What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?

The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.

Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)

But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.

As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."

Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.

What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.

The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.

As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.

The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
 
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.

Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.

Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.

 


 
 

Here is why writing by hand should not be forgotten

Post by Health, Wellness and Mindfulness.

The autism vs vaccines controversy

In 1998 an article published in the British Journal The Lancet claimed it found a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although that article was widely disputed and later retracted, it has left behind a significant following, leading many parents to refuse MMR vaccination for their children. The anti-vaccine groups also stressed on the use of mercury-based preservative Thimerosal in vaccines as a suspected culprit. As a result the government has gradually removed it or reduced it to trace amounts in all vaccines in 2001, in spite of no scientific proof of its possible link to incidence of autism. As explained on the CDC website;

"Over the years, some people have had concerns that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare."

The 2012 National Immunization Survey  found that about 90% of children aged 19 to 35 months completed recommended vaccinations and less than 1% received no vaccines at all. But it also highlighted the fact that rates are varied by states and regions therefore leaving some areas vulnerable to outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable diseases. The resurgence of measles and whooping cough (Pertussis) in recent years after decades of almost complete extinction could possibly be the distressing consequence of an increasing number of parents refusing the MMR vaccine on grounds of its possible association to autism. 

As explained by Puneet Kollipara in The Washington Post article How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (May 5, 2014).

A measles outbreak that struck a Texas megachurch community late last summer sickened 21 people. And just recently, at least 16 people got sick during a measles outbreak in Ohio. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported 13 measles outbreaks so far in 2014 -- the most since 1996.

According to an article in JAMA News;

Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.


Besides leading to prevention and saving lives, these vaccines are also economically beneficial, as pointed out by Kuneet Kollipara;

A new study from CDC researchers led by Anne Schuchat analyzed what happened to disease rates as childhood vaccination rates increased starting in the early 1990s. The researchers used these findings to model the resulting effect over the kids' lifetimes. In the analysis, the researchers factored in most routine vaccines recommended for children below age 6 (among them the MMR and whooping cough vaccines). Their findings: Routine childhood vaccinations given between 1994 and 2013 will save 732,000 lives and prevent 322 million cases of illness and 21 million hospitalizations over the course of the children's lifetimes. 

In 2009 alone, the researchers determined, each $1 spent on vaccines and their administration yielded $10 in benefits to society. And the vaccinations from 1994-2013, the researchers found, will save society a net $1.38 trillion, both directly (by reducing health expenses) and indirectly (via the economic activity that is saved from avoided illnesses). That's almost 10 percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product.

In the end vaccines may not be without fault but there is no clear cut evidence to their causal link to autism. And they are definitely effective and save lives if given to a significant percentage of the population.



References:
How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (The Washington Post-May 5, 2014).

Vaccine Safety: Concern about Autism (CDC)

Vaccination Rates for US Children Remain Generally High, But Measles Outbreaks Underscore Shortfalls in Some Regions(JAMA News Spetember 2013) 

A surge in antimicrobial resistance reported by WHO

The constant increase in the incidence of antimicrobial resistant infections is now becoming a major concern for the WHO. According to their recent report on 'Antimicrobial Resistance' this is a very real threat to global public health.
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).

If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;

Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.


Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.

The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.

According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;

The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones. 

Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:

Resistance in Bacteria

WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.

Resistance in Tuberculosis

Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.

Resistance in Malaria

The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.

Resistance in HIV

At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge. 

There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.

Resistance in Influenza

Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.


How can this surge be slowed down?

According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors. 
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:

People

• using antibiotics only when they are prescribed by a certified health professional;
• completing the full treatment course, even if they feel better;
• never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.

Health Care Workers And Pharmacists

• enhancing infection prevention and control;
• prescribing and dispensing antibiotics only when they are truly needed;
• prescribing and dispensing the right antibiotic(s) to treat the illness.

Policymakers 

• strengthening resistance tracking and laboratory capacity;
• strengthening infection control and prevention;
• regulating and promoting appropriate use of medicines;
• promoting cooperation and information sharing among all stakeholders.

