Archive for the ‘Public Policy’ Category

Living Near Green Good for Health

November 5th, 2009

Green Space, Green Areas, Parks, Health, Mental Health, Disease

At the turn of the last century, a popular cure for most major ailments was a stay in the country. The fresh air, it was believed, could strengthen a weak constitution and restore health. Now, new evidence shows that proximity to things green and alive in fact does exert a curative, or at least a protective health benefit.

Researchers from the EMGO Institute VU University Medical Centre in the Netherlands studied the medical records of 345,143 adults. Sorting the records by postal code, the researchers determined the percentage of green spaces such as parks or forests within two miles of each patient’s home. They then reviewed the records for prevalence of 24 different health conditions and found that those subjects living closest to green areas had a lower incidence of 15 of the 24 diseases on the list.

Apparently, the closer to the green, the more powerful the healing effect experienced. Head researcher Jolanda Maas, PhD, says, "The strongest associations we saw between green space and health occurred within a one kilometer [0.6 mile] radius of the home."  Also, the association was strongest for children, for low-income people, and for those who lived in slightly urban areas rather than in the inner city.

Of the conditions studied, mental health problems were the most affected by the presence of green. Those who lived close to parks or other natural areas had a 30 percent reduced risk of anxiety disorders requiring treatment and a 20 percent reduced risk of needing treatment for depression. It’s no secret that anxiety and depression can lead to a host of other health problems over time. In fact, both anxiety and depression negatively affect longevity, and so if green deprivation compromises mental heath, that surely has some spillover to physical health.

Among the physical ailments, respiratory conditions responded most dramatically to proximity to green. The data showed a sharp reduction of asthma rates, COPD, and upper respiratory infections among people who lived close to nature. An association also was found between green and lowered rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and even back problems.

Earlier studies also underlined the palliative effect of green. Last year, researchers at the University of Glasgow found that the sizeable disparity in mortality rates between rich and poor families narrowed in residential areas closest to nature. In fact, the gap between rich and poor living in the greenest areas was half that in the most urban. In densely urban areas devoid of green, the mortality rate among poor people exceeded that of rich people by 1.93 times, but in the greenest areas, that gap shrunk to 1.43. When considering only death rates by cardiovascular complications, the figures become even more dramatic, with low-income people living in the least green areas having 2.19 times the incidence of death compared to their rich neighbors. But in the greenest places, the cardiovascular death gap between rich and poor ratcheted down to 1.54. Then again, we already knew that the closer people lived to heavily trafficked roads, the higher the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

But what causes the "green effect"? Researchers believe that those living nearest parks and outdoor recreational areas get more exercise, taking advantage of the opportunities such areas provide. This is particularly true of children. Parks also lead to social encounters, which improve mental health. And, people use parks and green areas simply to relax, so they can be major stress reducers. The researchers think that the reason the effect of green diminished in the heart of the city is because urban parks are considered unsafe so people use them less.

"The role of green space in the living environment for health should not be underestimated," the study authors wrote in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. "Most of the diseases which were found to be related to the percentage of green space in the living environment are highly prevalent in society and in many countries, and they are the subject of large-scale prevention programs." The authors say that opening more green space might be an effective use of disease-prevention funds.

Interestingly, the authors did not mention several factors that might be key. First, where green dominates, the golden arches don’t. In other words, neighborhoods with plenty of natural areas probably don’t have fast food joints on every corner, and that means less access to junk food. Studies have shown that the closer people live to fast food restaurants, the more likely that they’ll have major health problems. Also, more green usually means fewer roads and buildings, which translates to fewer emissions from automobiles and places of business. Again, studies have repeatedly shown that the more pollution in the air, the greater the risk of numerous diseases and death. And finally, of course, plants actually remove pollutants from the air.

