Health Spectator

The headline of a recent news post from Reuters reads, Flouride in tap water may help older teeth too. To the casual reader, this headline seems to indicate that protecting the teeth of old people is just one of the many benefits of fluoridated tap water. But according to a growing array of health activists, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., a respected medical practitioner and health newsletter author, devoted an entire issue of his Blaylock Wellness Report to the subject of fluoride. What he had to say in his introduction was not favorable:

The primary reason fluoride began being added into drinking water years ago was to reduce cavities; the general public may not know that fluoride also can injure the nervous system and even cause cancer.

Degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s are possibly linked to drinking fluoridated water. Cancer, behavioral problems, thyroid suppression, male infertility and impotence are also some examples of what may happen to the body when too much fluoride is present. And the combination of fluoride and aluminum is toxic enough that scientists warn about its connection to Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s diseases. Fluoride will not kill you outright or cause dementia over a short period of time. But at certain levels it will accumulate in your brain and can lead to a form of degeneration.

I lectured at the Fluoride Action Network conference on the subject of the toxic effects of water fluoridation and urged everyone to stop the government from using drinking water to medicate the public.

Despite the efforts of Blaylock and others to educate the public, a single-minded obsession with the alleged benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay—regardless of more significant health concerns—pervades public health policy and pollutes the outpourings of the general press. A search on Amazon under the topic fluoride returns a list that begins with the following titles:

1. The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson
2. Fluoride the Aging Factor: How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride by John Yiamouyiannis
3. Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death by Barry Groves
4. Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception (Training Manual for Parents, Physicians, and Dentists) by Dr. Stanley “Stan” Monteith
5. Fluoride in Drinking-water (World Health Organisation Drinking Water) by J. K. Fawell, J. Bailey, J. Chilton, and E. Dahi
6. Fluorides in the Environment: Effects on Plants and Animals (Cabi Publishing) by L. H. Weinstein and A. W. Davison

Interspersed among the book titles are products containing fluoride (such as Crest toothpaste) or helping to lace drinking water with fluoride, and so on. Could there be a clearer indication of our public schizophrenia in the face of the evidence against fluoride?

The books listed are not touting the benefits of fluoridation. The World Health Organization, although stating that small quantities of fluoride impart resistance to dental caries, seems more concerned with the limits of fluoride that should be allowed in drinking water. The WHO literature mainly treats fluoride as an environmental hazard:

In many regions with high fluoride exposure, fluoride is a significant cause of morbidity. Low concentrations provide protection against dental caries, especially in children. The pre- and post-eruptive protective effects of fluoride (involving the incorporation of fluoride into the matrix of the tooth during its formation, the development of shallower tooth grooves, which are consequently less prone to decay, and surface contact with enamel) increase with fluoride concentration up to about 2 mg/litre of drinking water; the minimum concentration of fluoride in drinking-water required to produce it is approximately 0.5 mg/litre.

However, fluoride can also have an adverse effect on tooth enamel and may give rise to mild dental fluorosis at drinking-water concentrations between 0.9 and 1.2 mg/litre, depending on intake. Elevated fluoride intakes can also have more serious effects on skeletal tissues. It has been concluded that there is a clear excess risk of adverse skeletal effects for a total intake of 14mg/day and suggestive evidence of an increased risk of effects on the skeleton at total fluoride intakes above about 6mg/day.
–The World Health Organization, Chemical Fact Sheets

Note that the WHO data shows an overlap between the level of fluoridation believed to reduce caries (0.5 to 2 mg/liter) and the level causing mild fluorosis (0.9 to 1.2 mg/liter). Thus, according to the World Health Organization it is difficult—if not impossible—to adjust fluoride levels in water so as to minimize caries without introducing the risk of dental fluorosis as well.

And dental fluorosis—defined as under-mineralization of the teeth, which manifests by giving teeth a mottled appearance—is about the least of our worries. Among the problems linked to excess fluoride intake are depression of thyroid function, which itself leads to multiple degenerative conditions; brain damage that includes tendencies toward ADD, ADHD, and dyslexia; bone cancer; male infertility and impotence; and Lou Gehrig’s and Parkinson’s diseases, to repeat just the major headliners.

