From the NY Times.
"Clamshell containers on supermarket shelves in the United States may depict verdant fields, tangles of vines and ruby red tomatoes. But at this time of year, the tomatoes, peppers and basil certified as organic by the Agriculture Department often hail from the Mexican desert, and are nurtured with intensive irrigation.
Growers here on the Baja Peninsula, the epicenter of Mexico’s thriving new organic export sector, describe their toil amid the cactuses as “planting the beach.”
Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe’s and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to the United States by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round.
But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects the environment.
The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas, wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.
From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina that grow organic food for the United States market are enjoying their busiest season.
“People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says ‘organic’ — that doesn’t tell people all they need to know,” said Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. He said some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices, like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies.
Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in southern Baja are categorized as over-exploited by the Mexican water authority. With sophisticated irrigation systems and shade houses, they say, farmers are becoming more skilled at conserving water. They are focusing new farms in “microclimates” near underexploited aquifers, such as in the shadow of a mountain, said Fernando Frías, a water specialist with the environmental group Pronatura Noroeste.
They also point out that the organic business has transformed what was once a poor area of subsistence farms and where even the low-paying jobs in the tourist hotels and restaurants in nearby Cabo San Lucas have become scarcer during the recession.
To carry the Agriculture Department’s organic label on their produce, farms in the United States and abroad must comply with a long list of standards that prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones and pesticides, for example. But the checklist makes few specific demands for what would broadly be called environmental sustainability, even though the 1990 law that created the standards was intended to promote ecological balance and biodiversity as well as soil and water health.
Experts agree that in general organic farms tend to be less damaging to the environment than conventional farms. In the past, however, “organic agriculture used to be sustainable agriculture, but now that is not always the case,” said Michael Bomford, a scientist at Kentucky State University who specializes in sustainable agriculture. He added that intense organic agriculture had also put stress on aquifers in California.
Some organic standard setters are beginning to refine their criteria so that organic products better match their natural ideals. Krav, a major Swedish organic certification program, allows produce grown in greenhouses to carry its “organic” label only if the buildings use at least 80 percent renewable fuel, for example. And last year the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Standards Board revised its rules to require that for an “organic milk” label, cows had to be at least partly fed by grazing in open pastures rather than standing full time in feedlots.
But each decision to narrow the definition of “organic” involves an inevitable tug-of-war among farmers, food producers, supermarkets and environmentalists. While the United States’ regulations for organic certification require that growers use practices that protect water resources, it is hard to define a specific sustainable level of water use for a single farm “because aquifer depletion is the result of many farmers’ over-utilizing the resource,” said Miles McEvoy, head of the National Organic Program at the Agriculture Department.
While the original organic ideal was to eat only local, seasonal produce, shoppers who buy their organics at supermarkets, from Whole Foods to Walmart, expect to find tomatoes in December and are very sensitive to price. Both factors stoke the demand for imports. Few areas in the United States can farm organic produce in the winter without resorting to energy-guzzling hothouses. In addition, American labor costs are high. Day laborers who come to pick tomatoes in this part of Baja make about $10 a day, nearly twice the local minimum wage. Tomato pickers in Florida may earn $80 a day in high season.
Manuel Verdugo, 42, began organic tomato farming on desert land in San José del Cabo five years ago and now owns 30 acres in several locations. Each week he sends two and a half tons of cherry, plum and beefsteak tomatoes to the United States under the brand name Tiky Cabo.
He has invested in irrigation systems that drip water directly onto plants’ roots rather than channeling it through open canals. He is building large shade houses that cover his crops to keep out pests and minimize evaporation. Even so, he cannot farm 10 acres in the nearby hamlet of La Cuenca because the wells there are dry.
At another five-year-old organic farm, Rosario Castillo says he can cultivate only 19 acres of the 100 he has earmarked for organic production, although he dug a well seven months ago to gain better access to the aquifer. The authorities ration pumping and have not granted him permission to clear native cactuses. “We have very little water here, and you have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get it,” Mr. Castillo said.
Many growers blame tourist development — hotels and golf courses — for the water scarcity, and this has been a major problem in coastal areas. But farming can also be a significant drain. According to one study in an area of northern Baja called Ojos Negros, a boom in the planting of green onions for export a decade ago lowered the water table by about 16 inches a year. “They were pumping a lot of groundwater, and that was making some people rich on both sides of the border at the expense of the environment,” said Victor Miguel Ponce, a professor of hydrology at San Diego State University.
The logistics of getting water and transporting large volumes of perishable produce favors bigger producers. Some of the largest are American-owned, like Sueño Tropical, a vast farm with rows of shade houses lined up in the desert that caters exclusively to the American market.
While traditional organic farmers saw a blemish or odd shape simply as nature’s variations, workers at Sueño Tropical are instructed to cull tomatoes that do not meet the uniform shape, size and cosmetic requirement of clients like Whole Foods. Those “seconds” are sold locally.
Yet the connection to the United States has brought other kinds of benefits. Del Cabo Cooperative, which serves as a broker for hundreds of local farmers, provides seeds for its Mexican growers and hires roving agronomists and entomologists to assist them in tending their crops without chemicals. As the American market expands, said John Graham, a coordinator of operations at Del Cabo, he is always looking to bring new growers into his network — especially those whose farms draw on distant aquifers where water is still abundant."
This kind of goes right along with what I see happening at my favorite health food store--it has an online catalog (for local members only)--people ordering grain- and soy-filled junk foods that are readily available in any store (we're talking frozen pizzas, boxed cereals, and microwave burritos), but these are "special" because they're made with so-called organic ingredients, but no thought is given into what it took to get those organic ingredients here, or in their junk food item, or even if the ingredients are verifiably organic (or is it just the wrapper?)!
Do we really know if the ingredients are organic? Don't even get me started on "fair trade" or "eco-friendly." And how exactly does one go about creating a mass-market organic shampoo, aluminum foil, zippy bag, or body cream/lotion/makeup, etc.?
Their eating out of season really slays me too--yeah, be expected to pay $6.00/pint for blueberries in the dead of winter, or $4.00/bag for apples (from China) in summer. They also feel free to indulge in foods that have to be shipped all the way from Australia and New Zealand, yet shriek about carbon footprints while sipping a soy shake in their hybrid cars!
Are these people eating in the spirit intended for a health food store? In my mind, no--not even close. To me, there is no health involved in buying processed junk foods like this, no matter where the ingredients come from, or how they're grown and used. It's all about the feel-good designation on the container, and the increased price.
A frozen burrito, frozen pizza, boxed cereal, supposedly organic candy, sodas, and the like is STILL JUNK, no matter the designation of the ingredients, simply because it's been processed for maximum profit and not with your health in mind...in other words, it's a MARKETING TACTIC more than anything else.
Did you know health food stores take SNAP benefit cards? Do you know how many people I see using them in my store? I stand behind them in line to pay, and I mentally tally up the excess dollars blown on marketing THAT WE THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR! The same junk foods that they used to buy commercially are being bought here, only more's getting spent on them--a taxpayer-funded feel-good trip through life. I'm not saying SNAP people shouldn't be allowed to buy health food store items, but GET SOME FOODS THAT ARE ACTUALLY HEALTHY, like fresh vegetation, fresh fruits, meat cuts, and pastured eggs and butter, not microwaveable crap, cookies, cereal, and sodas--make the most of the benefits while you have them!
The only way to really know if your food is organic and sustainable is to grow it yourself, and make your own burritos, breakfast foods, pizzas, shampoo, lotion, and whatever else you can within reason, and screw the makeup (for both you and the packaging).
...and that recycled toilet paper and aluminum foil? I got news for ya--it's ALL recycled.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Confessions of a Surgeon--What Goes On Inside the Operating Room
From the Wall St. Journal. Adapted from the book "Confessions of a Surgeon."
"Get this thing out of my operating room!" The colon stapling device exploded into pieces when I hurled it against the operating room wall. I was fed up with its failure to work as advertised by the manufacturer. The stapler had probably cost less than $100 to make. The hospital paid $300 for it (and then billed the patient, or insurance company, $1,200). Now the thing didn't even work.
I do not react well to imperfection inside the operating room. I cannot tolerate it in the tools I use, the staff assisting me, or myself. Defective devices—I can have them replaced. Unmotivated staff—I can have them removed from the operating room. I haven't quite figured out yet what to do with myself.
Surgeons are control freaks. We have to be. And when things don't go our way in the operating room, we can have outbursts. Some of us curse, some throw instruments, others have tantrums. These explosions are a go-to reaction when we're confronted with the ghosts of prior complications.
Several months earlier, I had performed the same operation on a 66-year-old patient, using an identical stapling device. Everything seemed to have worked perfectly until the patient developed severe complications four days after his surgery. We soon discovered the cause: the nonperformance of the stapling device.
When the stapler hit the wall, I had been in the operating room for more than four hours, struggling to remove a diseased segment of colon from someone I'll call Mr. Baker, a 330-pound middle-aged man. Trying to keep his fat out of my way during the operation had been a continuous battle. The pain in my upper back reminded me that I was losing the fight.
Obese patients create more physical work for a surgeon during any type of procedure. The operations take longer, tie our upper body in knots and leave us with fatigue and frustration. Obese patients also automatically face an increased risk of complications like infection, pneumonia and blood clots during recovery.
If the difficulties posed by Mr. Baker's obesity weren't enough, he had been steadily losing blood during the procedure. His tissue reacted to the slightest graze with more bleeding.
Why does this guy have to bleed like this? As if it were his fault. Here I was blaming him, even though I was the one causing the bleeding. But in surgery, it always has to be someone else's fault. It's never the surgeon's fault.
Interestingly, after an operation, most surgeons tend to underestimate the amount of blood that was lost. Whether it's ego or denial, they can't help themselves.
The reality is that blood loss can be measured. Hospitals know which surgeons are losing blood, and how much, during every operation. They have data from their operating rooms, but the public cannot get access to this information. And this information matters, too. A large amount of blood lost during an operation can be a harbinger of complications to come.
Like poker players and their cards, surgeons are sometimes only as good as the patients they are dealt. Obesity, excessive scar tissue from a previous surgery in the same area, disease that is more advanced than anticipated—any one of these physiological conditions creates more work and a more difficult environment for the surgeon.
Even before the surgery begins, underlying or chronic conditions such as a history of hypertension, cardiac disease or lung disease put patients at risk for complications. Today, based on your medical history, surgeons can usually analyze, quite accurately, your risk of complications (or death) before setting foot in the operating room. All you have to do is ask.
I had no idea how bad Mr. Baker's colon disease would be until I opened him up and looked inside. It was a mess. If I were playing poker and this man's anatomy were the hand dealt, it would be time to fold.
"That is one of the ugliest pieces of colon I've ever seen." I grabbed the scrub nurse's hand. "See, touch that thing. Look how inflamed it is." When given the chance, scrub nurses love to touch organs in the operating room. "OK, don't poke it too hard, it will start to bleed again." Her hand drew back onto the instrument stand. I was in for a long night.
Tonight, the diseased colon on the menu was angry, cursing and taunting me: "Good luck, Mr. Big-Time Surgeon, trying to remove me." Surgeons frequently have conversations with the body parts or organs they are trying to remove. We also have conversations with ourselves; it's a way to blow off steam while our minds scramble to deal with the unexpected.
"By the time you are done with me, your back muscles are going to be in a heap of pain," the colon went on. "Looking forward to that drive home in your new Porsche? Well, too bad. It's going to have to wait. You better take your time or I'll come back to haunt you in a few days." I could hear the colon laughing at me. I was crying inside.
"Nurse, hand me a curved scissors." Finally, I was granted a little success in freeing up one end of the colon. But that was short-lived. More bleeding. I hate this. And I had cut myself. I stared at my finger. "Nurse, I need a new glove." The outer skin under my glove was breached, but not deeply.
"Almost got you," the colon said. I could not shut the thing up. "How do you know I don't have hepatitis or H.I.V.?"
Just great, I thought. Now I have something else to worry about.
"You're going to earn your fee tonight, Dr. Surgeon." The colon kept talking. "I hope you're not in this business for the money, like the last guy who operated on me. Between what Medicare pays you, the phone calls in the middle of night and the time you spend guiding my recovery, I figure you will make about $200 an hour for this operation. How does that grab you?"
Should have gone for my M.B.A., I mumbled to myself. Big mistake going into medicine, never mind surgery. If I could only go back and do it over again.
The colon's rant continued: "Wait, subtract what it costs you in overhead to bill for this operation (double that if the claim gets rejected), plus malpractice costs for the day, and we are now at $150 an hour. And how could I leave out the biggest expense of all? The price of the mental stress from worrying about me after the surgery (and double that if there's a complication). Now, I figure you're under $100 an hour. Plumbers make more than that just to step inside your house. I bet they sleep well at night. Just remember, Dr. Surgeon, nobody put a gun to your head. You chose this profession."
I could swear that the thing was laughing at me. "Forget about keeping those dinner reservations tonight. You and me, we're going for breakfast once this is over."
Wow--and all we get to do is sleep through it! Unless you want to end up this guy's next story, I suggest you start taking better care of yourself. Too bad the guy being operated on didn't--maybe he'll recognize himself in the pages.
"Get this thing out of my operating room!" The colon stapling device exploded into pieces when I hurled it against the operating room wall. I was fed up with its failure to work as advertised by the manufacturer. The stapler had probably cost less than $100 to make. The hospital paid $300 for it (and then billed the patient, or insurance company, $1,200). Now the thing didn't even work.
I do not react well to imperfection inside the operating room. I cannot tolerate it in the tools I use, the staff assisting me, or myself. Defective devices—I can have them replaced. Unmotivated staff—I can have them removed from the operating room. I haven't quite figured out yet what to do with myself.
Surgeons are control freaks. We have to be. And when things don't go our way in the operating room, we can have outbursts. Some of us curse, some throw instruments, others have tantrums. These explosions are a go-to reaction when we're confronted with the ghosts of prior complications.
Several months earlier, I had performed the same operation on a 66-year-old patient, using an identical stapling device. Everything seemed to have worked perfectly until the patient developed severe complications four days after his surgery. We soon discovered the cause: the nonperformance of the stapling device.
When the stapler hit the wall, I had been in the operating room for more than four hours, struggling to remove a diseased segment of colon from someone I'll call Mr. Baker, a 330-pound middle-aged man. Trying to keep his fat out of my way during the operation had been a continuous battle. The pain in my upper back reminded me that I was losing the fight.
Obese patients create more physical work for a surgeon during any type of procedure. The operations take longer, tie our upper body in knots and leave us with fatigue and frustration. Obese patients also automatically face an increased risk of complications like infection, pneumonia and blood clots during recovery.
If the difficulties posed by Mr. Baker's obesity weren't enough, he had been steadily losing blood during the procedure. His tissue reacted to the slightest graze with more bleeding.
Why does this guy have to bleed like this? As if it were his fault. Here I was blaming him, even though I was the one causing the bleeding. But in surgery, it always has to be someone else's fault. It's never the surgeon's fault.
Interestingly, after an operation, most surgeons tend to underestimate the amount of blood that was lost. Whether it's ego or denial, they can't help themselves.
The reality is that blood loss can be measured. Hospitals know which surgeons are losing blood, and how much, during every operation. They have data from their operating rooms, but the public cannot get access to this information. And this information matters, too. A large amount of blood lost during an operation can be a harbinger of complications to come.
Like poker players and their cards, surgeons are sometimes only as good as the patients they are dealt. Obesity, excessive scar tissue from a previous surgery in the same area, disease that is more advanced than anticipated—any one of these physiological conditions creates more work and a more difficult environment for the surgeon.
Even before the surgery begins, underlying or chronic conditions such as a history of hypertension, cardiac disease or lung disease put patients at risk for complications. Today, based on your medical history, surgeons can usually analyze, quite accurately, your risk of complications (or death) before setting foot in the operating room. All you have to do is ask.
I had no idea how bad Mr. Baker's colon disease would be until I opened him up and looked inside. It was a mess. If I were playing poker and this man's anatomy were the hand dealt, it would be time to fold.
"That is one of the ugliest pieces of colon I've ever seen." I grabbed the scrub nurse's hand. "See, touch that thing. Look how inflamed it is." When given the chance, scrub nurses love to touch organs in the operating room. "OK, don't poke it too hard, it will start to bleed again." Her hand drew back onto the instrument stand. I was in for a long night.
Tonight, the diseased colon on the menu was angry, cursing and taunting me: "Good luck, Mr. Big-Time Surgeon, trying to remove me." Surgeons frequently have conversations with the body parts or organs they are trying to remove. We also have conversations with ourselves; it's a way to blow off steam while our minds scramble to deal with the unexpected.
"By the time you are done with me, your back muscles are going to be in a heap of pain," the colon went on. "Looking forward to that drive home in your new Porsche? Well, too bad. It's going to have to wait. You better take your time or I'll come back to haunt you in a few days." I could hear the colon laughing at me. I was crying inside.
"Nurse, hand me a curved scissors." Finally, I was granted a little success in freeing up one end of the colon. But that was short-lived. More bleeding. I hate this. And I had cut myself. I stared at my finger. "Nurse, I need a new glove." The outer skin under my glove was breached, but not deeply.
