Archive for the ‘Public Policy’ Category

Salmonella Tainted Eggs Recalled

August 21st, 2010

Eggs, Salmonella, Recall, Wright County Egg

A lot of sick people nationwide are wishing that Humpty Dumpty hadn’t landed in their sunny-side ups when he fell. Public health departments report that in the last few days, over 1000 people have been sickened by salmonella after eating tainted eggs. Over half a billion eggs have been recalled in response, with Wright County Egg of Galt, Iowa, recalling 380 million of those eggs, and a second Iowa-based farm recalling the rest of them. If you don’t live in Iowa but you’ve been enjoying omelets, you aren’t necessarily safe, because the eggs were distributed throughout the Midwest and California. And since salmonella has a two to three-week incubation period, the number of new cases will most likely increase substantially as the days pass. 

According to experts, delays in implementing new egg safety rules are to blame. I gave you a heads up on the new rules, which theoretically would have prevented this outbreak, a year ago, July. As I wrote then, the regulations gave large farms one year to comply with the new rules; small farms had three years. But in the same way that your car always seems to break down the day the warranty expires, the new egg regulations were only in the "phase-in" stage, and weren’t fully implemented yet just as the outbreak occurred. Said Sherri McGarry of the Food and Drug Administration, "The outbreak could have been prevented. The egg safety rule is in a phase-in approach, but there are measures that would have been in place that could have prevented this if it [had] been placed earlier than in July."  Shoulda, woulda, coulda…. The bottom line is that regulations, such as they are, do no good if they aren’t implemented.

And the thing is, salmonella is a miserable disease. Symptoms include diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps, chills, muscle pain, and vomiting that can last between four and seven days. The infection can spread beyond the intestines and cause life-threatening illness, paralysis, and a wide range of serious conditions. Children, the elderly, and those with immune deficiencies particularly are at risk of these more serious iterations of the disease.

As I’ve written before, salmonella bacteria live in the intestinal tracts of mammals, in their feces, and in the soil. Chickens mostly get exposed to the bacteria through feed containing animal parts and rat feces. And when large numbers of chickens live in close quarters like in factory farms, they can spread it among themselves through their feces.

The bacteria are transmitted to the egg in two ways. First, chickens deliver their eggs through the same passageway through which they deliver their poop (something to think about before letting your kids decorate Easter eggs without washing the shells), so it’s a simple matter for bacteria to be passed onto the eggshell. Also, chickens can harbor the bacteria in their ovaries, which means the bacteria can enter the yolk before the shell is formed. To make matters worse, a chicken infected with salmonella looks perfectly normal. The only way to confirm the presence of the bacteria is to test the chickens or eggs (or wait for people to get sick). Apparently, up to this point, major producers have been reluctant to conduct widespread testing, waiting for disaster to strike rather than taking preventative measures.

In any case, you can get salmonella by even brief contact with tainted shells or by eating eggs with runny yolks or consuming raw eggs in dishes like mousse or "real" Caesar salad dressing.  You can also get it simply by contact with contaminated utensils and surfaces, so washing your hands and anything that came into contact with the egg is a must. 

Large, factory egg producers (those that raise more than 50,000 hens) are required by the federal government to have the new rule in place by now.  These companies account for about 80 percent of the egg market.  The new rule requires them to:

  • Buy chicks and young hens only from suppliers who monitor for Salmonella bacteria.
  • Establish rodent, pest control, and biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of bacteria throughout the farm by people and equipment.
  • Conduct testing in the poultry house for Salmonella enteritidis. If the tests find the bacterium, a representative sample of the eggs must be tested over an eight-week time period (four tests at two-week intervals); if any of the four egg tests is positive, the producer must further process the eggs to destroy the bacteria, or divert the eggs to a non-food use.
  • Clean and disinfect poultry houses that have tested positive for Salmonella enteritidis.
  • Refrigerate eggs at 45 degrees F during storage and transportation no later than 36 hours after the eggs are laid (this requirement also applies to egg producers whose eggs receive a treatment, such as pasteurization).

Smaller producers (between 3,000 and 50,000 hens) will have until 2012 to implement the rule. As I’ve said before, we can be thankful that the government has focused on cleaning up egg producers’ facilities and procedures instead of recommending antibiotic-based prophylactic methods for every egg sold.

But you have to wonder about the industrial production of eggs in the first place. As recently described by Kurt Friese in the Huffington Post, "Across the US there are about 280 million hens in battery cages at any given time, cages that so severely restrict their movements that they cannot even spread their wings. They can’t nest, bathe in the dust, perch or forage, all instinctive chicken behaviors. Completely depleted of calcium in a few short weeks, their bones break and they are shipped off, dead and dying, to soup plants (how’s that chicken noodle soup tasting right about now) and pet food factories." Then there is the matter of the immense amount of fecal and biological waste from these operations that seems to inevitably leak into the environment, threatening the health and wellbeing of people in adjacent communities. 

According to Friese, the "industrial" methods for raising "cage free" hens are hair-raisingly cruel as well. Among other things, the chickens’ beaks are clipped and the birds are exposed to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide gasses. Even organic methods of egg production are not exempt from cruelty. For example, male chicks are regularly "discarded" because, as non-egg layers, they are of no use to the industry. 

So what’s an egg lover to do? Try to get your eggs from a small, local producer and be sure to ask how they raise their hens. Can you say farmers market? And if you’re buying a commercial brand of organic or cage free in your local health food store, be sure and ask there, too. In the meantime, no matter how your eggs are produced, be smart about egg safety. Don’t use raw or undercooked eggs in food and wash everything that comes into contact with them well. Keep eggs refrigerated and don’t let cooked eggs stand around at room temperature for more than two hours. You can find a complete list of egg safety tips here. And as holiday season approaches, make sure to add plenty of rum to your eggnog — so you won’t think too much about what else might be in there.

:hc

Canadian Healthcare Cost Crisis

August 17th, 2010

Canada, U.S., Healthcare Costs, Pharmaceutical Drugs

During the healthcare debate in the United States, the Canadian healthcare system was continually singled out as an example of both what’s good and bad about government involvement in healthcare. As it turns out, timing is everything. Things are now looking mostly grim for the healthcare system north of the border, thanks to the ever-increasing surfeit of aging baby boomers. (I could swear I’ve been predicting for years this would be a problem.)  As the Canadian baby boomers enter their "golden years," they require more healthcare attention than they did when younger, and that means more expense. It’s the same situation as in the U.S., with the boomer generation eating up more and more of the system’s resources.