In fact, an analysis in Australia determined that if roofs in that country’s major cities were replaced with "green roofs" consisting of live plants, the carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by half a million tons each year. While green roofs cost a bit more than regular roofs to construct, they increase roof life by two times and experts say costs can be recouped in a few years. Although not so common in the US, sales of green roofs in Europe are, so to speak, "through the roof," with 700 million Deutsch Mark in sales in 1997 in Germany alone. Of course, it might be far more satisfying to walk through a field filled with flowers or to bike through the woods than to climb up to your urban roof for a green fix, but at least the roof is close to home.

When you think about, real estate agents may have been onto something all these many years when they said, "The three most important things to consider when buying a home are: location, location, and location." But who knew they were talking about your health?

:hc

Drug-Resistant Swine Flu: Health Blog

September 26th, 2009

Drug Resistant Swine Flu

It’s time for another “told you so” moment. As I’ve been warning for months, the widespread use of Tamiflu to ward off swine flu has started to breed drug-resistant varieties. Now, the media reports the first case where a resistant strain of swine flu has spread from one person to another. While there have been several dozen previous cases of drug-resistant swine flu reported, those were isolated cases, unlike this incident where one person developed the resistant variety and then infected another.

It happened at a summer camp in North Carolina, where 600 kids received prophylactic doses of Tamiflu to keep them from getting sick after a few campers came down with swine flu. Two teen girls who roomed in the same cabin subsequently came down with swine flu anyway — both suffering from a drug-resistant variety of the disease. While experts say that it’s possible the girls simultaneously developed resistant forms of the virus, it’s far more likely that the mutated, drug-resistant virus spread from one girl to another. The fact that both girls had the same, never-before seen mutation of the virus makes the latter scenario even more probable.

The good news is that the girls had mild cases and both recovered. The bad news, if it can be called “news,” is that the incident verifies what I’ve been saying all along — that drug-resistant mutations of swine flu are inevitable, and that these drug-resistant varieties can and will spread, given the cavalier way that Tamiflu has been distributed to the masses. To recap from my last newsletter on the topic, Tamiflu targets a protein called neuraminidase that lives on the surface of flu virus cells. This protein helps the flu virus break through the walls of cells it’s trying to invade so it can move into those cells and replicate itself. Tamiflu inhibits the neuraminidase protein, so that the virus can’t leave its original cell to infect other cells. If it can’t migrate, eventually the virus dies.

The problem is that viruses, including all forms of the flu, excel at mutating, and given enough exposure to anything that inhibits them, they find a way around it. This is particularly true if the inhibiting substance is as simple in composition as Tamiflu, which basically targets just that one protein, neuraminidase. The pharmaceutical industry keeps developing flu-fighting drugs and antivirals that target viruses on just one dimension, and so it isn’t surprising that every new pharmaceutical antiviral that comes out breeds resistant strains and so gets rendered useless. The more it’s used, the faster the flu virus finds ways to mutate around it.

Apparently, this past summer, many camps throughout the US engaged in the practice of distributing Tamiflu to campers in fear of widespread outbreaks. By the middle of July, the Centers for Disease Control had issued a statement urging camps to refrain from giving out Tamiflu wholesale to healthy campers, both to conserve the limited supplies of the drug available and also to prevent the emergence of resistant varieties of the disease. Unfortunately, by that time, campers coast to coast already had received their doses — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. As I’ve noted before, personal and business stockpiling of Tamiflu has continued unabated since the first appearance of Avian flu in 2005. In spite of World Health Organization recommendations to distribute Tamiflu only to swine-flu infected individuals who are very young, old, pregnant, or who have compromised immune-systems, several countries including England hand out Tamiflu to anyone who claims illness, no doctor referral needed. 

In essence, it seems that most of the public and even some key health practitioners and government authorities don’t “get it” when it comes to Tamiflu. They see it as the “miracle cure” and want to be sure that those they care about have their dose on the ready, or even more, that they take it in advance as a protective agent. For instance, the director of one of the camps that handed out prophylactic Tamiflu to its residents, Camp Modin in Maine, took issue with the CDC on its call to refrain from giving out Tamiflu.

