One too many?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the store, periodic reports of serious food contamination remind us that food safety still requires consumer diligence.

Unfortunately, diligence means more than ensuring that our food is free of contaminants such as harmful bacteria or dangerous chemicals. The savvy consumer must also make informed choices with potential long term problems in mind. The list of potential long-term health ambushes in our diet is already long. But, alas, has room for more.

A 2002 article in the UK Guardian outlines new concerns identified for a group of known carcinogens, acrylamides. Already identified as potentially harmful to humans in connection with their use in manufacturing and industrial processes, acrylamides are a relative newcomer to the food safety discussion.

A common food group for these unwelcome compounds? Starchy foods subjected to high heat, such as french fries or potato chips, or even some baked foods. One official quoted in the UK article likened the potential health impact to that of tobacco in our current culture. But you can do your own homework to decide.

Even if the degree of concern is being overstated with a comparison to tobacco, this new information signals another reason to look hard at our convenience food choices. In the U.S. we spend as much as 90% of our food dollars on processed foods, a category more likely to contain acrylamides as a by-product.

Which is yet another reason to shift more of our food purchases toward healthier choices such as fruits and vegetables, especially raw and unprocessed produce. And to double-check that nutritional regimens are optimally supporting built-in defense and repair systems.

For more on acrylamides, see this FAQ from the World Health Organization.

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

AARP article: health benefit from common spices

The Nov/Dec 2006 issue of AARP magazine offers this intriguing peek at a handful of studies that indicate certain cooking spices may do more than please the palate. As of this posting, the sidebar article in the Navigator/Health section on page 16 was not published at the AARP web site, but included intriguing information on these four spices:

1. Ginger - Relief for osteoarthritis pain documented in a study by University of Miami, and also described by Jacob Teitelbaum, MD in his book "Pain Free 1-2-3". Ginger also demonstrated anti-tumor activity in ovarian cancer study by University of Michigan.
2. Cinnamon - The aroma of cinnamon nhanced motivation and alertness, according to University of West Virginia study. Eating one-half teaspoon daily can reduce the risk of developing diabetes, according to research conducted by USDA, by helping improve sugar metabolism and keeping blood fats in check.
3. Turmeric - A Thai study documented benefit in fighting heartburn and indigestion. Turmeric may also help in fighting brain plaque formations that are identified with the onset of Alzheimer's disease, according to a study at UCLA.
4. Red Pepper - The hot ingredient in hot peppers, capsaicin, can end congestion faster than over-the-counter decongestants by making your nose run, thus helping you breathe easier. A report in "Cancer Research" also indicates potential benefit in fighting prostate cancer based on animal studies.

Check out the some of the other articles that are posted from this issue at: www.aarpmagazine.org

What is 'natural' weight loss?

If you don't believe that the human body tends toward wellness by design (homeostasis), then skip this article.

If you do, then you're probably already on the search to discover barriers that are keeping your body from being well and fit. Versus looking for solutions that stimulate, constrict, or otherwise jam the body into a state that someone told you is fitness or wellness. If that's you, here's some homework for your barrier-finding quest, from "Natural Weight Loss" at Women To Women.

"Let’s say your body is like a garden, and weight loss is the rose plant you’ve been cultivating that just won’t bloom. You’ve sprayed it and pruned it and applied Miracle-Gro. And even though you’ve seen a few buds, the darned thing still won’t blossom — in fact, it’s withering. Then one day you read a book about organic gardening, and you begin to pay more attention to the whole plant, not just its flower."

"You rule out the simplest stresses (Not enough light? Disease? Pests?). You stop treating it with artificial chemicals, and take note of the unique aspects of your garden. You then add customized support: enriching the soil with nutrients, adjusting the quantity of water, mulching the roots. If the problems are more severe, you call a professional gardener for help. Eventually, your plant is brimming with health. It feels safe and nurtured and robust. Then one day, lo and behold, it blooms with abandon — and does so reliably year after year if you keep up the same measures of care."

Although the target audience for this article is female, most of the principles outlined for knowing your body, knowing your challenges, and taking action accordingly, are not gender-specific. In addition, taking action in those kinds of areas (e.g. chronic inflammation, adrenal exhaustion, detoxification) reaps other health and quality-of-life benefits besides weight loss. Great treatment of all of the above!