Policymakers, Scientists and Industry

• fostering innovation and research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, infection treatment options and other tools. 

In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR? 
 
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:

• bringing all stakeholders together to agree on and work towards a coordinated response;
• strengthening national stewardship and plans to tackle AMR;
• generating policy guidance and providing technical support for Member States;
• actively encouraging innovation, research and development.

 

















References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)

WHO report: Antibiotic resistance happening right now all over the world (The Independent-April 30, 2014)

Several studies find further evidence of detrimental effects caused by marijuana smoking

Since this wave of legalization of use of recreational marijuana is spreading gradually but surely to more and more states in the United States, more and more studies funded by medical institutions and organizations are reporting on the very real dangers of frequent marijuana use. I am going to highlight only a few of the studies published on the subject in various medical journals in the past few years.

Journal of Neuroscience (April 16, 2014)

This study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and Chicago's Northwestern Medicine group, using a small sample of 40 individuals between the ages of 18-25 has shown that smoking cannabis ( also known as marijuana) once or twice a week can lead to major changes in brain areas associated with emotions and motivation.

In an article on this study, "Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study" published in The Independent ( April 16th 2014), health reporter Charlie Cooper writes;

The researchers used neuroimaging techniques to analyze the brains of cannabis users and non-users.

They found that the nucleus accumbens was unusually large in the cannabis users, while the amygdala also had noticeable abnormalities.
Anne Blood, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School said that the areas affected were "core, fundamental structures of the brain".
"They form the basis for how you assess positive and negative features about things in the environment and make decisions," she said.
The severity of abnormalities in these regions of the brain was directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week, according to the study, published in the Journal of Neuroscience on Wednesday. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions, but the effect was noticeable even in those who smoked once or twice a week.
However, experts in the UK said that the study group was small and that more research was needed over a longer timescale to establish whether cannabis smoking caused the unusual brain features, or whether people with such brain features were more likely to smoke cannabis in the first place.
Around one million people aged between 16 and 24 use cannabis in the UK per year, according to the charity DrugScope. Its use has been reported to cause anxiety and paranoia in some users and in rarer cases may be a trigger for underlying mental health problems.
Dr Michael Bloomfield, clinical research fellow at the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), said that the study added to the MRC's own research which found that heavy cannabis use in adolescence is associated with changes in chemical connections in the brain.

Schizophrenia Bulletin ( December 16, 2013)

Yet another study conducted by Northwestern Medicine and mainly funded by The National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute of Drug Abuse, has shown that heavy use of marijuana (daily for 3 years) in teen years can lead to abnormal changes in the brain structure related to memory. The teens in the study performed poorly on memory tasks.
According to lead study author Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, " The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it, with the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain."
Chronic use of marijuana may contribute to changes in brain structure that are associated with having schizophrenia, the Northwestern research shows. Of the 15 marijuana smokers who had schizophrenia in the study, 90 percent started heavily using the drug before they developed the mental disorder. Marijuana abuse has been linked to developing schizophrenia in prior research.

As reported in 'Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory'

by Eureka Alert online science news service;

"The abuse of popular street drugs, such as marijuana, may have dangerous implications for young people who are developing or have developed mental disorders," said co-senior study author John Csernansky, M.D., chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia."
Chronic marijuana use could augment the underlying disease process associated with schizophrenia, Smith noted. "If someone has a family history of schizophrenia, they are increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia if they abuse marijuana," he said.
While chronic marijuana smokers and chronic marijuana smokers with schizophrenia both had brain changes related to the drug, subjects with the mental disorder had greater deterioration in the thalamus. That structure is the communication hub of the brain and is critical for learning, memory and communications between brain regions. The brain regions examined in this study also affect motivation, which is already notably impaired in people with schizophrenia.
"A tremendous amount of addiction research has focused on brain regions traditionally connected with reward/aversion function, and thus motivation," noted co-senior study author Hans Breiter, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Warren Wright Adolescent Center at Feinberg and Northwestern Memorial. "This study very nicely extends the set of regions of concern to include those involved with working memory and higher level cognitive functions necessary for how well you organize your life and can work in society."


Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology (May 18, 2009)

The study Dr. Michael Bloomfield mentions was conducted by  Leicester University’s Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden. This research was funded by MRC, European Union Network of Excellence (ECNIS) and Cancer Research UK. The findings were published in the Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology.
In this case researchers found "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.  

Lead author Dr Singh said:
“There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” 
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”
The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

Although in each case marijuana use supporters will argue the sample sizes are too small or the study was biased, the results of each of these researches were very real. If anything further promotion of the idea that recreational use of marijuana is completely harmless should be discouraged more aggressively.


References:

Cannabis Use is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult

Recreational Users (The Journal of Neuroscience-April 16, 2014)

Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study(The Independent April 16, 2014)
Cannabis use increases cancer risk study suggests (MRC News & Publications)
Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain(Health News NPR-March 3, 2014)
Heavy Marijuana Use Alters Teenage Brain Structure(Psychology Today-March 30, 2014)

Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory (Northwestern University on Eureka Alert-December 16, 2013)

Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects (Schizophrenia Bulletin- Published 12/15/13) 

Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N²-Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts(Chemical Research in Toxicology-May 18, 2009)

 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)

No such thing as right-brained or left-brained

Remember all those quizzes meant to figure out whether you are left-brained or right-brained? Well, researchers have just declared them all useless since there is no such thing as left-brained or right-brained.
Although distinct skills have been attributed to whichever hemisphere is dominant for ages and seemed to make sense but sadly they have no scientific basis according to a two year research completed by neuroscientists at University of Utah. The study published in the Plos One Journal is based on a two years long study involving scanning the brains of more then a 1000 individuals between the ages of 7-29 while performing such simple tasks such as lying quietly or reading. These scans were used to measure these individuals' brain functional lateralization meaning the specific mental functions occurring on each side of the brain. For accuracy functional lateralization was measured for each pair of 7266 regions of the grey matter.
Analysis of the data collected as a result lead to the conclusion
" An individual brain is not “left-brained” or “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual. If a connection involving one of the left hubs is strongly left-lateralized in an individual, then other connections in the left-dominant network also involving this hub may also be more strongly left lateralized, but this did not translate to a significantly generalized lateralization of the left-dominant network or right-dominant network. Similarly, if a left-dominant network connection was strongly left lateralized, this had no significant effect on the degree of lateralization within connections in the right-dominant network, except for those connections where a left-lateralized connection included a hub that was overlapping or close to a homotopic right-lateralized hub."

(Read Complete Article)








References:

An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging(PLOS ONE Journal-August 2013)

Despite what you've been told, you aren't 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' (The Guardian- Nov 2013) 

Lost sleep = Lost Brain Cells

Yes, you read right.
Insufficient sleep is not only detrimental for our physical health but a recent study says it also leads to brain cell death.

The study conducted at University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine was published in the latest issue of The Journal of Neuroscience. While studying lack of sleep in mice, the researchers noticed prolonged lack of sleep lead to 25% of certain brain cells dying. After further observation and research the team concluded that similar damage is most likely occurs in human too.

As explained in the abstract of the article, "Modern society enables a shortening of sleep times, yet long-term consequences of extended wakefulness on the brain are largely unknown. Essential for optimal alertness, locus ceruleus neurons (LCns) are metabolically active neurons that fire at increased rates across sustained wakefulness. We hypothesized that wakefulness is a metabolic stressor to LCns and that, with extended wakefulness, adaptive mitochondrial metabolic responses fail and injury ensues."

With prolonged sleep deprivation the processes that maintain a health metabolic homeostasis in the brain can not be sustained, hence may lead to significant irreversible injury.  Although much more research and work needs to be done to determine whether loss of sleep can lead to real brain damage.

In the end, for all of us who survive on minimal sleep, it is clearly time to make an extra effort to ensure we get a good prolonged sleep every night.



References:

Extended Wakefulness: Compromised Metabolics in and Degeneration of Locus Ceruleus Neurons (The Journal of Neuroscience -March 19th 2014) 

Lost sleep leads to loss of brain cells, study suggests (BBC World News- Health March 19th 2014)

Reduce all animal proteins in our diet to live longer

It has been well documented that consumption of too much red meat as an adult can lead increased risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.

Now researchers in the US and Italy have gathered enough data, over a period of two decades, to conclude that individuals who have diets high in animal proteins during their middle age are four times more likely to die of cancer then their counterparts who had diets low in animal proteins. A risk some have compared with smoking. An increased risk of developing Diabetes Type 2 was also observed.

Valter Longo, a University of Southern California gerontology professor and director of the school’s Longevity Institute, who co-authored the study pointed out "The great majority of Americans could reduce their protein intake," and added "The best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins, but especially animal-derived proteins."

The interesting finding though was the fact that if you started eating more animal proteins after the age of 66 years, it is actually good for your health.


Here are two articles on the subject:

Too much animal-based proteins could lead to early death, study says ( Brady Dennis for The Washington Post)

It's time to kick the high-protein diet habit – before it kills you (Holly Baxter for The Guardian)


Reference:

Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Vitamin E and Selenium supplements may increase risk of cancer

With this increasing obsession with fitness and health the use of supplements such as vitamins, minerals, and herbal has increased exponentially. The increased efforts to stay healthy are good news but the fact that a huge majority of individuals do not even know what supplement to take or not to take, many end up losing any benefit and incur more damage to their health then advantage.

Recent clinical trials have shown that the unnecessary use of certain dietary supplements can lead to far more serious problems then known before. Such a study conducted in the US has shown that the high levels of the mineral Selenium can lead to a 91% increased risk for high grade cancer.
According to the the study leader Dr. Alan Kristal (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle)"These supplements are popular – especially vitamin E – although so far no large, well-designed and well-conducted study has shown any benefits for preventing major chronic disease.
"Men using these supplements should stop, period. Neither selenium nor vitamin E supplementation confers any known benefits, only risks."

This adverse effect appeared only when men with already high levels took the selenium supplement and not in men who originally had low levels. It was also noted that Vitamin E also increased the risk of cancer almost doubling it in men who had low level of selenium.

This study was a follow-up of Select (selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial), which originally recruited more than 35,000 men to see if the supplements could help prevent prostate cancer. The main goal of the trial was to prove whether selenium and vitamin E supplements actually prevented prostrate cancer. It was concluded "SELECT was initially planned for a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 12 years of participants taking supplements, plus follow-up observation after the men finished taking their supplements. However, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) for the trial met on September 15, 2008, to review SELECT study data and found that selenium and vitamin E, taken alone or together did not prevent prostate cancer. The committee also determined that it was unlikely selenium and vitamin E supplementation would ever produce a 25 percent reduction in prostate cancer incidence, as the study was designed to show. Based on their recommendation, with SWOG and NCI agreement, SELECT participants were told in October 2008 to stop taking their study supplements." (National Cancer Institute)

The Select trial suggested that Vitamin E intake may have more detrimental effects then initially thought, whereas the outcome of overuse of selenium was still disputed hence the follow up study.     "In 2011, data showed that men taking vitamin E alone had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, but men taking vitamin E plus selenium did not.  If men had low selenium levels at the start of the trial, the selenium supplement may have counteracted a negative effect of the vitamin E supplement." (Select study - NCI)

The results of this follow-up study have shown a clear relation between selenium and vitamin E supplements and the increased risk of prostrate cancer.
"In an analysis published in 2014, men who had high levels of selenium at the start of the trial, as assessed by measures of selenium in their toenail clippings, had almost double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the selenium supplement compared to men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial.  This finding was unexpected, as previous studies had shown that men with low levels of selenium had an increased risk of prostate cancer that was reduced with supplements (11, 12).  Additionally, men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial had double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the vitamin E supplement."
(National Cancer Institute)

A detailed article on the latest results was published on February 21st 2014 in The Guardian, titled

Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows.

P.S:

References:

Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) (National Cancer Institute)
Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows. (The Guardian)

Cancer on the rise in the world

Since the release of the  World Cancer Report 2014 by the WHO, we have been seeing headlines like 'Cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO' (BBC World) and for good reason.

The stats in the report have gotten everyone's attention. It suggests that the number of cancer cases might reach 24 million by 2035. It also points out that world health issues such as smoking, drinking, and obesity must be effectively dealt with to reduce that number. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) press release states:

Global battle against cancer won’t be won with treatment alone.

Effective prevention measures urgently needed to prevent cancer crisis.

Based on the latest statistics on trends in cancer incidence and mortality worldwide, this new book reveals how the cancer burden is growing at an alarming pace and emphasizes the need for urgent implementation of efficient prevention strategies to curb the disease.
Despite exciting advances, this Report shows that we cannot treat our way out of the cancer  problem,” states Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC and co-editor of the book. “More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed in order to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in cancer burden globally.”

In 2012, the worldwide burden of cancer rose to an estimated 14 million newcases per year, a figure

expected to rise to 22 million annually within the next two decades. Over the same period, cancer deaths are predicted to rise from an estimated 8.2 million annually to 13 million per year.

According to the report globally the highest number of diagnosed cancers were lung cancer, breast cancer and cancer of the large bowel. The highest number of cancer deaths were caused by cancer of the lungs, followed by cancers of the liver and stomach.

This World Cancer Report 2014 highlights the presence of a cancer divide.

As a consequence of growing and ageing populations, developing countries are disproportionately affected by the increasing numbers of cancers. More than 60% of the world’s total cases occur in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, and these regions account for about 70% of the world’s cancer deaths, a situation that is made worse by the lack of early detection and access to treatment.

 Many of the cancers seen in developing countries are high infection related cancers (cancer of liver, cervix and stomach) or are cancer known to be associated with the industrialized lifestyles (cancer of lungs, breast and large bowel). Therefore high mortality from cancer in these countries could be significantly reduced if they have access to effective and affordable cancer treatments but also by implementation of vaccination programs (Hep B and HPV) and preventive efforts towards the spread of tobacco.
The rising number of cancer cases is proving to be detrimental to the economy of even the richest countries. According to the report 'In 2010, the total annual economic cost of cancer was estimated to reach approximately US$ 1.16 trillion. Yet about half of all cancers could be avoided if current knowledge was adequately implemented.'

Last but not least the report stresses on the need for widespread efforts towards early detection and treatment and the promotion of adequate legislation to reduce exposure and risk behaviours.



P.S:

Cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO (BBC World February 4th 2014)
International Agency for Research Cancer  
World Cancer Research Fund International 

Millions living with leprosy in spite of being curable

On January 26th The World Day of Leprosy, I saw a video on The Guardian global development news page by Maria Zupello  titled Leprosy in Brazil: Uncovering a hidden disease. Realizing that leprosy is still around was rather disturbing, especially because this is a curable disease and therefore there should be no such thing as living with leprosy in these times, but after doing some research it became apparent that is not the case.

WHO: Leprosy Statistics:

According to the World Health Organization's latest stats on leprosy in the world, there are still around 200,000 reported new cases of leprosy every year in the world. Also known as Hansen's Disease, leprosy is endemic in 91 countries around the world. The highest concentration of reported new cases (at the start of 2012) being in South East Asia (117,147). The majority of which are in India. The second highest incidence is in the Americas (34,801),  of these reported new cases the majority are from Brazil. But because of its long incubation period and the lack of tools to allow early detection leading to late diagnosis, the exact prevalence of Hansen's disease is not clear.

India:
Although the Indian Government declared it has eliminated leprosy in 2005. It has since then become clear that the claim was premature. Of the total leprosy cases in the world 55% are in India, and about 127,000 new cases were reported between 2010-2011. Besides lack of access to basic healthcare services, leprosy patients also suffer socioeconomic isolation as a result of the stigma and discrimination that still exists in India.

Brazil: 
Leprosy is more prevalent in Brazil than in any other country except India. More than 30,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Despite economic development, expansion of public healthcare, and efforts of the leprosy control program in the past 30 years, this disease has not been eliminated, and new cases are still being detected. The leprosy control program in Brazil distributes free drugs as part of the World Health Organization multidrug regimen for treatment of leprosy. Unfortunately health care services are not available in rural parts of the country. The amazon region of Brazil where leprosy has been endemic for more than a century is almost deprived of such health services.

Leprosy is particularly prevalent among the poorest and most marginalised communities due to their lack of access to healthcare, poor sanitation and congested living spaces. - See more at: http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf

Government statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy cases are on the rise - See more at: http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf

Government statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy cases are on the rise - See more at: http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf

Government statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy cases are on the rise - See more at: http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf

To understand why the stigmatization, socioeconomic isolation, discrimination leading to leprosy communities in countries like India and Brazil is so wrong, here are some basic facts about Leprosy( Hansen's Disease);

What is Leprosy?

Leprosy is a chronic bacterial disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis. This infection primarily affects the skin, peripheral nerves and upper airway. It is well known that leprosy is not spread through casual contact. 

About 95% of human beings are naturally immune making leprosy the 'least contagious communicable disease'. The World Health Organization suggests that it is transmitted through moisture from the nose and mouth during frequent and close contact with an untreated leprosy-affected person. It might also happen if you are exposed to other nasal fluids (also known as secretions). Droplets and other secretions can contain the bacteria that cause Hansen’s disease. If you breathe these in, you can become sick with the disease.

According to the CDC,  as incubation period of the bacteria is long , it may take up to 2-10 years for signs and symptoms to appear. The disease mainly affects the skin, nerves and the mucous membranes. Common signs and symptoms include; disfiguring skin sores, lumps, or bumps that do not go away after several weeks or months. The skin sores are pale-colored. Nerve damage can lead to loss of feeling in arms and legs and muscle weakness. Without treatment, leprosy can permanently damage your skin, nerves, arms, legs, feet, and eyes.

Treatment of Leprosy

Leprosy can be cured. In the last two decades, more than 14 million people with leprosy have been cured. The World Health Organization provides free treatment for all people with leprosy.

Treatment depends on the type of leprosy that you have. It is treated with a combination of antibiotics. The treatment may last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. People with severe leprosy may need to take antibiotics longer. Antibiotics cannot treat the nerve damage.

Anti-inflammatory drugs are used to control swelling related to leprosy. This may include steroids, such as prednisone.

Patients with leprosy may also be given thalidomide, a potent medication that suppresses the body's immune system. It helps treat leprosy skin nodules. Thalidomide is known to cause severe, life-threatening birth defects and should never be taken by pregnant women.

According to the WHO 'Access to information, diagnosis and treatment with multidrug therapy (MDT) remain key elements in the strategy to eliminate the disease as a public health problem, defined as reaching a prevalence of less than 1 leprosy case per 10,000 population. Only a couple of endemic countries have still to achieve this goal at the national level; most are now applying the same elimination strategy at regional, district and sub-district levels. MDT treatment has been made available by WHO free of charge to all patients worldwide since 1995, and provides a simple yet highly effective cure for all types of leprosy.

Most countries that were previously highly endemic for leprosy have achieved elimination at the national level and are intensifying their efforts at regional and district levels.'

Information campaigns about leprosy in high risk areas are crucial so that patients and their families, who were historically ostracized from their communities, are encouraged to come forward and receive treatment. The most effective way of preventing disabilities in leprosy, as well as preventing further transmission of the disease, lies in early diagnosis and treatment with MDT. (WHO)

P.S: 
The Leprosy Mission India 
The Leprosy Mission Canada  
Hansen's Disease (CDC) 
Leprosy (WebMD)
Leprosy Today (WHO) 
National Hansen's Disease Program (HRSA) 
Watch Video: Leprosy in Brazil: Uncovering a hidden disease (The Guardian)

Watch Video: Battling leprosy in Brazil(BBC World)

Watch Video: Leprosy: India's Hidden Disease (The Guardian)

Photo Gallery: Colonia Antonio Alexio - Leprosy community in Manaus, Brazil (Photojournalist: Sharon Steinmann)

High Incidence of Diseases Endemic to the Amazon Region of Brazil, 2001–2006 (CDC)

 

Easy way to lose weight... just turn the heat down

Obesity and the struggle to lose weight is starting to become the plight of our time. Much research  is being done to find effective ways to understand the causes and finding effective ways to win this losing battle. Right now, more than one third of adults in the US are obese or overweight and a little more then a quarter of the adults in UK is obese or overweight.
Amongst all that research work a recent study published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism Journal, suggests that central heating might be another contributing factor to rising number of overweight individuals. As the temperature in homes, offices, hospitals and most places is being kept high our bodies are no longer burning that many calories to keep the body warm. Normally our metabolism rate (BMR) rise in cold weather to produce body heat. About 80% of the energy produced from our food intake is used up by our BMR.

According to the researchers at Maastricht University, a temperature of 66F would suffice to maintain a normal balance. The report also points out that about 90% of people remain mostly indoors while keeping the temperature at maximum comfort levels in turn minimizing caloric use by our bodies to maintain normal body temperature, shifting the balance towards weight gain.

Although lowering the thermostat alone may not lead to weight loss but it will definitely help along with exercise and diet. The report also mentions a study from  Japan in which volunteers showed a decrease in body fat after spending two hours a day in 17C over a period of six weeks.According to BBC World reporter James Gallagher;

Dr Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt told the BBC: "19C is enough - and not for the whole day.
"Energy increases were in the order of 6% in mild cold, and in the long term that could really make a difference.
"It could be a substantial influence and help in combination with food changes and exercise." 
He said people could "try turning the thermostat down" at home or "go outside".


P.S: 
Central heating may make you fat, say researchers (BBC World) 
Want to lose weight? Try turning your heating down: Being cold is a 'cheap way to get slim' (Daily Mail UK)





 

Restoring sight with gene therapy

A great breakthrough in treatment of blindness has been seen as surgeons in Oxford UK, have used gene therapy to improve the vision of six patients who would have gone blind without it. BBC World News' science correspondent Pallab Ghosh reports;

'Surgeons in Oxford have used a gene therapy technique to improve the vision of six patients who would otherwise have gone blind.

The operation involved inserting a gene into the eye, a treatment that revived light-detecting cells.
The doctors involved believe that the treatment could in time be used to treat common forms of blindness.
Prof Robert MacLaren, the surgeon who led the research, said he was "absolutely delighted" at the outcome.
"We really couldn't have asked for a better result," he said.
BBC News exclusively reported on the start of the trial two years ago. The first patient was Jonathan Wyatt, who was 63 at the time.
Mr Wyatt has a genetic condition known as choroideremia, which results in the light-detecting cells at the back of the eye gradually dying.
Mr Wyatt was still just about able to see when he had the operation. His hope was that the procedure would stop further deterioration and save what little sight he had left.
He, like another patient in Professor MacLaren's trial, found that not only did the operation stabilise his vision - it improved it. The other subjects, who were at earlier stages in their vision, experienced improvements in their ability to see at night.
Mr Wyatt is now able to read three lines further down in an optician's sight chart.'
( Read on..)



P.S:

Gene therapy 'could be used to treat blindness'(January 15, 2014)

Gene therapy used in a bid to save a man's sight  (October 27, 2011)