Drinking water does not stop dehydration??????
"Dehydration" MEANS lack of water
Drinking water does not ease dehydration, the European Union has ruled – and anyone who disagrees faces two years in prison.
The decision – after three years of discussions – results from an attempt by two German academics to test EU advertising rules which set down when companies can claim their products reduce the risk of disease. The academics asked for a ruling on a convoluted statement which, in short, claimed that water could reduce dehydration.
Dehydration is defined as a shortage of water in the body – but the European Food Standards Authority decided the statement could not be allowed.
The ruling, announced after a conference of 21 EU-appointed scientists in Parma and which means that bottled water companies cannot claim their product stops people’s bodies drying out, was given final approval this week by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
Yesterday, Tory MEP Roger Helmer said: ‘This is stupidity writ large. The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are worrying about the obvious qualities of water. If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project, then this is it.’
Under British law, advertisers who make health claims that breach EU law can be prosecuted and face two years in jail.
The decision was being hailed as the daftest Brussels edict since the EU sent down laws on how bendy bananas should be. UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall said: ‘I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. ‘It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma, where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.’
He added: ‘Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother. ‘This makes the bendy banana law look positively sane.’
This is stupidity writ large. The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are worrying about the obvious qualities of water. If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project, then this is it. - TORY MEP ROGER HELMER
However the Parma gathering ruled: ‘The panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim.’ It declared that shortage of water in the body was just a symptom of dehydration. [Then what is it a symptom of??]
Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer of the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University said they were unhappy but not surprised. ‘We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe,’ Professor Hahn said.
He added that the academics had been trying to test the working of EU food and advertising rules. ‘It was free of charge, there was no apparent red tape attached and it gave food business operators, whom we regularly advise, a chance to advertise their products in a new way,’ he added. ‘We thought we should give it a try and see what would happen.
‘But over almost four years, it became clear that the procedure was anything but straightforward. Any company depending on the claim would long have gone out of business.
What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.’ He said: ‘The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not?’
SOURCE
Nanny state disapproval: Manipulating your diet through taxation
Twenty-six states intrude on our nutritional decisions by taxing soda at a higher rate than other groceries, and seventeen states do the same for candy. As if that were not bad enough in “the land of the free,” legislators continue to push for new and heftier taxes in this realm, with new soda taxes pending in fourteen states.
A new report from the Tax Foundation, “Overreaching on Obesity,” (PDF) has compiled data on the status and consequences of state-led taxes on sweets. In doing so, it lays waste to both the moral and economic arguments of these overbearing sin taxes.
Tax proponents claim to be addressing an epidemic of obesity, which increased from 13 percent to 34 percent of the population between 1962 and 2008. But that argument falls flat, because the purported epidemic is nothing of the sort.
As highlighted in the comedic documentary Fat Head (2009) over the last five decades, the U.S. population has aged markedly — with the median age going from 29.5 years in 1960 to 37.2 years in 2010 — and as people age, they tend to gain weight.
An older population, while it may tend to be heavier, does not translate into a less healthy one. In fact, overweight people, according to the Center for Disease Control’s Body Mass Index classifications, actually have longer lifespans than those classified as normal.
The BMI formula for obesity, which considers only height and weight rather than body-fat percentage, is also embarrassingly inaccurate. As Scott Drenkard of the Tax Foundation notes, the CDC’s BMI classification describes athletes such as Tom Brady as overweight, and actors such as Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as obese.
In Fat Politics, Eric Oliver of the University of Chicago notes that the CDC is eager for funding, and weight-loss industry leaders, seeking grants and customers, also have a perverse incentive to promote a fallacious trend of epidemic proportions.
Furthermore, impositions that seek to change people’s diets imply ignorance on the part of consumers and exploitation by retailers.
But even if we accept the obesity claims at face value for the sake of argument, an attack on obesity is not a legitimate role of government — at least if we are to retain any respect for individual liberty.
Sin-tax proponents seek to justify their demands with the allegation that obese people swell our hospitals and cause Medicaid and Medicare costs to skyrocket. Shouldn’t they be made to pay for the burden they generate? There are so many problems with this frequently repeated logic that one hardly knows where to start. First, obese or overweight people do not generate medical costs for others. Elected officials impose socialized medicine on a population, and that collectivizes costs and places a moral hazard on unhealthy behavior. One wrong, the imposition of socialized medicine, does not justify another wrong, further violations of our liberty.
Then, when elected officials do intervene with taxes to recoup the costs of socialized medicine, they do so haphazardly and with counterproductive results. (The latest health-care reform also impedes the ability of insurers to use price differentiation.)
Although such taxes may generate revenue, they are fraught with definitional problems. In Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas, for example, sweetened beverages with anything less than 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice are subject to the soda tax. On the other hand, Colorado and New Jersey do not classify chocolate bars as candy if they contain flour, so Kit Kat and Twix are exempt.
Regardless of definition, though, experience suggests that people either continue to buy as before or substitute with alternatives that may be even more calorie dense. All the while, the taxes disproportionately burden the poor, because they spend a greater proportion of their income on groceries. These taxes also punish healthy people who happen to consume candy or soda in small amounts.
Insofar as some people may suffer from poor health, it is a matter of personal responsibility. And if you don’t like your tax money going to people whom you believe have been irresponsible, oppose the spending itself; don’t try to control their lives.
SOURCE
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Trendy Dukan diet slammed as 'utterly ineffective and with no scientific basis'
A diet said to be followed by the Duchess of Cambridge's mother Carole Middleton has been branded 'confusing, rigid and ineffective' by a leading health group.
Experts from the British Dietetic Association named the Dukan Diet the worst celebrity weight loss plan to follow and said it has 'absolutely no solid science behind it at all'.
The Dukan - also reported to be followed by actress Jennifer Lopez and supermodel Gisele Bundchen - is a complicated four-phase diet that starts with a protein-only approach which promotes weight loss of around 7lb per week.
It topped the BDA's annual list of the five worst celebrity diets to avoid in the New Year. It works on restricting foods, calories and portion control. However, the BDA says cutting out food groups is not advisable.
The BDA said: 'This diet is so confusing, very rigid, full of very French foods that most Brits would run a mile from like rabbit and offal, and even Dr Dukan himself warns of the associated problems like lack of energy, constipation and bad breath.'
The BDA receives hundreds of calls every year on the subject of diets and analysed results to form a list of the most unreliable, difficult to follow or unhealthy diet plans.
Based on the volume of telephone calls and other contributing factors, the Dukan Diet topped a list of 'dodgy' celebrity diets to avoid in the New Year.
The Dukan Diet was followed in the list by the Alcorexia or Drunkorexia Diet, an undeniably unhealthy tecnhnique believed to be used by many top models and other celebrities to keep their weight low without sacrificing their heavy partying lifestyle.
It involves eating very little during the day or week - a very low calorie (VLC) diet - and then 'saving' all the calories not eaten to binge drink alcohol. However, the BDA reckons people must be 'blind drunk' to follow such a diet.
DUKAN DRAWBACKS
While weight loss can be quick, followers of the Dukan report difficulties. Here are the main cons.
1 Much of the diet prescribes solely protein for days on end. Followers complain this can get boring and as a result is difficult to adhere to.
2 Eating so much protein - around three to four times the normal amount - can put a strain on the kidneys. This can be more problematic for those with underlying kidney problems they may not have known about.
3 A lack of fibre can be a problem. An unbalanced diet short of fruit and vegetables and heavy in fish and meat can lead to constipation.
4 Lack of cereal-based foods can lead to deficiency of vitamin B.
5 Weight loss is difficult to maintain once the rigid programme has ended. The maintenance phase alone - six days of eating normally and one Dukan day of protein - is unlikely to keep the weight off for the average dieter, whose indulgence throughout the week will outweigh the benefits of the protein day.
SOURCE
Garlic oil 'can protect the heart by preventing cell damage'
Just a mouse experiment with no long term follow-up
Garlic may provide protection against heart damage as well as vampires, research suggests. The pungent bulb contains an ingredient that has the power to prevent the destruction of heart tissue which can lead to heart attacks.
Scientists tested the compound, diallyl trisulfide, on mice at risk of heart damage from blocked coronary arteries.
Treatment just before blood flow was restored reduced the amount of heart tissue damaged by almost two-thirds.
Diallyl trisulfide releases hydrogen sulphide, which has previously been shown to protect heart tissue in low concentrations.
Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine in the United States have turned to diallyl trisulfide, a garlic oil component, as a way to deliver the benefits of hydrogen sulphide to the heart.
Normally the unstable and volatile gas is difficult to deliver as a therapy because it needs to be injected. Now, thanks to garlic oil, it can be administered orally.
In high concentrations, hydrogen sulfide is a strong poison: Just a few breaths can be fatal.
But in small amounts, like those the body makes naturally, hydrogen sulfide serves several key functions.
It reduces inflammation, lowers blood pressure and keeps cells alive.
After a heart attack or heart surgery has interrupted the flow of oxygen-rich blood to tissues, hydrogen sulfide allows oxygen to keep reaching the heart muscle.
Doctors could use diallyl trisulfide in many of the situations where researchers have proposed using hydrogen sulphide.
David Lefer, professor of surgery at Emory University School of Medicine, said: 'We are now performing studies with orally active drugs that release hydrogen sulphide.
'This could avoid the need to inject sulphide-delivery drugs outside of an emergency situation.'
Researchers blocked the coronary arteries of mice for 45 minutes, simulating a heart attack, and gave them diallyl sulphide just before blood flow was restored.
The compound reduced the proportion of damaged heart tissue in the area at risk by 61 per cent, compared with untreated animals.
The findings were presented today at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions meeting in Orlando, Florida.
Further research reported by the team suggests diallyl trisulfide could also reduce heart enlargement caused by heart failure.
SOURCE
A diet said to be followed by the Duchess of Cambridge's mother Carole Middleton has been branded 'confusing, rigid and ineffective' by a leading health group.
Experts from the British Dietetic Association named the Dukan Diet the worst celebrity weight loss plan to follow and said it has 'absolutely no solid science behind it at all'.