“The evidence speaks for itself,” said the director, Howard Salzberg. “I have no children with swine flu at this moment, and we are confident that the Tamiflu helped us remedy the situation. I understand the concerns of the C.D.C, but there is a uniqueness to the camp environment, similar to health care centers and nursing homes.” (Thank you, Mr. Salzberg, but actually, the evidence doesn’t speak for itself. You might as well say, “Everyone at camp drank Coke, and no one got the flu. The evidence speaks for itself; Coke prevents Swine Flu.”)

The physician-father of one of his campers, Dr. Marc Siegel, agreed with Mr. Salzberg. He said he wasn’t worried about depleting national stockpiles since he figures a vaccine will be coming out soon, so might as well nip the bug in the bud via Tamiflu in the interim. (Dr. Siegel probably needs to keep up on his medical journals a bit better. It seems he’s missed all the reports about the explosion in antibiotic and antiviral resistant pathogens over the last few years.)

Meanwhile, rather than join the mass rush on Tamiflu, which as I’ve said continually will most likely be severely compromised by the time flu season hits, and rather than nurse some hope that Relenza (the other drug effective against swine flu) will still work by that time or that the vaccine will be ready and safe — you’d be smart to stock up on natural solutions. They’re safe; they’re cost-effective; and they work on multiple fronts. And here the operative phrase is “they work” — and should continue to work against drug-resistant strains long into the future.

See guidelines and suggestions for protecting yourself in my newsletter of August 3, 2009.

hc

Gardasil Vaccine for Boys: Health Blog

September 24th, 2009

Gardasil for Boys

Flim-flam artists could learn something from the pharmaceutical industry. An FDA advisory panel just recommended approving Gardasil vaccines to prevent genital warts in boys as young as age nine. Never mind that genital warts are about as common among middle-school boys as opera buffs are. Never mind that the vaccine hasn’t undergone extensive long-term testing, that the long-term effects (and effectiveness) of vaccinating young kids won’t be known for decades, or that it costs an average of $500 per series of shots. And never mind that Gardasil may cause as many problems as it prevents. The fact is that Merck, the Gardasil manufacturing company, has somehow convinced plenty of people that the vaccine not only is good but also necessary, leading some two dozen states to seriously consider mandating it for girls starting at age 10 (before parent groups in most of those states shot the idea down). You can bet boys will be next on the bill.

Leading up to the approval, the FDA committee reviewed three studies involving 5000 boys, aged 9-26, from various countries. The researchers found that Gardasil was 89% effective in preventing genital warts related to the sexually transmitted disease HPV — at least for subjects who were free of HPV at the time of vaccination. Those who had been exposed to HPV experienced no such benefit. But why vaccinate to prevent warts, which, though ugly, hardly constitute a medical crisis? The rationale is that HPV can also lead to throat and anal cancers later on, and so better safe than sorry. Plus, infected men can spread HPV to women, and infected women have a higher risk of cervical cancer.

But scientists don’t really know if the vaccine prevents cancer in men down the road; they only know that it prevents warts in the short run. According to Dr. Janet Englund, an infectious disease pediatrician and chair of the HPV Working Group of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), “It is true we don’t know for sure about the vaccine’s long-term ability to prevent high-grade cancer. My assessment, my personal viewpoint, is there is very good evidence for both reduction of [precancerous] cervical intraepithelial neoplasia — it is really clear — and that there is reduction of genital warts.”

But this statement may be a bit overblown. A closer look at the research indicates that, in fact, the vaccine doesn’t even protect against all strains of HPV virus. In fact, according to Dr. Charlotte Haug who edits the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, “If it were a perfect vaccine you would never have to think about cervical cancer again. But it is effective against two of the strains of the virus, and there are at least 20 cancer-causing strains out there. It is true these strains cause 70% of cervical cancers, but what happens when we take these two strains away? If you kill the weeds in your lawn, there will not always be a hole there. Something will take their place.”