An article in the Economist points out that healthcare spending in Canada, which accounted for 35% of provincial budgets in 1999, now accounts for 46%. At this rate of growth, by 2030 it will eat up 80% of the provincial budget in Ontario, the most populous province. (Just in time for current Canadian 30-year-olds to require their first colonoscopies.)  In Canada, at least, the biggest reason for this increase is rising prescription drug costs, with boomers being primary consumers. The percentage of the public health budget spent on pharmaceuticals has tripled since 1980.

The Canadian system presents something of a pickle for those who would control drug costs. On the one hand, as large buyers, provinces can negotiate with manufacturers to lower the costs of branded drugs. But when in comes to generics, the provinces cap the amount they pay to a fixed percent of the cost of branded drugs. And the percentage is so high (50%) that it has made Canadian generics among the most expensive in the world. (Those "cheap" Canadian drugs you can order over the Internet are all branded.) Also, Canadian law allows manufacturers to pay an annual kickback to pharmacists in exchange for stocking branded drugs. In fact, pharmacists received about $712 million last year in compensation for stocking the brand-names. The kickback expenses don’t make a dent in the profits gained from brand-name sales, and so the drug companies win big time. 

Of course, the logical response would be for the provinces to slash the generic fee cap. And in fact, in March, Ontario announced that it would do just that, reducing the cap from 50 percent to 25 percent. But this set off considerable protest by the drug industry because pharmacists stand to lose a large amount of income as a result. The country’s biggest chain of pharmacies threatened layoffs and store closures. It also asked customers to sign protest cards and curtailed hours in seven stores in the district of the provincial health care minister. Talk about making a fight personal. However, Ontario stuck to its guns — sort of. It did slash the generic fee cap, but it also agreed to increase pharmacists’ dispensing fees and to allow them to charge for patient counseling to make up some of their lost income. Other provinces are now considering making the same "adjustment."

So again, you have the drug costs added to the financial strains caused by the health-care needs of the aging boomer generation, who will comprise 25 percent of the population by 2036. The Canadian census of 2006 showed that one out of every seven people was a senior citizen, compared to one out of 50 in 1966. The implications of this increase in the proportion of seniors for the healthcare system are obvious. Seniors see their doctors more often, take more prescription drugs, and are more subject to diseases and conditions requiring lengthy hospital stays compared to the hip-hop generation and their parents. Greater numbers of seniors translates to a greater financial burden on the healthcare budget (and greater amount of out-of-pocket health expenses for seniors.)…and a smaller percentage of young working people to pay for those expenses.

But in a sense, all these issues ignore what is perhaps the key driving factor.  Yes, it is true that in both Canada and the U.S. healthcare costs are skyrocketing. And indeed, drug costs are absorbing a disproportionate chunk of the healthcare budgets. And it is also true that the proportion of the population that is elderly is increasing and accounts for a greater and greater share of health care expenditures. But underlying all of these issues is the philosophical orientation of Western healthcare systems. If only mainstream medicine stopped focusing on fixing health problems after the fact instead of preventing them from happening in the first place, healthcare costs could be slashed across the board. And with more citizens than ever graduating into the "senior class," this need to stress wellness over treatment becomes even more critical. And this is not just an issue for the United States and Canada; it is an issue that must be faced sooner or later by every country in both the developed and developing worlds.

To decrease costs, we need to change the way medicine is practiced. It is great to have drugs and procedures that can address diseases after they have developed. But it is far better to deliver information, practices, and dietary and lifestyle changes that can prevent the diseases and conditions from developing in the first place. As Navi Radjou, Executive Director of the Centre for India & Global Business at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, said in a blog in the Harvard Business Review, "By improving the holistic health and wellness of all American workers and citizens, both governments and corporations could save hundreds billions of dollars currently wasted in untargeted, inefficient therapies." Or as I keep saying over and over, the only way to save health care (in any and all countries) is for people to stop using it "patch up" self-inflicted illness.

:hc

When “Organic” is Not Organic

August 7th, 2010

Organic, Non-Organic, Labeling

If you ever doubted the prescience of George Orwell, investigate the labeling of organic food in the U.S. In his classic novel, 1984, Orwell wrote of a dark world that was manipulated by means of "doublespeak" — a system of carefully crafted lies, distortions, and misstatements that cause enough confusion to keep people in a state of apathy and confusion.  That’s exactly what’s going on in the U.S. world of so-called organic food products.

First, let’s look at the image that organic products typically broadcast — that they come from small farms using sustainable agriculture methods. This turns out to be as mythical as the life depicted in Mayberry, RFD. Organic foods have become very big business. From 1997 to 2007, consumer spending on organic foods grew by more than 20 percent. The portion of spending on organic products that went for non-produce items (dairy foods, beverages, grains, prepared foods, snacks, and breads) increased by 54 percent from 1997 to 2008. Almost simultaneously, the supply of organic products moved from small local stores, coops, and a few large natural food purveyors to "conventional channels" including Costco and large supermarket chains. In fact, by 2006, nearly half of organic food was sold via these large venues. Meanwhile, mega-food-conglomerates like Heinz, PepsiCo, Kraft, and others were busily gobbling up small, dedicated, organic food producing companies. You can get a graphic depiction of who owns what at http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/.

For example, Horizon, an organic milk producer, is owned by Dean, a huge company that has already absorbed brands such as Silk, Land-O-Lakes, Pet Evaporated Milk, MeadowGold, and Alta Dena, among others. Read the story on a carton of Horizon milk and you find yourself in the land of small farmers whose cows graze on open pasture lands maintained with sustainable practices. However, an expose by the Cornucopia Institute revealed just the opposite. Horizon uses farm-factory techniques penning up as many as 4000 cows in tight rows for milking assembly-line style. This is just one example. You can be sure that at least some, if not most, of your favorite healthy products actually originate from sources like Heinz (Breadshop, Health Valley); Pepsi (Naked Juice), Coca Cola (Odwalla), and General Mills (Cascadian Farm). You don’t have to stretch your imagination too much to envisage how the profit motive of conglomerates can and does run roughshod over the ideals and sustainable practices of the organizations they devour.