The Dukan - also reported to be followed by actress Jennifer Lopez and supermodel Gisele Bundchen - is a complicated four-phase diet that starts with a protein-only approach which promotes weight loss of around 7lb per week.
It topped the BDA's annual list of the five worst celebrity diets to avoid in the New Year. It works on restricting foods, calories and portion control. However, the BDA says cutting out food groups is not advisable.
The BDA said: 'This diet is so confusing, very rigid, full of very French foods that most Brits would run a mile from like rabbit and offal, and even Dr Dukan himself warns of the associated problems like lack of energy, constipation and bad breath.'
The BDA receives hundreds of calls every year on the subject of diets and analysed results to form a list of the most unreliable, difficult to follow or unhealthy diet plans.
Based on the volume of telephone calls and other contributing factors, the Dukan Diet topped a list of 'dodgy' celebrity diets to avoid in the New Year.
The Dukan Diet was followed in the list by the Alcorexia or Drunkorexia Diet, an undeniably unhealthy tecnhnique believed to be used by many top models and other celebrities to keep their weight low without sacrificing their heavy partying lifestyle.
It involves eating very little during the day or week - a very low calorie (VLC) diet - and then 'saving' all the calories not eaten to binge drink alcohol. However, the BDA reckons people must be 'blind drunk' to follow such a diet.
DUKAN DRAWBACKS
While weight loss can be quick, followers of the Dukan report difficulties. Here are the main cons.
1 Much of the diet prescribes solely protein for days on end. Followers complain this can get boring and as a result is difficult to adhere to.
2 Eating so much protein - around three to four times the normal amount - can put a strain on the kidneys. This can be more problematic for those with underlying kidney problems they may not have known about.
3 A lack of fibre can be a problem. An unbalanced diet short of fruit and vegetables and heavy in fish and meat can lead to constipation.
4 Lack of cereal-based foods can lead to deficiency of vitamin B.
5 Weight loss is difficult to maintain once the rigid programme has ended. The maintenance phase alone - six days of eating normally and one Dukan day of protein - is unlikely to keep the weight off for the average dieter, whose indulgence throughout the week will outweigh the benefits of the protein day.
SOURCE
Garlic oil 'can protect the heart by preventing cell damage'
Just a mouse experiment with no long term follow-up
Garlic may provide protection against heart damage as well as vampires, research suggests. The pungent bulb contains an ingredient that has the power to prevent the destruction of heart tissue which can lead to heart attacks.
Scientists tested the compound, diallyl trisulfide, on mice at risk of heart damage from blocked coronary arteries.
Treatment just before blood flow was restored reduced the amount of heart tissue damaged by almost two-thirds.
Diallyl trisulfide releases hydrogen sulphide, which has previously been shown to protect heart tissue in low concentrations.
Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine in the United States have turned to diallyl trisulfide, a garlic oil component, as a way to deliver the benefits of hydrogen sulphide to the heart.
Normally the unstable and volatile gas is difficult to deliver as a therapy because it needs to be injected. Now, thanks to garlic oil, it can be administered orally.
In high concentrations, hydrogen sulfide is a strong poison: Just a few breaths can be fatal.
But in small amounts, like those the body makes naturally, hydrogen sulfide serves several key functions.
It reduces inflammation, lowers blood pressure and keeps cells alive.
After a heart attack or heart surgery has interrupted the flow of oxygen-rich blood to tissues, hydrogen sulfide allows oxygen to keep reaching the heart muscle.
Doctors could use diallyl trisulfide in many of the situations where researchers have proposed using hydrogen sulphide.
David Lefer, professor of surgery at Emory University School of Medicine, said: 'We are now performing studies with orally active drugs that release hydrogen sulphide.
'This could avoid the need to inject sulphide-delivery drugs outside of an emergency situation.'
Researchers blocked the coronary arteries of mice for 45 minutes, simulating a heart attack, and gave them diallyl sulphide just before blood flow was restored.
The compound reduced the proportion of damaged heart tissue in the area at risk by 61 per cent, compared with untreated animals.
The findings were presented today at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions meeting in Orlando, Florida.
Further research reported by the team suggests diallyl trisulfide could also reduce heart enlargement caused by heart failure.
SOURCE
Marriage breeds better children?
The AIFS is an Australian Federal government body but its website seems not to be up to date. At the time of writing, I could find no mention of the study described below
From the information below, however, the study conclusion seems outstandingly silly. The data seem more indicative of highly educated mothers having better adjusted children, rather than anything else. Just another case of the general high IQ advantage, it seems
CHILDREN of married couples are more mentally and socially developed than children brought up by a single parent or an unmarried couple, a study claims.
A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, released today, suggests a gap between children from single-parent and married families that will continue to widen as they grow, the Herald Sun reported.
Family studies researcher Ruth Weston said love and affection was shown by all families in the study of 5000 children, but twice as many women in wedded couples had a university degree and were more likely to be employed.
"The study shows 31 per cent of the married mothers had a university degree or higher-level education compared with 15 per cent of single or cohabiting mothers," Ms Weston said. "A family's financial circumstances are clearly very important for the wellbeing of children."
But Victorian president of Parents without Partners, Rhonda McHugh, slammed the taxpayer-funded study, describing it as "detrimental". "It is unfair assuming children of single parents are not going to do well. A lot of our kids are doing well in sports and going to university," Ms McHugh said. "These studies create a stigma, and single parents go out of their way for their kids to achieve."
Married couple Rebecca, 39, and Troy Harris, 42, of Croydon, agreed that having two breadwinners made things easier, but a child's development depended on time spent as a family. "Because there is two of us, we get more time to sit with them and interact, but sometimes families are better off separated," she said. "Marriage is great for kids, but it has to be a positive environment for them."
SOURCE
Another win for systematic desensitization
It's been around for decades but seems to be strangely neglected as a therapy. It can even be used in at least some cases to overcome that most frightening allergy: peanut allergy
A woman blighted by a severe food intolerance which restricted her to a rice-only diet is preparing for her first Christmas dinner in over a decade. Former caterer Micaela Stafford, 53, lost 3st as her body started violently reacting to foods that included dairy, gluten, wheat, sugars, oils and fats.
She used to enjoy fried breakfasts, curries and roast dinners but was limited to bowls of boiled rice following physical reactions to nearly everything she ate.
Her unusual condition had left dieticians, gastroenterologists and even neurologists baffled. With no solution she was forced to give up her job and became housebound as her condition took control, leaving her husband Philip increasingly concerned.
For the past twelve Christmases she had to watch as her family tucked into their roast dinners while she sat with a portion of bland rice.
She told MailOnline: 'Every year my condition got worse. The first year it was Christmas pudding that I couldn't handle and last Christmas I could only manage one sprout.'
But in a dramatic turnaround the mother-of-two, from Normanton on Soar, Leicestershire has overcome her debilitating illness which began in 1999.
After her story gained publicity earlier this year clinical nutritionist Diana Earnshaw got in touch via Facebook and suggested she should try slowly introducing new foods into her diet, and now Mrs Stafford is able to tolerate 40 different foods.
Mrs Stafford said: ‘When Diana got in touch, I thought it was worth a try, I'd tried everything else.’
Following the new diet plan she started by consuming nothing but clear meat broth, made from boiled chicken carcasses which contained only 10 to 14 calories per dish. Eventually she was able to introduce stand-alone dishes, such as omelets and lamb chops, as her body built up resistance.
Now miraculously she is busy gearing up for her Christmas dinner which she will spend with her husband Philip and eldest son Michael, 34. She said: 'I didn't believe this would ever be able to happen, I'm really looking for to people coming around and enjoying food again.
'We are planning on having turkey, sprouts, carrots, green beans, parsnips and potatoes, which will be cooked in goose grease, as this is an oil I can tolerate.
'Unfortunately there will be no mince pies or Christmas pudding but I might be able to manage some banana and coconut milk.' She is also on the hunt for a stuffing recipe that will adhere to her dietary needs. 'There is a local organic farm nearby and I'm hoping they can make me up a special recipe. 'They have gluten free sausage meat and I'm hoping they can combine it with chestnuts.'
Prolonged migraines, sickness, diarrhoea and joint pains were all symptoms caused by the allergy that remains undiagnosed.
A number of surveys have found that 20 to 30 per cent of people in the UK now claim to have a food allergy.
Mrs Stafford added: 'I really didn't think I would be eating Christmas dinner, but now it's mid November it really seems like a reality. But I still have a long way to go.'
SOURCE
The AIFS is an Australian Federal government body but its website seems not to be up to date. At the time of writing, I could find no mention of the study described below
From the information below, however, the study conclusion seems outstandingly silly. The data seem more indicative of highly educated mothers having better adjusted children, rather than anything else. Just another case of the general high IQ advantage, it seems
CHILDREN of married couples are more mentally and socially developed than children brought up by a single parent or an unmarried couple, a study claims.
A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, released today, suggests a gap between children from single-parent and married families that will continue to widen as they grow, the Herald Sun reported.
Family studies researcher Ruth Weston said love and affection was shown by all families in the study of 5000 children, but twice as many women in wedded couples had a university degree and were more likely to be employed.
"The study shows 31 per cent of the married mothers had a university degree or higher-level education compared with 15 per cent of single or cohabiting mothers," Ms Weston said. "A family's financial circumstances are clearly very important for the wellbeing of children."
But Victorian president of Parents without Partners, Rhonda McHugh, slammed the taxpayer-funded study, describing it as "detrimental". "It is unfair assuming children of single parents are not going to do well. A lot of our kids are doing well in sports and going to university," Ms McHugh said. "These studies create a stigma, and single parents go out of their way for their kids to achieve."
Married couple Rebecca, 39, and Troy Harris, 42, of Croydon, agreed that having two breadwinners made things easier, but a child's development depended on time spent as a family. "Because there is two of us, we get more time to sit with them and interact, but sometimes families are better off separated," she said. "Marriage is great for kids, but it has to be a positive environment for them."