Twenty people died outright in the Donora, Pa. air-pollution tragedy of October, 1948, while another 50 succumbed to their injuries over the following month. That disaster struck when a temperature inversion trapped a layer of air containing heavy concentrations of fluoride emitted from a U.S. Steel plant and a neighboring zinc facility over the town of Donora for a period of five days. The incident sparked awareness of air pollution as an issue and lead to the Clean Air Act of 1955.

Unfortunately, the safety levels cited in the WHO statistics assume that water is the only source of fluoride ingestion from the environment. But there is no way to judge safe levels of consumption of fluoridated water when the body has so many possible ways of reaching fluoride overdose. In fact, the early U.S. government studies on the effects of fluoride began in anticipation of the increased fluoride pollution in the environment that would be brought about by the manufacture of atomic devices and other sources of fluoride pollution such as the steel, aluminum and electrical power industries. Until World War II, fluoride production in the United States was negligible.

Burning coal, for example, not only accounts for the bulk of industrial mercury pollution today, it also contributes mightily to pervasive fluoride pollution. Since fluoride is readily absorbed by plants and subsequently by the humans and other animals consuming those plants, not only does fluoride enter the human body through food sources, it does so in concentrations that are increasing steadily over time. For example, tea—especially green tea—contains large amounts of fluoride, because tea absorbs fluoride more readily than any other edible plant. Comparisons of studies on the chemical composition of tea show that the fluoride content of tea appears to have risen steadily over recent decades.

Recent estimates of average human intake of fluoride from dietary sources (water and food) run as high as 8 mg daily. For some areas in China, the WHO has estimated daily intakes as high as 8.9 mg from food and 0.3 to 2.3 mg from the air.

The eminent toxicologist Dr. Phyllis Mullenix discovered that fluoride accumulates in the brain and leads to behavioral disorders. Her studies while head of toxicology research at the renowned Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Mass., at the time an affiliate of the Harvard Medical School, convinced her that fluoridation of drinking water was a dangerous practice. Her initial investigations in rats indicated that feeding sodium fluoride in drinking water caused the rats to become hypoactive (”couch potatoes”) while prenatal exposure to the substance resulted in hyperactivity. She also found that the IQs of the rats were effectively lowered by fluoride accumulation.

Blaylock cites studies in China that confirm these findings in humans:

in China, children who drink fluoridated water have lower IQs than those who don’t. Many villages and cities in China have natural fluoride levels that are high, and Chinese scientists have found a drop of 10 points in IQ in fluoridated cities.

The irony is that ridding our bodies of fluoride, or at least controlling its absorption, should be the focus of our public-health efforts, not adding to our accumulation of this toxic substance.

In the human body, fluoride concentrates most heavily in the pineal gland, which is responsible for producing melatonin. Melatonin not only regulates the body’s circadian rhythm and sleep cycles, it also controls the onset of puberty in children and has been shown to suppress the growth of cancer tumors. Melatonin—produced by the pineal gland when the body is not exposed to light—normally reaches its highest levels in pre-pubertal children.

It is generally believed that the reduction of melatonin levels in teenagers triggers the onset of puberty.

Jennifer Luke’s PhD thesis

Research by Jennifer Luke published in the journal Caries Research in 2001 (Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland) established that phenomenally high levels of fluoride accumulate in the human pineal gland. Follow-up research by Luke demonstrated that gerbils fed fluoride showed suppressed production of the hormone melatonin. Luke hypothesizes that fluoride achieves this affect by interfering with the activity of enzymes that produce melatonin from serotonin. Her paper ends with this conculsion:

the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation.

The subsequent publication and considerable publicity surrounding The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S. Girls lent urgency to these findings. That publication states that “Early puberty in girls is associated with a startling number of psychopathologies and health problems.” It then goes on to enumerate some of these, including depression, eating disorders and adjustment disorders. It also cites the known link between early puberty and an increased incidence of breast cancer.

