The Savvy Label Reader - Part 3

Whether you believe the caution has merits or not, consumers are continuing to trigger a shift away from products that contain high fructose corn syrup.

In an earlier post on high fructose corn syrup, mention was made here of Dole TV ads that touted fruit juice products without the corn-based sweetener. In our personal shopping just recently, we noticed that Oroweat has also expanded
the number of bread products that do not list HFCS in the ingredient label.

Back when we first began to watch for HFCS in our label reading, it was difficult to find breads in mainstream grocery stores that did not contain it. We were happy then when we came across Oroweat's HealthNut bread which was one of the only commercial breads we found that did not contain HFCS. HealthNut also included a number of very good ingredients, so it became a long-time favorite at our house.

What's new that prompted this free plug for Oroweat? Noticing that several of the Oroweat breads now feature this message on the face of the package: "NO high fructose corn syrup". Right across from "NO trans fats".

I have nothing against corn growers, and I realize that ongoing diligence will be needed on the part of consumers to watch for other ingredients that may be an issue. But I like seeing this trend. I believe it bodes well for increasing the overall quality of our processed food, if suppliers understand that consumers are watching for quality, safety, and nutritional value -- not just low price and a wow for the taste buds.

Consumers have had several decades of more or less looking the other way while an incredible number of assumptions have been made about the biochemistry and processing of our prepared food. While we've been delighted with the advances in convenience and pricing, these developments have come at the expense of our overall health in many cases. The further our food has moved from its truly natural original forms, the more our health has declined. I'm looking forward to see what health trends might be like with a generation that consumes food that is improving in nutritional value rather than declining.

The Savvy Patient: guarding against C. Diff.

You're already wary of the potential for airborne respiratory infections in close-quarter and long-exposure situations such as hospital stays. We continue to be warned that we're on borrowed time with regard to a pandemic outbreak of some deadly form of one of the influenza viruses.

And the significant increase in contact infections, particularly from hospital environments, has been very troublesome in recent years with staph infections such as MRSA getting lots of attention. The deadly potential here has made it critical for the savvy medical care patient to be aware and proactive, to avoid an infection episode that could be worse than the condition that prompted the hospital stay in the first place.

Now warnings are also on the rise for another medicine-resistant bacteria strain that can be contracted from contaminated surfaces and objects in medical facilities. Clostridium difficile, often referred to as "C. diff.", is a potentially deadly organism described in this Mayo clinic online article:

"C. difficile bacteria are everywhere — in soil, air, water, human and animal feces, and on most surfaces. The bacteria don't create problems until they grow in abnormally large numbers in the intestinal tract of people taking antibiotics or other antimicrobial drugs. Then, C. difficile can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhea to life-threatening inflammations of the colon. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year in the United States C. difficile is responsible for tens of thousands of cases of diarrhea and at least 5,000 deaths. And the problem is getting worse. The number of C. difficile infections doubled between 1993 and 2003, with most of the increase coming after 2000."

What can you do to reduce the likelihood of dealing with a C. diff infection?

1. Stay out of the hospital. Take responsibility for your health before you are experiencing a clinical event that requires a doctor visit or hospital stay. You have choices about what you eat, drink, breath, and what kind of sleep you get. "Not enough money, not enough time" you say? Once you have a clinical event, you will spend time and money dealing with the event. You would spend far less upfront, preventing illness, and have a far better quality of life in the process.
2. Concentrate on building up your immune system. The state of your nutrition, stress levels, and even activity levels can degrade or enhance your immune function. In a world with increased numbers of medicine-resistant virus and bacteria, your built-in immune function is a critical line of defense in keeping you healthy. Know what you need, get what you need, for optimal immune performance.
3. Learn and take action to ensure a healthy gut, or digestive system. According to a BBC report, C. diff-related disease "occurs mostly in patients infected with C.diff when their normal gut flora is disturbed, for example during antibiotic treatment." Did you know that more than 70% of your immune function is in your gut?
   
4. Get ruthless about cleaning when you are in a higher-risk environment such as a hospital. A recent column in the AARP Bulletin suggested that patients (or loved ones watching out for patients):

• Insist that everyone treating you clean their hands before touching you
• Clean your own hands thoroughly before eating
• Do not touch your hands to your lips
• Do not place your food or utensils on any surface except your plate
• Ask loved ones to bring wipes containing bleach for items around your bed
• Assume any belongings that come with you are contaminated
• Do not mix clothes from the hospital with the family wash, wash them with bleach
• Be careful about eating in food service areas where staff where their scrubs or uniforms
  

You get the picture.

C. diff is very resistant to all but the deepest cleaning approaches. Few antibiotics are effective, and relapses after treatment are common. Mortality rate is as high as 30%.

The savvy health care consumer will stay out of that fight if at all possible. "The best offense is a good defense" as they say.

Outliving your drug regimen

In the 'wake up, or watch out' department, a recent article posted on the MSN Health & Fitness site, "8 Drugs Doctors Would Never Take" targets a provocative list of pharmaceuticals that the MD's interviewed said were worthy of caution.

Their question to these physicians? "Which drugs would you skip?" Here's what they said:

1. Advair
2. Avandia
3. Celebrex
4. Ketek
5. Nexium
6. Prilosec
7. Visine (original)
8. Pseudoephedrine
   

The author's base recommendation for an individual using one of these formulations was to give it a second look with your health care provider for alternatives. The article does mention some other pharmaceutical options that might be topics for that second opinion conversation. And also alternative medicine options, such as investigating acupuncture as an alternative to Celebrex or long-term NSAID use.