SOURCE
Another win for systematic desensitization
It's been around for decades but seems to be strangely neglected as a therapy. It can even be used in at least some cases to overcome that most frightening allergy: peanut allergy
A woman blighted by a severe food intolerance which restricted her to a rice-only diet is preparing for her first Christmas dinner in over a decade. Former caterer Micaela Stafford, 53, lost 3st as her body started violently reacting to foods that included dairy, gluten, wheat, sugars, oils and fats.
She used to enjoy fried breakfasts, curries and roast dinners but was limited to bowls of boiled rice following physical reactions to nearly everything she ate.
Her unusual condition had left dieticians, gastroenterologists and even neurologists baffled. With no solution she was forced to give up her job and became housebound as her condition took control, leaving her husband Philip increasingly concerned.
For the past twelve Christmases she had to watch as her family tucked into their roast dinners while she sat with a portion of bland rice.
She told MailOnline: 'Every year my condition got worse. The first year it was Christmas pudding that I couldn't handle and last Christmas I could only manage one sprout.'
But in a dramatic turnaround the mother-of-two, from Normanton on Soar, Leicestershire has overcome her debilitating illness which began in 1999.
After her story gained publicity earlier this year clinical nutritionist Diana Earnshaw got in touch via Facebook and suggested she should try slowly introducing new foods into her diet, and now Mrs Stafford is able to tolerate 40 different foods.
Mrs Stafford said: ‘When Diana got in touch, I thought it was worth a try, I'd tried everything else.’
Following the new diet plan she started by consuming nothing but clear meat broth, made from boiled chicken carcasses which contained only 10 to 14 calories per dish. Eventually she was able to introduce stand-alone dishes, such as omelets and lamb chops, as her body built up resistance.
Now miraculously she is busy gearing up for her Christmas dinner which she will spend with her husband Philip and eldest son Michael, 34. She said: 'I didn't believe this would ever be able to happen, I'm really looking for to people coming around and enjoying food again.
'We are planning on having turkey, sprouts, carrots, green beans, parsnips and potatoes, which will be cooked in goose grease, as this is an oil I can tolerate.
'Unfortunately there will be no mince pies or Christmas pudding but I might be able to manage some banana and coconut milk.' She is also on the hunt for a stuffing recipe that will adhere to her dietary needs. 'There is a local organic farm nearby and I'm hoping they can make me up a special recipe. 'They have gluten free sausage meat and I'm hoping they can combine it with chestnuts.'
Prolonged migraines, sickness, diarrhoea and joint pains were all symptoms caused by the allergy that remains undiagnosed.
A number of surveys have found that 20 to 30 per cent of people in the UK now claim to have a food allergy.
Mrs Stafford added: 'I really didn't think I would be eating Christmas dinner, but now it's mid November it really seems like a reality. But I still have a long way to go.'
SOURCE
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Rise in prostate cancer 'due to use of the Pill which increases men's exposure to oestrogen' (?)
This is a bit puzzling. Antiandrogens are commonly used as a treatment for prostate cancer -- so one would expect estrogens to suppress rather than amplify prostate cancer.
But the findings are a lot of epidemiological speculation anyway. A less specific but more defensible interpretation of the data would be to say that modernity -- or something unknown associated with it -- increases prostate cancer. Greater sexual activity? More hazardous sexual activity?
Increasing use of the contraceptive pill is being linked with the rise of prostate cancer in men. Researchers say the Pill has soared in popularity over the past 40 years, and at the same time prostate cancer has become the most common form of the disease in men.
There is a statistical relationship between the two trends, possibly driven by men’s greater exposure to the oestrogen hormone contained in the Pill.
Widespread use of the Pill has led to more of the hormone finding its way into the water supply and food chain, with implications for human health, says a study in BMJ Open.
Using data from 87 countries, researchers found that where the proportion of women using the contraceptive pill is higher, rates of prostate cancer are higher.
Other contraceptives such as intrauterine devices or condoms were not linked to a higher incidence of prostate cancer. A team of researchers from Canada used two sets of data to pinpoint rates of prostate cancer and associated deaths and the proportion of women using common methods of contraception for 2007.
Use of the contraceptive pill was significantly associated with the number of new cases of prostate cancer around the world, in findings which were not affected by a nation’s wealth and therefore probably not influenced by better detection through screening and health services.
The research is speculative and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn, said research leader Dr David Margel, of the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto University.
But excess exposure to oestrogen is known to cause cancer and the study suggests that widespread use of the Pill has resulted in by-products called endocrine disruptors being deposited in the environment.
These do not break down easily in the body so can be passed into urine and end up in the water supply or the food chain, thus exposing the general population.
Dr Kate Holmes, of The Prostate Cancer Charity, said: ‘This study does not present a strong evidence case for an association between the use of the contraceptive pill and prostate cancer, nor does it intend to.
‘It is intended to explore the possibility that release of endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs) into the environment, a process which is not unique to the Pill, might impact on the incidence of the disease.
‘However, for all of the 87 countries in the study, there is no information on the level of these chemicals in the environment, with the focus on the contraceptive pill as the sole source, which we know is not the case.’
SOURCE
Sitting for too long may raise cancer risk
The usual epidemiological overconfidence. I would interpret the findings as showing that people in poor health sit down more
More than 90,000 new cancer cases a year in the United States may be due to physical inactivity and prolonged periods of sitting, a new analysis shows.
The analysis, being presented today at the annual conference of the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C., cites about 49,000 cases of breast cancer and 43,000 of colon cancer.
"This gives us some idea of the cancers we could prevent by getting people to be more active," says epidemiologist Christine Friedenreich of Alberta Health Services in Calgary, Canada. Calculations are based on U.S. physical activity data and cancer-incidence statistics. "This is a conservative estimate," she says. "The more physical activity you do, the lower your risk of these cancers."
Alpa Patel, an American Cancer Society epidemiologist who looked at the data, says the numbers "seem like very reasonable estimates."
Experts have known for years that physical activity decreases the risk of chronic diseases including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, Friedenreich says, but the new data give estimates on the number of cases that might be prevented if people were more physically active.
"A brisk daily walk of at least 30 minutes could lower a person's risk over time for breast cancer and colon cancer," says Alice Bender, a registered dietitian with AICR.
Friedenreich reviewed more than 200 cancer studies worldwide and found convincing evidence that regular physical activity reduces the risk of breast cancer, colon cancer and endometrial cancer by 25 percent to 30 percent. There's some evidence that regular exercise also reduces the risk of lung, prostate and ovarian cancer, she says.
Patel and others also have investigated the health dangers of sitting too long without moving around, which is called "sitting disease."
In a study of 123,000 people, she found that the more time people spent sitting, the higher their risk of dying early. "Even among individuals who were regularly active, the risk of dying prematurely was higher among those who spent more time sitting," she says.
Even if you are doing half an hour of aerobic activity a day, you need to make sure you don't sit the rest of the day, Patel says. "You have to get up and take breaks from sitting."
Emerging research indicates that prolonged sitting also increases the risk of some types of cancer, such as colon, endometrial and ovarian cancers, Friedenreich says.
James Levine, a professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., says many people sit an average of seven to 9 1/2 hours a day. "If you've sat for an hour, you've probably sat too long," he says.
Friedenreich is looking into why exercise reduces cancer risk. In a study of 320 postmenopausal women, she has found that physical activity appears to decrease the risk of cancer by increasing insulin sensitivity and reducing body fat, inflammation, metabolic hormones and sex-steroid hormones.
SOURCE
This is a bit puzzling. Antiandrogens are commonly used as a treatment for prostate cancer -- so one would expect estrogens to suppress rather than amplify prostate cancer.
But the findings are a lot of epidemiological speculation anyway. A less specific but more defensible interpretation of the data would be to say that modernity -- or something unknown associated with it -- increases prostate cancer. Greater sexual activity? More hazardous sexual activity?
Increasing use of the contraceptive pill is being linked with the rise of prostate cancer in men. Researchers say the Pill has soared in popularity over the past 40 years, and at the same time prostate cancer has become the most common form of the disease in men.
There is a statistical relationship between the two trends, possibly driven by men’s greater exposure to the oestrogen hormone contained in the Pill.
Widespread use of the Pill has led to more of the hormone finding its way into the water supply and food chain, with implications for human health, says a study in BMJ Open.
Using data from 87 countries, researchers found that where the proportion of women using the contraceptive pill is higher, rates of prostate cancer are higher.
Other contraceptives such as intrauterine devices or condoms were not linked to a higher incidence of prostate cancer. A team of researchers from Canada used two sets of data to pinpoint rates of prostate cancer and associated deaths and the proportion of women using common methods of contraception for 2007.
Use of the contraceptive pill was significantly associated with the number of new cases of prostate cancer around the world, in findings which were not affected by a nation’s wealth and therefore probably not influenced by better detection through screening and health services.
The research is speculative and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn, said research leader Dr David Margel, of the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto University.
But excess exposure to oestrogen is known to cause cancer and the study suggests that widespread use of the Pill has resulted in by-products called endocrine disruptors being deposited in the environment.
These do not break down easily in the body so can be passed into urine and end up in the water supply or the food chain, thus exposing the general population.
Dr Kate Holmes, of The Prostate Cancer Charity, said: ‘This study does not present a strong evidence case for an association between the use of the contraceptive pill and prostate cancer, nor does it intend to.
‘It is intended to explore the possibility that release of endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs) into the environment, a process which is not unique to the Pill, might impact on the incidence of the disease.
‘However, for all of the 87 countries in the study, there is no information on the level of these chemicals in the environment, with the focus on the contraceptive pill as the sole source, which we know is not the case.’
SOURCE
Sitting for too long may raise cancer risk
The usual epidemiological overconfidence. I would interpret the findings as showing that people in poor health sit down more
More than 90,000 new cancer cases a year in the United States may be due to physical inactivity and prolonged periods of sitting, a new analysis shows.
The analysis, being presented today at the annual conference of the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C., cites about 49,000 cases of breast cancer and 43,000 of colon cancer.
"This gives us some idea of the cancers we could prevent by getting people to be more active," says epidemiologist Christine Friedenreich of Alberta Health Services in Calgary, Canada. Calculations are based on U.S. physical activity data and cancer-incidence statistics. "This is a conservative estimate," she says. "The more physical activity you do, the lower your risk of these cancers."