Fluoridation is not only suspected as at least one major factor in early maturation of girls, it appears to be contributing as well to perinatal deaths. A toxicologist in the United Kingdom recently reported that perinatal deaths in a fluoridated area were 15 percent more common than in neighboring non-fluoridated areas. He also found that the fluoridated area had a 30 percent higher rate of Down’s Syndrome, a disease associated with thyroid pathology. This result was not surprising, since in the 1950s, Ionel Rapaport published studies showing links between Down’s Syndrome and natural fluoridation. Similarly, Chile discontinued its fluoridation program after research by the late Dr. Albert Schatz showed it was causing infant deaths in that country.

Dr. George Waldbott, the allergist who first warned Americans against cigarette smoking in the 1950s, has stated that fluoride contributes to migraine headaches, bone stiffness, and gastric distress. The number of respected researchers warning against the dangers of fluoride is large and growing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s professional workers union (which includes the agency’s scientists and lawyers) has gone on record against fluoridation.

To guard against fluoride toxicity, Blaylock recommends taking 200 ug of selenium daily and 1,000 mg of calcium citrate daily to neutralize both aluminum and fluoride. He also recommends avoiding aluminum and Teflon cookware, as well as toothpastes and other household products that contain fluoride. Vitamin C and magnesium supplements round out the precautions he recommends to minimize the body’s fluoride load.

Despite all the evidence, resistance to the truth about fluoride lingers. An online article entitled Community Water Fluoridation, launches into a diatribe that exemplifies the portrayal of fluoridation opponents by pro-fluoride groups:

Opponents of fluoridation are a small, heterogeneous group who cannot easily be categorized by any single characteristic. They include right-wing extremists, misguided environmentalists, some chiropractors, persons concerned with the costs of fluoridation, food faddists, antiscience “naturalists,” and those who believe strongly in individual rights. Vocal opponents to fluoridation have attempted to link various adverse health effects with fluoridation. Claims that fluoride is harmful have been amply reviewed by international, national, state, and local authorities. Many committees or commissions of experts in medicine, epidemiology, pathology, pharmacology, and toxicology have reaffirmed the safety of community water fluoridation.

At the risk of joining a “small, heterogeneous group,” we have to hold with those who have stayed open to the steady accumulation of scientific evidence. Fail to avoid fluoride at your own risk. And if you’re undecided, remember that most European countries have banned fluoridation altogether.

[Editor's note: This piece was originally posted under Articles/Editorials. Because that version became damaged, we have re-posted it here as a blog entry.]

In honor of Earth Day, we thought we’d re-visit a subject that has been dear to us in the past: organic and natural foods. This time, rather that emphasize the benefits of wholesome foods, we thought we’d spend some time telling you where to get them.

If you’ve been paying attention, you are no doubt aware that not all organic foods are created equal. You may also know that Whole Foods, the largest “health food” retailer in the United States, has increasingly come under fire for being more interested in profits than principles. For about the past seven years, Whole Foods has been largely focused on taking over its remaining competitor—Wild Oats. The antics of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in this regard have been anything but amusing.

Readers may or not be aware that Mackey’s actions made headlines in July 2007 when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission revealed that the executive had posted messages on a Yahoo! chat forum under an alias for years. In those posts, Mackey extolled the virtues of his company while trashing Wild Oats in an attempt to lower Wild Oats’s stock price. Wild Oats had turned down a buyout bid from Whole Foods in 2001.

We mention all this just to make readers aware that there is nothing sacrosanct about buying organic foods. We wholly endorse buying organic, but don’t think that just because the label says organic—or because a vendor sells a large quantity of food labeled organic—that you can close your eyes and just assume that all is well.

We ourselves shop at Whole Foods and have long been concerned at the quantity of conventional produce and products the store carries. Since not all produce is available as organic at any given time, this does make sense for a store whose main function is selling groceries: if you go to the store looking for beets, for example, you may well accept conventional beets if organic beets are not available. We have also outlined a way by which consumers can limit the expense of converting to organic foods by avoiding the most contaminated conventional varieties and purchasing their organic counterparts instead.

So, we accept that not all produce available at Whole Foods is necessarily organic. You simply have to pay attention to the signs and labeling to make sure you know what you are purchasing.

