29 Januari 2011

More Americans Using Supplements


A report published in the February, 2011 issue of the Journal of Nutrition reveals widespread use of dietary supplements among Americans, particularly among older individuals.
Researchers from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements and the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Maryland utilized data obtained from 18,758 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006. Infants under the age of one were excluded from the current analysis.
Forty-four percent of males and 53 percent of females reported using supplements, which is an increase from the percentages reported in earlier NHANES surveys beginning in 1971. For those aged 71 and older, supplement use was reported by 70 percent. Multivitamin/mineral formulas were the most common form of supplementation. Twenty-eight to 30 percent of those surveyed used supplements containing vitamins A, B6, B12, C and E; 18 to 19 percent used chromium, iron and selenium, and 26-27 percent used magnesium and zinc. Herbs were used by 20 percent of adults and were more commonly used by older adults.
While 56 percent of those of normal weight were supplement users, this number declined to 48 percent among those who were obese, a finding that is consistent with that of other analyses. Non-Hispanic whites were more likely to use supplements compared to Hispanics and non-whites and higher education was associated with greater use of supplements compared to having a high school diploma or less education.
"About one-half of the US population and 70% of adults ≥ 71 years use dietary supplements; one-third use multivitamin-multimineral dietary supplements," the authors conclude. "Given the widespread use of supplements, data should be included with nutrient intakes from foods to correctly determine total nutrient exposure."

FDA and ECT

I found this enjoyable blog this morning while I was checking my emails and perusing tweets.  The article that caught my eye was about a disconnect between hospital administrators and doctors.
My comment was that there is a serious disconnect between administrators and nurses too.
The blog title is apropos regarding a disconnect between health care providers and patients, and now clearly the FDA too over ECT.
When I started out in psych nursing in the late 60s I refused to participate in ECT and this caused a serious row.  I also received the only 'A' in my Abnormal Psych class for my term paper on " ECT as a Creator of Social Problems ".
It appears as if little has changed.
More of the pattern of sell out to Big Bus from the White House I'd say...

Human Factor in Medicine and Life.

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

At the end of today's hearings, an FDA advisory panel will issue
recommendations about whether manufacturers of electroconvulsive devices
must put their devices to rigorous safety tests, or whether they should be
reclassified from Class III (high risk) to Class II (moderate risk).

Below are critical comments by Professor John Read (University of Auckland,
New Zealand) about FDA's Summary of Electroconvulsive devices.

Of note, although 103 deaths were reported to the FDA in individual
submissions, the FDA report devotes merely half a page to this issue.
Does that not demonstrate a disregard for the value of the lives of those
who are subjected to ECT--most often against their will ? 

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/762/9/ 


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974


January 28, 2011: MEDIA RELEASE: 

FDA REPORT on ELECTROSHOCK UNDER-ESTIMATES MORTALITY AND MEMORY LOSS
Professor John Read (University of Auckland, New Zealand) has submitted to
the FDA a 'Commentary' of the FDA's 150 page 'Executive Summary' report -
released on the eve of its hearings about Electroshock Therapy (Jan 27-28).
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/M
edicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/NeurologicalDevicesPanel/UCM24
0933.pdf 

Effectiveness
The five page Commentary (available on request: j.read@auckland.ac.nz)
states, in relation to effectivness,'The FDA staff seem to have conducted a
comprehensive review of the available research. They reach broadly similar
conclusions to that of our own recent review', namely:
'Little evidence exists supporting the long-term effectiveness of ECT' (FDA
Report))

Suicide Prevention
The belief that ECT somehow prevents suicide has long been a central plank
of claims that it is effective made by ECT proponents. The Commentary notes
that the FDA reports no studies at all in support of this claim.  There are
none. There were, however, 43 individual submissions to the FDA citing
suicidality as an adverse effect (p 68).

Deaths
The FDA report devotes only half a page to this issue. 
A claim first made by the American Psychiatric Association (2001) is
repeated verbatim by the FDA: 'mortality rate of 1:10,000 patient, or
1:80,000 treatments'.
Our literature review (Read & Bentall, 2010) found numerous studies with
mortality rates far in excess of that claimed by the APA and reproduced,
rather uncritically, by the FDA. 
103 deaths were reported to the FDA in individual submissions "The FDA
report appears to have significantly underestimated the mortality rate of
ECT."