"Almost got you," the colon said. I could not shut the thing up. "How do you know I don't have hepatitis or H.I.V.?"
Just great, I thought. Now I have something else to worry about.
"You're going to earn your fee tonight, Dr. Surgeon." The colon kept talking. "I hope you're not in this business for the money, like the last guy who operated on me. Between what Medicare pays you, the phone calls in the middle of night and the time you spend guiding my recovery, I figure you will make about $200 an hour for this operation. How does that grab you?"
Should have gone for my M.B.A., I mumbled to myself. Big mistake going into medicine, never mind surgery. If I could only go back and do it over again.
The colon's rant continued: "Wait, subtract what it costs you in overhead to bill for this operation (double that if the claim gets rejected), plus malpractice costs for the day, and we are now at $150 an hour. And how could I leave out the biggest expense of all? The price of the mental stress from worrying about me after the surgery (and double that if there's a complication). Now, I figure you're under $100 an hour. Plumbers make more than that just to step inside your house. I bet they sleep well at night. Just remember, Dr. Surgeon, nobody put a gun to your head. You chose this profession."
I could swear that the thing was laughing at me. "Forget about keeping those dinner reservations tonight. You and me, we're going for breakfast once this is over."
Wow--and all we get to do is sleep through it! Unless you want to end up this guy's next story, I suggest you start taking better care of yourself. Too bad the guy being operated on didn't--maybe he'll recognize himself in the pages.
Friday, December 30, 2011
USDA Mandating Nutrition Labels For Certain Meat Cuts
From WFIE News 14 (KY).
"Pretty soon you'll be able to see just how many calories and fat grams are in that cut of meat you're buying.
The USDA is mandating nutrition facts be added to dozens of meat and poultry items.
Those nutrition facts were supposed to be in place by the beginning of the new year, but the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service just pushed that deadline back, giving retailers until March first to add the labels.
This rule doesn't apply to everything, just about 40 different meat and poultry products, including ground or chopped meat or poultry or raw cuts.
Dewig Meats in Haubstadt has already added nutrition facts to its labels for some single-ingredient meats.
The USDA says the idea is to give consumers nutrition facts so they can make informed decisions about what they eat.
At Dewig's, they tell 14 News it's important for consumers to keep in mind that these nutrition facts aren't specific to every single cut of meat, they're more of a general guideline.
"It's an average, it's not an exact science because every hog or every beef is not produced equally. They're just like humans, everyone's different, there's a little difference between me and you and each beef you run through. So, there's no way to be an exact science on it," says Co-Owner of Dewig Meats Dean Dewig.
Among the nutrition facts that are required to be included are the number of calories, grams of total fat and saturated fat.
Again, this is set to go into effect March 1, 2012."
It seems the UNprocessed meat is now going to have to undergo the same labeling as the PROCESSED meat-like substances. Are the labels for grass-fed going to be the same as the commercial meat "generalized" labels, or will they have their own generalized labels?
My question is "when are they going to start labelized accounting for all the extras in the commercial meat, like hormones, antibiotics, and the like"? Does this meat, through its feed, contain soy? I'd bet diabetics would want to know that one!
"Pretty soon you'll be able to see just how many calories and fat grams are in that cut of meat you're buying.
The USDA is mandating nutrition facts be added to dozens of meat and poultry items.
Those nutrition facts were supposed to be in place by the beginning of the new year, but the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service just pushed that deadline back, giving retailers until March first to add the labels.
This rule doesn't apply to everything, just about 40 different meat and poultry products, including ground or chopped meat or poultry or raw cuts.
Dewig Meats in Haubstadt has already added nutrition facts to its labels for some single-ingredient meats.
The USDA says the idea is to give consumers nutrition facts so they can make informed decisions about what they eat.
At Dewig's, they tell 14 News it's important for consumers to keep in mind that these nutrition facts aren't specific to every single cut of meat, they're more of a general guideline.
"It's an average, it's not an exact science because every hog or every beef is not produced equally. They're just like humans, everyone's different, there's a little difference between me and you and each beef you run through. So, there's no way to be an exact science on it," says Co-Owner of Dewig Meats Dean Dewig.
Among the nutrition facts that are required to be included are the number of calories, grams of total fat and saturated fat.
Again, this is set to go into effect March 1, 2012."
It seems the UNprocessed meat is now going to have to undergo the same labeling as the PROCESSED meat-like substances. Are the labels for grass-fed going to be the same as the commercial meat "generalized" labels, or will they have their own generalized labels?
My question is "when are they going to start labelized accounting for all the extras in the commercial meat, like hormones, antibiotics, and the like"? Does this meat, through its feed, contain soy? I'd bet diabetics would want to know that one!
Fruit and Veggie Lovers Not Immune to Weight Gain
From Yahoo Health. Does this include vegans and vegetarians? Is it because if the massive amounts of starch and sugars involved?
"A large new European study finds that simply eating a lot of fruits and vegetables may not be enough to stave off the weight gain that often comes with age -- except for people who recently quit smoking.
Researchers found that of nearly 374,000 adults in 10 European countries, who were followed for five years, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables were no less likely to gain weight once other factors -- like calorie intake and exercise habits -- were taken into account.
The results, reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, are not an excuse to skip the fruits and veggies, however.
Plant foods are full of nutrients that may help ward off chronic diseases like heart disease and some cancers, note the researchers, led by Anne-Claire Vergnaud of Imperial College London in the UK.
And in some past studies that assigned overweight people to eat more fruits and vegetables, the diet change has seemed to help.
But the current findings do point to the importance of overall lifestyle in maintaining weight as one ages.
For the study, Vergnaud's team looked at diet and weight information collected from adults between 25 and 70 years old.
Over five years, the study participants gained about one pound per year, on average.
Among men, weight gain generally dipped somewhat as their fruit and vegetable intake rose. But that link disappeared when the researchers accounted for other factors, like the men's daily calories, exercise habits and education levels.
Among overweight women, those who said they ate the most vegetables tended to gain more weight over the next five years.
That, the researchers speculate, could be because some of those women were on weight-loss diets that encourage eating a lot of vegetables. Many people who go on special diets notoriously see their weight yo-yo over time.
There was one group for whom higher fruit and vegetable intake was linked to less weight gain: people who quit smoking during the study period. The reasons are not clear, Vergnaud's team says.
But they speculate that healthy eating habits may help prevent the weight gain that many smokers experience when they try to kick the habit.
If that's true, they write, "this finding may have important public health implications because weight gain after smoking cessation is a frequent reason for relapse."
In general, experts urge people to get plenty of fruits and vegetables for the good of overall health. The "DASH" diet recommended for lowering blood pressure and cholesterol suggests four to five servings of fruit and the same number of vegetable servings each day.
A half-cup of cooked vegetables or a medium-sized piece of fresh fruit would be examples of a serving.
Studies suggest that the average adult in the U.S. gets only two or three servings of fruits and vegetables combined each day."
"A large new European study finds that simply eating a lot of fruits and vegetables may not be enough to stave off the weight gain that often comes with age -- except for people who recently quit smoking.
Researchers found that of nearly 374,000 adults in 10 European countries, who were followed for five years, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables were no less likely to gain weight once other factors -- like calorie intake and exercise habits -- were taken into account.
The results, reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, are not an excuse to skip the fruits and veggies, however.
Plant foods are full of nutrients that may help ward off chronic diseases like heart disease and some cancers, note the researchers, led by Anne-Claire Vergnaud of Imperial College London in the UK.
And in some past studies that assigned overweight people to eat more fruits and vegetables, the diet change has seemed to help.
But the current findings do point to the importance of overall lifestyle in maintaining weight as one ages.
For the study, Vergnaud's team looked at diet and weight information collected from adults between 25 and 70 years old.
Over five years, the study participants gained about one pound per year, on average.
Among men, weight gain generally dipped somewhat as their fruit and vegetable intake rose. But that link disappeared when the researchers accounted for other factors, like the men's daily calories, exercise habits and education levels.
Among overweight women, those who said they ate the most vegetables tended to gain more weight over the next five years.
That, the researchers speculate, could be because some of those women were on weight-loss diets that encourage eating a lot of vegetables. Many people who go on special diets notoriously see their weight yo-yo over time.
There was one group for whom higher fruit and vegetable intake was linked to less weight gain: people who quit smoking during the study period. The reasons are not clear, Vergnaud's team says.
But they speculate that healthy eating habits may help prevent the weight gain that many smokers experience when they try to kick the habit.
If that's true, they write, "this finding may have important public health implications because weight gain after smoking cessation is a frequent reason for relapse."
In general, experts urge people to get plenty of fruits and vegetables for the good of overall health. The "DASH" diet recommended for lowering blood pressure and cholesterol suggests four to five servings of fruit and the same number of vegetable servings each day.
A half-cup of cooked vegetables or a medium-sized piece of fresh fruit would be examples of a serving.
Studies suggest that the average adult in the U.S. gets only two or three servings of fruits and vegetables combined each day."
Brain Injury From High-Fat Foods May Be Why Diets Fail
From the Seattle Times. My questions will be at the bottom, and boy do I have questions!
"You've heard "a minute on the lips, years on the hips," or some variation. But did it make you put down that frosted butter cookie?
No? OK, here's another bit of research to snack on: After humans and rodents eat a high-fat diet, their brains begin to show evidence of injuries in just 24 hours. If they keep eating that yummy fatty stuff continuously, the area of their brains that regulates weight — the hypothalamus — will show evidence of serious inflammation and structural damage.
Researchers at the University of Washington and other institutions say they've found the first evidence that "hypothalamic neuron injury" is associated with obesity caused by a high-fat diet in rodents and humans.
That may help explain, researchers said, why dieting and exercise often lead right back to a "set weight" for obese individuals.
"Obese individuals are biologically defending their elevated body weight," said Dr. Michael Schwartz, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington and the senior author of the paper to be published in the Jan. 3 edition of The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Eager to explain why that set point seems to exert so much control over a person's weight, Schwartz said, numerous researchers have speculated about the existence of "fundamental changes" to brain neuro-circuits that control energy balance.
The findings suggest that both in humans and rodents, "Obesity is associated with neuronal injury in a brain area crucial for body weight control," researchers wrote.
Schwartz said the findings show "solid evidence of a change affecting the key hypothalamic area for body weight control with the potential to explain the problem."
Obesity is clearly on people's minds, and not just for the holidays.
In a survey commissioned by Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and released this week, Puget Sound-area adults singled out obesity as their top health issue of most concern now and in the near future, beating out cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and aging.
Obesity topped cancer by greater than 3 to 1 as the most concerning health issue today and by almost 3 to 1 as the biggest anticipated health issue 10 years from now.
In the survey, which reached 600 adults in Puget Sound-area counties, 56 percent said they had gained 10 pounds in the past decade.
Dr. Scott Ramsey, director of SCCA's Cancer Prevention Clinic, said obesity can put people at risk for several types of cancer, along with diabetes, heart disease and joint problems.
In the brain-injury study, which looked at human brains through MRI scans, researchers said their work was only a step in the right direction, and listed many caveats. They used rodent strains that were genetically predisposed to diet-induced obesity, for example, and similar results might not occur with obesity-resistant strains.
If you're really set on that butter cookie, you might consider this, too: "We did not prove cause and effect between the hypothalamic neuron injury and defense of elevated body weight — that comes next," Schwartz said."
My questions:
1. Doesn't the brain NEED fat?
2. What kinds of fats are you referring to specifically?
3. What does this have to do with our ingestion of starches and subsequent storage of excess sugar that has been converted to fat?
4. Is this a way of telling us all that "it's all in our heads"?
4. Who funded this thing, and does it have any relation to this study?
"You've heard "a minute on the lips, years on the hips," or some variation. But did it make you put down that frosted butter cookie?
No? OK, here's another bit of research to snack on: After humans and rodents eat a high-fat diet, their brains begin to show evidence of injuries in just 24 hours. If they keep eating that yummy fatty stuff continuously, the area of their brains that regulates weight — the hypothalamus — will show evidence of serious inflammation and structural damage.
Researchers at the University of Washington and other institutions say they've found the first evidence that "hypothalamic neuron injury" is associated with obesity caused by a high-fat diet in rodents and humans.
That may help explain, researchers said, why dieting and exercise often lead right back to a "set weight" for obese individuals.
"Obese individuals are biologically defending their elevated body weight," said Dr. Michael Schwartz, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington and the senior author of the paper to be published in the Jan. 3 edition of The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Eager to explain why that set point seems to exert so much control over a person's weight, Schwartz said, numerous researchers have speculated about the existence of "fundamental changes" to brain neuro-circuits that control energy balance.
The findings suggest that both in humans and rodents, "Obesity is associated with neuronal injury in a brain area crucial for body weight control," researchers wrote.
Schwartz said the findings show "solid evidence of a change affecting the key hypothalamic area for body weight control with the potential to explain the problem."
Obesity is clearly on people's minds, and not just for the holidays.
In a survey commissioned by Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and released this week, Puget Sound-area adults singled out obesity as their top health issue of most concern now and in the near future, beating out cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and aging.
Obesity topped cancer by greater than 3 to 1 as the most concerning health issue today and by almost 3 to 1 as the biggest anticipated health issue 10 years from now.
In the survey, which reached 600 adults in Puget Sound-area counties, 56 percent said they had gained 10 pounds in the past decade.
Dr. Scott Ramsey, director of SCCA's Cancer Prevention Clinic, said obesity can put people at risk for several types of cancer, along with diabetes, heart disease and joint problems.
In the brain-injury study, which looked at human brains through MRI scans, researchers said their work was only a step in the right direction, and listed many caveats. They used rodent strains that were genetically predisposed to diet-induced obesity, for example, and similar results might not occur with obesity-resistant strains.
If you're really set on that butter cookie, you might consider this, too: "We did not prove cause and effect between the hypothalamic neuron injury and defense of elevated body weight — that comes next," Schwartz said."
My questions:
1. Doesn't the brain NEED fat?
2. What kinds of fats are you referring to specifically?
3. What does this have to do with our ingestion of starches and subsequent storage of excess sugar that has been converted to fat?
4. Is this a way of telling us all that "it's all in our heads"?
4. Who funded this thing, and does it have any relation to this study?
Are Global Market Forces Linked to Obesity?
From HealthDay News.
"Nations with open trade policies have greater densities of fast food restaurants and higher rates of obesity than those with more trade controls, a new study has found.
"It's not by chance that countries with the highest obesity rates and fast food restaurants are those in the forefront of market liberalization, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, versus countries like Japan and Norway, with more regulated and restrictive trade policies," lead researcher Roberto De Vogli, an associate professor in the University of Michigan School of Public Health, said in a university news release.
For example, the analysis of data from 26 wealthy nations showed that the United States has 7.5 fast food restaurants per 100,000 people, and the density in Canada is 7.4 per 100,000. Obesity rates in the United States are 31 percent for men and 33 percent for women, and obesity rates in Canada are about 23 percent for men and women.
In comparison, Japan has 0.13 fast food restaurants per 100,000 people and Norway has 0.19 per 100,000 people. Obesity rates in Japan are 2.9 percent for men and 3.3 percent for women. Obesity rates in Norway are 6.4 percent for men and 5.9 percent for women, according to the study published in the December issue of the journal Critical Public Health.
The effect that market forces have on obesity is largely overlooked, according to De Vogli.
"In my opinion, the public debate is too much focused on individual genetics and other individual factors, and overlooks the global forces in society that are shaping behaviors worldwide. If you look at trends over time for obesity, it's shocking," he said in the news release.
"Since the 1980s, since the advent of trade liberalization policies that have indirectly . . . promoted transnational food companies . . . we see rates that have tripled or quadrupled. There is no biological, genetic, psychological or community level factor that can explain this. Only a global type of change can explain this," De Vogli stated."
Okay, let's try this one: what else has gone global in the last few decades besides fast food? Try PROCESSED FOODS, like Kraft, for one. I can't think of a single product of Kraft's that doesn't include grains in it. Processed food manufacturers have amped up the amounts of sugar and salt in their products over the years, and even more just recently in light of proposed (but failed) legislation regulating the amount of salt in their products--that way, if they had to cut back, they wouldn't lose taste or customer base.
We subsidize grains and fattening oils, food processors turn this boon into a global powerhouse, and voila! Obesity is spread. Fast food has little to nothing to do with it, because few can afford it overseas. Let me give you an example: in Italy, when I lived there, a Big Mac meal in Rome (at the time, the only Mickey D's in the area) was $9.00 and something--here, you could get the same food for less than $5, and the only patrons I saw in there were Americans. Now, a decade later, and a commodity boom later, what do you think happened to the price of that Big Mac meal (both here and abroad)?
If people overseas couldn't afford it then, they REALLY can't afford it now!
For what it's worth, I could get a decent burger made with beer in the meat, topped with a fried egg, and served with homemade fries and iced tea for less than what a trip to Rome Mickey D's cost me, and the pub I found it at was only a couple of blocks from my Italy apartment. The pub owner/cook was German, and man could he cook! I saw all kinds of people at his place--young, old, American, Italian, German, you name it.
"Nations with open trade policies have greater densities of fast food restaurants and higher rates of obesity than those with more trade controls, a new study has found.