Buyer beware

Of greater concern to us is the assertion that Whole Foods may carry products that contain MSG, for example, when MSG is on the store’s list of unacceptable ingredients. The same source also points out that rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone) is not on the Whole Foods list of unacceptable ingredients. This is particularly alarming in light of the fact that “conventional ” grocers such as Kroger and even WalMart have taken a stance against stocking dairy products that contain rBGH. Safeway, Chipotle and Starbucks have also jumped on this bandwagon. For Whole Foods not to ban rBGH seems unconscionable.

Dairy cows injected with this artificial hormone are forced to produce more milk than they would normally (on average, a gallon a day per cow) with dire consequences to their health. Cows injected with rBGH are far more likely to need treatment with antibiotics and to end up as “downer” cows entering the meat supply. Not only is it inhumane to subject cows to this treatment, it shows a flagrant disregard for the health of consumers.

At any rate, you get our point. If you are at all concerned about your health, you have to be concerned about what you eat. In order to assure that you consume the highest quality foods, you should not be limited to your local supermarket, and not even to your local Whole Foods. The truth is that the supply of truly healthy food in this country is so limited that there is not enough to supply the major outlets. So you need to line up your own sources as soon as possible.

As consumers have become increasingly aware of the importance of securing sources of healthy dairy, meats and produce, the demand for such foods has increased dramatically. If the supply of these healthy foods does not increase phenomenally, the enforceable standards—particularly for organic foods—will be sacrificed. Therefore as a consumer you must be increasingly vigilant as you make your purchases.

WalMart, the world’s largest retailer, recognized at least two years ago that organic foods were the place to be. Because WalMart exerts so much pressure on suppliers, the large food manufacturers such as Kraft and Kellogg are ramping up fast to supply organic-labeled products. For the most part, this is silly. Will packaged organic macaroni and cheese be that much healthier than the non-organic varieties currently available? We suppose we should support any effort to produce food that results from sustainable agriculture, but we cannot help but question how sustainable such efforts are.

Remember, organic foods are produced without resorting to pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers or artificial hormones, as well as being free from irradiation and genetic modification. The idea is to produce food that is entirely natural not in some legalistic sense, but in the most wholesome way possible. Manufactured food is not healthy food. Chips made from organic ingredients are no doubt preferable to those made from conventional ingredients, but we do not believe that is enough to classify them as health food. They simply have become marginally less unhealthy. So while simply re-manufacturing current manufactured foods with more wholesome ingredients is laudable in some ways, it totally misses the point. The end result should always be greater health for us and for the environment, which is, ultimately, the same thing. We cannot remain healthy without a healthy environment.

Groups such as the Weston A. Price foundation have recognized these principles and make them the cornerstone of their practice and teachings. But before we go on to discuss such organizations, let’s review one other basic tenet of healthy living that has become of concern much more recently: consuming locally grown.

A rose is a rose is a rose…

In principle, it matters not where your food was raised if it is nutritionally dense. That is, for the immediate purposes of your health, an organic apple from, say, Nicaragua is no different from one from Oregon or from a farm ten miles from your home, assuming each was raised in healthy soil and so on. The problem arises when we consider sustainability and the very practical matter of transporting that apple to your home.

Foods that are transported long distances are less likely to be equally ripe and fresh. Fruit that is to be transported long distances will likely be picked earlier in the ripening cycle so that it will not be over-ripe when it arrives at its destination. What is more, the carbon footprint of an apple that travels thousands of miles is necessarily greater than that of an apple that you buy at the farm and then take home. The notion of a carbon footprint is normally applied to humans or groups of humans, but our point here is that transporting food necessarily contributes to environmental deterioration as well as contributing to the deterioration of the food itself.

Viewed in this way, the apple from ten miles away may look a lot better. If the farmer avoids pesticides and the soil is reasonably rich, the local apple picked when ripe will be your best bet. But what if instead of a relatively small apple orchard, the farm in question has hundreds or thousands of acres of apple trees that are maintained using mechanized techniques so that trucks or airplanes apply pesticide sprays and powders at regular intervals? Now your local apple doesn’t look so good, does it?