But back to boys, who don’t get cervical cancer. Reports estimate that about 250,000 men develop genital warts each year. Anal cancer, however, affects only about 5,300 people annually, and penile cancer accounts for only 0.1% of deaths from cancer in US males. So given the numbers, the chief benefit — and only proven benefit — of administering Gardasil to boys is possible wart prevention and perhaps some residual benefit to the girls those boys have sexual relations with — as long as that sex happens within a few years of the vaccine.

According to a “former” Gardasil advocate and vaccine developer, Dr. Diane Harper of Princeton University, the vaccine might, in fact, wear off in as little as five years. That means that the vaccinated nine-year olds better have sex by ninth grade in order to get their money’s worth. Dr. Harper cautions (and this is a biggie), “The rate of serious adverse events is on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.“

If that’s true, the fact that Gardasil is not only widely prescribed for girls but now is on the way to being approved for boys is mind-boggling. The researchers insist that the vaccines cause only minimal health risks, with fever, injection site reactions, and headache the most common adverse effects. But up to seven percent of girls receiving the vaccine have had serious reactions, including fainting and blood clots according to data provided by VAERS (the vaccine adverse event reporting system). The actual number of serious reactions probably runs much higher. VAERS only includes incidents reported after the fact, and many events probably go unreported.

And Dr. Harper points out that risk of death from the vaccine can’t be ignored. “Parents and women must know that deaths occurred,” she said. “Not all deaths that have been reported were [made public], one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the rare but real risk of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.”

All of these factors led Pharmaceutical Executive to give Gardasil the 2006 “brand of the year” award for “creating a market out of thin air.” Even the Journal of the American Medical Association recently ran an editorial claiming that Merck influenced professional medical associations to overstate the vaccine’s benefits. Apparently, the drug company teamed with these associations to create “educational material” that was then widely distributed to doctors, who, according to researcher Dr. Shirley Rothman, “May not know that this education is not being done by a group of experts in the field but that it is all being orchestrated by the drug company.”

You’ve gotta hand it to them. Those drug companies do know how to create markets — aiming to scare parents of fourth graders into wanting to vaccinate their boys against genital warts. And you’ve really got to wonder what the members of that FDA committee smoked before making their recommendation for approval.

:hc

Cell Phones Back in the Frying Pan: Health Blog

September 19th, 2009

Cell Phones, Brain Tumors

Every few months, a new report comes out that once again raises the alarm about the cell-phone/brain-cancer link. There’s usually a short-lived flurry of concern in the wake of such reports, and then amnesia seems to set in, and the use of cell-phones keeps growing and growing. It doesn’t help that for every scary report blaming cell phones for brain tumors and other dread conditions, another comes out insisting that the phones are just as safe as stuffed teddy bears, after all. But those reassuring studies have come under fire from two independent sources in the last few weeks. First, the International EMF Foundation just issued a 37-page report claiming that the major research to date on cell phone safety grossly underestimates the dangers that cell-phones pose. The report lists an extensive and impressive list of authors, including the former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany; faculty from Columbia University and other US universities; plus top scientists from 13 countries worldwide.

The EMF cites 15 concerns about cell-phone safety, including the fact that even the major industry-funded studies have found significant increased risk of brain cancer and genetic damage, with that elevated risk hovering around 20 percent for each year of cell-phone use. The report also cites an independent Swedish study that found that risk of brain cancer increases by five percent for every 100 hours of use and that those who start using cell-phones as teens increase their risk of brain cancer by 420 percent. Incredibly, there has been only one other non-industry funded study, and that study also found increased risk.

The fact that only two independent studies have been completed is, in itself, reason for concern. According to the EMF report, the telecommunication industry essentially “bought” governments worldwide back in the 1990’s, pumping huge dollars into cell phone safety research and asking governments for matching grants. In other words, governments spent all their money partnering with the telecomm industry and had none left to give to independent researchers…or no desire to.