"It's not by chance that countries with the highest obesity rates and fast food restaurants are those in the forefront of market liberalization, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, versus countries like Japan and Norway, with more regulated and restrictive trade policies," lead researcher Roberto De Vogli, an associate professor in the University of Michigan School of Public Health, said in a university news release.
For example, the analysis of data from 26 wealthy nations showed that the United States has 7.5 fast food restaurants per 100,000 people, and the density in Canada is 7.4 per 100,000. Obesity rates in the United States are 31 percent for men and 33 percent for women, and obesity rates in Canada are about 23 percent for men and women.
In comparison, Japan has 0.13 fast food restaurants per 100,000 people and Norway has 0.19 per 100,000 people. Obesity rates in Japan are 2.9 percent for men and 3.3 percent for women. Obesity rates in Norway are 6.4 percent for men and 5.9 percent for women, according to the study published in the December issue of the journal Critical Public Health.
The effect that market forces have on obesity is largely overlooked, according to De Vogli.
"In my opinion, the public debate is too much focused on individual genetics and other individual factors, and overlooks the global forces in society that are shaping behaviors worldwide. If you look at trends over time for obesity, it's shocking," he said in the news release.
"Since the 1980s, since the advent of trade liberalization policies that have indirectly . . . promoted transnational food companies . . . we see rates that have tripled or quadrupled. There is no biological, genetic, psychological or community level factor that can explain this. Only a global type of change can explain this," De Vogli stated."
Okay, let's try this one: what else has gone global in the last few decades besides fast food? Try PROCESSED FOODS, like Kraft, for one. I can't think of a single product of Kraft's that doesn't include grains in it. Processed food manufacturers have amped up the amounts of sugar and salt in their products over the years, and even more just recently in light of proposed (but failed) legislation regulating the amount of salt in their products--that way, if they had to cut back, they wouldn't lose taste or customer base.
We subsidize grains and fattening oils, food processors turn this boon into a global powerhouse, and voila! Obesity is spread. Fast food has little to nothing to do with it, because few can afford it overseas. Let me give you an example: in Italy, when I lived there, a Big Mac meal in Rome (at the time, the only Mickey D's in the area) was $9.00 and something--here, you could get the same food for less than $5, and the only patrons I saw in there were Americans. Now, a decade later, and a commodity boom later, what do you think happened to the price of that Big Mac meal (both here and abroad)?
If people overseas couldn't afford it then, they REALLY can't afford it now!
For what it's worth, I could get a decent burger made with beer in the meat, topped with a fried egg, and served with homemade fries and iced tea for less than what a trip to Rome Mickey D's cost me, and the pub I found it at was only a couple of blocks from my Italy apartment. The pub owner/cook was German, and man could he cook! I saw all kinds of people at his place--young, old, American, Italian, German, you name it.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Doctor Titles--What's the Difference?
From the Chicago Tribune.
"Finding the right medical expert can be one of the most frustrating aspects of health care. Osteopathic physicians are medical doctors (M.D.s), for example, but not all M.D.s are osteopathic physicians. Meanwhile, all dietitians are nutritionists, but not all nutritionists are dietitians. Huh?
To help break this down, here's an overview of the distinctions between four commonly used — and misunderstood — health care titles.
Osteopathic physician versus medical doctor
The problem: You've got a sore throat and are considering seeing a primary care doctor who has a "D.O." after her name. Is this a legitimate credential?
A doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) is … a fully licensed medical doctor who must attend medical school and participate in residency programs, according to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), which represents osteopathic doctors. D.O.s can practice in any medical specialty, prescribe medication and perform surgery. Osteopathic physicians are specially trained in the body's musculoskeletal system, preventive medicine and holistic patient care; they also recognize the body's ability to heal itself. D.O.s are most likely to be primary care specialists and can treat you from birth (as an obstetrician/gynecologist) through death (as a geriatrician), says the AOA.
A medical doctor is … also a physician. Like osteopathic doctors, they examine patients, obtain medical histories, and order, perform and interpret diagnostic tests. M.D.s generally do not practice spinal manipulation unless they are D.O.s. M.D.s and D.O.s work in one or more specialties, including anesthesiology, family and general medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry and surgery.
Insurance: M.D.s, D.O.s and others with state licenses who are eligible are generally reimbursed.
Certified nutrition specialist versus registered dietitian
The problem: In some states, virtually anyone can declare themselves a nutritionist regardless of education or training. The terms nutritionist and registered dietitian are often incorrectly used interchangeably.
A certified nutrition specialist (CNS) is … a nutrition practitioner or a person who uses nutrition therapy to address health needs, according to clinical nutritionist and CNS Corinne Bush. CNSs have an advanced degree (master's level or above) in nutrition or a related field from an accredited university. CNSs must pass the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists (CBNS) examination on science-based nutrition therapy.
A registered dietitian (RD) is … a nutritionist who has been credentialed by the Commission on Dietetic Registration of the American Dietetic Association (ADA). RDs must have at least an undergraduate degree — usually in nutrition — and often work in community education or food service management settings, including nursing homes or hospitals. Most RDs go on to get advanced degrees, and some work in private practice, according to the ADA. They must also complete continuing education requirements to maintain registration.
Insurance: Reimbursement varies widely depending on state regulations and specific plan restrictions for both CNSs and RDs. Medicare covers some services. Costs can vary widely for both, Bush said.
Be careful: Only CNSs and RDs are named in licensing laws. The ADA has long pushed for nutrition licensure laws in all 50 states. The CBNS opposes this push, as it would effectively "outlaw many extremely well-qualified nutrition professionals, just when the public needs them most," said Bush, CBNS' legislative chairwoman. The ADA says licensure laws are not intended to limit practice to a particular profession or provider; instead they "ensure that consumers can rely upon the competency of licensed practitioners."
Always look at credentials and remember that a CNS usually, but not always, has the most advanced science-based training."
Okay--so when is somebody going to cover all the various nursing titles? There's RN, BSN, CNA, CNP, and many others...
"Finding the right medical expert can be one of the most frustrating aspects of health care. Osteopathic physicians are medical doctors (M.D.s), for example, but not all M.D.s are osteopathic physicians. Meanwhile, all dietitians are nutritionists, but not all nutritionists are dietitians. Huh?
To help break this down, here's an overview of the distinctions between four commonly used — and misunderstood — health care titles.
Osteopathic physician versus medical doctor
The problem: You've got a sore throat and are considering seeing a primary care doctor who has a "D.O." after her name. Is this a legitimate credential?
A doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) is … a fully licensed medical doctor who must attend medical school and participate in residency programs, according to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), which represents osteopathic doctors. D.O.s can practice in any medical specialty, prescribe medication and perform surgery. Osteopathic physicians are specially trained in the body's musculoskeletal system, preventive medicine and holistic patient care; they also recognize the body's ability to heal itself. D.O.s are most likely to be primary care specialists and can treat you from birth (as an obstetrician/gynecologist) through death (as a geriatrician), says the AOA.
A medical doctor is … also a physician. Like osteopathic doctors, they examine patients, obtain medical histories, and order, perform and interpret diagnostic tests. M.D.s generally do not practice spinal manipulation unless they are D.O.s. M.D.s and D.O.s work in one or more specialties, including anesthesiology, family and general medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry and surgery.
Insurance: M.D.s, D.O.s and others with state licenses who are eligible are generally reimbursed.
Certified nutrition specialist versus registered dietitian
The problem: In some states, virtually anyone can declare themselves a nutritionist regardless of education or training. The terms nutritionist and registered dietitian are often incorrectly used interchangeably.
A certified nutrition specialist (CNS) is … a nutrition practitioner or a person who uses nutrition therapy to address health needs, according to clinical nutritionist and CNS Corinne Bush. CNSs have an advanced degree (master's level or above) in nutrition or a related field from an accredited university. CNSs must pass the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists (CBNS) examination on science-based nutrition therapy.
A registered dietitian (RD) is … a nutritionist who has been credentialed by the Commission on Dietetic Registration of the American Dietetic Association (ADA). RDs must have at least an undergraduate degree — usually in nutrition — and often work in community education or food service management settings, including nursing homes or hospitals. Most RDs go on to get advanced degrees, and some work in private practice, according to the ADA. They must also complete continuing education requirements to maintain registration.
Insurance: Reimbursement varies widely depending on state regulations and specific plan restrictions for both CNSs and RDs. Medicare covers some services. Costs can vary widely for both, Bush said.
Be careful: Only CNSs and RDs are named in licensing laws. The ADA has long pushed for nutrition licensure laws in all 50 states. The CBNS opposes this push, as it would effectively "outlaw many extremely well-qualified nutrition professionals, just when the public needs them most," said Bush, CBNS' legislative chairwoman. The ADA says licensure laws are not intended to limit practice to a particular profession or provider; instead they "ensure that consumers can rely upon the competency of licensed practitioners."
Always look at credentials and remember that a CNS usually, but not always, has the most advanced science-based training."
Okay--so when is somebody going to cover all the various nursing titles? There's RN, BSN, CNA, CNP, and many others...
Dinner Gets Very Local for Squirrel-Eating Seattle Woman
From the Seattle Times. I have some fat ones in my own backyard she's welcome to...if she's willing to cross the country for them.
"Melany Vorass called to say dinner was trapped in her front yard.
A few hours later we were eating risotto di rodentia — eastern gray squirrel braised in Lopez Island white wine with mushrooms and Italian-style rice. It did not taste like chicken.
As you might guess, Vorass is serious about eating locally. She teaches urban foraging. She raises goats, chickens, bees and worms at her Green Lake house. And she believes she's the only person in Seattle harvesting squirrels for protein.
"I know how out there it sounds," says Vorass, a former state environmental analyst. "But the alternative is to close your eyes and eat what comes on a Styrofoam tray."
In a city that savors local food initiatives, allowing up to eight chickens and three goats in every back yard, Vorass is exploring new frontiers.
"I don't see any reason why we would object," chuckles City Council President Richard Conlin, prime mover of Seattle's locavore agenda. "From a public-policy standpoint it's an individual making a choice, and that's fine."
Vorass and her husband, Carlos Herrera, an environmental engineer, aren't quite weed-eating hippies — though they do munch on dandelions and daylillies.
Vorass, 49, who says "we're kind of upper middle class," is just trying to quiet her conscience.
She likes prime rib. But she can't eat it without a bad case of guilt.
Veganism doesn't work for Vorass, either. If widely embraced, she believes, its reliance on soy for protein would lead to declining biodiversity and catastrophic mono-crop collapses (think Irish potato famine).
Squirrels came to her stove top thanks to an angry neighbor, old cookbook and quirky cuisine of the United Kingdom, she says.
Sciurus carolinensis had long been a nuisance around her house, crawling into the eaves and making a mess. She demanded that her husband "repatriate" the cute critters. He'd trap and then release them at nearby Cowen Park. Until, that is, an outraged man cursed at Herrera for dumping his bushy-tailed problems on neighbors.
Vorass had read about the British appetite for squirrels. In England, eating nonnative gray squirrels has been viewed as a way to save the indigenous red squirrel. Following a "Save a red, eat a gray!" campaign, some of London's finest restaurants started serving up the Yank transplants, according to The New York Times.
While leafing through "Joy of Cooking," Vorass spotted a squirrel recipe. If they were going to exterminate the varmints, she told Herrera, they were going to try eating them.
She checked with authorities. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote back that homeowners are allowed to trap and euthanize animals causing property damage, including eastern gray squirrels.
Seattle doesn't regulate the trapping of animals on private property for personal consumption, according to Bryan Stevens, a city spokesman.
Seattle-King County Public Health defers to Fish and Wildlife on squirrel trapping. But Public Health spokesman Matias Valenzuela says squirrels can't be served in county restaurants because they are not a licensed and inspected source of food.
Using a metal cage baited with crackers and peanut butter, Vorass nabs them just a few steps from her front porch. Then she drowns them, which she says takes about four seconds.
Vorass says death by other predators would probably take longer.
After looking into execution by blunt trauma, lethal injection and gun, she decided drowning was the best option for the squirrel, and the edibility of its meat. She says she'll continue to experiment with an electric Rat Zapper, but squirrels seem wary of the device.
The American Veterinary Medical Association considers drowning inhumane. King County Public Health veterinarian Sharon Hopkins agrees, saying she'd "strongly oppose" drowning.
Vorass' blog, which tends toward pleasant topics such as making rose hip chutney, depicts in photographic detail how to dress a squirrel. It's easy, "like peeling a banana," Vorass says — if you had to cut off the head and feet of a banana and sometimes resort to pliers to peel it. (Although never proven scientifically, Hopkins says, there are concerns that squirrel brains could carry a variant of mad cow, or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.)
The risotto squirrel tipped her chef's scale at 11.2 ounces of ready-to-cook meat. Enough protein, she says, to anchor a main course for her, her husband and stepson. They've eaten squirrel about 15 times, she says. Squirrel-itos are a favorite.
Herrera was reluctant to try it at first, but not Vorass. She grew up in northern Wisconsin where, she says, her mother was a deer poacher and local cuisine included porcupines.
Squirrel isn't as gamy as venison, she says, and tastes like rabbit. (Adhering to the journalistic creed of "trust but verify," we sampled the squirrel; it had a nutty flavor and tender, slightly greasy texture.)
Reactions to her squirrel-eating, Vorass says, range from "you're a monster" to "gross!" But the one she probably gets most is: "Are you sure it's safe?"
"I did a lot of research," she says. Squirrels tend to have a foraging range of a few blocks, she found. In the Green Lake area they eat a lot of nuts, seeds and bulbs, she says. "There's plenty for them to eat without going into someone's garbage."
But just because an animal is healthy and eating right doesn't mean it's free of bacteria or parasites harmful to humans, Hopkins says. Cooking the meat properly, to 165 degrees, would eliminate almost all risk, she says. "What I'd be worried about is getting it to the cooking stage." Trapping and skinning an animal could expose a person to disease. Hopkins recommends protective gloves, goggles and a mask.
There's no denying squirrels are cute, Vorass says. "But so are cows."
And talk about cute, you should see photos of the two male goat kids, Leo and Rafe, that Vorass and Herrera raised. But male goats don't give milk. Early one morning, while Vorass slept, Herrera took the kids out to the country and let them frolic for a while before he shot them. Their freezer is now full of goat meat.
Vorass hopes to write a book about our relationship with the animals we eat, focusing on squirrels. She also wants to write a book on edible weeds, about which she recently gave a demonstration at a women's shelter. (The women seemed "insulted," she says, by the idea they should stoop to eating weeds. Vorass says she wasn't telling them to eat weeds, "but if they had to, wouldn't it be nice to know which ones are safely edible.")
Snails are the next challenge for Vorass. Instead of spending time and money trying to get rid of them, she says, "we could be eating the enemy." She collected and cooked some, and liked them enough to buy a terrarium for snail-ranching.
"There could be lots of people doing things we don't know about," says Conlin of Seattleites pursuing their own food initiatives. "The most important thing is be respectful of your neighbors. I mean, don't trap their cats and eat them."
If you're interested in more of this particular subject (cooking rodents and the like), here are a few cookbooks on the subject:
Unmentionable Cuisine
Beyond Nose to Tail
Extreme Cuisine
Strange Foods
The Original Roadkill Cookbook
White Trash Cooking--only a few "meat" recipes, the rest are vegetation
Numerous recipes and websites devoted to armadillo, alligator, snake, and other "edible animals"
The one I'd like to have is the one Granny from Beverly Hillbillies used for her stuffed gopher dish.
"Melany Vorass called to say dinner was trapped in her front yard.
A few hours later we were eating risotto di rodentia — eastern gray squirrel braised in Lopez Island white wine with mushrooms and Italian-style rice. It did not taste like chicken.
As you might guess, Vorass is serious about eating locally. She teaches urban foraging. She raises goats, chickens, bees and worms at her Green Lake house. And she believes she's the only person in Seattle harvesting squirrels for protein.
"I know how out there it sounds," says Vorass, a former state environmental analyst. "But the alternative is to close your eyes and eat what comes on a Styrofoam tray."
In a city that savors local food initiatives, allowing up to eight chickens and three goats in every back yard, Vorass is exploring new frontiers.
"I don't see any reason why we would object," chuckles City Council President Richard Conlin, prime mover of Seattle's locavore agenda. "From a public-policy standpoint it's an individual making a choice, and that's fine."
Vorass and her husband, Carlos Herrera, an environmental engineer, aren't quite weed-eating hippies — though they do munch on dandelions and daylillies.
Vorass, 49, who says "we're kind of upper middle class," is just trying to quiet her conscience.
She likes prime rib. But she can't eat it without a bad case of guilt.
Veganism doesn't work for Vorass, either. If widely embraced, she believes, its reliance on soy for protein would lead to declining biodiversity and catastrophic mono-crop collapses (think Irish potato famine).
Squirrels came to her stove top thanks to an angry neighbor, old cookbook and quirky cuisine of the United Kingdom, she says.
Sciurus carolinensis had long been a nuisance around her house, crawling into the eaves and making a mess. She demanded that her husband "repatriate" the cute critters. He'd trap and then release them at nearby Cowen Park. Until, that is, an outraged man cursed at Herrera for dumping his bushy-tailed problems on neighbors.