Alpa Patel, an American Cancer Society epidemiologist who looked at the data, says the numbers "seem like very reasonable estimates."
Experts have known for years that physical activity decreases the risk of chronic diseases including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, Friedenreich says, but the new data give estimates on the number of cases that might be prevented if people were more physically active.
"A brisk daily walk of at least 30 minutes could lower a person's risk over time for breast cancer and colon cancer," says Alice Bender, a registered dietitian with AICR.
Friedenreich reviewed more than 200 cancer studies worldwide and found convincing evidence that regular physical activity reduces the risk of breast cancer, colon cancer and endometrial cancer by 25 percent to 30 percent. There's some evidence that regular exercise also reduces the risk of lung, prostate and ovarian cancer, she says.
Patel and others also have investigated the health dangers of sitting too long without moving around, which is called "sitting disease."
In a study of 123,000 people, she found that the more time people spent sitting, the higher their risk of dying early. "Even among individuals who were regularly active, the risk of dying prematurely was higher among those who spent more time sitting," she says.
Even if you are doing half an hour of aerobic activity a day, you need to make sure you don't sit the rest of the day, Patel says. "You have to get up and take breaks from sitting."
Emerging research indicates that prolonged sitting also increases the risk of some types of cancer, such as colon, endometrial and ovarian cancers, Friedenreich says.
James Levine, a professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., says many people sit an average of seven to 9 1/2 hours a day. "If you've sat for an hour, you've probably sat too long," he says.
Friedenreich is looking into why exercise reduces cancer risk. In a study of 320 postmenopausal women, she has found that physical activity appears to decrease the risk of cancer by increasing insulin sensitivity and reducing body fat, inflammation, metabolic hormones and sex-steroid hormones.
SOURCE
Monday, November 14, 2011
A measure of paternalism
Is measuring alcohol units a good thing? That was the question posed by a debate on Saturday at the Battle of Ideas. At first glance, it seems entirely reasonable that we should know the alcohol content of a given drink. But units are quite different: they allow us to compare the amount of alcohol to an ostensibly objective 'daily guideline'.
It very quickly emerged that this 'guideline' is flawed, if not harmful. From a medical perspective, it is almost impossible to predict the effect of alcohol on the average person. After all, we all have different levels of tolerance, are susceptible to different conditions, and are affected by a multitude of other factors too. The truth is all alcohol is unhealthy; and we know it! But by creating this artificial, arbitrary, and ultimately quite useless measure of alcohol consumption, we risk creating a problem. By definition.
Without an objective standard of what is healthy and unhealthy, we tend to conform to cultural norms. Alcohol consumption experiences its ups and downs, with one generation guzzling gin in Georgian proportions, and another religiously enthralled to temperance. Society itself defines this level of socially acceptable drinking. When we exceed it we are seen to have a problem. More importantly, we're brought up to see ourselves as having a problem, and in extreme cases friends and family intervene. It is a process that has been serving humanity well since at least 3000 BC, when Egypt's Pharaohs started mass-producing wine.
Despite agreeing that the measurement was flawed, a panellist at a government health body stood up and said that we nevertheless needed to look beyond the individual's right to drink, and look at society as a whole. He implied that measures needed to be taken to protect people from themselves, as individuals are too stupid or ignorant to know what is good for them. And thus that society is too ill informed to define an acceptable drinking norm. He brought up extreme problem cases, citing studies of alcohol addiction, and its effects on families and friends. Another doctor chipped in by saying the flaws of alcohol units paled in comparison to the need to inform the public of what they are consuming. They all called for greater regulation, restrictions and taxation, to the detriment of all drinkers.
Of course doctors know better than anyone else what the individual can suffer from excessive alcohol consumption, but these statements suggest a more sinister campaign for wider social control rather than individualised help for the particular patient. There is a fundamental difference between providing "information", and providing knowledge. The first is by their own admission deeply biased. Whereas knowledge is already provided not only by individual diagnoses and by society at large, but every Saturday morning by alcohol's very own resident teacher from experience: the hangover.
SOURCE
"Organic" milk fad fails the taste test
A NEW breed of boutique milk is flooding Melbourne's cafe scene - and customers are being charged four times more for it than regular milk. But the Herald Sun has found customers prefer the taste of the regular $1-a-litre full cream milk from Coles.
The new premium varieties are straight from family farms in Victoria. Brands such as Jonesy's and Schultz Organic Milk are becoming increasingly popular with baristas. But they come at a price, in some cases selling for more than four times as much as supermarket varieties. One organic milk is selling for $4.50 a litre, compared with $1-a-litre varieties in supermarkets.
Yet a blind taste test by Herald Sun readers has found most still prefer the Coles $1-a-litre full cream variety over organic brands. Several of our blind tasters said there was very little difference between the milk brands.
Owner of three Melbourne cafes, Marinus Jansen, exclusively uses Jonesy's milk. He said he had a strong personal relationship with the Somerville family of Kerang, who produced Jonesy's, and had received great feedback about the creaminess and taste of the milk from coffee lovers. "The reality is, we're giving our customers a better product, and the money is going back to the local community," he said.
Mr Jansen said independent milk suppliers were more expensive than the multinationals, but the milk's better quality far outweighed the extra cost.
Jonesy's Dairy Fresh owner Rhonda Somerville said her family went independent in December 2009 because of unsustainable milk prices from the big companies, but in the process they embraced a more natural approach. "What comes from the cow goes into the bottle ... we don't pull apart our milk and put it together again," she said.
Simon Schultz, of Schulz Organic Farms in Timboon, said his business had doubled in the past financial year. "The restaurants and cafes are always looking for something different. It's really driven by consumer demand," he said.
Many Australian farmers say the big supermarkets' price cuts on milk are slashing their profits, and in Victoria the export focused dairy industry is experiencing the volatility of shaky global markets. So some family farms have been hitting back by bypassing the big companies, that usually homogenise and pasteurise their milk, and producing it themselves.
United Dairyfarmers of Victoria president Kerry Callow said while global milk prices were volatile, there were significant challenges to striking out alone. "In Victoria we are largely export focused, so the big companies are important players in our industry," she said.
Wayne Mulcahy, of Kyvalley Farms in Kyabram, said he and his brothers had also turned independent to avoid swings in milk prices and had enjoyed success with local markets.
"Customers like to support independent suppliers because we're just a small farming family in Victoria. they want to support Victorians," he said.
SOURCE
Is measuring alcohol units a good thing? That was the question posed by a debate on Saturday at the Battle of Ideas. At first glance, it seems entirely reasonable that we should know the alcohol content of a given drink. But units are quite different: they allow us to compare the amount of alcohol to an ostensibly objective 'daily guideline'.
It very quickly emerged that this 'guideline' is flawed, if not harmful. From a medical perspective, it is almost impossible to predict the effect of alcohol on the average person. After all, we all have different levels of tolerance, are susceptible to different conditions, and are affected by a multitude of other factors too. The truth is all alcohol is unhealthy; and we know it! But by creating this artificial, arbitrary, and ultimately quite useless measure of alcohol consumption, we risk creating a problem. By definition.
Without an objective standard of what is healthy and unhealthy, we tend to conform to cultural norms. Alcohol consumption experiences its ups and downs, with one generation guzzling gin in Georgian proportions, and another religiously enthralled to temperance. Society itself defines this level of socially acceptable drinking. When we exceed it we are seen to have a problem. More importantly, we're brought up to see ourselves as having a problem, and in extreme cases friends and family intervene. It is a process that has been serving humanity well since at least 3000 BC, when Egypt's Pharaohs started mass-producing wine.
Despite agreeing that the measurement was flawed, a panellist at a government health body stood up and said that we nevertheless needed to look beyond the individual's right to drink, and look at society as a whole. He implied that measures needed to be taken to protect people from themselves, as individuals are too stupid or ignorant to know what is good for them. And thus that society is too ill informed to define an acceptable drinking norm. He brought up extreme problem cases, citing studies of alcohol addiction, and its effects on families and friends. Another doctor chipped in by saying the flaws of alcohol units paled in comparison to the need to inform the public of what they are consuming. They all called for greater regulation, restrictions and taxation, to the detriment of all drinkers.
Of course doctors know better than anyone else what the individual can suffer from excessive alcohol consumption, but these statements suggest a more sinister campaign for wider social control rather than individualised help for the particular patient. There is a fundamental difference between providing "information", and providing knowledge. The first is by their own admission deeply biased. Whereas knowledge is already provided not only by individual diagnoses and by society at large, but every Saturday morning by alcohol's very own resident teacher from experience: the hangover.
SOURCE
"Organic" milk fad fails the taste test
A NEW breed of boutique milk is flooding Melbourne's cafe scene - and customers are being charged four times more for it than regular milk. But the Herald Sun has found customers prefer the taste of the regular $1-a-litre full cream milk from Coles.
The new premium varieties are straight from family farms in Victoria. Brands such as Jonesy's and Schultz Organic Milk are becoming increasingly popular with baristas. But they come at a price, in some cases selling for more than four times as much as supermarket varieties. One organic milk is selling for $4.50 a litre, compared with $1-a-litre varieties in supermarkets.
Yet a blind taste test by Herald Sun readers has found most still prefer the Coles $1-a-litre full cream variety over organic brands. Several of our blind tasters said there was very little difference between the milk brands.
Owner of three Melbourne cafes, Marinus Jansen, exclusively uses Jonesy's milk. He said he had a strong personal relationship with the Somerville family of Kerang, who produced Jonesy's, and had received great feedback about the creaminess and taste of the milk from coffee lovers. "The reality is, we're giving our customers a better product, and the money is going back to the local community," he said.
Mr Jansen said independent milk suppliers were more expensive than the multinationals, but the milk's better quality far outweighed the extra cost.
Jonesy's Dairy Fresh owner Rhonda Somerville said her family went independent in December 2009 because of unsustainable milk prices from the big companies, but in the process they embraced a more natural approach. "What comes from the cow goes into the bottle ... we don't pull apart our milk and put it together again," she said.