"Blooms with abandon ... year after year." Indeed. Our bodies were designed to do that, if we give them the chance. See the complete article here: http://www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/naturalweightloss.asp.

AP article: spending to death

Yet another glimpse at the agonizing choices that individuals with deadly health challenges face with the economic realities of many state-of-the-art treatments. The article also touches on the alarming debates and choices that are just around the corner for just about every major country and its economic future, due to the staggering burden of health costs everywhere.

"Others, too, question the current priorities of U.S. medicine. 'We've prioritized end-of-life care as more important than preventive care or chronic care,' says Dr. John Santa, medical director for the Center for Evidence-based Policy in Portland, Ore."

Are you working on your family's strategy now? Make choices that are at hand today, before the pressures described here take them away or drive toward solutions you may not want. Here's the complete article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060812/ap_on_he_me/spending_to_death_5

Aspartame: should you wait for the debate?

Do you postpone a golf outing if a lightning storm is near?

Salvos continue to be fired in the debate about the safety of aspartame artificial sweetner. Unless you've been asleep through all the claims pro and con for the past several years, enough questions exist about the potential risk that the savvy consumer should do some homework before making a personal decision about eating aspartame-sweetened products, versus assuming that the industry, the FDA, et al have 'got your back' on this important subject.

In that vein, look through this site that is 'anti', and refers to the 2005 Italian study that established a link between aspartame and some cancers. It also comments on the European Food Safety Agency's response to the Italian study.

http://www.wnho.net/whopper.htm

For another perspective, here is one industry source that touches on the same study and EFSA conclusion, and also refers to an FDA statement in May, 2006 about its request for the data from Italian study to conduct its own review. The FDA press release link is also listed here:

http://www.beverageworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=49&Itemid=88

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01369.html

You decide for yourself, but its hard to see why a person should sign up for the risks at this point. Giving aspartame (and other synthetic sweetners) a wide berth seems prudent at this point. Especially when alternatives exist. Xlyitol, for example, is a natural sweetner that has been used as a food additive for some time (e.g. chewing gum), is anti-bacterial, and low-glycemic.

We just learned a little about trehalose, a naturally-occuring disaccharide from corn starch, that is also low-glycemic, and is being studied for a possible nutritional role in the health of cell surface membranes. Sweetening and health benefit at that same time? That deserves a closer look. Check this site for more information:

http://www.glycolose.com/

BW article: Medical Guesswork

"Even today, with a high-tech health-care system that costs the nation $2 trillion a year, there is little or no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work better than various cheaper alternatives."

In case you had any doubts about the need to take an active role in your own health affairs, this article series from the May, 2006 issue of BusinessWeek might motivate you in that regard.

Most of us aren't trained to even follow all of the medical vocabulary around us, let alone have in-depth understanding of health challenges.

"'Because there are no definitive answers, you are at the whim of where you are and who you talk to,' says Dr. Gary M. Kirsh at the Urology Group in Cincinnati."

But we can't go passive and abdicate our role in what can be life-and-death decisions. Somewhere short of doing 'self doctoring', there is a place for active questioning, personal research, seeking out other cases, etc. that the individual should consider. The risks are too great not to, for both our finances and our health.

Improvements are in the works, such as the Archimedes software tool described in the cover article, but you and I need to be proactive today, before that next prescription or outpatient procedure.

See the rest of the article series:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_22/B3986magazine.htm

The Savvy Label Reader - Part 2

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Is a shift taking place?

Several months ago, I saw a Dole commercial for the first time that was marketing one of their "100% juice" beverages. The unique thing to me was the specific differentiation they were creating between their product and the myriad of others that are corn syrup-based. I can't recall seeing any general consumer information prior to that which attempted to create that kind of awareness, especially that mentioned corn syrup by name.

At our house, it has been a challenge to find products that do not have high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient, at least in the mainstream grocery channel. But it's getting a little easier with time. We've found one bread product, one ketchup, one BBQ sauce, one ice cream brand, etc. that offer alternatives. When you add the new-found awareness of trans fats in food labeling and marketing, it makes one think there could be hope after all. Hope that the makeup of the typical North American diet could really shift, and reverse the shocking trends towards obesity and the health impact that comes from it.