Vorass had read about the British appetite for squirrels. In England, eating nonnative gray squirrels has been viewed as a way to save the indigenous red squirrel. Following a "Save a red, eat a gray!" campaign, some of London's finest restaurants started serving up the Yank transplants, according to The New York Times.
While leafing through "Joy of Cooking," Vorass spotted a squirrel recipe. If they were going to exterminate the varmints, she told Herrera, they were going to try eating them.
She checked with authorities. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote back that homeowners are allowed to trap and euthanize animals causing property damage, including eastern gray squirrels.
Seattle doesn't regulate the trapping of animals on private property for personal consumption, according to Bryan Stevens, a city spokesman.
Seattle-King County Public Health defers to Fish and Wildlife on squirrel trapping. But Public Health spokesman Matias Valenzuela says squirrels can't be served in county restaurants because they are not a licensed and inspected source of food.
Using a metal cage baited with crackers and peanut butter, Vorass nabs them just a few steps from her front porch. Then she drowns them, which she says takes about four seconds.
Vorass says death by other predators would probably take longer.
After looking into execution by blunt trauma, lethal injection and gun, she decided drowning was the best option for the squirrel, and the edibility of its meat. She says she'll continue to experiment with an electric Rat Zapper, but squirrels seem wary of the device.
The American Veterinary Medical Association considers drowning inhumane. King County Public Health veterinarian Sharon Hopkins agrees, saying she'd "strongly oppose" drowning.
Vorass' blog, which tends toward pleasant topics such as making rose hip chutney, depicts in photographic detail how to dress a squirrel. It's easy, "like peeling a banana," Vorass says — if you had to cut off the head and feet of a banana and sometimes resort to pliers to peel it. (Although never proven scientifically, Hopkins says, there are concerns that squirrel brains could carry a variant of mad cow, or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.)
The risotto squirrel tipped her chef's scale at 11.2 ounces of ready-to-cook meat. Enough protein, she says, to anchor a main course for her, her husband and stepson. They've eaten squirrel about 15 times, she says. Squirrel-itos are a favorite.
Herrera was reluctant to try it at first, but not Vorass. She grew up in northern Wisconsin where, she says, her mother was a deer poacher and local cuisine included porcupines.
Squirrel isn't as gamy as venison, she says, and tastes like rabbit. (Adhering to the journalistic creed of "trust but verify," we sampled the squirrel; it had a nutty flavor and tender, slightly greasy texture.)
Reactions to her squirrel-eating, Vorass says, range from "you're a monster" to "gross!" But the one she probably gets most is: "Are you sure it's safe?"
"I did a lot of research," she says. Squirrels tend to have a foraging range of a few blocks, she found. In the Green Lake area they eat a lot of nuts, seeds and bulbs, she says. "There's plenty for them to eat without going into someone's garbage."
But just because an animal is healthy and eating right doesn't mean it's free of bacteria or parasites harmful to humans, Hopkins says. Cooking the meat properly, to 165 degrees, would eliminate almost all risk, she says. "What I'd be worried about is getting it to the cooking stage." Trapping and skinning an animal could expose a person to disease. Hopkins recommends protective gloves, goggles and a mask.
There's no denying squirrels are cute, Vorass says. "But so are cows."
And talk about cute, you should see photos of the two male goat kids, Leo and Rafe, that Vorass and Herrera raised. But male goats don't give milk. Early one morning, while Vorass slept, Herrera took the kids out to the country and let them frolic for a while before he shot them. Their freezer is now full of goat meat.
Vorass hopes to write a book about our relationship with the animals we eat, focusing on squirrels. She also wants to write a book on edible weeds, about which she recently gave a demonstration at a women's shelter. (The women seemed "insulted," she says, by the idea they should stoop to eating weeds. Vorass says she wasn't telling them to eat weeds, "but if they had to, wouldn't it be nice to know which ones are safely edible.")
Snails are the next challenge for Vorass. Instead of spending time and money trying to get rid of them, she says, "we could be eating the enemy." She collected and cooked some, and liked them enough to buy a terrarium for snail-ranching.
"There could be lots of people doing things we don't know about," says Conlin of Seattleites pursuing their own food initiatives. "The most important thing is be respectful of your neighbors. I mean, don't trap their cats and eat them."
If you're interested in more of this particular subject (cooking rodents and the like), here are a few cookbooks on the subject:
Unmentionable Cuisine
Beyond Nose to Tail
Extreme Cuisine
Strange Foods
The Original Roadkill Cookbook
White Trash Cooking--only a few "meat" recipes, the rest are vegetation
Numerous recipes and websites devoted to armadillo, alligator, snake, and other "edible animals"
The one I'd like to have is the one Granny from Beverly Hillbillies used for her stuffed gopher dish.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Americans Hitting MyPlate Goals Only One Week a Year
From Diets in Review.
"Earlier this year the USDA unveiled the MyPlate icon, replacing the MyPyramid graphic in an effort to simplify dietary recommendations for the American public. Yet despite the early excitement surrounding its unveiling, it appears not many Americans are choosing to implement the MyPlate guidelines.
In fact, most Americans are only meeting the MyPlate guidelines an average of one week out of the year. And this probably isn’t altogether that shocking given that most Americans fail to include vegetables or dairy at most meals. Additionally, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the recommendations visually depicted by the MyPlate icon, often require more than three meals to be eaten each day in order to be achieved which can also prove difficult for individuals who don’t snack in between meals.
So are the MyPlate guidelines really a diet in disguise that most people can’t stick to for longer than a week? Not exactly. The guidelines behind MyPlate result from years of study and observation of eating behaviors among thousands of Americans. These guidelines outline a lifestyle, not a diet, however without proper guidance they can be just as difficult to stick to.
When implementing the MyPlate guidelines, it’s important to know where to start and to have a little background information on what these guidelines mean. This, of course, requires you to go beyond the plate and develop your own MyPlate-based plan that works over the long-term. And although it’s easy to say this is something you want to do, actually doing it is a lot harder.
Know Where to Start
Instead of tackling the whole MyPlate icon in one overarching attempt, focus on one section at a time and perform your own step-by-step meal plan makeover. Make it unique to your eating preferences and do a little homework. The ChooseMyPlate.gov website is an excellent place to start. There you will find detailed information on each of the five food groups, daily nutrition tips, and interactive tools that can help you track your progress in implementing the MyPlate guidelines.
Using the ‘Right’ Plate
In addition to knowing where to start, it’s also important to be able to visualize the MyPlate guidelines on your own plate. Your plate should be about 10″ in diameter, not 12″. As the years have passed, plate sizes have gone up and you may find that the 10″ plate looks a lot smaller than the ones you use more often at home or while dining out. I assure you, a 10″ plate is a much more appropriate size. Once you have the right-sized plate, you then have to be able to visualize the various food groups that go on or beside it.
Although the MyPlate icon shows a plate with five separate food sections, you need to remember that its all about proportion. Although the plate is divided almost evenly into four different sections, each group does vary slightly in size. This can help you decide which foods are the most important to add to your plate and give you a place to start when planning your meals. Non-starchy vegetables are the most prominent and should be the star of your meal. Next, in order of portion size, add whole grains and then protein. Fruit and dairy should then follow. Just remember that as you add each food group to your plate, the amount of each group you add should continue to get smaller.
Generalizing Nutrition Guidelines
Although the MyPlate guidelines are a great place for many Americans to start, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all healthy eating plan. Although the MyPlate icon shows a varied, well-balanced meal plan that is based on years of observation and study, it isn’t necessarily the only way to eat healthy. In fact, many similar plate-style meal plans exist with their own set of guidelines and objectives. On top of that, a wide array of new healthy eating ideas and plans come out every year, making it possible for many individuals to eat well despite their lack of compliance to the MyPlate criterion.
The recommendations behind the MyPlate icon can be very beneficial to individuals who are looking to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Although no one-size-fits-all meal plan exists, the guidelines set forth in this initiative are designed to meet the nutritional needs of the average American. Despite this, simply being aware of the MyPlate icon isn’t enough. An individual looking to utilize these guidelines in an effort to eat better must know how to use it and where to start."
Who's gonna follow an industry-and-lobbyist-laden plan that isn't truly a plan to lead people to better health, but rather to keep them buying the same junk foods and arranging them differently on the plate, like in the third dimension (up)? Also, there are several clarification problems with the whole program, such as which grains to use (whole or refined), how high to pile the foods (not covered), and how big the plate is in the first place (some restaurant plates are 12" across).
Besides, didn't we hear a White House person say that this program was intended for kids?
"Earlier this year the USDA unveiled the MyPlate icon, replacing the MyPyramid graphic in an effort to simplify dietary recommendations for the American public. Yet despite the early excitement surrounding its unveiling, it appears not many Americans are choosing to implement the MyPlate guidelines.
In fact, most Americans are only meeting the MyPlate guidelines an average of one week out of the year. And this probably isn’t altogether that shocking given that most Americans fail to include vegetables or dairy at most meals. Additionally, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the recommendations visually depicted by the MyPlate icon, often require more than three meals to be eaten each day in order to be achieved which can also prove difficult for individuals who don’t snack in between meals.
So are the MyPlate guidelines really a diet in disguise that most people can’t stick to for longer than a week? Not exactly. The guidelines behind MyPlate result from years of study and observation of eating behaviors among thousands of Americans. These guidelines outline a lifestyle, not a diet, however without proper guidance they can be just as difficult to stick to.
When implementing the MyPlate guidelines, it’s important to know where to start and to have a little background information on what these guidelines mean. This, of course, requires you to go beyond the plate and develop your own MyPlate-based plan that works over the long-term. And although it’s easy to say this is something you want to do, actually doing it is a lot harder.
Know Where to Start
Instead of tackling the whole MyPlate icon in one overarching attempt, focus on one section at a time and perform your own step-by-step meal plan makeover. Make it unique to your eating preferences and do a little homework. The ChooseMyPlate.gov website is an excellent place to start. There you will find detailed information on each of the five food groups, daily nutrition tips, and interactive tools that can help you track your progress in implementing the MyPlate guidelines.
Using the ‘Right’ Plate
In addition to knowing where to start, it’s also important to be able to visualize the MyPlate guidelines on your own plate. Your plate should be about 10″ in diameter, not 12″. As the years have passed, plate sizes have gone up and you may find that the 10″ plate looks a lot smaller than the ones you use more often at home or while dining out. I assure you, a 10″ plate is a much more appropriate size. Once you have the right-sized plate, you then have to be able to visualize the various food groups that go on or beside it.
Although the MyPlate icon shows a plate with five separate food sections, you need to remember that its all about proportion. Although the plate is divided almost evenly into four different sections, each group does vary slightly in size. This can help you decide which foods are the most important to add to your plate and give you a place to start when planning your meals. Non-starchy vegetables are the most prominent and should be the star of your meal. Next, in order of portion size, add whole grains and then protein. Fruit and dairy should then follow. Just remember that as you add each food group to your plate, the amount of each group you add should continue to get smaller.
Generalizing Nutrition Guidelines
Although the MyPlate guidelines are a great place for many Americans to start, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all healthy eating plan. Although the MyPlate icon shows a varied, well-balanced meal plan that is based on years of observation and study, it isn’t necessarily the only way to eat healthy. In fact, many similar plate-style meal plans exist with their own set of guidelines and objectives. On top of that, a wide array of new healthy eating ideas and plans come out every year, making it possible for many individuals to eat well despite their lack of compliance to the MyPlate criterion.
The recommendations behind the MyPlate icon can be very beneficial to individuals who are looking to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Although no one-size-fits-all meal plan exists, the guidelines set forth in this initiative are designed to meet the nutritional needs of the average American. Despite this, simply being aware of the MyPlate icon isn’t enough. An individual looking to utilize these guidelines in an effort to eat better must know how to use it and where to start."
Who's gonna follow an industry-and-lobbyist-laden plan that isn't truly a plan to lead people to better health, but rather to keep them buying the same junk foods and arranging them differently on the plate, like in the third dimension (up)? Also, there are several clarification problems with the whole program, such as which grains to use (whole or refined), how high to pile the foods (not covered), and how big the plate is in the first place (some restaurant plates are 12" across).
Besides, didn't we hear a White House person say that this program was intended for kids?
Vitamins, Omega-3 May Prevent Brain Shrinkage
From HealthDay News.
"Older adults with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins B, C, D and E in their blood performed better on certain measures of thinking abilities, and also tended to have larger brain volume, a new study finds.
Seniors with high levels of trans fats in their blood fared worse on certain thinking tests than those with lower levels of the unhealthy fats, and also had more brain shrinkage.
Researchers said the findings suggest that nutrients work "in synergy" with one another to be protective of brain health.
"For people with a vitamin profile high in B, C, D, E, those particular nutrients seem to be working together on some level," said lead study author Gene Bowman, an assistant professor in the department of neurology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. "Having high scores for those vitamins was associated with better cognitive function and larger brain volume."
The study is published in the Dec. 28 online edition and the Jan. 24 print issue of the journal Neurology.
In the study, researchers measured levels of more than 30 nutrients in the blood of 104 people with an average age of 87. Overall, participants were well-educated, healthy non-smokers who had relatively few chronic diseases and were free of memory and thinking problems. Researchers also did MRI scans of 42 participants to measure their brain volume.
Some amount of brain atrophy, or shrinkage, occurs with aging. More significant shrinkage is associated with mental decline and Alzheimer's disease.
The investigators found that the various nutrients seemed to affect different aspects of thinking, suggesting that they work on different pathways in the brain.
People with high levels of vitamins B, C, D and E performed better on tests of executive function and attention, and had better visuo-spatial skills and global cognitive function. They also had bigger brains, the study authors noted.
Omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in foods such as salmon, were associated with better executive function and with fewer changes to the white matter of the brain, but there was no association between omega-3s and any of the other measures of mental abilities.
"Executive function" is a term used to describe higher level thinking involving planning, attention and problem solving. In this case, seniors were asked to do an exercise that involved matching the number 1 with the letter A, the number 2 with B, and so on, which shows flexibility in thought, Bowman explained.
White matter changes can be indicative of damage to the small blood vessels of the brain, he said.
The people with high levels of trans fats performed worse on tests of mental abilities and had smaller brains, according to the report.
Dr. Marc Gordon, chief of neurology at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y., said the study is "intriguing." While most studies ask people to recall what they ate, in this one, researchers actually measured what participants had absorbed by using blood biomarkers.
"Two issues make this approach more valid," said Gordon, also an Alzheimer's researcher at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. "One could be the unreliability of people's recollections about what they ate, and the other is that just because someone ate something doesn't mean they absorbed it."
However, he said, the group studied was unique in that they were unusually healthy for their age. The results might be different in a less healthy group of seniors. Prior research, for example, looked at giving people with Alzheimer's omega-3 fatty acid supplements and found it didn't help.
The researchers noted that because their study was observational, meaning they found an association between certain nutrients and brain characteristics rather than showing cause-and-effect, it's too soon to tell everyone to start taking a vitamin containing B, C, D and E.
In addition, another variable is that older people who eat lots of foods containing those nutrients may have difficulty absorbing them.
Even so, the study suggests it makes good sense to limit trans fats, which are often found in fried foods, doughnuts, pastries, pizza dough, cookies, crackers and stick margarines and shortenings, and to eat lots of fruits, vegetables and fatty fish.
"The question is: Do people need to eat healthier foods, or do they need to stay away from unhealthy foods? It looks like you need to do both. Eat more healthy foods and stay away from unhealthy foods," Bowman said."
Doesn't the Paleo diet pretty much cover these brain necessities? Before I started eating this way, I didn't know or care that cauliflower was a good non-fish source of Omega-3. Now I'm buying it at every 2-for-1 sale I can find.
"Older adults with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins B, C, D and E in their blood performed better on certain measures of thinking abilities, and also tended to have larger brain volume, a new study finds.
Seniors with high levels of trans fats in their blood fared worse on certain thinking tests than those with lower levels of the unhealthy fats, and also had more brain shrinkage.
Researchers said the findings suggest that nutrients work "in synergy" with one another to be protective of brain health.
"For people with a vitamin profile high in B, C, D, E, those particular nutrients seem to be working together on some level," said lead study author Gene Bowman, an assistant professor in the department of neurology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. "Having high scores for those vitamins was associated with better cognitive function and larger brain volume."
The study is published in the Dec. 28 online edition and the Jan. 24 print issue of the journal Neurology.
In the study, researchers measured levels of more than 30 nutrients in the blood of 104 people with an average age of 87. Overall, participants were well-educated, healthy non-smokers who had relatively few chronic diseases and were free of memory and thinking problems. Researchers also did MRI scans of 42 participants to measure their brain volume.
Some amount of brain atrophy, or shrinkage, occurs with aging. More significant shrinkage is associated with mental decline and Alzheimer's disease.
The investigators found that the various nutrients seemed to affect different aspects of thinking, suggesting that they work on different pathways in the brain.
People with high levels of vitamins B, C, D and E performed better on tests of executive function and attention, and had better visuo-spatial skills and global cognitive function. They also had bigger brains, the study authors noted.
Omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in foods such as salmon, were associated with better executive function and with fewer changes to the white matter of the brain, but there was no association between omega-3s and any of the other measures of mental abilities.
"Executive function" is a term used to describe higher level thinking involving planning, attention and problem solving. In this case, seniors were asked to do an exercise that involved matching the number 1 with the letter A, the number 2 with B, and so on, which shows flexibility in thought, Bowman explained.