Research has shown that conventionally grown produce has only about 83% of the nutritional value of the organic equivalent. What’s more, rats fed an organic diet fared better than other rats fed the same foods of non-organic origin.

Farming on a smaller scale

One of the primary differences between locally grown and distantly grown food is that you yourself have the option of inspecting the farm. Or you can rely on the sticker “certified organic” to do that inspection for you. Farming in the United States has become an operation performed increasingly on a large scale. Even family farms seem more likely to be large, industrial-scale farms these days. To some degree, this is an inevitable result of consumers’s priorities. The average consumer is probably still more concerned with the price of the apple than with its pedigree or nutritional content. In the United States, we have become accustomed to our food being relatively cheap, and the food price inflation of recent years has been a scary experience for most of us.

At the same time, it is easy to see that as the scale of the operation becomes larger, the involvement of the farmer with any individual element becomes drastically reduced. A farmer with a dozen hens will likely recognize them all and might even give them names. A farmer with a thousand hens or more isn’t even going to interact with them all directly. It is easy to see why those who are concerned with the fruits of the farmer’s labors favor farming on a smaller, more personal scale.

Having said our piece (for the time being, at least) on the issues involved in the way our food is raised and distributed, let us go right to the main subject here: where you can find sources of meat, dairy, poultry and produce that inspire confidence in the nutrition you will receive.

And the winners are…

One of the organizations that emphasizes healthful local sources of food is the Weston A. Price Foundation. Weston A. Price was a dentist who spent his vacations traveling the world and studying the traditional diets of indigenous peoples. He reasoned that the best way to determine what constituted a healthy diet was to examine people who enjoyed good health and see what they ate. The foundation that bears his name was founded by Sally Fallon, a writer and nutrition researcher, and Mary G. Enig, PhD, a nutritionist and expert on fatty acids (lipid biochemistry). Enig, the Foundation’s vice president, has authored over 60 technical publications and serves as President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association.

Together, Fallon and Enig wrote two books that are recognized for their contribution to practical nutrition. The first, Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats is a cookbook that challenges what you may think you know about nutrition, drawing upon the research of Weston A. Price and more recent experts such as Enig.

The second, Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats might be considered a manifesto for the nutritionally impaired. It not only informs the reader on the principles of nutrition embraced by the Weston A. Price Foundation, it contains a wealth of recipes, including how to make your own condiments and such healthful tonics as ginger beer and Kombucha. The more standard fare of the everyday diet is not neglected either, but enhanced.

We highly recommend visiting the Weston A. Price website. It is full of information and links and you can find out there how to join or start a local chapter, which will enable you to obtain organic food delivered to your area by an organic farmer. One of the primary goals of the Foundation is to make raw (unpasteurized) milk, butter and cream available to its members. If you’ve never had coffee with real (raw) cream, we highly recommend trying it. You will probably never resort to Half and Half again, except in emergencies.

We have found the organic meats available through sources we contacted via Weston A. Price chapters to be the best meats we have eaten. The commercially available product—including those we’ve purchased at Whole Foods—simply did not come close in overall quality.

To find a family farm near you or to explore the local farmer’s markets—care to start your own?—check out localharvest.org. Here you can also find a list of local farms participating in Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) which allows you to establish a relationship with a farm to receive or pick up weekly deliveries of groceries during the growing season. You can also find lists of farmer’s markets, restaurants and co-ops in your area and other useful information. This site belongs on your bookmark list unless you grow all your own organic food yourself. Even then, if you ever like to eat out, this site will tell you where you can go to find food that is up to your standards.

The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service also maintains an online list of local farmer’s markets you can peruse. This site is not so user-friendly as the local harvest site mentioned above. However, it does provide additional information and we list it for the sake of completeness.