Simon Schultz, of Schulz Organic Farms in Timboon, said his business had doubled in the past financial year. "The restaurants and cafes are always looking for something different. It's really driven by consumer demand," he said.
Many Australian farmers say the big supermarkets' price cuts on milk are slashing their profits, and in Victoria the export focused dairy industry is experiencing the volatility of shaky global markets. So some family farms have been hitting back by bypassing the big companies, that usually homogenise and pasteurise their milk, and producing it themselves.
United Dairyfarmers of Victoria president Kerry Callow said while global milk prices were volatile, there were significant challenges to striking out alone. "In Victoria we are largely export focused, so the big companies are important players in our industry," she said.
Wayne Mulcahy, of Kyvalley Farms in Kyabram, said he and his brothers had also turned independent to avoid swings in milk prices and had enjoyed success with local markets.
"Customers like to support independent suppliers because we're just a small farming family in Victoria. they want to support Victorians," he said.
SOURCE
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Study: Home life affects health of asthmatic kids
Just another instance of the poor being less healthy
Children with asthma who live in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to return to the hospital for treatment within a year than those who live in two-parent homes, a new study finds.
Kids from families whose annual income was less than $60,000 a year were also more likely to be readmitted, as were kids from homes with "time constraints."
The findings suggest that financial strain and competing priorities in single-parent homes are major issues, the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center researchers said.
The study was presented Saturday at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology annual meeting in Boston.
"Parents play an important role in controlling their child's asthma and it takes time, energy and resources to follow their physician's treatment plan, including reducing triggers and consistently giving medicines," Dr. Terri Moncrief said in a college news release.
"That's why it's important to understand the constraints on single parents and identify innovative interventions to help these parents better manage their child's symptoms and ultimately keep asthma under control."
Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Each year in the United States, uncontrolled asthma results in about 500,000 hospitalizations, 1.8 million emergency-room visits and 10.5 million physician-office visits, according to the ACAAI. In children, asthma accounts for nearly 13 million missed school days a year.
SOURCE
Fat taxes won’t prevent people getting fat, fatheads
Research released last week suggested that people in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should follow an ‘English’ diet to reduce levels of obesity. Fair enough, but unfortunately they also recommended imposing this diet by taxing fatty foods.
Fatty food has an inelastic demand curve i.e. price has little impact on demand. What will happen is people will redistribute their income away from other areas of consumption – clothing, housing etc and towards the, now more costly, fatty foods that they enjoy or they may simply spend less on food which means they'll cut out any healthier elements of their diets. But they'll still eat fatty foods so they'll be poorer, but still fat. Just like those smokers who still smoke.
The state would also be sending out mutually contradictory signals. On the one hand it would be attempting to increase the private cost of consuming fatty foods by raising their price. On the other hand it is effectively encouraging consumption of fatty foods by socialising the health costs of doing so via the NHS. A healthcare system free at the point of delivery is a very poor mechanism for incentivising healthy diets. An insurance-based system would be far more effective in this regard as it could incentivise healthy eating and weight-loss via reduced insurance costs.
The other problem here is that the researchers have failed to ask themselves why the English diet (I can see plenty of English people shovelling fat into their mouths, but still, on average) is healthier than elsewhere in the UK? Clearly this is not because we have taxes on fatty foods but because we are wealthier.
Within England, diets tend to be better in the wealthy South East than the poorer North East. There is a ‘robust’ correlation between absolute levels of wealth and health outcomes. Making people poorer by taxing them more is not going to make them wealthy and thus is it likely to reduce their overall health outcomes as well as having little or no direct impact. I can’t even see ‘Spiritlevel’ types supporting this kind of action; such taxes would fall more heavily on the poorest thereby increasing inequality.
Of course the root of the problem is that these regions of the UK have Soviet (actually higher than Soviet) levels of state intervention which is impoverishing them. The way to deal with obesity here is not to make them poorer by increasing tax rates and further intervention, but to make them richer by decreasing rates of tax and decreasing intervention i.e. completely the opposite to what the very sinister-sounding 'Health Promotion Research Group' propose.
‘Sin’ taxes do not merely fail in their objectives, they have serious unintended downsides as the trade in smuggled alcohol and tobacco demonstrates. I look forward in trepidation to the day that there is a serious outbreak of food poisoning because someone has smuggled a lorry-load of dodgy frozen burgers into the country in order to avoid the ‘fat tax’.
SOURCE
Just another instance of the poor being less healthy
Children with asthma who live in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to return to the hospital for treatment within a year than those who live in two-parent homes, a new study finds.
Kids from families whose annual income was less than $60,000 a year were also more likely to be readmitted, as were kids from homes with "time constraints."
The findings suggest that financial strain and competing priorities in single-parent homes are major issues, the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center researchers said.
The study was presented Saturday at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology annual meeting in Boston.
"Parents play an important role in controlling their child's asthma and it takes time, energy and resources to follow their physician's treatment plan, including reducing triggers and consistently giving medicines," Dr. Terri Moncrief said in a college news release.
"That's why it's important to understand the constraints on single parents and identify innovative interventions to help these parents better manage their child's symptoms and ultimately keep asthma under control."
Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Each year in the United States, uncontrolled asthma results in about 500,000 hospitalizations, 1.8 million emergency-room visits and 10.5 million physician-office visits, according to the ACAAI. In children, asthma accounts for nearly 13 million missed school days a year.
SOURCE
Fat taxes won’t prevent people getting fat, fatheads
Research released last week suggested that people in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should follow an ‘English’ diet to reduce levels of obesity. Fair enough, but unfortunately they also recommended imposing this diet by taxing fatty foods.
Fatty food has an inelastic demand curve i.e. price has little impact on demand. What will happen is people will redistribute their income away from other areas of consumption – clothing, housing etc and towards the, now more costly, fatty foods that they enjoy or they may simply spend less on food which means they'll cut out any healthier elements of their diets. But they'll still eat fatty foods so they'll be poorer, but still fat. Just like those smokers who still smoke.
The state would also be sending out mutually contradictory signals. On the one hand it would be attempting to increase the private cost of consuming fatty foods by raising their price. On the other hand it is effectively encouraging consumption of fatty foods by socialising the health costs of doing so via the NHS. A healthcare system free at the point of delivery is a very poor mechanism for incentivising healthy diets. An insurance-based system would be far more effective in this regard as it could incentivise healthy eating and weight-loss via reduced insurance costs.
The other problem here is that the researchers have failed to ask themselves why the English diet (I can see plenty of English people shovelling fat into their mouths, but still, on average) is healthier than elsewhere in the UK? Clearly this is not because we have taxes on fatty foods but because we are wealthier.
Within England, diets tend to be better in the wealthy South East than the poorer North East. There is a ‘robust’ correlation between absolute levels of wealth and health outcomes. Making people poorer by taxing them more is not going to make them wealthy and thus is it likely to reduce their overall health outcomes as well as having little or no direct impact. I can’t even see ‘Spiritlevel’ types supporting this kind of action; such taxes would fall more heavily on the poorest thereby increasing inequality.
Of course the root of the problem is that these regions of the UK have Soviet (actually higher than Soviet) levels of state intervention which is impoverishing them. The way to deal with obesity here is not to make them poorer by increasing tax rates and further intervention, but to make them richer by decreasing rates of tax and decreasing intervention i.e. completely the opposite to what the very sinister-sounding 'Health Promotion Research Group' propose.
‘Sin’ taxes do not merely fail in their objectives, they have serious unintended downsides as the trade in smuggled alcohol and tobacco demonstrates. I look forward in trepidation to the day that there is a serious outbreak of food poisoning because someone has smuggled a lorry-load of dodgy frozen burgers into the country in order to avoid the ‘fat tax’.
SOURCE
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Vaccine that could end the misery of acne for millions of teenagers
Rodent study only so far
It is a condition that blights the lives of millions of teenagers and young adults. Now scientists have made a breakthrough in the hunt for something of a medical holy grail – a treatment for acne. A vaccine which promises to halt a key cause of the unsightly and painful condition could be available within as little as five years, they say.
The breakthrough approach is a departure from current treatments, which mostly rely on antibiotics to ‘blitz’ the bacteria that cause spots.
The medicines can upset the skin’s natural balance and leave some sufferers at risk of scarring. Scientists at the University of California at San Diego are working in partnership with the world’s biggest vaccine company, Sanofi Pasteur, to create the jab.
Rather than focusing on eliminating the main acne-causing bacteria, P-Acnes, it aims to neutralise a ‘troublemaking protein’ produced by the germs and key to the formation of spots. Acne is caused when the skin’s sebaceous glands produce too much sebum – the skin’s natural moisturiser – clogging the pores.
The protein then starts killing skin cells, causing the body to try to fight back with inflammation, flooding the area with white blood cells. The result is sore pimples.
The experts, carrying out tests on the skin on the ears of mice, created antibodies which home in on the protein and ‘turn it off’. Mice given doses of bacteria treated with the antibodies developed much less inflammation than those given untreated bugs. The animals’ immune systems can also be stimulated to produce their own antibodies, the study found.
More than eight out of ten teenagers suffer from spots, and the global market for acne medications is estimated at about £1.87billion a year.
While vaccines are usually used to prevent illnesses, the jab would be instead be used as a treatment. It is too early to say how often it would need to be used.
Dr Harald Gollnick, of the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne, says it may be available within five to ten years.
Despite the range of treatments currently available, acne leaves 20 per cent of sufferers with scarring.
The strongest, Roaccutane, can make skin sensitive and has been linked to birth defects and depression.
Consultant dermatologist Dr Susannah Baron, of the BMI Hospital in Canterbury, said: ‘Acne affects so many teenagers at a very difficult stage of life. A vaccine that potentially targets inflammation could prove very helpful.’
SOURCE
The revolutionary cell jab that could halt arthritis for millions
Another rodent study
A revolutionary jab made from stem cells found in tummy fat could soon stop osteoarthritis in its tracks.
The breakthrough provides hope for the eight million people in the UK who suffer from the incurable condition and could potentially save thousands from needing joint replacement surgery.