Other concerns cited in the report include the fact that FCC exposure limits fail to consider the effects of non-thermal radiation from mobile phones, “assuming the only danger from microwave radiation would come from temperature increases in our brains,” a position that, according to the report, is absurd. Also, the report claims that cell phones damage DNA and cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. And, cell phones compromise male fertility.

Finally, the EMF report says the largest study on cell phone safety to date has 11 serious design flaws. That study, funded by the telecomm industry and known as Interphone, began in 1999 with the purpose of investigating brain tumor risk. Countries worldwide participated, but publication of the results has been delayed for four years because researchers can’t come to consensus on how to interpret the data. The flaws cited include excluding certain types of brain tumors from the analyses, excluding children and young adults from the data pool, defining “regular use” as using a cell phone once a week for six months or more, and so on.

Simultaneous with the publication of the EMF report, the Environmental Working Group published a report advising consumers to exercise caution when using cell phones. The report summarizes 10 months of research analyzing 200 peer-reviewed studies, government advisories, and industry documents. Cell phone dangers cited in the report include increased incidence of brain tumors and celluloid lung cancer, increased risk of hyperactivity in children, salivary gland tumors, migraines and vertigo. The report notes that the FCC’s emissions standards for cell phones are outdated and far too generous for safety given the body of research, and that the implications for children are particularly worrisome, as kids are far more vulnerable to radiation. Lead author Dr. Olga Naidenko, says, “We would like to be able to say that cell phones are safe. But we can’t. The most recent science, while not conclusive, raises serious issues about the cancer risk of cell phone use that must be addressed through further research. In the meantime, consumers can take steps to reduce exposure.”

To that end, the EWG has published a comprehensive database listing emission levels for 1000+ cell phones. In fact, the emissions level does vary widely from one phone to the next. For instance, the lowest-emission phone on the list, the Samsung Impression, has a maximum radiation level of 35 W/KG, whereas the highest emission phone, the Motorola MOTO VU204, has more than four times that, at 155 W/KG.

The EWG recommends that cell phones should be sold with information about their emissions posted on the label, but in the interim, consumers need to do their homework and buy low-emissions phones. Other steps you can take to protect yourself include using a bluetooth device or headset (although they, too, theoretically could present problems), keeping the phone a safe distance away from your body, staying off the phone when you have a weak signal, limiting time that your kids use cell-phones (children are far more vulnerable to radiation), using the speaker instead of holding the phone to your ear, and texting instead of calling (as long as you’re not driving or operating a train).

In spite of this avalanche of warnings regarding cell phones, many scientists remain unmoved. According to Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, “Basically the idea that there is a sea change in the evidence in the past two or three years is incorrect. Essentially this [EWG] report focuses on studies that support their hypothesis that cell phones increase brain cancer risk. The description of the evidence selectively emphasizes the studies that suggest the risk and omit the evidence that suggests no risk.”

“Selectively” being the operative word here.

With that in mind, it’s interesting how Dr. Thun “selectively” omits the fact that virtually all studies to date have been funded by the telecommunications industry, and that nearly all those studies have found at least some risk. But you can bet that the majority of cell-phone addicts out there will be reassured by remarks such as his.

On a final note, I should probably acknowledge the primary knock on all the Cassandras  of cell-phones. “If cell-phones are causing brain cancer, then why aren’t we seeing a big increase in brain tumors. It’s not like cell phones haven’t been in heavy use for a number of years now.”

And the simple response to that argument is that while we are not yet seeing an “epidemic” of brain tumors, the incidence in brain tumors is decidedly “surging” among certain demographics.