Beef the old-fashioned way

For those who want to sample grass-fed beef and haven’t yet found a local source, check out Tallgrass Beef, which supplies grass-fed beef by mail order. We can’t say we’ve tried it—we’ve found a local source for naturally raised beef, pork and poultry—but this looks like the real deal. We were lucky enough to grow up with grandparents who raised livestock the old-fashioned way, and we think it’s the only way to go. The quality and taste of the meats we obtain direct from the farm simply is not like anything we’ve found in a store. And since grass-fed, free-range livestock provide meats much higher in vitamins, minerals and omega-3s, they’re much healthier, too. You simply can’t beat it.

Remember that the spirit of organic farming is really more important than the USDA certification. A local farm that you can see for yourself uses de facto organic farming techniques may serve you better than a certified farm hundreds of miles off.

And what better time than the week of Earth Day to make a commitment to better health for yourself and your family through eating more wholesome, sustainable food? That is the best way to support the spirit of Earth Day year ’round.

Today, Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. President Steve Mendell finally admitted that cattle were illegally slaughtered at his plant and that cows too sick to stand were forced into the food supply. Mendell had originally maintained in a written statement to a congressional committee investigating the largest meat recall scandal in U.S. history that the sick cattle filmed in an underground video by the American Humane Society were being moved to a separate pen to be euthanized.

However, today Mendell acknowledged under direct questioning by Representative Bart Stupak (D, MI) that those cattle did indeed enter the food supply.

Mendell was appearing under subpoena before the House Energy and Commerce investigative subcommittee, which Rep. Stupak chairs. He failed to appear at a committee hearing last month.

The Westland/Hallmark Meat Co.’s Chino, California plant was shut down February 17 and 143 million pounds of beef recalled after the Humane Society posted the video on its website. According to the Associated Press, some 50 million pounds of the beef went to federal nutrition programs, mostly school lunches.

The AP report quoted Mendell as saying, “Our company is ruined. We cannot continue. Some 220 employees have lost or are about to lose their jobs.”

If final bill remains unchanged, phthalates will be banned from toys and child-care products

Proposed legislation introduced early last week by Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) to ban phthalates from toys and other products intended to be used around children passed a Senate vote later in the week, on March 6. The amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act was hailed by Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, which had sought public support for the measure.

“We applaud Senator Feinstein’s leadership to protect our children from dangerous substances,” Rizzo said in a statement. “This legislation will … give parents the peace of mind that they are not inadvertently giving their children toys that may expose them to unsafe chemicals linked to dangerous health consequences.”

Phthalates are commonly used as plasticizers—in this case, chemicals that convert polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from a rigid to a flexible form of plastic. They are likely to be found in all forms of flexible plastics, from rubber ducks to sex toys.

Since the House and the Senate now have different versions of the reform legislation, they must appoint a conference committee to work out a single version of the bill. Readers are urged to contact their congressional representatives to urge them to see that the ban on phthalates is included in the final version.

Passage of the CPSC Reform Act with the Senate’s version of the amendment would put the United States in the company of the state of California and at least 32 nations, including those of the European Union, in banning phthalates from children’s products.

Unfortunately, since regulations in the United States do not require labeling of products containing potentially toxic substances, prior to this legislative ban there was no possible way for parents to be certain which toys were or were not phthalate-free. If the final legislation remains unchanged, parents will be assured of being able to select phthalate-free toys.

If you’re looking to see a doctor, bring lunch. That’s one of the finding in a recent article on doctors and drug-company reps published in the latest AARP Bulletin (Ties that Bind, by Barbara Basler).

We found some interesting figures there, figures that otherwise seem to go unpublicized. For example, the pharmaceutical industry’s spending on direct marketing to doctors rose 275% from 1996 to 2004 and currently stands around $7 billion. That doesn’t count prescription samples given to doctors at an annual industry cost of $18 billion. And yes, buying lunch for doctors and their staffs are one of the main rites of entry. That makes doctors no different from, say, editors or purchasing agents.

But statistics from inside the industry itself show that if a rep gets to spend just one minute with a doctor, that doctor will write prescriptions for that rep’s drug at a 16 percent higher rate. Give the rep five minutes, and prescriptions increase 52 percent. Since primary-care physicians interact on average 28 times a week with drug sales reps, we’re looking at a huge increase in drug prescriptions that is up for grabs. And none of this is necessarily good for the patient.