Even if you are not a consumer of the drugs listed, here is yet another example of why the savvy individual takes the lead for their own health and well-being. Not for self-doctoring. But for keeping the primary responsibility for choices -- especially long-term ones -- squarely where the consequences are felt. On you and me!

In the press: Suddenly Sick

A recent special report by the Seattle Times, "Suddenly Sick", includes a disturbing look at the forces at work that affect your health outcomes - and your costs - when you seek treatment from the US health system.

"You walk into your doctor's office for a physical exam and step on the scale. Last year, the doctor said you were overweight. Now he says you are obese — at the same weight.

A nurse takes your blood pressure. You have hypertension — with the same previously healthy reading you've had for years.

The doctor scans your wrist bone. You have a condition called "osteopenia" — with the same bone density that was fine last time you were measured.

You mention you are not enjoying sex as much as you used to. Diagnosis: a new kind of sexual dysfunction.

You leave the office with a head full of worry and a fistful of new prescriptions, joining more than 40 percent of Americans who take one or more prescribed drugs daily in the effort to stave off more serious trouble.

You are suddenly sick, simply because the definitions of disease have changed."

While not the first time this observation has been made, this report should deepen our misgivings about how much we've allowed our health 'paradigm' to shift into something that is costing us more than it's helping us. The degree to which this is organized and in-trenched is incredible.

You've suspected this was happening. Get this perspective on how far it's gone, and let's push back. There is a better, safer, more cost-effective way. 

See the Seattle Times web site for the full report.

Medical errors: where's the outrage?

If you haven't experienced the potential for medical errors to cost you dearly, invest a few minutes to view this recent 60 Minutes report. Dennis and Kimberly Quaid nearly lost their infant twins in November, 2007 through an accidental hospital-administered drug overdose.

Fortunately, the babies recovered and seem to be doing well now. But the experience, and subsequent discovery of how common and widespread these incidents are, had a profound effect on the couple. And they have taken legal action and initiated a public awareness effort to educate others on the potential for injury and death in even 'routine' medical procedures.

The 60 Minutes clip and additional information on this subject is also available at this NY Times news blog.

If individual examples of this are not disturbing enough, consider the scope of this problem, and that it is not a new phenomenon. In a 2004 article on Medical News Today web site, a recent study of 37 million patient records said, "An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002."

(Click here for complete article.)

As someone pointed out to me, 195,000 deaths per year would be the equivalent of two Boeing 777 aircraft crashing every single day of the year. And how many Boeing 777 crashes would it take for that model to be grounded until something was done?

You'll hear the argument raised in the 60 Minutes report that unfortunate (but by inference, unavoidable) human error was the cause of the Quaids' close brush with tragedy. Have we become so jaded to it that we dismiss that many deaths as 'normal' risk for the 'benefit' we believe we get from our current health care systems?

It's hard to believe that the entire of fleet of 777 aircraft wouldn't be immediately grounded after just a handful of crashes in a short period of time. Even if it was established that human error was ultimately the cause.

I don't see the outrage yet. But I don't think it's too far off. Watch out for your loved ones in the meantime.

How do you like paying for $millions per day?

The cost of the wearying number of pharmaceutical ads you see everyday has been placed in the tens of millions of dollars. That's per day, every day. 

Who decided that was OK?

According to Sourcewatch.org (1), only the United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies. But Sourcewatch also reports that lobbying forces are being brought to bear on the regulatory agencies of other countries to allow this. It's no surprise when you consider the resources of a $120B industry that could be leveraged toward increasing market share and sales, especially of targeted, highest-margin products. The potential for the drug companies and their shareholders is huge. But why is that OK anywhere?

State legislatures in the U.S. are beginning to wrestle with this, if for no more nobler reason than the enormous impact on state-funded managed care programs. In October, 2007, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported: "A new analysis provided by the managed care industry reports that from 1999 to 2000, prescriptions written for the top 50 most heavily advertised drugs rose 24.6 percent, compared to 4.3 percent for all other drugs combined." (2)

Why drug companies would spend that amount on advertising is obvious, when you can trigger the kind of increase in sales described in this example. And they have not been slow to take advantage of it, with drug promotion costs tripling in a decade, according to a University of Pittsburgh study (3).

But consumers are not free to make drug decisions for themselves in the U.S. An individual's health care provider is charged with making those decisions based on their diagnosis and the efficacy of a particular drug for that condition. So why is direct-to-consumer advertising OK? Who is benefitting from this? 

It's not the consumer, who ultimately pays the cost of this advertising, and should be getting their health care provider's best decision on treatment anyway. And it's not the taxpayer who must fund government drug programs. 

Let's see. Who's left to benefit from this?

According to Sourcewatch, the industry's rationale for drug advertising is to educate consumers on potential conditions so that they seek earlier diagnosis and treatment. However, a recent GAO report indicated that the companies focus their advertising on relatively few drugs and conditions, and most of those involve chronic conditions such as high cholesterol, asthma, diabetes, where the target consumer is very likely to already have a high awareness. (1)

Educate yourself. The discussion on this subject will increase, if for no other reason than we are careening toward an economic 'brick wall' of out-of-control health care costs. As a taxpayer, be aware of what your state and federal representatives are doing to address this. The cost-versus-benefit perspective on direct-to-consumer drug advertising is way upside-down. Let your voice be heard, and let's put this back the way it was.

1. Sourcewatch: Direct-to-consumer Advertising

2. National Conference of State Legislatures: DTC Advertising of Pharmaceuticals

3. University of Pittsburgh: DTC Advertising triples