:hc

Fighting Over Sludge in Presidential Garden: Health Blog

August 11th, 2009

Activated Sludge, Obama Garden

When Michele Obama planted her organic garden, some considered it an act of subterfuge as unpatriotic as supporting Honda instead of Ford. “Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical,” wrote the Mid- America CropLife Association. “If Americans were still required to farm to support their family’s basic food and fiber needs, would the U.S. have been leaders in the advancement of science, communication, education, medicine, transportation and the arts?” Good question — or so thought other food industry honchos who joined in the mud-slinging. For instance, Bob Young, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said, “We have no problem with this concept [of home organic gardens], but understand that you’re making lifestyle choices here about how you want your food produced. Fine. But don’t denigrate the other approaches to food production.”

In spite of the compost slinging, the First Lady ignored the naysayers and cultivated her garden so that it yielded more than 80 pounds of produce by the beginning of June. A true Victory Garden for the organic movement!

But alas, even as earthy, organic types cheered, representatives from the National Park Service went snooping around (I thought that was the NSA’s job) and found that the garden was “swimming in sludge.” It all started with the discovery that the garden soil contained lead at 93 parts per million, which the press called “highly elevated content.” The EPA recommends against growing food in soil with lead at 100 ppm maximum, and the 93 ppm figure was a bit too close.

So where did these high levels of lead in the First Garden come from? The press initially blamed lead paint runoff from old décor, but then, the press found a new culprit: the Clintons. Oh joy, something else for the press to blame the Clintons for! It seems that back in the 1990s, the former president approved fertilizing the White House lawn with sewage sludge from a nearby wastewater plant. Why would Bill have done that? Because it was cheap, easy, came highly recommended, and was actually considered organic by government regulators at the time. (Activated, or processed, sludge still is.)

In fact, the most shocking thing here isn’t that the White House lawn turns out to be sludge central, but rather, that sludge is so commonly used as a fertilizer that it ends up even there, with the official stamp of approval. Basically, sludge is very widely used as a cheap fertilizing spray on agricultural crops and pubic lands throughout the US, and it’s marketed under such respectable-sounding names as COMpro and Orgro. But just what is it? Why all the fuss?

Well, consider that its other name is “Activated Sludge” and you have a good idea. In its raw, untreated form, it is a goopy dark substance as gross as it sounds, and far more toxic, containing residue of basically anything that goes down the drain, including industrial chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides, and prescription drugs. Current EPA guidelines allow 90,000 different industrial chemicals to be present in sludge (it’s amazing that many industrial chemicals exist), and many of those are known carcinogens or hormone disrupters. Sludge overflows with heavy metals, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and so on. Guidelines allow for up to 3 00ppm of lead in sludge, just to give an example of how unsavory it can be on just that one parameter alone. In other words, it’s nasty stuff, varying in composition depending on what waste got added to the mix — but certainly not what most people want their tomatoes to be cultivated in, if only they knew.

Growers don’t need to declare if they use sludge in their fields, and so consumers haven’t a clue — even if they buy organic where activated sludge is allowable (or buy from the Heinz or Del Monte companies, which do not use crops grown in sludge). In theory, US organic producers are now prohibited from raw sludge farming, making the price of organic seem well worth it. Nevertheless, things are not always what they seem; organic is not always organic. In any case, the White House garden will never be decreed organic, though the Obamas use no spray or pesticides, because the sludge-contaminated soil violates organic standards.

As for the lead that was found in the soil, some say the press overreacted, that 93ppm is a quite insignificant level. According to Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, associate chair of the Center for Environmental Health, “But 93ppm is laughably low to begin with. It would be nearly impossible to find a garden anywhere with less than 93ppm.” His colleague, Dr. Kimberly Gray who directs Environmental Sciences at Northwestern University, said, “This is about politics, not lead. It’s inflammatory. 93ppm is well below background lead for an urban environment. It’s what you’d expect just from atmospheric deposition.” In other words, the air carries that much lead from things like auto emissions.

Not everyone agrees that lead levels near 100ppm should be shrugged off. As noted above, even the EPA says you shouldn’t grow food in soil with lead content at that level. In fact, the EPA says that soil above 56ppm, “does not provide adequate protection of terrestrial ecosystems.” The fact that the soil in our cities tends to have lead levels much higher than 100ppm because of emissions and perhaps from sludge residue doesn’t mean that it should be there. (By the way, I recommend that you don’t think about this the next time you buy “locally grown” produce at your nearby farmers’ market.)