In fact, it’s become such a problem that states such as Pennsylvania and South Carolina
have begun hiring their own reps to go out and counteract the pharmaceutical industry’s propaganda. It is worthwhile for them to do this simply to assure better patient outcomes, since newer drugs—the ones being pushed aggressively by the industry—are also the most expensive drugs, but not necessarily the best drugs for the patient. A beneficial side effect is a reduction in the cost of drug subsidies to patients.

Pennsylvania’s “unsales” program, while costing $3 million over three years, has so far saved state programs about $572,000 a year in prescriptions for stomach-acid suppression alone.

For while doctors naively proclaim themselves not for sale, industry figures such as those already quoted indicate they are readily influenced. Just last year a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed 94 percent of doctors reporting “direct ties” to the dug industry.

Alarmed by such figures, some state legislatures have begun to fight back, trying to restrict the industry’s antics, but pharmaceutical companies are aggressive in defense of what they regard as their territory.

For example, New Hampshire passed a law in 2006 prohibiting drug companies from purchasing information about doctors’ prescribing habits. The industry got the law overturned in federal court a year later. Similar laws passed by Maine and Vermont are being challenged in court.

And last year, 17 states drafted legislation to regulate gifts to doctors and require their disclosure.

Not one of those bills became law.

According to a study published in the December 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, cardiovascular fitness may be a better predictor of longevity than adiposity, at least for those over 60.

Researchers tracked 2603 adults aged 60 years or older over a mean period of 12 years. The mean age for the group was 64.4 years; 19.8% were women. All were enrolled in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study and completed a baseline health examination during the period between 1979 and 2001.

Participants were assessed for fitness using a maximal exercise test, and adiposity was assessed using body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and percent body fat. Low fitness was defined as the lowest fifth of the sex-specific distribution of maximal treadmill exercise test duration. The distributions of BMI, waist circumference, and percent body fat were grouped for analysis according to clinical guidelines.

Some previous studies have indicated that the waistline is an excellent indicator of mortality, with waist measurements above 40″ (for men) commonly considered a danger signal. However, not all researchers agree with replacing BMI with waist circumference as a mortality indicator.

In this study, initial analysis of the 450 deaths that occurred during the follow-up period showed an apparent correlation between mortality and waist circumference that disappeared when the researchers adjusted for fitness.

“The association between waist circumference and mortality persisted after further adjustment for smoking, baseline health status, and BMI,” wrote the study authors, “but not after additional adjustment for fitness…. Fitness predicted mortality risk after further adjustment for smoking, baseline health, and either BMI, waist circumference, or percent body fat….”

Their conclusion: “Clinicians should consider the importance of preserving functional capacity by recommending regular physical activity for older individuals, normal-weight and overweight alike.”

(Source: the Environmental Working Group) – Many new parents are aware that the toxic chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) leaches from plastic baby bottles found on the shelves of stores across America. But a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals that BPA is also used to line nearly all infant formula cans. Indeed, the BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from plastic baby bottles under normal use.

The EWG contacted company officials at Nestlé, Ross-Abbot (Similac), MeadJohnson (Enfamil), Hain-Celestial (Earth’s Best), and PBM (sold under various names at Walmart, Kroger, Target and other stores). Each company’s policy was documented a minimum of three times; twice through detailed phone interviews, and once by an e-mail questionnaire. The results reveal that all manufacturers use BPA to line the metal portions of all infant formula containers, including powdered varieties.

“Many parents have switched to BPA-free bottles for their infants. They certainly should have access to BPA-free formula as well,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG. “U.S. manufacturers of infant formula and baby bottles can and should do the right thing and remove this harmful chemical from their products.”

“There is mounting scientific evidence that BPA is toxic, especially to children,” said Aaron Freeman, Policy Director with Environmental Defence. “Governments should be acting quickly, starting with a ban on BPA in food and beverage containers.” Previous formula testing by EWG and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has shown that BPA leaches from the plastic lining of metal cans into liquid formula, exposing formula-fed babies to potentially harmful concentrations that are higher than levels leaching from the bottles.