Memory Loss
The FDA report fails to include the best designed study to date assessing
autobiographical memory. Despite repeated claims, for 50 years, that ECT is
safe, the first large-scale prospective study of cognitive outcomes
following ECT did not occur until 2007. Prominent ECT advocate Harold
Sackeim, found that autobiographical memory was significantly worse than
pre-ECT levels six months later. At both times the degree of impairment was
significantly related to the number of shocks. [The Sackeim study was
formally submitted to the FDA, by JR, on Dec. 30, 2010, with the Read &
Bentall literature review - which is also uncited] A New Zealand Government
report, commissioned by the Ministry of Health concluded that "ECT may
permanently affect memory" (Ministry of Health, 2004) and bemoans the
"slowness in acceptance by some professional groups that such outcomes are
real and significant in people's lives".

Even the 2001 APA Report has acknowledged that "In some patients the
recovery from retrograde amnesia will be incomplete, and evidence has shown
that ECT can result in persistent or permanent memory loss".
The Commentary concludes: "The FDA report has grossly underestimated the
duration of the memory deficits caused by ECT".

'Subjective' Memory Loss
"The FDA report also repeats the claim that much of the memory loss is
related to the depression rather than to the ECT, using the term 'subjective
memory loss' employed by by ECT proponents to promote this hypothesis. Our
review points out that this oft-made claim has been repeatedly demonstrated
to be unsubstatantiated."

* Dr Read had previously submitted a 2010 research literature review,
co-authored with Professor Richard Bentall (University of Liverpool),
concluding that ECT had no benefits beyond the treatment period, did not
prevent suicide and caused long-lasting, sometimes permanent memory
dysfunction.
Read, J., Bentall, R. (2010). The effectiveness of electroconvulsive
therapy: A literature review. Epidemiologia e Psychiatria Sociale, 19,
333-347.

Unrecognized Dangers Of Formaldehyde

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., who chairs the Cancer Prevention Coalition, says, "The dermatologists and other scientists quoted in the Times appear unaware of the longstanding scientific evidence on the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde. However, this had been detailed in five National Toxicology Program Reports on Carcinogens from 1981 to 2004."
The Times assured its readers that "most of the 180 items tested, largely clothes and bed linens, had low or undetectable levels of formaldehyde that met voluntary industry guidelines." Accordingly, the Times claimed, "Most consumers will probably never have a problem with exposure to formaldehyde," since such low levels "are not likely to irritate most people," other than those wearing wrinkle-resistant clothing.
However, Dr. Epstein points to evidence that links formaldehyde exposure with increased incidence of nasal cancer and breast cancer.
The Times article stated that "The U.S. does not regulate formaldehyde levels in clothing. ... Nor does any government agency require manufacturers to disclose the use of this chemical on labels."
But that could change. On March 5, 2008, Senators Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown, and Mary Landrieu introduced an amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reform bill "that would help protect Americans from dangerous levels of formaldehyde in textiles including clothing..."
The Senators referred to a 1997 CPSC report on formaldehyde, which admitted that "it causes cancer in tests on laboratory animals, and may cause cancer in humans." Accordingly, the Senators requested the CPSC to "regulate and test formaldehyde in textiles - and protect consumers from this poison."
In August 2010, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned that "a small proportion of the U.S. population does have allergic reactions to formaldehyde resins on their clothes." However, the GAO made no recommendations for any regulatory action.
Dr. Epstein supports both regulatory and legislative action based on scientific evidence in the five National Toxicology Program Reports on Carcinogens that classified formaldehyde as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and sufficient evidence in experimental animals.
This evidence was confirmed in a series of reports by the prestigious International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Its 2006 and 2010 reports explicitly warn that formaldehyde is "a known cause of leukemia in experimental animals - and nasal cancer" in humans.
"Strong" evidence of the nasal cancer risk was also cited in the May 2010 President's Cancer Panel report, "Environmental Cancer Risk: What Can We Do Now?"
"Nevertheless," says Dr. Epstein, "and in spite of this explicit evidence, a September 2010 Government Accountability Office report attempted to trivialize the cancer risks of formaldehyde on the alleged grounds that exposure levels are low or 'non-detectable.'"
Of further concern, Dr. Epstein warns, "occupational exposure to formaldehyde has been associated with breast cancer deaths in a 1995 National Cancer Institute report, while environmental exposure has been associated with an increased incidence of breast cancer in a 2005 University of Texas report."
"Disturbingly," observes Dr. Epstein, "none of the dermatologists quoted in the New York Times appear aware of longstanding evidence that most cosmetics and personal care products, commonly used daily by most women, besides on their infants and children, and to a lesser extent men, contain up to eight ingredients which are precursors of formaldehyde."
These include diazolidinyl urea, metheneamine, and quaterniums, each of which readily breaks down on the skin to release formaldehyde, Dr. Epstein explains, warning, "This is then readily absorbed through the skin, and poses unknowing risks of cancer to most of the U.S. population."
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and former President of the Rachel Carson Trust. His awards include the 1998 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention. Dr. Epstein has authored 20 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1978), Cancergate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War (2005) and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009, Benbella Books: www.benbellabooks.com) about carcinogens in cosmetics and personal care products.
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition 
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine 
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health 
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297 
Email: epstein@uic.edu 
www.preventcancer.com