White matter changes can be indicative of damage to the small blood vessels of the brain, he said.
The people with high levels of trans fats performed worse on tests of mental abilities and had smaller brains, according to the report.
Dr. Marc Gordon, chief of neurology at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y., said the study is "intriguing." While most studies ask people to recall what they ate, in this one, researchers actually measured what participants had absorbed by using blood biomarkers.
"Two issues make this approach more valid," said Gordon, also an Alzheimer's researcher at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. "One could be the unreliability of people's recollections about what they ate, and the other is that just because someone ate something doesn't mean they absorbed it."
However, he said, the group studied was unique in that they were unusually healthy for their age. The results might be different in a less healthy group of seniors. Prior research, for example, looked at giving people with Alzheimer's omega-3 fatty acid supplements and found it didn't help.
The researchers noted that because their study was observational, meaning they found an association between certain nutrients and brain characteristics rather than showing cause-and-effect, it's too soon to tell everyone to start taking a vitamin containing B, C, D and E.
In addition, another variable is that older people who eat lots of foods containing those nutrients may have difficulty absorbing them.
Even so, the study suggests it makes good sense to limit trans fats, which are often found in fried foods, doughnuts, pastries, pizza dough, cookies, crackers and stick margarines and shortenings, and to eat lots of fruits, vegetables and fatty fish.
"The question is: Do people need to eat healthier foods, or do they need to stay away from unhealthy foods? It looks like you need to do both. Eat more healthy foods and stay away from unhealthy foods," Bowman said."
Doesn't the Paleo diet pretty much cover these brain necessities? Before I started eating this way, I didn't know or care that cauliflower was a good non-fish source of Omega-3. Now I'm buying it at every 2-for-1 sale I can find.
The Case for Eating Horse Meat
From Time.
"Congress recently lifted a 2007 ban on funding for the inspection of horse meat, albeit to little applause. It’s not like the country was crazy for the stuff in 2006 and started turning over cars when they found out they couldn’t get it anymore. In a country where Funyuns, bug tacos and cayenne-flavored purgatives are all considered perfectly acceptable, we have never gotten over our national revulsion against horse meat. Maybe we should.
The arguments for eating horse meat would be strong ones, if they weren’t totally irrelevant. For one thing, more Americans are hungry now than at any time in living memory. Part of the reason is the cost of fresh meat, particularly the delicious beef, pork and chicken we have all learned to consider indispensable to human life. (Lamb, veal, turkey and game are remote runners-up.) Americans are never going to eat as much horse as they do veal, which accounts for less than 1% of U.S. meat consumption. Still, because horse meat is unpopular, it will be cheaper, and the poorest Americans could eat fresh meat more frequently.
I know that not everybody thinks that this is a good thing. More soy, more vegetables, more roughage: we’ve all heard the drill. But if the objection to eating horse is based on health, it could be answered that horses, which are leaner than practically any red-fleshed animal you can name, are actually better for us than the meat we currently eat.
If the objection has to do with animal cruelty and animal rights, I don’t see why horses should be spared when we routinely consume so many other kinds of animals. Obviously, cruelty should be considered as a stigma and an infamy, but you can kill animals in a relatively humane way. And it’s not as if plenty of horses aren’t being killed every year, either; they are just shipped off to some country where there are horse slaughterhouses and inspection departments. According to a June report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 138,000 of the U.S.’s 9 million horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010 — nearly the same number that were killed in the U.S. before the ban took effect in 2007.
Larger image here.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has supported the rule change on the basis that killing the animals in American slaughterhouses, which are regulated by the USDA, would be better than making the horses suffer the hellish transport to slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico, which are poorly regulated. They would prefer that no animals be slaughtered at all, of course; and some observers, such as the Los Angeles Times, suspect that their approval is, if you will forgive the expression, a stalking horse used to ignite outrage. Because, let’s not forget, Americans love horses; the connection dates back to the settling of the West, when pioneers depended on the animals for transport and plowing fields.
What might happen, however, would be the last thing PETA wants. Americans are grossed out by horse meat, and even those few who remember it associate it with penury and disgrace. But not all the countries we export horse meat to are third world. One such land is our happier and more prosperous neighbor to the north, a big chunk of whose population was bequeathed a tradition of horse eating by their French forebears. One of the most celebrated restaurants in Canada, Montreal’s Joe Beef, serves horse flesh proudly, and includes a recipe for filet de cheval à cheval, accompanied by a gorgeous food-porn shot, in its new cookbook. “Horse is delicious,” says David McMillan, Joe Beef’s co-chef. “It’s like health food compared to beef! It makes you a strong lover, too,” he adds.
Of course, that doesn’t matter to most Americans because the idea of eating horse meat seems gross to us. While most Americans don’t spend a lot of time (if any) with horses, millions simply like them more than they do even household pets like dogs, which have evolved over 10,000 years specifically to appeal to humans. But those arbitrary and irrational attachments are exactly what animal-rights activists always decry. Why, they ask, is it O.K. to kill cows and pigs by the millions but abominable to slaughter horses? They have a point. But once it has been granted, the conclusion Americans reach might not be the one they anticipated. After all, it’s a lot easier to admit another meat to the butcher’s window than it is to go vegetarian. So if Americans can get over the taboo of eating horses, it may be hard to get them to stop."
Do you know why it's suddenly okay to eat horse meat? Because Europe is willing to pay top dollar for it--it's a job-creator, a money-maker, and too many horses became victims of the recession and were turned loose, turned in to shelters, or sold (unknowingly) to people already in the underground trade.
What I fear is that horse-raising for slaughter will turn out the same as it is now for commercial cow, pig, and chicken raising for slaughter--they'll be fed garbage, inoculated nine ways from Sunday, pumped full of hormones to get them to grow faster, driven into obesity and diabetes, then driven (or dragged) to slaughter. No free-ranging, no pasturing, no stall-free time in the sun at all.
I also fear that our treasured herds of Chincoteague ponies and wild mustangs will come under fire for the sake of money.
I don't know what the author or PETA have to complain about--we sold horses to slaughter during the war to feed the troops, both ours and Britain's. They themselves will probably end up buying it when all other foods rise beyond their level of affordability, and that's what I think is a big signal here, and may also be in Europe too.
Here's a question: why is it okay for our pets to eat horse meat, but not us?
"Congress recently lifted a 2007 ban on funding for the inspection of horse meat, albeit to little applause. It’s not like the country was crazy for the stuff in 2006 and started turning over cars when they found out they couldn’t get it anymore. In a country where Funyuns, bug tacos and cayenne-flavored purgatives are all considered perfectly acceptable, we have never gotten over our national revulsion against horse meat. Maybe we should.
The arguments for eating horse meat would be strong ones, if they weren’t totally irrelevant. For one thing, more Americans are hungry now than at any time in living memory. Part of the reason is the cost of fresh meat, particularly the delicious beef, pork and chicken we have all learned to consider indispensable to human life. (Lamb, veal, turkey and game are remote runners-up.) Americans are never going to eat as much horse as they do veal, which accounts for less than 1% of U.S. meat consumption. Still, because horse meat is unpopular, it will be cheaper, and the poorest Americans could eat fresh meat more frequently.
I know that not everybody thinks that this is a good thing. More soy, more vegetables, more roughage: we’ve all heard the drill. But if the objection to eating horse is based on health, it could be answered that horses, which are leaner than practically any red-fleshed animal you can name, are actually better for us than the meat we currently eat.
If the objection has to do with animal cruelty and animal rights, I don’t see why horses should be spared when we routinely consume so many other kinds of animals. Obviously, cruelty should be considered as a stigma and an infamy, but you can kill animals in a relatively humane way. And it’s not as if plenty of horses aren’t being killed every year, either; they are just shipped off to some country where there are horse slaughterhouses and inspection departments. According to a June report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 138,000 of the U.S.’s 9 million horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010 — nearly the same number that were killed in the U.S. before the ban took effect in 2007.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has supported the rule change on the basis that killing the animals in American slaughterhouses, which are regulated by the USDA, would be better than making the horses suffer the hellish transport to slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico, which are poorly regulated. They would prefer that no animals be slaughtered at all, of course; and some observers, such as the Los Angeles Times, suspect that their approval is, if you will forgive the expression, a stalking horse used to ignite outrage. Because, let’s not forget, Americans love horses; the connection dates back to the settling of the West, when pioneers depended on the animals for transport and plowing fields.
What might happen, however, would be the last thing PETA wants. Americans are grossed out by horse meat, and even those few who remember it associate it with penury and disgrace. But not all the countries we export horse meat to are third world. One such land is our happier and more prosperous neighbor to the north, a big chunk of whose population was bequeathed a tradition of horse eating by their French forebears. One of the most celebrated restaurants in Canada, Montreal’s Joe Beef, serves horse flesh proudly, and includes a recipe for filet de cheval à cheval, accompanied by a gorgeous food-porn shot, in its new cookbook. “Horse is delicious,” says David McMillan, Joe Beef’s co-chef. “It’s like health food compared to beef! It makes you a strong lover, too,” he adds.
Of course, that doesn’t matter to most Americans because the idea of eating horse meat seems gross to us. While most Americans don’t spend a lot of time (if any) with horses, millions simply like them more than they do even household pets like dogs, which have evolved over 10,000 years specifically to appeal to humans. But those arbitrary and irrational attachments are exactly what animal-rights activists always decry. Why, they ask, is it O.K. to kill cows and pigs by the millions but abominable to slaughter horses? They have a point. But once it has been granted, the conclusion Americans reach might not be the one they anticipated. After all, it’s a lot easier to admit another meat to the butcher’s window than it is to go vegetarian. So if Americans can get over the taboo of eating horses, it may be hard to get them to stop."
Do you know why it's suddenly okay to eat horse meat? Because Europe is willing to pay top dollar for it--it's a job-creator, a money-maker, and too many horses became victims of the recession and were turned loose, turned in to shelters, or sold (unknowingly) to people already in the underground trade.
What I fear is that horse-raising for slaughter will turn out the same as it is now for commercial cow, pig, and chicken raising for slaughter--they'll be fed garbage, inoculated nine ways from Sunday, pumped full of hormones to get them to grow faster, driven into obesity and diabetes, then driven (or dragged) to slaughter. No free-ranging, no pasturing, no stall-free time in the sun at all.
I also fear that our treasured herds of Chincoteague ponies and wild mustangs will come under fire for the sake of money.
I don't know what the author or PETA have to complain about--we sold horses to slaughter during the war to feed the troops, both ours and Britain's. They themselves will probably end up buying it when all other foods rise beyond their level of affordability, and that's what I think is a big signal here, and may also be in Europe too.
Poor Choices Can Affect Us Forever
From the Victoria Advocate (TX).
"I was raised as a kid during the '50s and don't remember ever being sick other than an occasional broken limb. When I think back at the things we did, ate and drank, we all survived. What has happened over time is disturbing. Where are we headed? (Not sure how much this has to do with nutrition, but I am sending it anyway).
As we turn over another year and enter into 2012, I too was raised as a kid in the '50s and can remember the following: drinking out of the water hose, riding in the car without a seat belt (there were none), watching my siblings gnaw on the lead-based crib paint (they were never sick), playing dodge ball - and getting hit - it hurt, but we didn't sue anyone, playing games made with sticks, rocks and mud, and doing something wrong and getting in trouble for it (didn't do any good to try and blame someone else because my dad said that was taking responsibility for my actions).
There were no child-proof lids on medicine bottles (I never remember having medicine bottles anyway), and when we rode our bikes up and down the road, we did not wear helmets (the only helmets people wore back then were the oil field workers).
All of us cousins spent hours building go-carts, ending up with blisters and strawberries on our feet from poor brakes (and we survived). We fought and got over it. We ran barefooted all of the time, and were all creative because we played outside and had nothing but nature to garner our attention.
We had freedoms, failures, successes and learned responsibility but most importantly, we learned how to deal with it all.
We had no cell phones, computers, cable television, PlayStation or Xbox, and our chat room was at the dinner table each evening with family.
And here is my nutrition answer: Back then we did not drink out of aluminum or styrofoam, eat margarine, cook with teflon, eat genetically-modified food, microwave, and we ate no processed food (there was no such thing).
Sugar was sugar (until saccharin appeared), eggs came from chickens - there were no egg beaters, and fresh-baked bread had mildew in about two or three days.
We drank water all day long and slept like logs at night because we were physically exhausted from playing and working.
How we feel each day is now up to us in the decisions we make with our diet and lifestyle and the consequences from our poor choices can affect us forever. "
I was raised during the 60's and 70's in much the same way, except for the Teflon and margarine--Mom thought any convenience was a boon. She went in a big way for the TV dinners. Now I'm left to clean up the nutritional mess.
"I was raised as a kid during the '50s and don't remember ever being sick other than an occasional broken limb. When I think back at the things we did, ate and drank, we all survived. What has happened over time is disturbing. Where are we headed? (Not sure how much this has to do with nutrition, but I am sending it anyway).
As we turn over another year and enter into 2012, I too was raised as a kid in the '50s and can remember the following: drinking out of the water hose, riding in the car without a seat belt (there were none), watching my siblings gnaw on the lead-based crib paint (they were never sick), playing dodge ball - and getting hit - it hurt, but we didn't sue anyone, playing games made with sticks, rocks and mud, and doing something wrong and getting in trouble for it (didn't do any good to try and blame someone else because my dad said that was taking responsibility for my actions).
There were no child-proof lids on medicine bottles (I never remember having medicine bottles anyway), and when we rode our bikes up and down the road, we did not wear helmets (the only helmets people wore back then were the oil field workers).
All of us cousins spent hours building go-carts, ending up with blisters and strawberries on our feet from poor brakes (and we survived). We fought and got over it. We ran barefooted all of the time, and were all creative because we played outside and had nothing but nature to garner our attention.
We had freedoms, failures, successes and learned responsibility but most importantly, we learned how to deal with it all.
We had no cell phones, computers, cable television, PlayStation or Xbox, and our chat room was at the dinner table each evening with family.
And here is my nutrition answer: Back then we did not drink out of aluminum or styrofoam, eat margarine, cook with teflon, eat genetically-modified food, microwave, and we ate no processed food (there was no such thing).
Sugar was sugar (until saccharin appeared), eggs came from chickens - there were no egg beaters, and fresh-baked bread had mildew in about two or three days.
We drank water all day long and slept like logs at night because we were physically exhausted from playing and working.
How we feel each day is now up to us in the decisions we make with our diet and lifestyle and the consequences from our poor choices can affect us forever. "
I was raised during the 60's and 70's in much the same way, except for the Teflon and margarine--Mom thought any convenience was a boon. She went in a big way for the TV dinners. Now I'm left to clean up the nutritional mess.
Sodium-Saturated Diet is Threat to Us All (Sort Of) L-O-N-G
From the NY Times.
"Maybe you think you don’t have to worry about salt. After all, you don’t have high blood pressure, you’re not overweight and you exercise regularly.
Well, think again. A major study, based on data from more than 12,000 American adults, took into account all those risk factors for death from heart disease. The researchers found that while a diet high in sodium — salt is the main source — increases your risk, even more important is the ratio of sodium (harmful) to potassium (protective) in one’s diet.
When people whose meals contained little sodium relative to potassium were compared with those whose diets had a high sodium-to-potassium ratio, the latter were nearly 50 percent more likely to die from any cause and more than twice as likely to die from ischemic heart disease during a follow-up period averaging 14.8 years.
Although there has been on-and-off controversy about the value of limiting dietary salt, there is no question that a high level of sodium in the diet raises blood pressure and the risk of chronic hypertension by stiffening arteries and blocking nitric oxide, which relaxes arteries. Hypertension, in turn, contributes to heart disease and stroke, leading causes of death.
Potassium, on the other hand, activates nitric oxide and thus reduces pressure in the arteries, lowering the risk of hypertension.
“We controlled for all the major cardiovascular risk factors and still found an association between the sodium-potassium ratio and deaths from heart disease,” said Dr. Elena V. Kuklina, a nutritional epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an author of the study, published earlier this year in Archives of Internal Medicine. “With age, the risk of high blood pressure increases. The lifetime risk in this country is 90 percent. If you live long enough, you’re at risk.”
According to an Institute of Medicine report on sodium released last year, “No one is immune to the adverse health effects of excessive sodium intake.”
Our High-Salt Diet
Ninety percent of the sodium in the American diet comes from salt, three-fourths of which is consumed in processed and restaurant foods. Salt added in home cooking and at the table accounts for only a minor proportion of sodium intake.
The body’s requirement for sodium is very low — only 220 milligrams a day — but the average American consumes more than 3,400 milligrams daily. The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend a maximum of 2,300 milligrams (about a teaspoon of salt) for people over age 2, but only 1,500 milligrams for the 70 percent of adults at high risk of sodium-induced illness: people older than 50, all African-Americans, and everyone with high blood pressure, diabetes or chronic kidney disease.
Despite widespread efforts to get people to consume less sodium, intake of this nutrient has increased significantly since the early 1970s as consumption has risen of processed and restaurant foods, which rely heavily on salt as a cheap way to enhance flavor and texture and preserve food. Because salt is categorized by the Food and Drug Administration as G.R.A.S., or “generally recognized as safe,” there is no limit to the amount food producers can use in a product.