Dutch and French researchers found injecting stem cells harvested from a patient’s own waistline protects joints against crippling damage. It appears to be the closest experts have come to halting the disease using stem cells.
How the treatment works
The therapy works by stopping destruction of cartilage – the ‘shock absorber’ tissue inside which gets ground down by osteoarthritis – and by protecting ligaments.
A single dose of stem cells extracted from adipose tissue – fat which accumulates around the stomach – more than halved damage to knee joints in mice.
The findings, revealed at the American College of Rheumatology in Chicago, could mark a turning point in the search for a treatment. Osteoarthritis is the most common type of arthritis in the UK.
It can inflame and damage any joints, but occurs mostly in the knees and hips. Some joints become so severely worn down they require surgery.
As well as older age, risk factors include being overweight, a family history of the condition and sports-related injuries.
Many sufferers rely on anti-inflammatory painkillers to ease their suffering, but these can damage the stomach if used long-term. About 60,000 people a year end up needing a knee replacement.
Significantly, adipose tissue is relatively easy to access and is thought to be the most abundant source of adult stem cells in the body.
According to some estimates, it contains 40 times more stem cells than bone marrow. Scientists are already using these fat cells in the search for cures for cancer, heart disease and spinal injuries.
Researchers at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in France, injected adipose stem cells into the joints of mice with arthritic knees.
The cells, known as mesenchymal cells, have the capacity to grow into a variety of body tissues.
Some mice received the jab seven days after osteoarthritis first set in, others 14 days after – which would translate into a few weeks or months in humans.
When it was given sooner, the jab cut destruction of cartilage by 54 per cent compared with those injected with a dummy jab. After six weeks, they had half the amount of ligament damage.
The jab also slowed a process called synovial activation, where the soft membrane around the joint becomes inflamed, in some cases by as much as 30 per cent.
British experts and charities including Arthritis Care last night welcomed the latest research.
Robert Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool, warned it was not yet certain how stem cells will behave in human joints. But he added: ‘It is the strongest clue yet that stem cell treatments could make a big difference.’
SOURCE
Rodent study only so far
It is a condition that blights the lives of millions of teenagers and young adults. Now scientists have made a breakthrough in the hunt for something of a medical holy grail – a treatment for acne. A vaccine which promises to halt a key cause of the unsightly and painful condition could be available within as little as five years, they say.
The breakthrough approach is a departure from current treatments, which mostly rely on antibiotics to ‘blitz’ the bacteria that cause spots.
The medicines can upset the skin’s natural balance and leave some sufferers at risk of scarring. Scientists at the University of California at San Diego are working in partnership with the world’s biggest vaccine company, Sanofi Pasteur, to create the jab.
Rather than focusing on eliminating the main acne-causing bacteria, P-Acnes, it aims to neutralise a ‘troublemaking protein’ produced by the germs and key to the formation of spots. Acne is caused when the skin’s sebaceous glands produce too much sebum – the skin’s natural moisturiser – clogging the pores.
The protein then starts killing skin cells, causing the body to try to fight back with inflammation, flooding the area with white blood cells. The result is sore pimples.
The experts, carrying out tests on the skin on the ears of mice, created antibodies which home in on the protein and ‘turn it off’. Mice given doses of bacteria treated with the antibodies developed much less inflammation than those given untreated bugs. The animals’ immune systems can also be stimulated to produce their own antibodies, the study found.
More than eight out of ten teenagers suffer from spots, and the global market for acne medications is estimated at about £1.87billion a year.
While vaccines are usually used to prevent illnesses, the jab would be instead be used as a treatment. It is too early to say how often it would need to be used.
Dr Harald Gollnick, of the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne, says it may be available within five to ten years.
Despite the range of treatments currently available, acne leaves 20 per cent of sufferers with scarring.
The strongest, Roaccutane, can make skin sensitive and has been linked to birth defects and depression.
Consultant dermatologist Dr Susannah Baron, of the BMI Hospital in Canterbury, said: ‘Acne affects so many teenagers at a very difficult stage of life. A vaccine that potentially targets inflammation could prove very helpful.’
SOURCE
The revolutionary cell jab that could halt arthritis for millions
Another rodent study
A revolutionary jab made from stem cells found in tummy fat could soon stop osteoarthritis in its tracks.
The breakthrough provides hope for the eight million people in the UK who suffer from the incurable condition and could potentially save thousands from needing joint replacement surgery.
Dutch and French researchers found injecting stem cells harvested from a patient’s own waistline protects joints against crippling damage. It appears to be the closest experts have come to halting the disease using stem cells.
How the treatment works
The therapy works by stopping destruction of cartilage – the ‘shock absorber’ tissue inside which gets ground down by osteoarthritis – and by protecting ligaments.
A single dose of stem cells extracted from adipose tissue – fat which accumulates around the stomach – more than halved damage to knee joints in mice.
The findings, revealed at the American College of Rheumatology in Chicago, could mark a turning point in the search for a treatment. Osteoarthritis is the most common type of arthritis in the UK.
It can inflame and damage any joints, but occurs mostly in the knees and hips. Some joints become so severely worn down they require surgery.
As well as older age, risk factors include being overweight, a family history of the condition and sports-related injuries.
Many sufferers rely on anti-inflammatory painkillers to ease their suffering, but these can damage the stomach if used long-term. About 60,000 people a year end up needing a knee replacement.
Significantly, adipose tissue is relatively easy to access and is thought to be the most abundant source of adult stem cells in the body.
According to some estimates, it contains 40 times more stem cells than bone marrow. Scientists are already using these fat cells in the search for cures for cancer, heart disease and spinal injuries.
Researchers at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in France, injected adipose stem cells into the joints of mice with arthritic knees.
The cells, known as mesenchymal cells, have the capacity to grow into a variety of body tissues.
Some mice received the jab seven days after osteoarthritis first set in, others 14 days after – which would translate into a few weeks or months in humans.
When it was given sooner, the jab cut destruction of cartilage by 54 per cent compared with those injected with a dummy jab. After six weeks, they had half the amount of ligament damage.
The jab also slowed a process called synovial activation, where the soft membrane around the joint becomes inflamed, in some cases by as much as 30 per cent.
British experts and charities including Arthritis Care last night welcomed the latest research.
Robert Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool, warned it was not yet certain how stem cells will behave in human joints. But he added: ‘It is the strongest clue yet that stem cell treatments could make a big difference.’
SOURCE
Friday, November 11, 2011
Pomegranate industry finds that pomegranates are a wonder drug
How surprising! The main finding seems to be that pomegranates have antioxidant properties. But antioxidants shorten your lifespan so that is faint praise. Note that the study was of blood chemistry only. All the other claimed wonderful effects are just theories
It can help to prevent heart disease, relieve stress and has even been shown to improve your sex life. And if that was not enough to convince you to try pomegranate, the fruit is now being hailed as the elixir of youth.
A £2million study has found a daily dose could slow the ageing process of DNA.
An extract of the whole fruit – including pith, peel and seeds – was given to 60 volunteers every day for a month in the form of a capsule. Researchers monitored the activity of chemicals in their bodies compared with those who took a placebo.
They found a significant decrease in a marker associated with cell damage, which can cause impaired brain, muscle, liver and kidney function as well as ageing effects on the skin.
This decrease – a hitherto unknown benefit of consuming pomegranate – is thought to slow down the oxidation, or ‘rusting’, of the DNA in cells which naturally occurs over time, according to researchers at the private ProbelteBio laboratory in Murcia, Spain.
They are found in small quantities in the juice but mainly in the inedible rind, husk and white pith which has been harnessed into a pill and a drink.
Dr Sergio Streitenberger, who led the study, funded by Pomegreat PurePlus, said: ‘We are very excited about this study which we believe demonstrates that regular consumption of this pomegranate extract can slow down the process of DNA oxidation
'One way to look at ageing is to think of it as rusting, or oxidising, a damaging process. Being able to guard against this process would be a significant breakthrough.’
Dr Streitenberger’s team – whose study will be published later this month – found a decrease in levels of a chemical marker called 8-Oxo-DG in the participants’ urine tests.
It is associated with damage to DNA caused by a host of chemicals we eat, drink and breathe in.
Pomegranate has been renowned as a superfood for centuries, and has been found to contain vitamins A, C and E as well as iron and antioxidants – chemicals which help neutralise harmful oxygen molecules called free radicals.
Last year, researchers at Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh, whose work was also funded by the Pomegreat juice company found their product could combat middle-aged spread and even reduce stress at work.
SOURCE
Could cutting back on salt do more harm than good? Experts find it raises cholesterol
Amusing how this study gets a level of criticism much stronger than most studies of its kind. Must not upset the "consensus"! It is true that the effects noted are weak but so are the effects in most studies of this type. The important datum is the effect on lifespan and salt reduction is at the least not clearly beneficial there
Cutting back on salt could do you more harm than good, boosting chemicals that are bad for the heart, scientists warn. The NHS states that a diet rich in sodium can cause raised blood pressure and the government have issued a long-term campaign to highlight the health risks.
But researchers from the University of Copenhagen now claim that cutting down on salt can increase the likelihood of death in some patients with existing heart problems.
An assessment of 67 previous studies involving over 40,000 people revealed that a reduced salt intake triggered a 2.5 per cent rise in cholesterol and a 7 per cent rise in a type of fat that can cause blood clots. The dietary change was also shown to cause the kidneys to release more of a protein called renin and its hormone aldosterone which is linked with high blood pressure.
Lead researcher Dr Niels Graudal, said: 'An increase in [cholesterol] would increase the risk of cardiovascular death.' He said that instead of people reducing their salt intake they should concentrating on quitting smoking, reducing alcohol consumption and losing weight.
Their study follows findings from Exeter University published in July that concluded there was 'no strong evidence' lowering levels of salt in the diet reduced the risk of heart disease or premature death.
But many are skeptical of the recent findings, published in the American Journal of Hypertension, and say it is not enough to devalue the major benefits of cutting back on sodium. Prof Graham MacGregor, chairman of Consensus Action on Salt and Health, said detailed examination of the latest paper showed there was no significant increase in cholesterol that lasted more than a month.