28 Januari 2011

GMO Alfalfa Gets Go Ahead from USDA


What the Heck Happened? The Politics of GM Alfalfa Explained
How did the USDA's plan for peaceful coexistence among alfalfa growers end up with the agency approving GM alfalfa with no restrictions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We are seeing the sell out to Big Bus from the White House day after day - 
USDA abandoning provision to protect organic farmers from genetic contamination
Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety poignantly stated that:
USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.

Little seems to be different at EPA and other agencies as the clear and apparent danger of selling out to the corporatocracy continues.

Cornucopia says:

USDA to Fully Deregulate Monsanto’s Genetically Engineer Alfalfa — Gene Contamination of Feed, Milk, Meat and Other Products to Follow…

"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must."   -  Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
Nonstick kitchenware, Roundup, Vinyl, VOCs, Flame retardants, BPA, Dry-cleaned clothing

27 Januari 2011

What Do I Do With This Millet?

You don't read this blog to hear all about my glorious kitchen successes, where my teeth shine and my hair blows and my children eat everything and say please and thank you. You read this blog to hear my real accounts of my kitchen near misses. My not so great kitchen disasters. And of course my stories of thrown food and kids screaming is enough to make any parent feel good about themselves. This is one such story. And if you are looking for an answer to the question of what to do with millet, I am not sure you will get one from this post. But I did recently buy millet and I did recently cook it, and we all did recently eat it. But what to do with it? Your guess is as good as mine at this point.







Millet is a small but mighty grain. It is completely gluten free. And it is believed that it was the staple grain in China before the cultivation of rice took hold. Even the package told me that. And I was kind of intrigued by the ancient grain thing. I like traditional foods. The site that I just linked to has some really cool info, like that millet is mentioned in the Bible. It is the sixth most important grain in the world serving as a staple grain in countries like China, India, Japan, Egypt and others. Millet is often used to make the very tasty Indian bread roti. It is a very cool site. And the article is not too long--give it a look-sy. Millet is also a good source of protein and iron, b-complex vitamins and it is easily digestible.






I bought whole millet last weekend because I had visions of making a porridge in the morning. I love the way Israeli cous cous is so big and globular and fluffy, but I have issues with it, because I am not sure there is such a thing as whole grain cous cous. Plus it is wheat. I imagined that when millet sucked up enough water that it would be soft and fluffy. So one morning I followed the package directions and sauteed a cup of millet in some butter and then added two cups of water. I was so excited! Here we embarked on our gluten free experiment!



But after 30 minutes, I knew I needed to add some rapadura, or whole cane sugar. So I did. And then I realized that I needed to add some more water. So I did.