Then there is the definition of the term "organic" itself. In 1990, Congress passed a law that created a basis for organic food standards in the U.S. The law required spot testing of organic foods for traces of pesticides, but that testing simply hasn’t happened according to a report released by the Office of the Inspector General of Agriculture (Phyllis K. Fong). In fact, Fong’s report showed lots of flaws in the USDA’s National Organic Program, including failing to inspect foreign producers and failing to crack down on companies marketing non-organic products as organic. The report focused on the years 2006-2008 during the Bush administration, during which a lack of funding and staffing resulted in cumulative failures that prevented the USDA organic seal from representing adherence to a uniform standard for organic products — a problem that the USDA is currently trying to correct.

To make the term "organic" even more confusing, Congress has been meddling with what ingredients can be included in the label "organic." In October, 2005, Congress passed an amendment to the organic program law that weakened organic labeling. A previous ruling would have required companies using the term organic in their labels to eliminate synthetic ingredients within 12 months. The October amendment allowed producers to use the organic label, even if their products contained synthetic ingredients and processing aids, and even if their young cows (who would later be converted to organic methods) were given hormone treatments and genetically modified feed. Why would Congress do such things? Because Congressmen (and women) need donations from manufacturers in their home states and gifts from Washington-based lobbyists if they want to get re-elected.

And it gets worse.

In 2007, the USDA proposed that certain non-organic products be allowed in foods using the organic label. Click here to view the list. Among the items they included were "natural sausage casings (processed intestines)," "colors from 19 extracts," and "orange shellac."  The list also included non-organic celery powder (used in the curing of meat), and non-organic chia (which adds fiber and omega-3 to baked goods and beverages). If an organic product contains non-organic ingredients, is it still organic? Apparently, both the U.S. Congress and the USDA think the answer is yes.

There are groups fighting to keep the label "organic" pure, so that it actually represents sustainable practices, minimal processing, and non-synthetic ingredients. These groups include the Organic Consumers Association and the Cornucopia Institute. Hopefully, they won’t be subjected to torture like Orwell’s 1984 protagonist, Winston Smith, who was forced to adopt doublespeak and drop his own sense of reality. But in the meantime, if you want organic food, read labels carefully, find out who owns what, and buy locally grown or produced whenever possible.  And know that if a product bearing the USDA Organic seal doesn’t say "100% organic," then it ain’t. If the label says, "Made with Organic Ingredients," you’re purchasing 70 percent organic ingredients, and the remaining 30 percent are from the USDA’s approved list.  And if the label simply says "Organic," only 95 percent of the ingredients must actually be organic. The remaining five percent can be synthetic or non-organic, and George Orwell can add one more quote to his three famous doublespeaks from 1984:

  • WAR IS PEACE
  • FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
  • IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
  • ORGANIC IS WHATEVER CORPORATE AMERICA WANTS IT TO BE

:hc

Health Care Cost Hikes

July 17th, 2010

Health Care Costs Rising, Kaiser Family Foundation

As if you needed yet another reason to make sure that you keep yourself in optimal health, costs for health insurance rose significantly in late March, just before the federal government passed the healthcare reform legislation.. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) study reported in Reuters, costs for people 64 and younger buying their own health insurance increased by an average of 20 percent.  The study said that about 14 million adults buy their own insurance and the price hikes affected about 75 percent of them.

According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO, Drew Altman, "With people in the individual market being hit with average increases of 20 percent, the survey shows that the steep increases we have been reading about over the last several months are not just extreme cases." Yet there have been extreme cases too.  For example, California insurance provider Anthem Blue Cross announced a 39% price hike for individuals purchasing their own health insurance.

In response, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressed her deep disturbance in a letter to Anthem President, Anthony Margolin, saying, "These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy. Your company’s strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand."  Around the same time, Anthem’s parent company, WellPoint Inc. announced that its profits for the last quarter of 2009 had increased eight-fold.  Anthem subsequently withdrew the request for the rate hike.

The Kaiser Family Foundation findings come from an online survey completed by around 1,040 working age adults in late March and early April of 2010 — prior to President Obama’s signing of healthcare reform. The findings helped to clarify the challenges that people have faced and are likely to continue to face until 2014, when many provisions of the healthcare law go into effect. Most of those subscribers who have been buying their own health insurance having been coping with rising prices by biting the bullet and paying more with each price hike. But at least 16 percent of those affected by price hikes opt to change plans to something cheaper, which typically means a plan with far less coverage. This does not mean that they end up paying less. On the contrary, those who downscaled to a less extensive plan still ended up paying an average of 13 percent more, for less coverage.

The survey results indicated that just about half of individuals purchasing non-group insurance were unable to find a plan that truly met their needs. And among those with pre-existing conditions, 81 percent feared that insurance companies would soon price them out of being able to afford health care coverage.

Why is healthcare so expensive?  East Coast Health Insurance, a national health insurance broker, lists five reasons.

  • First, doctors are "freaked out about getting sued."  As a result, they order many unnecessary tests, procedures, and therapies so they’re covered in case of a legal dispute.  Of course, health care companies pass those costs onto their customers.
  • Reason two is that about one third of U.S. health care spending — versus about 16 percent in Canada — is for administrative costs.  These costs would be less of a factor, according to East Coast Health Insurance, if health care were "socialized." (That, of course, is a loaded word in America.)
  • The third reason is that females pay much more than males. Insurers say this is because women are more likely to go to their doctors then men.  But this is only true during women’s reproductive years, and anyway, men more than catch up after the age of 50. 
  • Reason four is that, despite all obvious logic, "your insurer would rather pay to treat a disease than to prevent one." Of course, pharmaceutical companies exist to develop drugs to treat diseases.  Prevention is not part of their profit strategy. But, then, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have different financial imperatives.  According to East Coast Health Insurance, $10 a year per person spent on smoking cessation, exercise, and nutrition programs could save more than $16 billion in health care costs five years down the pike. It’s hard to see why insurance companies wouldn’t underwrite more such programs given that they could still collect premiums while paying out less to cover medical procedures, but they don’t.
  • Reason five is, "Your doctor is paid for how much he does for you…not for how well he cares for you." In other words, outcomes matter less to the bottom line than how much treatment you receive. The doctor makes more money if you receive a whole lot of treatment for your heart problems and then die, compared to if you have just one visit where you get some instruction on natural health that prevents the disease in the first place or helps you heal naturally. In a perfect world, doctors might be paid on the positive results they achieve, rather than on the number of procedures they implement.
  • And reason six, which I’m adding to the list, is that insurance companies charge more because they can. Using public anger, fear, and the uncertainty created by the new healthcare bill as cover, they seem to be trying to slip in price hikes while no one is looking. Think back on Anthem’s 39% price increase even as profits had increased eightfold.

The bottom line is that no one had to consult an oracle to predict that health care premiums would rise — first for individuals, but group plans are not far behind. Between now and 2014, these costs will probably continue to rise. No one really knows what the implementation of the provisions of the health care reform law in 2014 will bring. But again, the demographics of aging and increasing disease would seem to make an endless cascade of price increases inevitable.

In other words, as always, it pays to do what it takes to follow the Baseline of Health Program.  Ultimately, if you want to survive the eve-increasing costs of healthcare, you have to take care of yourself and rely on medical care less.

:hc

Statins Go Prophylactic: Health Blog

May 6th, 2010

Statin Drug AstraZeneca

In a recession, companies often look for new ways to sell existing products and new customers to sell them to.  Recently, the makers of the cholesterol medication Crestor succeeded in that very thing. With a flick of the FDA pen, AstraZeneca received permission to sell its product to a potential new market of 6.5 million people, none of whom actually have cholesterol or heart problems. (You read that correctly — no problems, no symptoms!) That’s because the company got the FDA to agree that Crestor, a statin drug, could be sold as a preventative measure.

Surely the community of pharmaceutical manufacturers is greeting this news with a hearty chorus of “ka-chings.” Statins are a top selling class of drugs in the U.S.  2009 sales for Crestor alone were $14 billion and each pill (a day’s dose) costs at least $3.50. So adding 6.5 million potential customers is no small thing — totaling over $8 billion a year in new sales, again for people who have no symptoms or problems.

I’ve written numerous times on the questionable usefulness of statins. They’ve been associated with serious side effects and their benefit, especially in patients who don’t have heart disease, is negligible to nil. But the new wrinkle in this story is the use of the statin as a preventative measure. How was the FDA able to justify its new classification of the drug?  Based on a study paid for by, you guessed it, AstraZeneka. 

A Dr. Paul M. Ridker, Professor of Medicine at Harvard and cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, convinced AstraZeneca to pay for a clinical trial based on a test he developed called CRP, or the “high-sensitivity C-reactive protein test.” The test measures the level of inflammation in the body by tracing the levels of a protein produced by the liver. Apparently, the amount of this protein found in the body rises with inflammation.

Dr. Ridker had long theorized that systemic inflammation is a better indicator of potential heart disease than cholesterol level is. His theory makes good sense, given that inflamed arteries and organs can’t perform well and so exert extra stress on the heart. But if inflammation causes or even indicates potential for cardiac degeneration, as Dr. Ridker contends, doesn’t it make sense to reduce inflammation rather than to reduce cholesterol? Otherwise, it’s like diagnosing a vitamin D deficiency and then treating the patient’s foot.

Anyway, after securing the financial support from the drug company, Dr. Ridker then led the trial, which followed 18,000 people around the world who had low cholesterol and an elevated level of CRP. According to Dr. Ridker, the use of Crestor as a preventative was so effective that, “We found a 55 percent reduction in heart attacks, 48 percent reduction in stroke, 45 percent reduction in angioplasty bypass surgery.” Pretty heady claims. But a closer look at the data raises questions. 

First of all, the sample population was so healthy to begin with that its risk of heart disease was extremely low. Then there’s the fact that the numbers may not have clinical significance.  For example, of the people in the study who took sugar pills, a mere .37 percent, or 68 patients, had heart attacks. (Note the decimal point. That number was just one-third of a percent.) Among those who took Crestor, we’re talking about .17 percent, or 31 patients who had heart attacks. At first glance, that might look significant, but in reality, the results show that 500 people would need to be treated with Crestor for a year to avoid one minor heart attack — hardly a staggering result. And hardly worth $8 billion. And hardly worth all the potential side effects.

Add to the mix the fact that recently the British medical journal, The Lancet, published a study linking the use of statins to increased risk for diabetes. The research reviewed 13 previous studies on statins involving 91,140 subjects and found that statins raised the incidence of type 2 diabetes by nine percent. Nevertheless, the article announcing the risk had an accompanying editorial authored by Dr. Christopher P. Cannon of Harvard Medical School (the same place that Dr. Ridker hails from), who said that, “The benefit in preventing total vascular events to the risk of diabetes is a ratio of about 9:1 in favour of the cardiovascular benefit — the benefit seems to greatly outweigh the risk. Whilst a new risk of statins has been identified, the risk seems small and far outweighed by the benefits of this life-saving class of drugs.”

One might almost wonder if they get any medical news at Harvard University, given reliable studies that show that statins do indeed do more harm than good. I wrote previously about research that found that for every 100 people, three who don’t take statins will have heart attacks; whereas two who do take them will have heart attacks anyway. In other words, statins prevent only one heart attack per 100 users. A parallel study found no statistically significant health benefit whatsoever in those without preexisting heart disease.

The FDA wants to handle the news about diabetes risk by slapping a warning label on the bottle and still selling the pills as preventatives. That’s going to be one long warning label if it tells the whole truth: that statins may up the risk for cancer by up to 50 percent, cause structural damage to muscles, as well as severe neuromuscular degeneration similar to multiple sclerosis, not to mention the newly revealed risk of diabetes. Statins also may contribute to memory loss, trouble talking, nerve damage, nausea, trouble swallowing, and vertigo.

Throughout this blog, I’ve kept repeating that it’s not worth $8 billion. Silly me! Of course it’s not worth $8 billion…to you or me. But to the drug companies and their friends in the FDA, it certainly is.

:hc

Antibacterial Soaps, Triclosan, and You: Health Blog

April 29th, 2010

Triclosan and Antibacterial Soaps

In this disease-phobic world, we’re taught to wash our hands at every turn, to take germ-killing antibiotics at the first sign of sniffles, and to use antibacterial detergents to kill any bugs that might lurk on surfaces or clothes. But ironically, in our energetic quest to destroy all germs, we use chemicals and drugs that might be destroying the very health we seek to preserve. For instance, the FDA recently admitted that it “should” reevaluate the safety of triclosan, an antibacterial chemical commonly found in a dizzying array of household items. Products containing triclosan include liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids, shaving gels, toothpastes, deodorants, cutting boards, mattresses, toilets, blankets, credit cards, air filters, countertops, earplugs, swimming pool liners, socks, workout clothes, toys, and so on and so on. In fact, triclosan is in so many products that it’s simultaneously regulated by three agencies: the EPA for its application as a pesticide (yes, you read that correctly), the FDA for its use in personal care products and medical devices, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

You’ve got to suspect bad news associated with any substance that’s simultaneously a pesticide and a component in toothpaste. In fact, the chemical structure of triclosan resembles that of PCBs, which are among the most toxic of all substances. Officially, it’s a chlorophenol — a substance comprised of chlorine and phenol — and neither part of that equation inspires confidence. Tests have shown that when exposed to chlorinated tap water (either externally or internally if you swallowed some toothpaste, for example), triclosan forms chloroform gas, a probable human carcinogen, as well as dioxins, which are extremely toxic endocrine disrupters that bio-accumulate in human tissue. That’ll make you think twice about the hygienic benefits of washing your hands with Softsoap, or brushing your teeth with Colgate Total (both products contain triclosan) before bed.

Triclosan originally was developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals. Now, in addition to its application in pesticides and fungicides, it’s used to eliminate odors and sanitizer products. Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts wants the FDA to ban triclosan. He says, “The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product — most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys. It’s in our drinking water, it’s in our rivers, and as a result, it’s in our bodies. . . .It clearly is something that creates a danger.” Studies have found triclosan present in the urine of 75 percent of the population, in breast milk, and in 58 percent of US waterways.

The problem with triclosan, experts contend, is that it’s potentially a hormone disrupter. Research shows that it interferes with normal brain development as well as reproductive system development and function. A 2006 study found that even at low doses, triclosan disrupted thyroid function in bullfrogs, while another study in 2009 concluded that triclosan exposure significantly reduces thyroid hormone concentrations in rats. Dr. Sarah Jannsen of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that translated to humans, the impact can mean learning disabilities, altered behavior, and infertility.

There’s also plenty of reason to worry that triclosan, upon exposure to water or sunlight, converts to dioxin and becomes a carcinogen. It stores in body fat and can accumulate to toxic levels, causing damage to the liver, kidneys, heart and lungs over the long term. It also can cause skin irritation, weaken the immune system, decrease fertility, cause birth defects and miscarriages. Plus, it’s been linked to allergies, asthma, and the development of widespread antibiotic resistance.

Given the long list of potential hazards, one might wonder how industry could possibly defend its continued use of the chemical, especially given that alternatives exist (extracts from thyme, oregano, and other essential plant oils work well, and are non-toxic). But Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association leaps to the defense of triclosan: “These products and ingredients have been reviewed, regulated and researched for decades,” he says. “We believe the science strongly supports the safety and efficacy of these products. It’s more important than ever that consumers continue to have access to these products. It’s a time of increased threats from disease and germs.” Obviously, he doesn’t consider that the diseases potentially caused by triclosan — like cancer and brain damage — are worthy of equal concern.

Although regulatory agencies (now under pressure by the Obama administration), admit that perhaps they should take a second look at triclosan, it’s worthy of note that the FDA has spent 38 years to date investigating the chemical. Its current publication on the chemical says, “Triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans…FDA does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer use of products that contain triclosan at this time.” The publication also states that, “In light of questions raised by recent animal studies of triclosan, FDA is reviewing all of the available evidence on this ingredient’s safety in consumer products. FDA will communicate the findings of its review to the public in spring 2011.” As a side note, the pamphlet also admits that no evidence exists that triclosan-infused antibacterial products work any better than soap and water.

As consumers wait until 2011 for a safety update, they might take note that triclosan already has been banned from cosmetic use in Canada and Japan, and banned in the European Union from any products known to come into contact with food. If Rep. Markey’s efforts have an impact, the FDA will ban triclosan in the US from all children’s products and food-related items, such as cutting boards and washing products. But first, it needs to buck industry pressures, which are considerable given that Americans spent $7.3 billion on cleaning products and $2.4 billion on soap in 2007. And sales are increasing, with cleaning products constituting a large segment of the triclosan market. In the meantime, as usual, it’s up to you. Click here for a partial list of some of the products that you’ll find triclosan in.

:hc

Blaming Ronald McDonald: Health Blog

April 13th, 2010

McDonald's Food

Let’s hear it for Ronald McDonald, world famous philanthropist, educator, and company spokesperson. Everybody knows him — but as it turns out, not everybody loves him, and that fact has been causing quite a stir.

A Boston-based group called Corporate Accountability International recently issued a report calling for Ronald McDonald to die. Pointing to the negative health effects of eating McDonald’s food, the group claims that Ronald is “the product of a well-orchestrated and shrewd marketing strategy by America’s king of fast food….to build brand loyalty among children [so] you will have customers for life.” The red-haired clown, the group says, has led “pioneering efforts to market unhealthy food to kids, disguise marketing as charity, and outflank the most well-intentioned parents.”

Corporate Accountability International has a track record that should worry the McDonald’s leadership. In 1997, the group forced the tobacco industry to retire Joe Camel, the former mascot for Camel cigarettes. The group’s website, RetireRonald.org, makes for great reading and poses a convincing argument. When kids see colorful, friendly icons, the group argues, they immediately want the associated products, and those products cause disease. “No one has been better at hooking kids on unhealthy food, spurring an epidemic of diet-related disease [than Ronald],” says the site.

McDonald’s rushed to the defense of its besieged clown, arguing that Ronald is “…a beloved brand ambassador …who helps deliver messages to families on many important subjects such as safety, literacy, and the importance of physical activity and making balanced food choices. That’s what Ronald McDonald is all about, which our customers know and appreciate.”

Many parents do seem to agree. An outpouring of indignation from readers appears on the CNN website. Comments include this one from a reader named Lincoln Brigham: “Attacks on the fast food chains always amuse me. Groups like these can’t even properly identify which foods are the problem. It’s not so much the burgers, the problem is the sodas and milkshakes. A burger is actually a benignly healthy food.” A reader named “Terry” says, “For goodness sakes don’t these morons have anything better to do than to harass a clown? Get a life you people and leave Ronald to his good deeds.” In fact, most of the 497 comments run along these lines, with the added dimension of blaming the parents for not being able to control the diet of their kids.

But outside the CNN website, the sentiment on this issue is as split as sentiment on healthcare reform, it seems, and almost as impassioned. Nearly half (47%) of the parents polled by Corporate Accountability International wanted Ronald McDonald to retire, while the other half voted in favor of him. Those against him recently organized protests outside of McDonald’s locations at 24 sites across the US.

All of this brings up a few significant issues. First, just how unhealthy is the food at McDonald’s, anyway? Is it fair to say that Ronald the clown is pushing products that are as unhealthy for kids as the cigarettes touted by Joe Camel? Does Lincoln Brigham have a point that the burgers themselves actually are benign? Consider that a quarter-pounder with cheese contains 530 calories, 30 grams of fat (including trans fat), and 1310 grams of sodium. Add to that a medium order of fries and you have another 450 calories and 22 more grams of fat, for a grand total of 52 grams of fat and 980 calories, before dessert and without beverage. Plus, consider that McDonald’s purchases its food from sources like the factory farms at Cargill and Tyson’s, uses high-fructose corn syrup, and uses potatoes drenched in pesticides. Put it altogether and it’s extraordinarily unhealthy for an adult. But in a child’s much smaller, more sensitive body, it’s downright deadly.

Certainly, there’s no way to claim the food served under those golden arches is healthy. And in fact, study after study shows that living or working in proximity to McDonald’s or other fast-food restaurants correlates to obesity and higher rates of weight-related health problems. And the problem isn’t just that kids associate Ronald McDonald with happy and delicious meals — it’s also that he may make them crave more of it.

Which brings up the second key issue: does the fact that Ronald McDonald sponsors good causes excuse him from pushing dangerous foods? A closer look at some of those causes reveals a masterful use of double-speak. For instance, the McDonald’s Active Achievers program sponsors educational programs for kids about nutrition and the need to stay active. The related Passport to Play program has been used in 45,000 schools in the US and soon will get delivered to about 11 million kids worldwide. While these programs seem to be virtuous, the fact remains that they bear the McDonald’s trademark and have the effect of building brand loyalty, even though the brand is the antithesis of what the programs represent. What good is learning about exercise and nutrition when what the kid remembers from the lesson is that Ronald McDonald sponsored it, and that he’s friendly and happy and lives in the place that sells burgers, fries, and shakes? Equally dubious are McDonald’s-sponsored academic programs that award kids with coupons for happy meals if they do well in school, or that encourage kids to draw pictures that go on display at the local McDonald’s franchise.

As the Corporate Identity International website says, “You’ve got to give it to the “hamburger-happy” huckster. He’s mastered some clever means of marketing burgers to children and using the adults kids trust most to validate his product…despite its effect on public health.” Even if the campaign to retire Ronald McDonald doesn’t achieve the goal of giving the clown a pink slip, it might put pressure on McDonald’s to start offering healthier alternatives to kids, and that alone would be a major coup. Don’t laugh. Things can change. Really! Since salads were added to the menu to encourage more health-conscious customers, McDonalds has actually become the largest seller of salads in the world!

:hc

Retailers Defend Ammonia Treated Beef: Health Blog

January 9th, 2010

Ammonia Treated Beef

Sometimes a story breaks that’s so outrageous it’s hard to know where to begin telling it. In this case, the story involves beef treated with ammonia. Apparently, a company called Beef Products, Inc., has been distributing the stuff for eight years. It shows up widely in fast-food hamburgers, in school lunches, and in supermarket ground beef. Nobody had been “beefing” about the meat until the New York Times broke a story last week claiming that government and industry records revealed dozens of incidents of E. coli and salmonella contamination.

But before even going to the contamination issue, which the press went all agog about, what about the presence of ammonia in beef? How did the USDA come to approve treating food with a substance that’s corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs — that literally can eat a hole through the gut?

It seems that back in 2000 or so, the executives at Beef Products Inc. felt frustrated that they couldn’t use the fatty waste in the beef for anything except pet food and cooking oil, since fat is so vulnerable to bacterial contamination and wouldn’t pass inspection. But then, someone at the company had a money-making brainstorm — if the fatty matter could be treated with large-amounts of ammonia, perhaps the contaminants would die and then the waste could be ground into a paste, added to hamburg, and sold for a far higher price. And sure enough, tests showed that the ammonia did seem to kill off E. coli and salmonella, and the company started marketing its ammonia-treated products far and wide. The FDA and USDA approved, and in fact, granted an exemption to Beef Products, Inc. so that the ammonia-infused ground beef coming out of that company didn’t have to go through regular inspections. Now, ammonia-treated beef ends up in 70 percent of all hamburger sold in the US, including meat sold at Burger King, McDonalds, through the school lunch program, and in numerous supermarket chains.

And so we come to the first two questions evoked by the scenario: what’s the impact of eating ammonia (concerns about eating beef aside), and how can the USDA justify suspending inspections of any meat product? As for the ammonia issue, the company says in its literature, “It is naturally present in all proteins. Ammonia is essential for life…” But according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry,

  • Ammonia is highly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Swelling and narrowing of the throat and bronchi, coughing, and an accumulation of fluid in the lungs can occur.
  • Ammonia causes rapid onset of a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat, accompanied by lacrimation, rhinorrhea, and coughing. Upper airway swelling and pulmonary edema may lead to airway obstruction.
  • Prolonged skin contact (more than a few minutes) can cause pain and corrosive injury.

Apparently, no independent tests were run to assess safety risk before the product got the stamp of approval. Instead, the USDA relied on assurances from Beef Products, Inc., that they had run the stuff through testing and found it to be perfectly safe. A former USDA microbiologist, Carl S. Custer, called the processed beef “pink slime” and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.” Then again, the FDA also allows the meat industry to dose its products with carbon monoxide to keep them looking nice and pink — even if a bit slimy — for an extra 20 days of shelf life. When you think about it, what’s a little ammonia added to the mix?