And small increases in renin and aldosterone at four weeks are similar to that which occurs when diuretics are given to reduce blood pressure.
He said: 'This study, contrary to the authors' claims, supports the wealth of evidence that reducing our salt intake will be immensely beneficial in preventing strokes, heart attacks and heart failure, the commonest causes of death and disability in the world.'
Meanwhile Keith C. Ferdinand, M.D., chief scientific officer of the Association of Black Cardiologists, told CNN: 'This study does nothing to defer the recommendation that across the general population, sodium restriction would have a huge benefit in terms of decreasing cardiovascular disease, and perhaps lives saved.'
According to the NHS adults should eat no more than 6g of salt a day - around one teaspoon full - and salt intake can be reduced by being wary of foods such as bacon, cheese, salami, salted and dry roasted nuts.
SOURCE
How surprising! The main finding seems to be that pomegranates have antioxidant properties. But antioxidants shorten your lifespan so that is faint praise. Note that the study was of blood chemistry only. All the other claimed wonderful effects are just theories
It can help to prevent heart disease, relieve stress and has even been shown to improve your sex life. And if that was not enough to convince you to try pomegranate, the fruit is now being hailed as the elixir of youth.
A £2million study has found a daily dose could slow the ageing process of DNA.
An extract of the whole fruit – including pith, peel and seeds – was given to 60 volunteers every day for a month in the form of a capsule. Researchers monitored the activity of chemicals in their bodies compared with those who took a placebo.
They found a significant decrease in a marker associated with cell damage, which can cause impaired brain, muscle, liver and kidney function as well as ageing effects on the skin.
This decrease – a hitherto unknown benefit of consuming pomegranate – is thought to slow down the oxidation, or ‘rusting’, of the DNA in cells which naturally occurs over time, according to researchers at the private ProbelteBio laboratory in Murcia, Spain.
They are found in small quantities in the juice but mainly in the inedible rind, husk and white pith which has been harnessed into a pill and a drink.
Dr Sergio Streitenberger, who led the study, funded by Pomegreat PurePlus, said: ‘We are very excited about this study which we believe demonstrates that regular consumption of this pomegranate extract can slow down the process of DNA oxidation
'One way to look at ageing is to think of it as rusting, or oxidising, a damaging process. Being able to guard against this process would be a significant breakthrough.’
Dr Streitenberger’s team – whose study will be published later this month – found a decrease in levels of a chemical marker called 8-Oxo-DG in the participants’ urine tests.
It is associated with damage to DNA caused by a host of chemicals we eat, drink and breathe in.
Pomegranate has been renowned as a superfood for centuries, and has been found to contain vitamins A, C and E as well as iron and antioxidants – chemicals which help neutralise harmful oxygen molecules called free radicals.
Last year, researchers at Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh, whose work was also funded by the Pomegreat juice company found their product could combat middle-aged spread and even reduce stress at work.
SOURCE
Could cutting back on salt do more harm than good? Experts find it raises cholesterol
Amusing how this study gets a level of criticism much stronger than most studies of its kind. Must not upset the "consensus"! It is true that the effects noted are weak but so are the effects in most studies of this type. The important datum is the effect on lifespan and salt reduction is at the least not clearly beneficial there
Cutting back on salt could do you more harm than good, boosting chemicals that are bad for the heart, scientists warn. The NHS states that a diet rich in sodium can cause raised blood pressure and the government have issued a long-term campaign to highlight the health risks.
But researchers from the University of Copenhagen now claim that cutting down on salt can increase the likelihood of death in some patients with existing heart problems.
An assessment of 67 previous studies involving over 40,000 people revealed that a reduced salt intake triggered a 2.5 per cent rise in cholesterol and a 7 per cent rise in a type of fat that can cause blood clots. The dietary change was also shown to cause the kidneys to release more of a protein called renin and its hormone aldosterone which is linked with high blood pressure.
Lead researcher Dr Niels Graudal, said: 'An increase in [cholesterol] would increase the risk of cardiovascular death.' He said that instead of people reducing their salt intake they should concentrating on quitting smoking, reducing alcohol consumption and losing weight.
Their study follows findings from Exeter University published in July that concluded there was 'no strong evidence' lowering levels of salt in the diet reduced the risk of heart disease or premature death.
But many are skeptical of the recent findings, published in the American Journal of Hypertension, and say it is not enough to devalue the major benefits of cutting back on sodium. Prof Graham MacGregor, chairman of Consensus Action on Salt and Health, said detailed examination of the latest paper showed there was no significant increase in cholesterol that lasted more than a month.
And small increases in renin and aldosterone at four weeks are similar to that which occurs when diuretics are given to reduce blood pressure.
He said: 'This study, contrary to the authors' claims, supports the wealth of evidence that reducing our salt intake will be immensely beneficial in preventing strokes, heart attacks and heart failure, the commonest causes of death and disability in the world.'
Meanwhile Keith C. Ferdinand, M.D., chief scientific officer of the Association of Black Cardiologists, told CNN: 'This study does nothing to defer the recommendation that across the general population, sodium restriction would have a huge benefit in terms of decreasing cardiovascular disease, and perhaps lives saved.'
According to the NHS adults should eat no more than 6g of salt a day - around one teaspoon full - and salt intake can be reduced by being wary of foods such as bacon, cheese, salami, salted and dry roasted nuts.
SOURCE
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The truth about MSG
Few ingredients have been subject to as much debate and hysteria as monosodium glutamate. Let's dispel some myths.
More than 40 years ago, The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from a Maryland doctor about a meal he had eaten. That relatively innocuous letter was to ignite a food controversy that has continued unabated ever since.
"I have experienced a strange syndrome whenever I have eaten out in a Chinese restaurant, especially one that served northern Chinese food," Robert Ho Man Kwok wrote. "The syndrome, which usually begins 15 to 20 minutes after I have eaten the first dish, lasts for about two hours, without hangover effect. The most prominent symptoms are numbness at the back of the neck, gradually radiating to both arms and the back, general weakness and palpitations …"
He went on to speculate on what had caused his curious symptoms. It could have been the alcohol in the dishes, he said, or perhaps it was the overall high sodium content or maybe it was the monosodium glutamate added to many Chinese dishes.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, subsequent attention zeroed in only on the possible role of MSG. Kwok's symptoms were subsequently dubbed "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" by the journal and, by 1969, the finger had been pointed unequivocally at MSG.
Since then, few food ingredients have been more extensively studied, vilified and defended as MSG.
But it is hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, MSG has effectively been part of Japanese cooking for centuries in the form of kombu, a type of seaweed that is a key ingredient of dashi soup stock.
Traditional Japanese chefs knew the stock had a unique property - it brought out the savoury flavour of other ingredients. And then, in 1908, University of Tokyo chemist Kikunae Ikeda isolated the unique flavour of kombu.
Ikeda reasoned kombu's flavour, and the flavour it revealed in other ingredients, was neither sweet, salty, sour or bitter - he coined the word "umami" to describe it.
Ikeda went further, identifying the key element of the seaweed, which turned out to be a common amino acid called glutamic acid. He stabilised the substance with ordinary salt and thus monosodium glutamate was born.
He patented his discovery and MSG began to be produced on a commercial scale (by fermentation) and used to enhance the flavour of practically every processed food you can name.
We can't get enough of it - it's like catnip for humans. In fact, there is now growing evidence we have taste receptors that are naturally programmed to relish glutamate.
And glutamate occurs naturally everywhere in our diets. Ripe tomatoes are full of it, as are dried mushrooms and broccoli. Parmesan cheese, in particular, is loaded with the stuff, which is why it is such a popular addition to meaty sauces like ragu bolognese. It even occurs in human breast milk.
Since Kwok put pen to paper about his symptoms, there have been hundreds of studies that have looked at possible links between MSG and the reaction he and others described.
In 1988, the World Health Organization and the United Nations reviewed all the evidence and concluded that MSG "did not represent a hazard to health". Then, in 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration did its own review and found that high levels of MSG had no effect on most people. There is a small group of people who show some response - but only after taking a massive MSG pill on an empty stomach.
In his book It Must've Been Something I Ate, American food writer and iconoclast Jeffrey Steingarten asks why, if MSG is eaten daily by billions of Chinese, they don't all have a headache.
But none of this has quelled persistent claims linking MSG with everything from diabetes and autism to Alzheimer's and heart attack. Sites such as banmsgnow .info and msgtruth.org routinely allege there is a conspiracy from "Big Food" to poison us with MSG. Among the more hysterical claims are that MSG can cause brain damage in humans and a small amount is sufficient to kill a dog.
At least part of the reason behind this hysteria lies in the fact that many reported symptoms are totally subjective. If someone complains of "general weakness" it is all but impossible to test that objectively. Designing studies that isolate the effects of one compound in our diet is also difficult.
"With any epidemiological study there are a lot of complexities in measuring food intake," a biomedical research scientist at the University of Adelaide, Natalie Luscombe-Marsh, says. "If you don't take into account … other parameters like other nutrients and people's dietary patterns you get these different results.
"There is really no experimental evidence to substantiate Chinese Restaurant Syndrome or links with asthma but that doesn't preclude that there is definitely a small percentage … who would be truly sensitive to MSG. But the majority of the bad press is unsubstantiated."
Food Standards Australia New Zealand has reviewed all the evidence and come to the same conclusion. "The overwhelming evidence from a large number of scientific studies is that MSG is safe for the general population in the levels typically found in food," a spokeswoman for FSANZ, Lorraine Belanger, says. "A small number of people may experience a reaction … but there's no convincing evidence that MSG is responsible for more serious effects like those you might see in an allergic response to things like peanuts."
AUSTRALIAN food manufacturers must list added MSG on their labels, either by name or with the food additive code 621. Other glutamates have the numbers 622 to 625.
Restaurants are not required to disclose whether they use MSG. The advice from the NSW Food Authority is to ask, if you believe you are sensitive.
"Sensitive individuals should also be aware that high amounts of glutamates maybe be present naturally in certain food," the advice says. Foods that are naturally high in glutamates include soy sauce and Vegemite.