To make matters worse, not only does the amount of sodium rise precipitously when foods like tomatoes and potatoes are processed, but the natural potassium in these foods declines significantly, worsening the sodium-potassium ratio.
The profligate use of salt in foods prepared outside the home has created an American preference for a salty taste, a preference that can be reversed with no loss of consumer pleasure if done slowly, said Dr. Thomas A. Farley, commissioner of New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
His department is leading a national effort started in 2008 to get food producers and restaurants to gradually reduce the salt in their products. Thus far, 28 national food companies, retailers and supermarket chains, including Kraft, Subway, Target and Delhaize America, have made a commitment to the National Salt Reduction Initiative to cut sodium in their products by an average of 25 percent by 2014.
But Dr. Jane E. Henney, chairwoman of the committee that produced the Institute of Medicine report, said this is still just a voluntary effort, and to make a lasting nationwide difference in sodium intake, the government needs to push harder for change. The report said, “What is needed is a coordinated effort to reduce sodium in foods across the board by manufacturers and restaurants — that is, create a level playing field for the food industry.”
Dr. Henney, a public health specialist at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said it is time to modify the G.R.A.S. status of salt because it can no longer be considered safe under current conditions of use. This would allow the Food and Drug Administration to place limits on the amounts of salt that can be used commercially in preparing various types of foods.
The report stated that “population-wide reductions in sodium could prevent more than 100,000 deaths annually.”
It can be done, if there is a will. Through decades of voluntary efforts and regulation, Finland managed to cut sodium intake by one-third, which has resulted in a decrease in hypertension and premature deaths from stroke and coronary heart disease.
What You Can Do
Dr. Kuklina recommends eating fewer processed foods, especially processed meats, and more fresh fruits and vegetables and dairy products that are low in sodium, like yogurt and milk. Increase your potassium intake not by taking supplements, but by eating more cantaloupe, bananas, oranges, grapes, grapefruit, blackberries, yogurt, dried beans, leafy greens, potatoes and sweet potatoes.
When ordering in a restaurant, she suggests, ask that your food be prepared without added salt and your vegetables steamed, and always request that salad dressings and sauces be served on the side, enabling you to use far less than the chef might. Consider splitting an order between two people, which would cut the salt intake in half. And if a dish arrives that is too salty, send it back to the kitchen.
Avoid fast-food restaurants, where a single meal can contain a day’s worth of sodium.
When shopping, Dr. Farley said, “read labels and compare products, then choose those with lower sodium.” He acknowledged that products labeled “low sodium” or “no added salt” can turn off consumers, who think they’ll be tasteless. But you can always add a modest amount of salt at the table.
He also suggested asking food companies to use less salt in your favorite products and supporting the government’s efforts to reduce sodium consumption by commenting on a proposal published on Sept. 15 in the Federal Register (Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0400 and Docket No. FSIS-2011-0014). The easiest way to comment is through the American Heart Association’s Web site: www.heart.org/sodium, then click on “Send your comment letter today.”
But at the same time, we're being told to stay away from avocados for their saturated fat, missing their potassium and fiber content altogether, in favor of potatoes and beans, which are loaded with starch. Hmmm...
"Maybe you think you don’t have to worry about salt. After all, you don’t have high blood pressure, you’re not overweight and you exercise regularly.
Well, think again. A major study, based on data from more than 12,000 American adults, took into account all those risk factors for death from heart disease. The researchers found that while a diet high in sodium — salt is the main source — increases your risk, even more important is the ratio of sodium (harmful) to potassium (protective) in one’s diet.
When people whose meals contained little sodium relative to potassium were compared with those whose diets had a high sodium-to-potassium ratio, the latter were nearly 50 percent more likely to die from any cause and more than twice as likely to die from ischemic heart disease during a follow-up period averaging 14.8 years.
Although there has been on-and-off controversy about the value of limiting dietary salt, there is no question that a high level of sodium in the diet raises blood pressure and the risk of chronic hypertension by stiffening arteries and blocking nitric oxide, which relaxes arteries. Hypertension, in turn, contributes to heart disease and stroke, leading causes of death.
Potassium, on the other hand, activates nitric oxide and thus reduces pressure in the arteries, lowering the risk of hypertension.
“We controlled for all the major cardiovascular risk factors and still found an association between the sodium-potassium ratio and deaths from heart disease,” said Dr. Elena V. Kuklina, a nutritional epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an author of the study, published earlier this year in Archives of Internal Medicine. “With age, the risk of high blood pressure increases. The lifetime risk in this country is 90 percent. If you live long enough, you’re at risk.”
According to an Institute of Medicine report on sodium released last year, “No one is immune to the adverse health effects of excessive sodium intake.”
Our High-Salt Diet
Ninety percent of the sodium in the American diet comes from salt, three-fourths of which is consumed in processed and restaurant foods. Salt added in home cooking and at the table accounts for only a minor proportion of sodium intake.
The body’s requirement for sodium is very low — only 220 milligrams a day — but the average American consumes more than 3,400 milligrams daily. The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend a maximum of 2,300 milligrams (about a teaspoon of salt) for people over age 2, but only 1,500 milligrams for the 70 percent of adults at high risk of sodium-induced illness: people older than 50, all African-Americans, and everyone with high blood pressure, diabetes or chronic kidney disease.
Despite widespread efforts to get people to consume less sodium, intake of this nutrient has increased significantly since the early 1970s as consumption has risen of processed and restaurant foods, which rely heavily on salt as a cheap way to enhance flavor and texture and preserve food. Because salt is categorized by the Food and Drug Administration as G.R.A.S., or “generally recognized as safe,” there is no limit to the amount food producers can use in a product.
To make matters worse, not only does the amount of sodium rise precipitously when foods like tomatoes and potatoes are processed, but the natural potassium in these foods declines significantly, worsening the sodium-potassium ratio.
The profligate use of salt in foods prepared outside the home has created an American preference for a salty taste, a preference that can be reversed with no loss of consumer pleasure if done slowly, said Dr. Thomas A. Farley, commissioner of New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
His department is leading a national effort started in 2008 to get food producers and restaurants to gradually reduce the salt in their products. Thus far, 28 national food companies, retailers and supermarket chains, including Kraft, Subway, Target and Delhaize America, have made a commitment to the National Salt Reduction Initiative to cut sodium in their products by an average of 25 percent by 2014.
But Dr. Jane E. Henney, chairwoman of the committee that produced the Institute of Medicine report, said this is still just a voluntary effort, and to make a lasting nationwide difference in sodium intake, the government needs to push harder for change. The report said, “What is needed is a coordinated effort to reduce sodium in foods across the board by manufacturers and restaurants — that is, create a level playing field for the food industry.”
Dr. Henney, a public health specialist at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said it is time to modify the G.R.A.S. status of salt because it can no longer be considered safe under current conditions of use. This would allow the Food and Drug Administration to place limits on the amounts of salt that can be used commercially in preparing various types of foods.
The report stated that “population-wide reductions in sodium could prevent more than 100,000 deaths annually.”
It can be done, if there is a will. Through decades of voluntary efforts and regulation, Finland managed to cut sodium intake by one-third, which has resulted in a decrease in hypertension and premature deaths from stroke and coronary heart disease.
What You Can Do
Dr. Kuklina recommends eating fewer processed foods, especially processed meats, and more fresh fruits and vegetables and dairy products that are low in sodium, like yogurt and milk. Increase your potassium intake not by taking supplements, but by eating more cantaloupe, bananas, oranges, grapes, grapefruit, blackberries, yogurt, dried beans, leafy greens, potatoes and sweet potatoes.
When ordering in a restaurant, she suggests, ask that your food be prepared without added salt and your vegetables steamed, and always request that salad dressings and sauces be served on the side, enabling you to use far less than the chef might. Consider splitting an order between two people, which would cut the salt intake in half. And if a dish arrives that is too salty, send it back to the kitchen.
Avoid fast-food restaurants, where a single meal can contain a day’s worth of sodium.
When shopping, Dr. Farley said, “read labels and compare products, then choose those with lower sodium.” He acknowledged that products labeled “low sodium” or “no added salt” can turn off consumers, who think they’ll be tasteless. But you can always add a modest amount of salt at the table.
He also suggested asking food companies to use less salt in your favorite products and supporting the government’s efforts to reduce sodium consumption by commenting on a proposal published on Sept. 15 in the Federal Register (Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0400 and Docket No. FSIS-2011-0014). The easiest way to comment is through the American Heart Association’s Web site: www.heart.org/sodium, then click on “Send your comment letter today.”
But at the same time, we're being told to stay away from avocados for their saturated fat, missing their potassium and fiber content altogether, in favor of potatoes and beans, which are loaded with starch. Hmmm...
Preventative Care is Free--Except When It's Not
From Yahoo Health.
"Bill Dunphy thought his colonoscopy would be free.
His insurance company told him it would be covered 100 percent, with no copayment from him and no charge against his deductible. The nation's 1-year-old health law requires most insurance plans to cover all costs for preventive care including colon cancer screening. So Dunphy had the procedure in April.
Then the bill arrived: $1,100.
Dunphy, a 61-year-old Phoenix small business owner, angrily paid it out of his own pocket because of what some prevention advocates call a loophole. His doctor removed two noncancerous polyps during the colonoscopy. So while Dunphy was sedated, his preventive screening turned into a diagnostic procedure. That allowed his insurance company to bill him.
Like many Americans, Dunphy has a high-deductible insurance plan. He hadn't spent his deductible yet. So, on top of his $400 monthly premium, he had to pay the bill.
"That's bait and switch," Dunphy said. "If it isn't fraud, it's immoral."
President Barack Obama's health overhaul encourages prevention by requiring most insurance plans to pay for preventive care. On the plus side, more than 22 million Medicare patients and many more Americans with private insurance have received one or more free covered preventive services this year. From cancer screenings to flu shots, many services no longer cost patients money.
But there are confusing exceptions. As Dunphy found out, colonoscopies can go from free to pricey while the patient is under anesthesia.
Breast cancer screenings can cause confusion too. In Florida, Tampa Bay-area small business owner Dawn Thomas, 50, went for a screening mammogram. But she was told by hospital staff that her mammogram would be a diagnostic test — not preventive screening — because a previous mammogram had found something suspicious. (It turned out to be nothing.)
Knowing that would cost her $700, and knowing her doctor had ordered a screening mammogram, Thomas stood her ground.
"Either I get a screening today or I'm putting my clothes back on and I'm leaving," she remembers telling the hospital staff. It worked. Her mammogram was counted as preventive and she got it for free.
"A lot of women ... are getting labeled with that diagnostic code and having to pay year after year for that," Thomas said. "It's a loophole so insurance companies don't have to pay for it."
For parents with several children, costs can pile up with unexpected copays for kids needing shots. Even when copays are inexpensive, they can blemish a patient-doctor relationship. Robin Brassner of Jersey City, N.J., expected her doctor visit to be free. All she wanted was a flu shot. But the doctor charged her a $20 copay.
"He said no one really comes in for just a flu shot. They inevitably mention another ailment, so he charges," Brassner said. As a new patient, she didn't want to start the relationship by complaining, but she left feeling irritated. "Next time, I'll be a little more assertive about it," she said.
How confused are doctors?
"Extremely," said Cheryl Gregg Fahrenholz, an Ohio consultant who works with physicians. It's common for doctors to deal with 200 different insurance plans. And some older plans are exempt.
Should insurance now pay for aspirin? Aspirin to prevent heart disease and stroke is one of the covered services for older patients. But it's unclear whether insurers are supposed to pay only for doctors to tell older patients about aspirin — or whether they're supposed to pay for the aspirin itself, said Dr. Jason Spangler, chief medical officer for the nonpartisan Partnership for Prevention.
Stop-smoking interventions are also supposed to be free. "But what does that mean?" Spangler asked. "Does it mean counseling? Nicotine replacement therapy? What about drugs (that can help smokers quit) like Wellbutrin or Chantix? That hasn't been clearly laid out."
But the greatest source of confusion is colonoscopies, a test for the nation's second leading cancer killer. Doctors use a thin, flexible tube to scan the colon and they can remove precancerous growths called polyps at the same time. The test gets credit for lowering colorectal cancer rates. It's one of several colon cancer screening methods highly recommended for adults ages 50 to 75.
But when a doctor screens and treats at the same time, the patient could get a surprise bill.
"It erodes a trust relationship the patients may have had with their doctors," said Dr. Joel Brill of the American Gastroenterological Association. "We get blamed. And it's not our fault,"
Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent in Marietta, Ga., is telling clients to check with their insurance plans before a colonoscopy so they know what to expect.
"You could wake up with a $2,000 bill because they find that little bitty polyp," Holtzman said.
Doctors and prevention advocates are asking Congress to revise the law to waive patient costs — including Medicare copays, which can run up to $230 — for a screening colonoscopy where polyps are removed. The American Gastroenterological Association and the American Cancer Society are pushing Congress fix the problem because of the confusion it's causing for patients and doctors.
At least one state is taking action. After complaints piled up in Oregon, insurance regulators now are working with doctors and insurers to make sure patients aren't getting surprise charges when polyps are removed.
Florida's consumer services office also reports complaints about colonoscopies and other preventive care. California insurance broker Bonnie Milani said she's lost count of the complaints she's had about bills clients have received for preventive services.
"'Confusion' is not the word I'd apply to the medical offices producing the bills," Milani said. "The word that comes to mind for me ain't nearly so nice."
When it's working as intended, the new health law encourages more patients to get preventive care. Dr. Yul Ejnes, a Rhode Island physician, said he's personally told patients with high deductible plans about the benefit. They weren't planning to schedule a colonoscopy until they heard it would be free, Ejnes said.
If too many patients get surprise bills, however, that advantage could be lost, said Stephen Finan of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He said it will take federal or state legislation to fix the colonoscopy loophole.
Dunphy, the Phoenix businessman, recalled how he felt when he got his colonoscopy bill, like something "underhanded" was going on.
"It's the intent of the law is to cover this stuff," Dunphy said. "It really made me angry."
Obamacare isn't even in full effect yet, and already there's problems! If you already have your own coverage, I suggest you keep it and get whatever you may need done (screenings, procedures, surgeries, etc.) completed before 2014. After that, Obamacare dictates what policies can offer and cover, which probably won't be much.
"Bill Dunphy thought his colonoscopy would be free.
His insurance company told him it would be covered 100 percent, with no copayment from him and no charge against his deductible. The nation's 1-year-old health law requires most insurance plans to cover all costs for preventive care including colon cancer screening. So Dunphy had the procedure in April.
Then the bill arrived: $1,100.
Dunphy, a 61-year-old Phoenix small business owner, angrily paid it out of his own pocket because of what some prevention advocates call a loophole. His doctor removed two noncancerous polyps during the colonoscopy. So while Dunphy was sedated, his preventive screening turned into a diagnostic procedure. That allowed his insurance company to bill him.
Like many Americans, Dunphy has a high-deductible insurance plan. He hadn't spent his deductible yet. So, on top of his $400 monthly premium, he had to pay the bill.
"That's bait and switch," Dunphy said. "If it isn't fraud, it's immoral."
President Barack Obama's health overhaul encourages prevention by requiring most insurance plans to pay for preventive care. On the plus side, more than 22 million Medicare patients and many more Americans with private insurance have received one or more free covered preventive services this year. From cancer screenings to flu shots, many services no longer cost patients money.
But there are confusing exceptions. As Dunphy found out, colonoscopies can go from free to pricey while the patient is under anesthesia.
Breast cancer screenings can cause confusion too. In Florida, Tampa Bay-area small business owner Dawn Thomas, 50, went for a screening mammogram. But she was told by hospital staff that her mammogram would be a diagnostic test — not preventive screening — because a previous mammogram had found something suspicious. (It turned out to be nothing.)
Knowing that would cost her $700, and knowing her doctor had ordered a screening mammogram, Thomas stood her ground.
"Either I get a screening today or I'm putting my clothes back on and I'm leaving," she remembers telling the hospital staff. It worked. Her mammogram was counted as preventive and she got it for free.
"A lot of women ... are getting labeled with that diagnostic code and having to pay year after year for that," Thomas said. "It's a loophole so insurance companies don't have to pay for it."
For parents with several children, costs can pile up with unexpected copays for kids needing shots. Even when copays are inexpensive, they can blemish a patient-doctor relationship. Robin Brassner of Jersey City, N.J., expected her doctor visit to be free. All she wanted was a flu shot. But the doctor charged her a $20 copay.
"He said no one really comes in for just a flu shot. They inevitably mention another ailment, so he charges," Brassner said. As a new patient, she didn't want to start the relationship by complaining, but she left feeling irritated. "Next time, I'll be a little more assertive about it," she said.
How confused are doctors?
"Extremely," said Cheryl Gregg Fahrenholz, an Ohio consultant who works with physicians. It's common for doctors to deal with 200 different insurance plans. And some older plans are exempt.
Should insurance now pay for aspirin? Aspirin to prevent heart disease and stroke is one of the covered services for older patients. But it's unclear whether insurers are supposed to pay only for doctors to tell older patients about aspirin — or whether they're supposed to pay for the aspirin itself, said Dr. Jason Spangler, chief medical officer for the nonpartisan Partnership for Prevention.