Hope you do your part when you buy.

Gattaca: coming soon near you?

"Gattaca Corp. is an aerospace firm in the future. During this time society analyzes your DNA and determines where you belong in life. Ethan Hawke's character was born with a congenital heart condition which would cast him out of getting a chance to travel in space. So in turn he assumes the identity of an athlete who has genes that would allow him to achieve his dream of space travel." (Plot summary courtesy www.imdb.com, "Gattaca", 1997)

While you're being diligent about all the challenges that can affect your health in our modern times, don't forget to keep an eye out for your civil liberties along the way. This article in the Kansas City Star describes current activity around individualizing the genome mapping developments that reached a major completion milestone in 2003.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/13581453.htm

No question that the potential for individual benefits in medical application, nutrition strategies, education, etc. is enormous. With a team from Harvard Medical School going on record with their aim to reduce the cost of individual mapping from $10 million to $1000 by 2014, a timetable for debate on the implications for recording and using this information has also been set. Stay tuned.

"Under Church’s plan [George Church, Harvard Medical School], individual genomes, along with the names and photographs of the donors, will be placed in a public government database, where scientists and anyone else can see them. He acknowledged that such extraordinary openness carries risks as well as benefits. 'The prospect of this new type of personal information suddenly becoming widely available prompts worries about how it might be misused — by insurers, employers, friends, neighbors, commercial interests or criminals,' he acknowledged in Scientific American. Among the risks are exposing genetic flaws that could affect a person’s ability to get insurance or hold a job. A sequence might reveal a disease that lacks a current cure, a devastating finding for anyone. A curious or hostile person might uncover an individual’s hidden racial background. Church even speculated that someone with sufficient knowledge could use the data to 'make synthetic DNA corresponding to the volunteer and plant it at a crime scene.'"

Indeed. Might make an interesting plot for a movie.

Petition US congress re: drug safety

This just received from Consumer's Union regarding drug safety legislation before the U.S. Congress. Consider adding your voice to say the track record has been unacceptable. Here's the link from the email:

https://secure2.convio.net/cu/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=691

or go to http://www.consumersunion.org/ and click on the "Take Action" tab.

The Savvy Label Reader - Part 1

High Fructose Corn Syrup

How often do you read the "Ingredients" information on the label of the food you purchase? If you do, do know what to look for in making choices between products?

I won't repeat here the wealth of information already published on the use of the Nutrition Facts label, required in the U.S. by the FDA. Here's one resouce for doing some homework on that:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/foodlab.html

And I wouldn't claim to be an expert on analyzing all the things you find in the Ingredients listings. But at our house, we've seen enough concern raised over a few very common ingredients, that we've started watching for these more closely in our shopping over the past year. Let's take a look first at "high fructose corn syrup", that ubiquitous goody that shows up in just about everything once you start watching for it.

This article by the San Francisco Chronicle is a good overview of the cautions that we've heard from a variety of sources. If you're frustrated with your lack of success in battling excess body fat, read this article and consider shopping for foods that do not contain this sweetner, as an additional part of your strategy. You'll probably find it frustrating how many common foods you currently use contain it. And you'll also need to be watchful for other sweetners that may not be helpful as well, such as dextrose, maltodextrin, etc. (We won't go into artificial sweetners such as aspartame, sucralose, etc. which are under scrutiny for having their own potential issues.)

From the Chronicle article: "Almost all nutritionists finger high fructose corn syrup consumption as a major culprit in the nation's obesity crisis. The inexpensive sweetener flooded the American food supply in the early 1980s, just about the time the nation's obesity rate started its unprecedented climb."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL

The good news is that this kind of selective buying can be done without buying exclusively from the organic or health food section of your grocery store. (Although that is probably a good idea anyway. See earlier posting on study regarding toxins in childrens' food.) So take a few minutes to read the package before you buy for the next several months, and see for yourself what happens.

Good hunting!

PS: If you want to be sure you have a balanced outlook on HFCS, here's an information site provided by the Corn Refiners Association. We certainly have no axe to grind with corn growers and processors.