According to the company, the process of converting fatty waste to edible beef, “increases the naturally occurring levels of ammonium hydroxide a slight amount in order to assist in eliminating any harmful bacteria that could potentially be present in meats.” However, the “slight amount” apparently was enough to lend the beef hitting the shelves a strong smell of ammonia — strong enough that numerous customers complained about the stink. Those customers were unaware that ammonia had been used in processing, and yet, the smell came through strong enough to indicate unhealthy levels of alkalinity.

In any event, the company decided to lower the ammonia content in order to allay customer concerns. And that brings us to the current situation, because although lowering the ammonia levels eliminated the stinky beef syndrome, it simultaneously failed to kill all the pathogens. School lunch officials kept testing the meat although the USDA didn’t require it, and found that in the years 2005 to 2009, Beef Products tested positive for salmonella 36 times per 1,000 tests, compared to only nine positive tests per 1,000 for other suppliers, including two contaminated 27,000 pound batches found this past August. Three instances of E. coli contamination also were found. The contaminated batches were disposed of before being served

The conversion of fatty waste into marketable meat has led to fat profits estimated at about $440 million annually for Beef Products Inc. And, the payoff extends to customers like the School Lunch Program, which says, “[The School Lunch program will continue to use BPI beef] despite some misgivings…because its price is substantially lower than ordinary meat trimmings, saving about $1 million a year.” Likewise, other consumers of BPI products seem unmoved by the New York Times report: McDonald’s, Burger King, and Cargill all said they’ll continue to use the meat, pointing to the fact that no cases of illness have been directly tied to BPI products so far. Of course, had the School Lunch Program been a bit less vigilant in its testing, lots of kids would have been sickened and the situation would look quite different.

But Americans love their beef and it seems that short of an outbreak of disease, they’ll keep buying it. Abner Womack, a senior economist at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri points out that “U.S. demand for beef has remained relatively constant even amid massive recalls, disease outbreaks and scares over mad cow disease. We tend to trust, more than any country in the world, the (government) food inspections.” He failed to mention the fact that BPI products aren’t subject to those inspections.

There’s an old saying that goes, “There are two things you never want to watch: the making of sausage and the making of legislation.” Maybe we should now add a third — ground beef.

:hc

Nutrition Label Confusion: Health Blog

January 6th, 2010

Nutrition Labeling

Here’s a question for the SATs. If a food package says “whole grain — keeps your heart healthy and maintains a healthy body,” does that mean the product is healthy? Hint: it’s a trick question, because that’s just what Nestle’s Honey Shreddies says on the box, and the cereal contains far more sugar in an average serving than a doughnut.

A survey of 1454 parents just completed by the British Heart Foundation discovered that an overwhelming majority get misled because of tricky labeling. For example, seventy-six percent of the mothers surveyed believed that if a product says, “Whole grain,” it’s healthy. Sixty-three percent considered Coco Pops healthy because the label says, “a source of calcium, iron and six vitamins.” But ounce for ounce, the cereal contains more saturated fat and sugar than chocolate cake. (Has anyone thought of adding vitamins and minerals to genuine chocolate cake? Sounds like a winner.) And three out of every five believed that “no artificial colorings or additives” assured nutritional virtue.

The problem is that although law mandates that nutrition labels tell what products contain, consumers get seduced by the front-of-box bold print making health claims, and then don’t bother to analyze the small print on the label. The survey found that 83 percent of the respondents wanted to see all nutritional information consolidated on the front of the package.

The chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, Peter Mullins, issued a press release saying, “Mums are having the wool pulled over their eyes by food manufacturers. Smoke and mirror tactics means that foods targeted at children and high in fat, salt and sugar are being disguised with partial health claims suggesting they are a healthy choice. Regularly eating these types of foods could have serious implications for kids’ future health.”

But naturally, the food companies played innocent, claiming that the ingredients were plain to see on the box. “All we claim is that the sweets contain no artificial colours and flavours – which is true – so we’re not sure why this should confuse anybody,” said a spokesperson for the Natural Confectionary Company (can you say, “conflict of interest?”)  And a representative from Nestle commented, “A Kellogg’s Coco Pops Cereal and Milk bar actually contains less than two teaspoons of sugar per bar and has half the calories (84) and far less fat than a chocolate bar,” implying both that two teaspoons of sugar is a modest amount and that a chocolate bar is a fair measuring stick for healthy food.

The most packed punch came from Julian Hunt, head of the Food and Drink Association. “The nutrition claims identified by BHF are not ‘partial health claims’ – they are approved under the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, which is setting a strict legal framework for all claims on food packs,” he said. “To claim otherwise is being completely disingenuous – or shows that the BHF is deliberately trying to mislead both mums and journalists at what is a very busy time for all of us.”

Now there’s a fine bit of spin. Mr. Hunt implies that by simply reporting that parents find food labeling confusing, the BHF is being disingenuous. He drives his point home by accusing the BHF of deliberately misleading parents because the agency points out labeling double-speak, and then ends his huff by essentially saying he’s too busy for all this nonsense. But Mr. Hunt apparently didn’t know when to quietly withdraw, because he added that the BHF press release was “short, makes very little sense and left us groaning.” Most certainly, the groaning part rings true. The food company executives certainly must have groaned when they saw hard facts exposing the truth about their products blasted all over the press.

Meanwhile, back in the US, label confusion led to the halt of the “Smart Choices” program. The Smart Choices label, stamped on the front of a food package, ostensibly indicated that the food inside the box met certain nutritional standards. But, the FDA apparently noticed some of the smart choices weren’t so smart after all, and so sent a letter to food distributors saying it planned to crack down on misleading labeling, prompting several companies to stop using the Smart Choices stamp before getting busted. Given that the stamp appeared on Fruit Loops and Cracker Jacks, it seems retiring the label makes good sense.

“There are products that have gotten the Smart Choices check mark that are almost 50 percent sugar,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg explained, but unfortunately, the FDA’s threat to start enforcing stricter standards did not come with any dates or name any products.

Although food manufacturers claim that they are working to meet consumer demands for healthier products, the word “healthier” seems relative to say the least. For instance, take ConAgra’s move to reduce sodium in its soup. Their Healthy Choice brand soups still contain 480 milligrams of sodium per serving, not exactly a negligible amount. And General Mills, which now boasts cereals with added fiber, nevertheless has 13 grams of sugar in its FiberOne Raisin Bran Clusters cereal, which more than offsets any health benefits associated with its 11 grams of fiber.