The millet tasted a bit like underdone rice. But I was out of time. I had to pack up to get to work on time, put it into bowls for the kids and pack some for myself to eat in the office. I added some cream to mine.


DH said that Thing 1 ate one bite but didn't care for it and Thing 2 ate a few bites before it turned to glue. He said it was positively awful and the kids ended up eating toast with jelly (homemade) for breakfast. Once I got to work, I reheated my millet in the microwave. It was like a brick by the time I got to the office. I added more water and thinned it out. It was still a little underdone, nothing I would serve to guests. But it was kind of a good breakfast. It had some protein (a little, 6-8 grams) and it was very filling. The flavor was decent. But if I had it all to do over again I would take the one cup of millet and boil it in 4 or 5 cups of water. And I would boil it for 45 minutes or an hour.



The bag I bought was a pound of millet, so needless to say I have some extra in the house. The general consensus was that this was a miss. Not a near-miss and not a total disaster. I will make this again. But the next time I would make it correctly. Even the website that I linked to says millet cooks in a ratio of 1 to 3 of grain to water. So to make a porridge you'd need even more. So there you go. Once I get it right though, millet porridge will be a nice breakfast. It will diversify our diet nicely. Plus because it has the protein and no gluten it left me feeling good and solid, not like the blood sugar spike from wheat.








What do you know about millet? Have you ever cooked it? What else should I do with my millet?




The Post is shared with Friday F*#@ Ups and Triumphs www.thetableofpromise.blogspot.com

26 Januari 2011

Cop-Out Wednesday: Independent Analysis Concludes Taco Bell Ground Beef Only 35% Beef

I had virtually no time yesterday, but in the 15 seconds that I was online yesterday I managed to come across an article that my girlfriend had shared on Facebook. The article was about an independent analysis of the ground beef at Taco Bell. Apparently it is 35% beef and 65% fillers like wheat oats (what is that even? The last time I checked wheat and oats were two totally different species!), maltodextrin a corn based sugar/ stabilizer and soy lecithin another thickener. Delicious right???

I am convinced that about a third of those that read this blog are my facebook friends. So, sorry about the duplication. But I felt that the article so shocking that I couldn't resist posting. Besides, I am seriously backed up with work, but better to post late than not at all!

The article is so shocking because Taco Bell has avoided disclosing the contents of it's food for years. I even mentioned a couple weeks ago in my post on meat grades that old rumor about Taco Bell served grade "Z" meat. That isn't true, but now we get some confirmation about where the rumors came from. Also, the government has comparatively low standards (in my opinion) of the legal definitions of "food", so the idea that a major player in the fast food industry is serving "meat" that doesn't meet the legal definition of "meat" is huge. And furthermore, beef is a gluten free food, so the addition if allergens like wheat and oats is enormous. Especially considering that the quantities have not been previously disclosed.

No one reading this post probably eats at Taco Bell today. But it's likely you used too. But still, take a look at the article below and feel free to share this post. This info should reach every pair of eyes in the country. Because I truly believe that the average American wants to eat real food, it's just that they don't know that they currently aren't.

And let this article serve as a warning to McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC, and all the other regional chains-if you are serving us ground up soy and corn or other grains that is marketed as beef, you better clean up your act. Because Americans don't like being deceived. And while we have only started our journey, the public is asking questions. And when the answers come out, we are sharing everything on social media. Bad news travels fast.

Taco Bell Sued Over Meat That's Just 35% Beef

Holistic Approach to Healthy Living, Weight Loss, Diet & Exercise

Overview


Holistic living is a dedication to a lifestyle of balance and health. According to Linda Mundorff in her book, "Take Control: A Guide to Holistic Living," it involves several things, including making time for family, getting along with others, spirituality and relaxation time. It also requires a commitment to a healthy diet and staying physically active. There are numerous ways you can go about this holistically. An understanding of the fundamentals of health and the body will better help you along your path.



Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/279198-holistic-approach-to-healthy-living-weight-loss-diet-exercise/#ixzz1C8Uc3ndY

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...