Dan Hong, the head chef at Ms.G's, the cheekily named modern Asian restaurant in Potts Point with a menu that ranges from Vietnam to Korea and China, says for Chinese food in particular MSG "is part of the repertoire". "It's a tradition that goes back hundreds of years," he says.
In spite of the restaurant's name, Hong doesn't use powdered MSG in his cooking. "We try and use natural forms of MSG like kombu and stuff like that," he says.
Kombu has been in the news not for the glutamate it contains but its iodine content. Iodine is an essential nutrient but for a small proportion of the population, excessive iodine can be a problem. Since last October, quarantine authorities have rejected kombu from Korea, China and Japan that has more than 1000 milligrams of iodine per kilogram.
SOURCE
Kids get dangerous drugs instead of discipline
Soaring numbers of children as young as five are being chemically coshed with antipsychotic drugs, an investigation by Channel 4 News has found. A staggering 15,000 children under the age of 18 were prescribed the medication last year by their GPs – double the number a decade ago.
The drugs, such as Risperdal and Seroquel, are meant for serious mental conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychosis. But experts believe they are increasingly used as a chemical cosh to control children's behaviour, for example to calm youngsters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism.
Children can be left on the drugs for years and are not properly monitored, despite side effects such as dramatic weight gain, diabetes, heart disorders and a Parkinson's disease-like tremor that continues even after the medication is stopped.
Worryingly, nobody knows what the long-term side effects are and pharmaceutical companies have blocked all requests for data on trials involving children. Experts are concerned about the effect the drugs have on developing brains.
Guidance provided by professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, says a child psychiatrist must be involved in the prescription of drugs. But mental health experts believe this is increasingly not happening. Instead, the drugs are needlessly given out by GPs.
Professor Tim Kendall, director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, said the figures were 'extremely concerning'. 'As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that there has been a doubling in the rate of psychosis, so if there is a doubling in the rate of children being given antipsychotics, that is a worry,' he added. 'My worry is that these drugs are being used for other purposes.'
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show 14,999 children, up to the age of 18, were prescribed antipsychotics in 2010, compared with 7,649 in 2001. Of these, 253 were aged six or under, 3,205 were seven to 12 and 11,541 were 13 to 18.
The figures are for prescriptions issued by GPs only. No data exists for the number of prescriptions issued in hospitals.
Professor Peter Tyrer of Imperial College London, an antipsychotics expert, said the use of this medication was a 'slow fuse to disaster'. The drugs affected almost every part of the body, he added.
The figures on antipsychotics follow the recent revelation that 661,500 prescriptions for Ritalin, or similar drugs for ADHD, were issued to children last year. This amounts to more than 12,000 prescriptions a week and an increase of 70 per cent in the past five years.
SOURCE
Few ingredients have been subject to as much debate and hysteria as monosodium glutamate. Let's dispel some myths.
More than 40 years ago, The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from a Maryland doctor about a meal he had eaten. That relatively innocuous letter was to ignite a food controversy that has continued unabated ever since.
"I have experienced a strange syndrome whenever I have eaten out in a Chinese restaurant, especially one that served northern Chinese food," Robert Ho Man Kwok wrote. "The syndrome, which usually begins 15 to 20 minutes after I have eaten the first dish, lasts for about two hours, without hangover effect. The most prominent symptoms are numbness at the back of the neck, gradually radiating to both arms and the back, general weakness and palpitations …"
He went on to speculate on what had caused his curious symptoms. It could have been the alcohol in the dishes, he said, or perhaps it was the overall high sodium content or maybe it was the monosodium glutamate added to many Chinese dishes.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, subsequent attention zeroed in only on the possible role of MSG. Kwok's symptoms were subsequently dubbed "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" by the journal and, by 1969, the finger had been pointed unequivocally at MSG.
Since then, few food ingredients have been more extensively studied, vilified and defended as MSG.
But it is hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, MSG has effectively been part of Japanese cooking for centuries in the form of kombu, a type of seaweed that is a key ingredient of dashi soup stock.
Traditional Japanese chefs knew the stock had a unique property - it brought out the savoury flavour of other ingredients. And then, in 1908, University of Tokyo chemist Kikunae Ikeda isolated the unique flavour of kombu.
Ikeda reasoned kombu's flavour, and the flavour it revealed in other ingredients, was neither sweet, salty, sour or bitter - he coined the word "umami" to describe it.
Ikeda went further, identifying the key element of the seaweed, which turned out to be a common amino acid called glutamic acid. He stabilised the substance with ordinary salt and thus monosodium glutamate was born.
He patented his discovery and MSG began to be produced on a commercial scale (by fermentation) and used to enhance the flavour of practically every processed food you can name.
We can't get enough of it - it's like catnip for humans. In fact, there is now growing evidence we have taste receptors that are naturally programmed to relish glutamate.
And glutamate occurs naturally everywhere in our diets. Ripe tomatoes are full of it, as are dried mushrooms and broccoli. Parmesan cheese, in particular, is loaded with the stuff, which is why it is such a popular addition to meaty sauces like ragu bolognese. It even occurs in human breast milk.
Since Kwok put pen to paper about his symptoms, there have been hundreds of studies that have looked at possible links between MSG and the reaction he and others described.
In 1988, the World Health Organization and the United Nations reviewed all the evidence and concluded that MSG "did not represent a hazard to health". Then, in 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration did its own review and found that high levels of MSG had no effect on most people. There is a small group of people who show some response - but only after taking a massive MSG pill on an empty stomach.
In his book It Must've Been Something I Ate, American food writer and iconoclast Jeffrey Steingarten asks why, if MSG is eaten daily by billions of Chinese, they don't all have a headache.
But none of this has quelled persistent claims linking MSG with everything from diabetes and autism to Alzheimer's and heart attack. Sites such as banmsgnow .info and msgtruth.org routinely allege there is a conspiracy from "Big Food" to poison us with MSG. Among the more hysterical claims are that MSG can cause brain damage in humans and a small amount is sufficient to kill a dog.
At least part of the reason behind this hysteria lies in the fact that many reported symptoms are totally subjective. If someone complains of "general weakness" it is all but impossible to test that objectively. Designing studies that isolate the effects of one compound in our diet is also difficult.
"With any epidemiological study there are a lot of complexities in measuring food intake," a biomedical research scientist at the University of Adelaide, Natalie Luscombe-Marsh, says. "If you don't take into account … other parameters like other nutrients and people's dietary patterns you get these different results.
"There is really no experimental evidence to substantiate Chinese Restaurant Syndrome or links with asthma but that doesn't preclude that there is definitely a small percentage … who would be truly sensitive to MSG. But the majority of the bad press is unsubstantiated."
Food Standards Australia New Zealand has reviewed all the evidence and come to the same conclusion. "The overwhelming evidence from a large number of scientific studies is that MSG is safe for the general population in the levels typically found in food," a spokeswoman for FSANZ, Lorraine Belanger, says. "A small number of people may experience a reaction … but there's no convincing evidence that MSG is responsible for more serious effects like those you might see in an allergic response to things like peanuts."
AUSTRALIAN food manufacturers must list added MSG on their labels, either by name or with the food additive code 621. Other glutamates have the numbers 622 to 625.
Restaurants are not required to disclose whether they use MSG. The advice from the NSW Food Authority is to ask, if you believe you are sensitive.
"Sensitive individuals should also be aware that high amounts of glutamates maybe be present naturally in certain food," the advice says. Foods that are naturally high in glutamates include soy sauce and Vegemite.
Dan Hong, the head chef at Ms.G's, the cheekily named modern Asian restaurant in Potts Point with a menu that ranges from Vietnam to Korea and China, says for Chinese food in particular MSG "is part of the repertoire". "It's a tradition that goes back hundreds of years," he says.
In spite of the restaurant's name, Hong doesn't use powdered MSG in his cooking. "We try and use natural forms of MSG like kombu and stuff like that," he says.
Kombu has been in the news not for the glutamate it contains but its iodine content. Iodine is an essential nutrient but for a small proportion of the population, excessive iodine can be a problem. Since last October, quarantine authorities have rejected kombu from Korea, China and Japan that has more than 1000 milligrams of iodine per kilogram.
SOURCE
Kids get dangerous drugs instead of discipline
Soaring numbers of children as young as five are being chemically coshed with antipsychotic drugs, an investigation by Channel 4 News has found. A staggering 15,000 children under the age of 18 were prescribed the medication last year by their GPs – double the number a decade ago.
The drugs, such as Risperdal and Seroquel, are meant for serious mental conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychosis. But experts believe they are increasingly used as a chemical cosh to control children's behaviour, for example to calm youngsters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism.
Children can be left on the drugs for years and are not properly monitored, despite side effects such as dramatic weight gain, diabetes, heart disorders and a Parkinson's disease-like tremor that continues even after the medication is stopped.
Worryingly, nobody knows what the long-term side effects are and pharmaceutical companies have blocked all requests for data on trials involving children. Experts are concerned about the effect the drugs have on developing brains.
Guidance provided by professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, says a child psychiatrist must be involved in the prescription of drugs. But mental health experts believe this is increasingly not happening. Instead, the drugs are needlessly given out by GPs.
Professor Tim Kendall, director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, said the figures were 'extremely concerning'. 'As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that there has been a doubling in the rate of psychosis, so if there is a doubling in the rate of children being given antipsychotics, that is a worry,' he added. 'My worry is that these drugs are being used for other purposes.'
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show 14,999 children, up to the age of 18, were prescribed antipsychotics in 2010, compared with 7,649 in 2001. Of these, 253 were aged six or under, 3,205 were seven to 12 and 11,541 were 13 to 18.
The figures are for prescriptions issued by GPs only. No data exists for the number of prescriptions issued in hospitals.
Professor Peter Tyrer of Imperial College London, an antipsychotics expert, said the use of this medication was a 'slow fuse to disaster'. The drugs affected almost every part of the body, he added.
The figures on antipsychotics follow the recent revelation that 661,500 prescriptions for Ritalin, or similar drugs for ADHD, were issued to children last year. This amounts to more than 12,000 prescriptions a week and an increase of 70 per cent in the past five years.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)