In spite of industry objections, consumers shouldn’t need to study each carton with a magnifying glass before determining if the bold health claims have any merit. But that’s exactly the situation consumers find themselves in, and since the typical consumer is unarmed with much knowledge of nutrition, the situation portrayed by the British Heart Foundation is hardly “the very bad Christmas cracker joke” that the Food and Drink Federation called it.

Note: As a Christmas present for Nestle, the FDA recently sent them two letters objecting to the “misleading” labeling of their BOOST Kid Essentials and Juicy Juice products.

:hc

What’s Really is in Your Tap Water? Health Blog

December 29th, 2009

Tap Water Contamination

Ask any municipal water department if the tap water in the area is safe and you’ll get an “of course” in response. You’ll be told that the water meets all regulations for safety, meaning that contaminant levels fall under the maximum amount allowed. But here’s what you won’t hear: the Safe Water Drinking Act, which governs tap water safety, is 35 years old, and in the last 35 years, many thousands of new chemicals have been developed and released into the environment. The Safe Water Drinking Act regulates 91 chemicals, but at this point, the US uses over 60,000 chemicals, and trace amounts of at least some of those end up in the water supply, without any law in place to regulate them. And of course, not all those 60,000 unregulated chemicals are benign. In fact, according to a recent article in the New York Times, hundreds of those chemicals are known to cause cancer or other diseases. But that estimate ignores the fact that thousands more have nott yet been investigated for health consequences. To date, government scientists have evaluated only 830 of the contaminants most often found in water supplies.

But let’s pretend for a moment that only the 91 chemicals now included in the Water Act existed (not the 60,000 that in fact are there); would your water be safe? Not at all. The regulations don’t ensure safety even for the 91 because research in the past few decades has found some of the compounds cause disease at far lower levels than the law sets forth. This means that water deemed legal and safe may not be safe at all. For instance, the Times notes that the current levels allowed for arsenic are so high that one in every 600 people who regularly drinks water containing the allowable arsenic content will eventually develop bladder cancer from it. Actually, this is nothing new. As I wrote 10 years ago in the first edition of Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, water authorities accept a 93% increase in the risk of cancer from the use of chlorine in water (as estimated by the US Council of Environmental Quality) in return for a reduction in cholera and other infectious diseases. Then again, maybe that’s not a trade off that you personally want to make.

As if these factors don’t give you enough to worry about, the Water Act isn’t necessarily enforced, at least in some areas. An analysis by the Times found that 20 percent of the nation’s water systems violated established standards within the past five years, allowing excessive levels of pollutants like raw sewage and chemicals such as rocket fuel additive and uranium to remain in the water. It’s not likely that compliance will improve any time soon unless something radical changes, because to date, only six percent of the locales found in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act received fines or citations by the EPA or other regulators. The end result, according to the Times, is that 62 million Americans have been drinking water that may contain carcinogens or other disease causing agents. But again, that ignores chlorine, fluoride, and chloramines — all used as water additives, and all known carcinogens. Factor those puppies in and you’re looking at virtually all Americans consuming carcinogens in their drinking water.

The former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly, comments, “For years, people said that America has the cleanest drinking water in the world. That was true 20 years ago. But people don’t realize how many new chemicals have emerged and how much more pollution has occurred. If they did, we would see very different attitudes.” In fact, studies published in numerous medical and environmental journals as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences contend that millions of people in the US get sick annually from drinking contaminated tap water.

Drinking a glass of water filled with chemical residue isn’t going to give you cancer overnight. Rather, the chemicals build up on body tissue over years, and so by the time you get sick, you haven’t a clue what caused the problem. And remember, it isn’t necessarily a single chemical causing problems in your water. Many water systems have excess levels of multiple chemicals, and research hasn’t been done on how the chemicals interact in the body over time. Even if your water system has multiple chemicals at safe levels, it’s possible that the interactive effect won’t be so safe.

It doesn’t help that lobbying groups have pressured regulators into stepping back efforts to set limits on chemical releases or on costly clean-up efforts. For instance, after perchlorate, a rocket fuel additive known to affect the central nervous system, was found toxic at low levels in EPA assessments, the US military complained that clean-up would cost billions of dollars. Subsequently, a military spokesman called the assessments “biased, unrealistic and scientifically imbalanced,” and military officials called EPA scientists unpatriotic. The dry-cleaning industry launched an equally vicious campaign to halt limits on the dry-cleaning solvent perchloroethylene, known to cause tumors.

In fact, the head of the EPA’s Environmental Risk Analysis division, Dr. Peter Preuss, describes the treatment he got from lobbying groups trying to prevent regulation: “It’s hard for me to describe the level of anger and animosity directed at us for trying to publish sound, scientific research that met the highest standards. It went way beyond what would be considered professional behavior.”

And so, perchlorate and perchloroethylene remain unregulated. The end result is that public water supplies in California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and eight other states have been found to contain these chemicals. Traces of perchlorate were recently found in every individual examined by CDC researchers. (It doesn’t help that the CDC also found perchlorate in all infant formulas tested.) And then, there are the other 59,999 or so chemicals to worry about.

Of course, there’s the rapidly growing problem of pharmaceutical drugs in your drinking water. They enter the water supply through virtually every toilet in the country, and practically no municipal water treatment plant has the capacity to remove them when treating water. The one piece of good news here is that some of those pharmaceuticals are highly toxic chemotherapy drugs. So yes, they may be killing you, but probably not from cancer. And with luck, maybe they’re even counteracting some of the carcinogenic chemicals in your water…or not.

In the end, the biggest offenders tend to be water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, because these systems lack resources and the expertise necessary to avoid problems. To find out how your tap water measured up in recent independent analyses, check here. Unless your public water supply turned up clean and problem-free (and none of the ones we checked did), don’t take chances, and don’t rely on bottled water, which often consists of repackaged tap water or spring water that’s as polluted as what comes out of your tap. Bottled water also has the plastic leaching effect, and does nothing about the water you absorb when showering. Your best bet is to protect yourself by installing high quality filters or steam distillation systems at the tap. And don’t forget your shower and bath, or better yet, get a whole-house filter if you can afford it.

:hc

« Older Health Blogs