these mental disorders and reinforces the imperative for governments take substantial actions in regards to improving the food environment and consequent population health via policy initiatives.

In this issue of the journal, consensus criteria for the diagnosis and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in people who have fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are presented. In the absence of an adequate body of research on diagnosis and intervention, this expert consensus opinion is a welcome advance and should provide some guidance for clinicians managing people with FASD who have a comorbid ADHD.

Although thousands of studies have examined the genetics, epidemiology, etiology, biology, treatment and prevention of major depressive disorder, we still lack very basic knowledge about what patients with depressive disorders need. Despite the thousands of studies that have been conducted on major depression and the hundreds of randomized trials that have examined the effects of treatments, many patients still do not know how to cope with the daily problems caused by depressive disorders. In this Commentary the need for more research on the perspectives of patients is described. This research should guide treatment studies as well as basic research much more than it currently does. This perpective is especially important to understand and solve the undertreatment of depression, one of the major problems in this area. Up to 50% of depressed patients do not seek treatment, resulting in huge avoidable disease burden and economic costs. In order to solve this problem we need a better understanding of the problems patients encounter in daily life, and what factors contribute to the reasons for seeking treatment or not. Research from the patients' perspective is also necessary to meet the currently unmet information needs of patients, including information about the nature and causes of depression, stigma, medication, treatment and coping with the daily problems of having depression.

Attentional bias modification (ABM) represents one of a number of cognitive bias modification techniques which are beginning to show promise as therapeutic interventions for emotional pathology. Numerous studies with both clinical and non-clinical populations have now demonstrated that ABM can reduce emotional vulnerability. However, some recent studies have failed to achieve change in either selective attention or emotional vulnerability using ABM methodologies, including a recent randomised controlled trial by Carlbring et al. Some have sought to represent such absence of evidence as a sound basis not to further pursue ABM as an online intervention. While these findings obviously raise questions about the specific conditions under which ABM procedures will produce therapeutic benefits, we suggest that the failure of some studies to modify selective attention does not challenge the theoretical and empirical basis of ABM. The present paper seeks to put these ABM failures in perspective within the broader context of attentional bias modification research. In doing so it is apparent that the current findings and future prospects of ABM are in fact very promising, suggesting that more research in this area is warranted, not less.