Stop-smoking interventions are also supposed to be free. "But what does that mean?" Spangler asked. "Does it mean counseling? Nicotine replacement therapy? What about drugs (that can help smokers quit) like Wellbutrin or Chantix? That hasn't been clearly laid out."
But the greatest source of confusion is colonoscopies, a test for the nation's second leading cancer killer. Doctors use a thin, flexible tube to scan the colon and they can remove precancerous growths called polyps at the same time. The test gets credit for lowering colorectal cancer rates. It's one of several colon cancer screening methods highly recommended for adults ages 50 to 75.
But when a doctor screens and treats at the same time, the patient could get a surprise bill.
"It erodes a trust relationship the patients may have had with their doctors," said Dr. Joel Brill of the American Gastroenterological Association. "We get blamed. And it's not our fault,"
Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent in Marietta, Ga., is telling clients to check with their insurance plans before a colonoscopy so they know what to expect.
"You could wake up with a $2,000 bill because they find that little bitty polyp," Holtzman said.
Doctors and prevention advocates are asking Congress to revise the law to waive patient costs — including Medicare copays, which can run up to $230 — for a screening colonoscopy where polyps are removed. The American Gastroenterological Association and the American Cancer Society are pushing Congress fix the problem because of the confusion it's causing for patients and doctors.
At least one state is taking action. After complaints piled up in Oregon, insurance regulators now are working with doctors and insurers to make sure patients aren't getting surprise charges when polyps are removed.
Florida's consumer services office also reports complaints about colonoscopies and other preventive care. California insurance broker Bonnie Milani said she's lost count of the complaints she's had about bills clients have received for preventive services.
"'Confusion' is not the word I'd apply to the medical offices producing the bills," Milani said. "The word that comes to mind for me ain't nearly so nice."
When it's working as intended, the new health law encourages more patients to get preventive care. Dr. Yul Ejnes, a Rhode Island physician, said he's personally told patients with high deductible plans about the benefit. They weren't planning to schedule a colonoscopy until they heard it would be free, Ejnes said.
If too many patients get surprise bills, however, that advantage could be lost, said Stephen Finan of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He said it will take federal or state legislation to fix the colonoscopy loophole.
Dunphy, the Phoenix businessman, recalled how he felt when he got his colonoscopy bill, like something "underhanded" was going on.
"It's the intent of the law is to cover this stuff," Dunphy said. "It really made me angry."
Obamacare isn't even in full effect yet, and already there's problems! If you already have your own coverage, I suggest you keep it and get whatever you may need done (screenings, procedures, surgeries, etc.) completed before 2014. After that, Obamacare dictates what policies can offer and cover, which probably won't be much.
New Fee Coming for Medical Effectiveness Research
From Yahoo Health. They want us to pay more for less service--gee, where have I heard THAT before! Sounds like Donald Berwick is still in the wings somewhere.
"Starting in 2012, the government will charge a new fee to your health insurance plan for research to find out which drugs, medical procedures, tests and treatments work best. But what will Americans do with the answers?
The goal of the research, part of a little-known provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, is to answer such basic questions as whether that new prescription drug advertised on TV really works better than an old generic costing much less.
But in the politically charged environment surrounding health care, the idea of medical effectiveness research is eyed with suspicion. The insurance fee could be branded a tax and drawn into the vortex of election-year politics.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute — a quasi-governmental agency created by Congress to carry out the research — has yet to commission a single head-to-head comparison, although its director is anxious to begin.
The government is already providing the institute with some funding: The $1-per-person insurance fee goes into effect in 2012. But the Treasury Department says it's not likely to be collected for another year, though insurers would still owe the money. The fee doubles to $2 per covered person in its second year and thereafter rises with inflation. The IRS is expected to issue guidance to insurers within the next six months.
"The more concerning thing is not the institute itself, but how the findings will be used in other areas," said Kathryn Nix, a policy analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. "Will they be used to make coverage determinations?"
The institute's director, Dr. Joe Selby, said patients and doctors will make the decisions, not his organization.
"We are not a policy-making body; our role is to make the evidence available," said Selby, a primary care physician and medical researcher,
But insurance industry representatives say they expect to use the research and work with employers to fine-tune workplace health plans. Employees and family members could be steered to hospitals and doctors who follow the most effective treatment methods. Patients going elsewhere could face higher copayments, similar to added charges they now pay for "non-preferred" drugs on their insurance plans.
Major insurers already are carrying out their own effectiveness research, but it lacks the credibility of government-sponsored studies.
Not long ago, so-called "comparative effectiveness" research enjoyed support from lawmakers in both parties. After all, much of the medical research that doctors and consumers rely on now is financed by drug companies and medical device manufacturers, who have a built-in interest in the findings. And a drug maker only has to show that a new medicine is more effective than a sugar pill — not a competing medication — to win government approval for marketing.
The 2009 economic stimulus bill included $1.1 billion for medical effectiveness research, mainly through the National Institutes of Health. It was not considered particularly controversial. But things changed during the congressional health care debate, after former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made the claim, now widely debunked, that Obama and the Democrats were setting up "death panels" to ration care.
As a result, lawmakers hedged the new institute with caveats. It was set up as an independent nonprofit organization, with a .org Internet address instead of .gov. The government cannot dictate Selby's research agenda. And there are limitations on how the Health and Human Services department can use the research findings in decisions that affect Medicare and Medicaid.
Selby says the institute is taking seriously the term "patient-centered" in its name. Patients will not be merely subjects of research; they and their representatives will be involved in setting the agenda and overseeing the process.
"We are talking about patients as partners in the research," said Selby. Findings will be presented in clear language — a kind of Consumer Reports approach — so that patients and doctors can easily draw on them to make decisions.
"Our goal, our hope, is that over time, by involving patients in research, two things will happen," said Selby. "One is that we will start asking questions in a more practical fashion, so the results would speak more consistently to questions that patients want to know the answers to. And two is that, by our example of involving patients in the research, trust will rise." He expects to unveil the institute's proposed research agenda in the next few weeks.
Former Medicare administrator Gail Wilensky says that agenda should focus on high-cost procedures and drugs on which the medical community has not developed a consensus, and which have widely different patterns of use around the country. A Republican, Wilensky believes opposition to the institute's work is shortsighted.
"This just strikes me as a component of finding ways to treat better and spend smarter," she said."
What if the best treatment method is to just give up certain foods? How much will THAT end up costing you in hiked premiums while the government (NIH) finds out? Could it be the equivalent of the penalty amount outlined for Obamacare, I wonder (a %age of your income)?
What if we will have paid out all this "research" money, only to have never needed any of these drugs/procedures they're testing? See what I mean about more money for less service? I think it's must an excuse to get something funded that wouldn't otherwise get funded--or it's another excuse to raise our premiums ...again!
Guess who the guinea pigs for this research are going to be? Most likely the poor and elderly--those on Medicaid and Medicare. The rest of us are just going to have to live (or die) with the results.
Ultimately, it's a way to find out what Obamacare (and any future private plans) should and shouldn't cover. And we wonder why European and Canadian leaders some HERE for their care.
"Starting in 2012, the government will charge a new fee to your health insurance plan for research to find out which drugs, medical procedures, tests and treatments work best. But what will Americans do with the answers?
The goal of the research, part of a little-known provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, is to answer such basic questions as whether that new prescription drug advertised on TV really works better than an old generic costing much less.
But in the politically charged environment surrounding health care, the idea of medical effectiveness research is eyed with suspicion. The insurance fee could be branded a tax and drawn into the vortex of election-year politics.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute — a quasi-governmental agency created by Congress to carry out the research — has yet to commission a single head-to-head comparison, although its director is anxious to begin.
The government is already providing the institute with some funding: The $1-per-person insurance fee goes into effect in 2012. But the Treasury Department says it's not likely to be collected for another year, though insurers would still owe the money. The fee doubles to $2 per covered person in its second year and thereafter rises with inflation. The IRS is expected to issue guidance to insurers within the next six months.
"The more concerning thing is not the institute itself, but how the findings will be used in other areas," said Kathryn Nix, a policy analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. "Will they be used to make coverage determinations?"
The institute's director, Dr. Joe Selby, said patients and doctors will make the decisions, not his organization.
"We are not a policy-making body; our role is to make the evidence available," said Selby, a primary care physician and medical researcher,
But insurance industry representatives say they expect to use the research and work with employers to fine-tune workplace health plans. Employees and family members could be steered to hospitals and doctors who follow the most effective treatment methods. Patients going elsewhere could face higher copayments, similar to added charges they now pay for "non-preferred" drugs on their insurance plans.
Major insurers already are carrying out their own effectiveness research, but it lacks the credibility of government-sponsored studies.
Not long ago, so-called "comparative effectiveness" research enjoyed support from lawmakers in both parties. After all, much of the medical research that doctors and consumers rely on now is financed by drug companies and medical device manufacturers, who have a built-in interest in the findings. And a drug maker only has to show that a new medicine is more effective than a sugar pill — not a competing medication — to win government approval for marketing.
The 2009 economic stimulus bill included $1.1 billion for medical effectiveness research, mainly through the National Institutes of Health. It was not considered particularly controversial. But things changed during the congressional health care debate, after former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made the claim, now widely debunked, that Obama and the Democrats were setting up "death panels" to ration care.
As a result, lawmakers hedged the new institute with caveats. It was set up as an independent nonprofit organization, with a .org Internet address instead of .gov. The government cannot dictate Selby's research agenda. And there are limitations on how the Health and Human Services department can use the research findings in decisions that affect Medicare and Medicaid.
Selby says the institute is taking seriously the term "patient-centered" in its name. Patients will not be merely subjects of research; they and their representatives will be involved in setting the agenda and overseeing the process.
"We are talking about patients as partners in the research," said Selby. Findings will be presented in clear language — a kind of Consumer Reports approach — so that patients and doctors can easily draw on them to make decisions.
"Our goal, our hope, is that over time, by involving patients in research, two things will happen," said Selby. "One is that we will start asking questions in a more practical fashion, so the results would speak more consistently to questions that patients want to know the answers to. And two is that, by our example of involving patients in the research, trust will rise." He expects to unveil the institute's proposed research agenda in the next few weeks.
Former Medicare administrator Gail Wilensky says that agenda should focus on high-cost procedures and drugs on which the medical community has not developed a consensus, and which have widely different patterns of use around the country. A Republican, Wilensky believes opposition to the institute's work is shortsighted.
"This just strikes me as a component of finding ways to treat better and spend smarter," she said."
What if the best treatment method is to just give up certain foods? How much will THAT end up costing you in hiked premiums while the government (NIH) finds out? Could it be the equivalent of the penalty amount outlined for Obamacare, I wonder (a %age of your income)?
What if we will have paid out all this "research" money, only to have never needed any of these drugs/procedures they're testing? See what I mean about more money for less service? I think it's must an excuse to get something funded that wouldn't otherwise get funded--or it's another excuse to raise our premiums ...again!
Guess who the guinea pigs for this research are going to be? Most likely the poor and elderly--those on Medicaid and Medicare. The rest of us are just going to have to live (or die) with the results.
Ultimately, it's a way to find out what Obamacare (and any future private plans) should and shouldn't cover. And we wonder why European and Canadian leaders some HERE for their care.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The (Supposed) Mainstreaming of Vegan Diets
From Yahoo Health. And yet, they're getting together and discussing eating animals as okay, as long as it's done ethically.
Perhaps Yahoo Health's a little late on the ball, seeing that only 1/2 of 1% of us are vegans. Talk about media hype!
"Vegan diets are considered by some to be extreme, a strict way of eating that exists on the radical fringes of vegetarianism.
But today, a growing number of people are giving vegan diets a second look, and nutritionists now believe that a well-thought-out vegan eating plan could be the most healthy way to live for most people.
"Properly planned vegan diets are healthy, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of many diseases," said Vandana Sheth, a registered dietitian and nutrition educator in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.
Vegan diets are plant-based and exclude all animal products, even items like milk, cheese and eggs that are allowed in some forms of vegetarian diets.
Veganism drew added attention in 2011 from a pair of U.S. notables. Former President Bill Clinton -- long famous for McDonald's runs and barbeque lunches -- announced in August that he had converted to a vegan diet. And domestic doyenne Martha Stewart dedicated an hour-long episode of her TV show in March to the vegan lifestyle.
Research has found that people who follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle enjoy a number of health benefits, Sheth said. These include:
"They don't have to worry about cholesterol because cholesterol is only found in animal products," Sheth said. "And as you would expect, vegan diets are much higher in fiber."
Sheth added that research has found vegan diets to be appropriate for people at all stages of the life cycle -- even people at crucial stages, such as growing children, pregnant or lactating women, and highly active athletes.
One of the long-standing criticisms of a vegan diet has been that people will miss out on many essential nutrients that are in rich supply in animal products. Nutritionists say that is no longer a serious concern, although people in a vegan lifestyle do need to pay careful attention to their supply of certain nutrients.
Interestingly, protein is not one of the nutrients that vegans need to worry about, even though plants are not the best sources because their proteins do not break down into the full range of amino acids that the human body requires for healthy functioning.
"It's true that most plant foods don't contain all the essential amino acids needed by our bodies, while animal proteins do," said Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian in Los Angeles and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "But a grain plus a bean makes a complete protein. As long as you're getting a variety of those, you are fine -- and they don't need to be consumed at the same time."
Sheth and Giancoli also noted that certain vegan "super foods" like soy products and quinoa have been found to contain proteins that break down all the essential amino acids.
"It is absolutely possible to get enough protein from beans, lentils, tofu, soy products and other plant sources like seeds and nuts," Sheth said. "As long as you're getting a varied amount throughout the day, your body can mix it up and get what it needs."
Nutrients that vegans do have to keep careful track of in their diets, according to Sheth and Giancoli, include vitamin B12, a key nutrient in cell metabolism, nerve function and blood production, and calcium, which is needed for healthy bones. Animal products are rich in vitamin B12, and dairy products contain loads of calcium.
However, vegans can get B12 and calcium from fortified cereals and fortified dairy substitutes such as soy or rice milk. "You need to be a smart consumer and read labels to make sure you're buying products that are fortified," Giancoli said. Dark green leafy vegetables like broccoli, collard greens or kale also are good sources of calcium.
Vegans also have to make sure they get enough iron, which is essential in the creation of hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that delivers oxygen to cells and tissues throughout the body. Again, animal products are much more rich in iron, although plant foods such as dried beans, dark green leafy vegetables and fortified dairy substitutes are good sources.
"Keep in mind that our bodies are able to absorb more iron from food if the meal is also rich in vitamin C," Sheth said. "If you're having spinach, you might have tomatoes or a citrus dressing with it to increase absorption."
Omega-3 fatty acids probably represent the greatest nutritional challenge for vegans, the two nutritionists said. Thought to be critical for cognitive function and healthy cardiovascular function, omega-3s appear in large amounts only in fatty fish such as salmon -- a dietary no-no for vegans.
Some plant sources -- flaxseeds, soybeans, pumpkin seeds and walnuts, for example -- contain a type of omega-3 fatty acid, but it's not the same type found in fish and has not been proven to have the same level of health benefits, Giancoli said.
"There's some concern that vegans may be missing out," she said.
Finally, vegans need to keep in mind that it's just as easy for them to indulge in an unhealthy diet as it is for omnivores, Sheth said.
She recommends that her vegan clients follow the federal government's "My Plate" guidelines for eating, the same as everyone else should. "You're basically just replacing the protein source," Sheth said. "Otherwise, it's the same meal."
That's funny--the list of health benefits above enjoyed by vegans are also enjoyed by Paleo eaters, only without the starch intake that eventually leads to obesity. What if it's the LACK OF PROCESSED FOODS IN THE DIET, and not which direction of fringe extreme eating you're involved in, that brings about these benefits? Also, has anybody come across a vegan diabetic? You'd think consuming all those starches in order to make up for what meat provides would create a few...or many!
Perhaps Yahoo Health's a little late on the ball, seeing that only 1/2 of 1% of us are vegans. Talk about media hype!
"Vegan diets are considered by some to be extreme, a strict way of eating that exists on the radical fringes of vegetarianism.
But today, a growing number of people are giving vegan diets a second look, and nutritionists now believe that a well-thought-out vegan eating plan could be the most healthy way to live for most people.
"Properly planned vegan diets are healthy, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of many diseases," said Vandana Sheth, a registered dietitian and nutrition educator in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.
Vegan diets are plant-based and exclude all animal products, even items like milk, cheese and eggs that are allowed in some forms of vegetarian diets.
Veganism drew added attention in 2011 from a pair of U.S. notables. Former President Bill Clinton -- long famous for McDonald's runs and barbeque lunches -- announced in August that he had converted to a vegan diet. And domestic doyenne Martha Stewart dedicated an hour-long episode of her TV show in March to the vegan lifestyle.
Research has found that people who follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle enjoy a number of health benefits, Sheth said. These include:
Lower cholesterol levels.
Lower blood pressure.
A healthier body mass index.
Decreased risk for heart disease.
Decreased risk for cancer.
Better control and prevention of diabetes.
"They don't have to worry about cholesterol because cholesterol is only found in animal products," Sheth said. "And as you would expect, vegan diets are much higher in fiber."