BPA levels in powdered formula sold in the United States haven’t been tested, but this formula is diluted with water before being fed to babies, and thus poses less risk. In light of these findings, EWG has created an online guide for parents to help them make the most informed decisions about how they feed their babies.

(Source: Environmental Working Group) – From baby shampoo to diaper wipes, children are exposed every day to products containing chemicals that have not been assessed for their hazards to children, according to an investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) of children’s personal-care products. In an online survey of more than 3,300 parents, EWG found that the average child is exposed through body-care products to 27 chemicals a day that have not been found safe for children, including some associated with cancer, brain and nervous system damage, allergies and hormone disruption.

In fact, these chemicals are common ingredients in baby shampoo, lotion, diaper cream, sunscreen, and other body care products sold for use by chidren. “Children are more at risk than adults from many chemical hazards, but we have no special standards to protect them,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research.

Children are typically more vulnerable to chemicals than adults. A child’s skin is 30 percent thinner than an adult’s, and can absorb greater amounts of chemicals from the skin surface. Children breathe in more air (and air pollution) relative to their weight than adults, and the blood-brain barrier that helps block chemicals from penetrating brain tissue is not fully formed until a baby is six months old. Even then, many chemicals cross this barrier and target developing brain tissue, with potential life-long harmful effects.

According to EWG findings,

• 82% of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients with the potential to harm the brain and nervous system.
• 69% of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients that may disrupt the hormone system, and 3.6% of children are exposed to ingredients with strong data linking them to cancer, including chemicals classified as known or probable human carcinogens.
• 80% of children’s products marked as gentle and non-irritating contain ingredients linked to allergies and skin or eye irritation according to government and industry sources.

The safety of baby products falls under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, unlike the situation for drugs and food additives, the FDA has no power to require that cosmetics be tested for safety before they are sold. And due to other loopholes in the law, manufacturers are free to make any claims they wish, such as “safe” and “ultra mild,” without proof, and many do just that.

“In the absence of adequate regulation, the manufacturers of children’s products should take responsibility to inform and protect their customers,” said Michael Passoff, associate director of the As You Sow Foundation, which supported the study. As You Sow represents shareholders in engaging publicly held companies to adopt more progressive social and environmental policies

“Something shouldn’t be marketed to kids if it’s not proven safe for them,” said Passoff.

Concerned parents should consult EWG’s comprehensive Safety Guide to Children’s Personal Care Products.

A new study from the University of Michigan published in the November issue of Pediatrics found that children aged 9 to 12 who sleep less than nine hours a night are more likely to be overweight. Their risk of gaining weight was accompanied by other negative risk factors such as moodiness and a lack of alertness in school, according to primary study author Dr. Julie Lumeng.

The National Sleep Foundation recommends that elementary school children receive 10 to 12 hours of sleep a night. Getting less sleep not only affects the children’s tendency to feel energetic and play outdoors, it also affects their hormone levels, which can lead to increased fat storage and an impaired tolerance for glucose. These same risk factors have been shown by other research to lead to increased weight and a tendency toward diabetes and heart disease in later life.

Just when vitamin D was beginning to look like the cure-all where cancer is concerned—many studies have proclaimed it instrumental in preventing or slowing cancers of the skin, colon, breast, and prostate, to name a few—a new study announced by the U.S. National Cancer Institute says increased vitamin D consumption does not correlate with reduced cancer mortality. The one exception, according to the study’s authors, may be cancer of the colon.

The study did not involve new research. Rather, it analyzed data for 16,818 subjects who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which inducted participants between 1988 and 1994 and followed them through 2000. Participants were given blood tests to establish a baseline at the beginning of their enrollment; it was from these blood tests that the level of vitamin D (as 25-hydroxyvitamin D) was tested against decreased cancer mortality and found to be lacking. In the case of colorectal cancer, however, the study found a 72 percent reduced risk of death when vitamin D levels were sufficiently high.

The study, authored by D. Michal Freedman, Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues, was published in this month’s Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The authors believe it is the first study to test vitamin D blood levels—as opposed to supplement consumption—against cancer mortality.