But again, it’s not just lead that sludge spreads around. Though the advocates of sludge assure us that it’s safe and, in fact, wise to use it, evidence keeps mounting that sludge makes people sick. Those who live near fields fertilized by sludge find entire families displaying similar symptoms, or entire communities devastated by the same type of cancer or other disease.

Bottom line? Have your soil tested before you plant your garden, particularly if you live in an urban area, grow and buy only organic, and if you do find that you have contaminated soil, don’t despair: you can always make yourself a raised bed garden.

:hc

Reusable Shopping Bags Under Attack: Health Blog

July 23rd, 2009

Reusable Shopping Bags

Just when you think you’re doing something right for the world, along comes the reality slam that exposes the hidden flaw in your righteous endeavor. Remember last year when the dark side of energy-efficient compact florescent light bulbs was exposed, revealing that the bulbs leak mercury when broken, or when you learned that reusable diapers may not be more environmentally friendly than disposables? Now, it turns out that the virtuous recyclable shopping bags that so many of us proudly use might be sewage dumps for bacteria. Or at least, so says the plastics industry.

(more…)

Aspartame Officially Nasty: Health Blog

July 21st, 2009

Aspartame

Remember the story, "The Emperor’s New Clothes?" Based on a recent incident regarding aspartame, an updated version of that story might end with the emperor suing the kid for telling everyone the truth — that the emperor was naked.

It seems that a British supermarket chain called Asda decided to go wholesome and rid the shelves of all store-brand products containing unhealthy fats and additives. The store publicized the move by placing labels on a healthy line of products announcing, "No hidden nasties — no artificial colours or flavours, no aspartame and no hydrogenated fats." Benign enough, it would seem — except that a Japanese company that has huge aspartame holdings took umbrage with the implication that aspartame is a "nasty."

(more…)

New Regs to Reduce Foodborne Illness: Health Blog

July 14th, 2009

Foodborne Illness

Every year, about 76 million Americans get sick; 325,000 end up in hospitals; and 5,000 die from eating food tainted with salmonella, E. coli, and other contaminants. Salmonella from eggs alone causes 142,000 illnesses annually. In fact, food-borne illnesses cost Americans about $35 billion a year and account for one out of every 100 hospitalizations. And that’s just in the United States.

(more…)

Major Life Insurers Support Tobacco Industry: Health Blog

June 16th, 2009

Tobacco, Insurance Companies

If any industry should know the statistics verifying the deadly impact of smoking, that industry would be the life insurance industry. Insurers know that smokers have double to triple the mortality rate compared to non-smokers — which is why companies like Prudential won’t even grant life insurance to those who smoke, or else they charge smokers exorbitant premiums. And yet, demonstrating an extraordinary degree of cynicism, some of the world’s largest life insurance companies invest heavily in tobacco. In fact, insurance company investments in tobacco industry stocks amount to $4.5 billion.

(more…)

Cheerios Get Busted for “Medicinal” Claims: Health Blog

May 16th, 2009

Cheerios, Lower Cholesterol

Those in the business of manufacturing nutritional products and supplements know better than to make bold medical claims (even if supported by science) lest they draw the wrath of the FDA; but who would have guessed that the FDA would go after a mainstream food company like General Mills for marketing food as medicine? Yet as of May 5th, the FDA did indeed issue a warning letter to the mega-giant, stating, "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the label and labeling of your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal. FDA’s review found serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR)."

Cheerios, a criminal? Turns out that the little O’s got a bit too bold in advertising just how healthy they are. Right on the box, there’s a claim stating, "Can lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks." Then there’s an elaboration: "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is…clinically proven to lower cholesterol." 

(more…)

« Older Health Blogs