Sheth added that research has found vegan diets to be appropriate for people at all stages of the life cycle -- even people at crucial stages, such as growing children, pregnant or lactating women, and highly active athletes.
One of the long-standing criticisms of a vegan diet has been that people will miss out on many essential nutrients that are in rich supply in animal products. Nutritionists say that is no longer a serious concern, although people in a vegan lifestyle do need to pay careful attention to their supply of certain nutrients.
Interestingly, protein is not one of the nutrients that vegans need to worry about, even though plants are not the best sources because their proteins do not break down into the full range of amino acids that the human body requires for healthy functioning.
"It's true that most plant foods don't contain all the essential amino acids needed by our bodies, while animal proteins do," said Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian in Los Angeles and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "But a grain plus a bean makes a complete protein. As long as you're getting a variety of those, you are fine -- and they don't need to be consumed at the same time."
Sheth and Giancoli also noted that certain vegan "super foods" like soy products and quinoa have been found to contain proteins that break down all the essential amino acids.
"It is absolutely possible to get enough protein from beans, lentils, tofu, soy products and other plant sources like seeds and nuts," Sheth said. "As long as you're getting a varied amount throughout the day, your body can mix it up and get what it needs."
Nutrients that vegans do have to keep careful track of in their diets, according to Sheth and Giancoli, include vitamin B12, a key nutrient in cell metabolism, nerve function and blood production, and calcium, which is needed for healthy bones. Animal products are rich in vitamin B12, and dairy products contain loads of calcium.
However, vegans can get B12 and calcium from fortified cereals and fortified dairy substitutes such as soy or rice milk. "You need to be a smart consumer and read labels to make sure you're buying products that are fortified," Giancoli said. Dark green leafy vegetables like broccoli, collard greens or kale also are good sources of calcium.
Vegans also have to make sure they get enough iron, which is essential in the creation of hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that delivers oxygen to cells and tissues throughout the body. Again, animal products are much more rich in iron, although plant foods such as dried beans, dark green leafy vegetables and fortified dairy substitutes are good sources.
"Keep in mind that our bodies are able to absorb more iron from food if the meal is also rich in vitamin C," Sheth said. "If you're having spinach, you might have tomatoes or a citrus dressing with it to increase absorption."
Omega-3 fatty acids probably represent the greatest nutritional challenge for vegans, the two nutritionists said. Thought to be critical for cognitive function and healthy cardiovascular function, omega-3s appear in large amounts only in fatty fish such as salmon -- a dietary no-no for vegans.
Some plant sources -- flaxseeds, soybeans, pumpkin seeds and walnuts, for example -- contain a type of omega-3 fatty acid, but it's not the same type found in fish and has not been proven to have the same level of health benefits, Giancoli said.
"There's some concern that vegans may be missing out," she said.
Finally, vegans need to keep in mind that it's just as easy for them to indulge in an unhealthy diet as it is for omnivores, Sheth said.
She recommends that her vegan clients follow the federal government's "My Plate" guidelines for eating, the same as everyone else should. "You're basically just replacing the protein source," Sheth said. "Otherwise, it's the same meal."
That's funny--the list of health benefits above enjoyed by vegans are also enjoyed by Paleo eaters, only without the starch intake that eventually leads to obesity. What if it's the LACK OF PROCESSED FOODS IN THE DIET, and not which direction of fringe extreme eating you're involved in, that brings about these benefits? Also, has anybody come across a vegan diabetic? You'd think consuming all those starches in order to make up for what meat provides would create a few...or many!
If Your Teeth Could Talk
From the Wall St. Journal. The same thing can be said about your eyes.
"The eyes may be the window to the soul, but the mouth provides an even better view of the body as a whole.
Some of the earliest signs of diabetes, cancer, pregnancy, immune disorders, hormone imbalances and drug issues show up in the gums, teeth and tongue—sometimes long before a patient knows anything is wrong.
There's also growing evidence that oral health problems, particularly gum disease, can harm a patient's general health as well, raising the risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, pneumonia and pregnancy complications.
"We have lots of data showing a direct correlation between inflammation in the mouth and inflammation in the body," says Anthony Iacopino, director of the International Centre for Oral-Systemic Health, which opened at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Dentistry in Canada in 2008. Recent studies also show that treating gum disease improves circulation, reduces inflammation and can even reduce the need for insulin in people with diabetes.
Such findings are fueling a push for dentists to play a greater role in patients' overall health. Some 20 million Americans—including 6% of children and 9% of adults—saw a dentist but not a doctor in 2008, according to a study in the American Journal of Public Health this month.
"It's an opportunity to tell a patient, 'You know, I'm concerned. I think you really need to see a primary care provider,' so you are moving in the direction of better health," says the study's lead researcher Shiela Strauss, co-director of statistics and data management for New York University's Colleges of Nursing and Dentistry.
George Kivowitz, a restorative dentist with offices in Manhattan and Newtown, Pa., says he has spotted seven cases of cancer in 32 years of practice, as well as cases of bulimia, due to the telltale erosion of enamel on the back of the upper front teeth, and methamphetamine addiction. "We call it 'meth mouth,' " he says. "The outer surface of teeth just rot in a way that's like nothing else."
Some of the most distinctive problems come from uncontrolled diabetes, Dr. Kivowitz adds. "The gum tissue has a glistening, shiny look where it meets the teeth. It bleeds easily and pulls away from the bone—and it's all throughout the mouth."
An estimated six million Americans have diabetes but don't know it—and several studies suggest that dentists could help alert them. A 2009 study from New York University found that 93% of people who have periodontal disease are at risk for diabetes, according to the criteria established by American Diabetes Association.
It's not just that the same lifestyle habits contribute to both gum disease and high blood sugar; the two conditions exacerbate each other, experts say. Inflammation from infected gums makes it more difficult for people with diabetes to control their blood-sugar level, and high blood sugar accelerates tooth decay and gum disease, creating more inflammation.
Diabetes also complicates dental-implant surgery, because it interferes with blood vessel formation and bone growth. "When you put a dental implant in, you rely on the healing process to cement it to the jaw, so you get a higher failure rate with diabetes," says Ed Marcus, a periodontist in Yardley, Pa., who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University dental schools.
Dr. Marcus notes that about 50% of periodontal disease is genetic—and even young patients can have significant bone loss if they have an unusually high immune response to a small number of bacteria. Giving such patients a low dose of doxycycline daily can help modify the immune response. "It doesn't really control the bacteria, but it helps reduce the body's reaction," he says.
There's also growing evidence that the link between periodontal disease and cardiovascular problems isn't a coincidence either. Inflammation in the gums raises C-reactive protein, thought to be a culprit in heart disease.
"They've found oral bacteria in the plaques that block arteries. It's moved from a casual relationship to a risk factor," says Mark Wolff, chairman of the Department of Cariology and Comprehensive Care at NYU College of Dentistry.
Bacteria from the mouth can travel through the bloodstream and cause problems elsewhere, which is why people contemplating elective surgery are advised to have any needed dental work performed first.
The American Heart Association no longer recommends that people with mitral valve prolapse (in which heart values close abnormally between beats) routinely take antibiotics before dental procedures, since it's now believed that oral bacteria enter the bloodstream all the time, from routine washing, brushing and chewing food.
But the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association and the American Orthopedic Association all urge people who have had a full joint replacement to take an antibiotic one hour before any dental visit for the rest of their lives to reduce the risk of post-surgical infections. "I have my guidelines taped to the door in my hygienists' room," Dr. Kivowitz says.
Dentists say they also need to stay up to date with all medications, supplements and over-the-counter drugs their patients are taking. Blood thinners can create excess bleeding in the mouth. Bisphosphonates, often prescribed for osteoporosis, can severely weaken jaw bones. Both should be stopped temporarily before oral surgery.
Anti-hypertensive drugs, calcium-channel blockers and some anti-inflammatory drugs can cause painful ulcerations of the gums. Many medications, from antidepressants to chemotherapy drugs, cause dry mouth, which can cause cavities to skyrocket, since saliva typically acts as a protective coating for teeth. Additional fluoride treatments can help.
Some proactive dentists have glucose monitors for another check on blood-sugar levels if they suspect diabetes. Some also take patients' blood pressure and hold off on invasive procedures if it's extremely high.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that dentists offer HIV testing, because some of the first symptoms appear in the mouth, including fungal infections and lesions. Dentists can do the HIV test with a simple mouth swab and get results in 20 minutes.
Breaking the bad news is often more difficult. "I went into oral surgery because I didn't think I would have to deliver that kind of news to patients," says Clifford Salm, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Manhattan who has found leukemia, lymphoma, AIDS and metastatic breast cancer after performing biopsies on suspicious spots. "It can be a difficult conversation," he says, "but most patients are very grateful."
Don't Be Fooled by White, Shiny Teeth
A gleaming, white smile is a sign of a healthy mouth, right? Not necessarily.
"Whiteness and the health of your teeth are totally unrelated," says Mark Wolff, an associate dean at New York University College of Dentistry.
In fact, many dentists worry that people who whiten their teeth may have a false sense of complacency, since their teeth can still be harboring tooth decay and serious gum disease.
Even people who have no cavities can still have inflamed and infected gums. It could be that their saliva is particularly protective of their tooth enamel, while their brushing and flossing habits, needed to keep gum tissues healthy, could be lax.
"I get these patients in their mid-30s who don't have cavities, so they haven't been to a dentist in 10 years. But they have full-blown periodontal disease," says George Kivowitz, a restorative dentist in Manhattan. "They are losing all the supporting structure, and I have to tell them that these gorgeous teeth will fall out of your head if we don't turn this around."
Using whitening products more often than recommended can erode some of the enamel and cause teeth to appear translucent. But whether that actually harms teeth is controversial. "No one has really shown that it's damaging, but no one knows the long-term results," says Dr. Marcus, the periodontist in Yardley, Pa."
Your eye doctor can also sniff out a whole host of other diseases in much the same way as the dentist: he can spot diabetes, cancer, hypertension, liver problems, kidney problems, and more just by doing in in-depth exam of your eyes.
If you think about it, these doctors are almost more important than the regular M.D. when it comes to initial detection. God knows they're a whole lot cheaper to visit, plus you come away with a new prescription for glasses or a clean fresh mouth!
I just can't understand why these professionals aren't covered by normal health insurance--even Obamacare doesn't cover these services, unless they're related to a diabetic condition, such as a diabetic-related eye exam done by an opthamologist.
"The eyes may be the window to the soul, but the mouth provides an even better view of the body as a whole.
Some of the earliest signs of diabetes, cancer, pregnancy, immune disorders, hormone imbalances and drug issues show up in the gums, teeth and tongue—sometimes long before a patient knows anything is wrong.
There's also growing evidence that oral health problems, particularly gum disease, can harm a patient's general health as well, raising the risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, pneumonia and pregnancy complications.
"We have lots of data showing a direct correlation between inflammation in the mouth and inflammation in the body," says Anthony Iacopino, director of the International Centre for Oral-Systemic Health, which opened at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Dentistry in Canada in 2008. Recent studies also show that treating gum disease improves circulation, reduces inflammation and can even reduce the need for insulin in people with diabetes.
Such findings are fueling a push for dentists to play a greater role in patients' overall health. Some 20 million Americans—including 6% of children and 9% of adults—saw a dentist but not a doctor in 2008, according to a study in the American Journal of Public Health this month.
"It's an opportunity to tell a patient, 'You know, I'm concerned. I think you really need to see a primary care provider,' so you are moving in the direction of better health," says the study's lead researcher Shiela Strauss, co-director of statistics and data management for New York University's Colleges of Nursing and Dentistry.
George Kivowitz, a restorative dentist with offices in Manhattan and Newtown, Pa., says he has spotted seven cases of cancer in 32 years of practice, as well as cases of bulimia, due to the telltale erosion of enamel on the back of the upper front teeth, and methamphetamine addiction. "We call it 'meth mouth,' " he says. "The outer surface of teeth just rot in a way that's like nothing else."
Some of the most distinctive problems come from uncontrolled diabetes, Dr. Kivowitz adds. "The gum tissue has a glistening, shiny look where it meets the teeth. It bleeds easily and pulls away from the bone—and it's all throughout the mouth."
An estimated six million Americans have diabetes but don't know it—and several studies suggest that dentists could help alert them. A 2009 study from New York University found that 93% of people who have periodontal disease are at risk for diabetes, according to the criteria established by American Diabetes Association.
It's not just that the same lifestyle habits contribute to both gum disease and high blood sugar; the two conditions exacerbate each other, experts say. Inflammation from infected gums makes it more difficult for people with diabetes to control their blood-sugar level, and high blood sugar accelerates tooth decay and gum disease, creating more inflammation.
Diabetes also complicates dental-implant surgery, because it interferes with blood vessel formation and bone growth. "When you put a dental implant in, you rely on the healing process to cement it to the jaw, so you get a higher failure rate with diabetes," says Ed Marcus, a periodontist in Yardley, Pa., who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University dental schools.
Dr. Marcus notes that about 50% of periodontal disease is genetic—and even young patients can have significant bone loss if they have an unusually high immune response to a small number of bacteria. Giving such patients a low dose of doxycycline daily can help modify the immune response. "It doesn't really control the bacteria, but it helps reduce the body's reaction," he says.
There's also growing evidence that the link between periodontal disease and cardiovascular problems isn't a coincidence either. Inflammation in the gums raises C-reactive protein, thought to be a culprit in heart disease.
"They've found oral bacteria in the plaques that block arteries. It's moved from a casual relationship to a risk factor," says Mark Wolff, chairman of the Department of Cariology and Comprehensive Care at NYU College of Dentistry.
Bacteria from the mouth can travel through the bloodstream and cause problems elsewhere, which is why people contemplating elective surgery are advised to have any needed dental work performed first.
The American Heart Association no longer recommends that people with mitral valve prolapse (in which heart values close abnormally between beats) routinely take antibiotics before dental procedures, since it's now believed that oral bacteria enter the bloodstream all the time, from routine washing, brushing and chewing food.
But the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association and the American Orthopedic Association all urge people who have had a full joint replacement to take an antibiotic one hour before any dental visit for the rest of their lives to reduce the risk of post-surgical infections. "I have my guidelines taped to the door in my hygienists' room," Dr. Kivowitz says.
Dentists say they also need to stay up to date with all medications, supplements and over-the-counter drugs their patients are taking. Blood thinners can create excess bleeding in the mouth. Bisphosphonates, often prescribed for osteoporosis, can severely weaken jaw bones. Both should be stopped temporarily before oral surgery.
Anti-hypertensive drugs, calcium-channel blockers and some anti-inflammatory drugs can cause painful ulcerations of the gums. Many medications, from antidepressants to chemotherapy drugs, cause dry mouth, which can cause cavities to skyrocket, since saliva typically acts as a protective coating for teeth. Additional fluoride treatments can help.
Some proactive dentists have glucose monitors for another check on blood-sugar levels if they suspect diabetes. Some also take patients' blood pressure and hold off on invasive procedures if it's extremely high.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that dentists offer HIV testing, because some of the first symptoms appear in the mouth, including fungal infections and lesions. Dentists can do the HIV test with a simple mouth swab and get results in 20 minutes.
Breaking the bad news is often more difficult. "I went into oral surgery because I didn't think I would have to deliver that kind of news to patients," says Clifford Salm, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon in Manhattan who has found leukemia, lymphoma, AIDS and metastatic breast cancer after performing biopsies on suspicious spots. "It can be a difficult conversation," he says, "but most patients are very grateful."
Don't Be Fooled by White, Shiny Teeth
A gleaming, white smile is a sign of a healthy mouth, right? Not necessarily.
"Whiteness and the health of your teeth are totally unrelated," says Mark Wolff, an associate dean at New York University College of Dentistry.
In fact, many dentists worry that people who whiten their teeth may have a false sense of complacency, since their teeth can still be harboring tooth decay and serious gum disease.
Even people who have no cavities can still have inflamed and infected gums. It could be that their saliva is particularly protective of their tooth enamel, while their brushing and flossing habits, needed to keep gum tissues healthy, could be lax.
"I get these patients in their mid-30s who don't have cavities, so they haven't been to a dentist in 10 years. But they have full-blown periodontal disease," says George Kivowitz, a restorative dentist in Manhattan. "They are losing all the supporting structure, and I have to tell them that these gorgeous teeth will fall out of your head if we don't turn this around."
Using whitening products more often than recommended can erode some of the enamel and cause teeth to appear translucent. But whether that actually harms teeth is controversial. "No one has really shown that it's damaging, but no one knows the long-term results," says Dr. Marcus, the periodontist in Yardley, Pa."
Your eye doctor can also sniff out a whole host of other diseases in much the same way as the dentist: he can spot diabetes, cancer, hypertension, liver problems, kidney problems, and more just by doing in in-depth exam of your eyes.
If you think about it, these doctors are almost more important than the regular M.D. when it comes to initial detection. God knows they're a whole lot cheaper to visit, plus you come away with a new prescription for glasses or a clean fresh mouth!
I just can't understand why these professionals aren't covered by normal health insurance--even Obamacare doesn't cover these services, unless they're related to a diabetic condition, such as a diabetic-related eye exam done by an opthamologist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