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/

And, here are a couple of general links for U.S. and U.K. requirements for food labeling.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/

Uganda: unique mix of science and traditional

In a November 16, 2005 press release Mannatech, Inc. (Coppell, TX) described its unique partnership with scientists from the Uganda Ministry of Health to analyze the functional ingredients of plants long used by local healers to treat various health challenges. A Mannatech spokesman points out that Uganda is unusal in being home to "an estimated 30 percent of the world's biodiversity," and that "a number of their plants probably have substantial functional value."

While forging ahead with accepted scientific methods of research and development, such as those being used in the Mannatech partnership, Uganda is also seeking a blend of these discoveries with its heritage in traditional medicine:

"Uganda President Yoweri Museveni has diligently pushed the nation toward recognizing and elevating the role of traditional healing. The Ugandan parliament is working to pass the Traditional Medicine Bill, which would integrate the crafts plied by local healers into the national health-care system by creating training programs for healers and establishing working relationships with medical doctors."

That will be fascinating to watch develop. May it be a trend.

Full text of the release is available at:

http://www.mannatech.com/USA/FOMPressReleases.asp

Podcast review: NPR Health & Science

If you enjoy "All Things Considered" and other fine programs on National Public Radio, you'll recognize the same excellent production qualities and writing in their Health & Science podcast. If you are new to podcasting, there are even some short explanations of podcast essentials on the NPR site. With a list as of today of 189 different podcasts, NPR should be on your short list of sources for this kind of 'offline radio'.

Here are some of the stories in the last 3 Health & Science podcasts:

- The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience
- Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom
- Flu-Vaccine Shortages and Distribution Delays
- Making Affordable Drugs in Africa
- Vietnam Takes Steps to Head Off Flu Pandemic
- Jury Rules Merck Not Liable for Heart Attack Death
- Flying Doctors to the Rescue
- Scientists Identify Dyslexia Gene

Enjoy ... and be informed!

http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.php

Organic food lowers pesticides in kids

More data that the economic and convenience challenges around shifting to organic food in your household may be worth it.

CNN.com published this article discussing the growth in the organic food segment in the U.S. (18% jump for organic baby food in one year), and the results from this study focused on pesticide levels in children:

"A study of children whose diets were changed from regular to organic found their pesticide levels plunged almost immediately. The amount of pesticide detected in the children remained imperceptible until their diets were switched back to conventional food. 'We didn't expect that to drop in such dramatic fashion,' said Emory University's Chensheng Lu, who led the Environmental Protection Agency-funded research. Lu's findings will be published in February in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/11/08/organic.kids.ap

In a world with alarming increases in environmental toxins every year, exercising the choice to avoid any of it has gone beyond prudent. It could be a life-and-death choice in the long run.

War on cancer goes cellular

In a Nov. 7 article, "A Nantotech Cure for Cancer?", Brandon Keim at Wired.com summarizes some of the R&D in progress on creating specialized particles only a few nanometers wide (a thousand times smaller than a red blood cell) that can act in a targeted way on cancer cells.

From the article:
"The first cancer nanotech applications will likely involve detection. Nanoparticles could recognize cancer's molecular signatures, gathering the proteins produced by cancerous cells or signaling the presence of telltale genetic changes."
"But nanoparticles can be made not only to find those cells, but to destroy them. One such application involves metallic molecules that adhere to cancer cells and can then be heated with microwaves, a magnetic field or infrared light, destroying the tumor while leaving surrounding tissues unharmed."
"Also promising is the design of molecular envelopes for chemical compounds that would otherwise be toxic to ingest. "

The article closes with a perspective on the timetable for seeing this technology in action (years), and an acknowledgement that evaluations for economic feasibility, reliability, efficacy, and safety represent major hurdles to its widespread use.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,69206,00.html

Indeed. It's intriguing as heck to see us push the envelope on what we can see, understand, and affect, within the body. If only that progress came with no accompanying 'price' of unexpected side effects, unidentified toxicity, and astronomical cost. Especially when we already have the ultimate nanotechnology already in our bodies, in the form of our natural defense and repair systems. Hard not to wonder what our life would be like if we directed the funds around development of artificial medical technologies toward increased understanding and leverage of our existing natural 'technologies'. Thomas Edison was right: "The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human body, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease."