tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51071535732040011702024-02-20T04:14:58.936-05:00Janet's Food for ThoughtReports and ruminations...largely on food and the environment.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-69148753788366966202007-06-22T08:53:00.001-04:002007-06-22T10:13:58.961-04:00Fatty Goose Liver: Not What the Doctor OrderedA couple weeks ago, I wrote a column for <em><a href="http://www.sciencenews.org">Science News</a></em> about the apparent link between fast-food diets and fatty liver disease, a serious and potentially lethal condition in people. In this week's column for that magazine, I cover what might be considered its counterpoise—how eating fatty-liver products can induce a serious and potentially lethal condition, at least in the mice being tested. Presumably, humans could face a similar risk.<br /><br />The fatty-liver comestible at issue: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras">foie gras</a>.<br /><br />One somewhat reassuring aspect, at least in the United States, people don't tend to consume much foie gras. It's the excessively fatty liver of ducks or geese—often served pureed into a mousse or pâté and then doctored with any of various spices. I say doctored because I'm not a liver aficianado by any means and it would take a lot of doctoring to make it go down. <br /><br />I used to take 2 hours to eat about 4 ounces of liver as a child, and I only bothered to try because in our household, the only alternative to finishing it was to leave the dinner table and go straight to bed—at 4:30 p.m. Those episodes left a bad taste in my mouth for anything linked to liver. <br /><br />As I matured, I lost much of the genetically ingrained taste for fatty foods. So, as you might imagine, fatty liver is one of the last foods that would appeal to me. <br />However, it appeals to plenty of others, especially many who consider themselves gourmands. <br /><br />A new study by researchers in the United States and Sweden now finds that the process of overfeeding waterfowl to make their livers especially fatty really stresses those livers. And that stress can lead to the development of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein">protein </a>abnormalities—a misfolding of the proteins into hair-like shapes known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyloid">amyloid</a>s. <br /><br />In the June 26 <em><a href="http://www.pnas.org/">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></em>, those researchers now show that when amyloid-rich foie gras is fed to mice, it can seed tissues in the rodents to begin making even more amyloid. The researchers describe this as the fatty-liver-based food "infecting" the animals with a propensity for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyloidosis">amyloidosis</a>: life-threatening disease where the affected tissues—which can be liver, heart, or gastrointestinal tract—don't work properly because their proteins' shape is all wrong.<br /><br />There are plenty of caveats associated with the findings. And I would direct you to read the longer article in <em>Science News</em> to learn more about them. They explain why there is probably little immediate cause for panic, even among most foie gras lovers. <br /><br />Among the biggest of these: Affected animals were all at high risk for amyloidosis to start with. Among human populations that would match that condition—individuals with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis">tuberculosis</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy">leprosy</a>. When you think about it, the people in the United States most likely to suffer from either of those diseases are indigents. Such individuals are hardly likely to eat, much less overindulge, in foie gras, which typically goes for $6 or more per <em>ounce</em>.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-67407852870154876362007-06-18T08:19:00.001-04:002007-06-19T21:34:11.335-04:00EPA Compresses Press AccessOne nice thing about being a reporter is that we usually get rather open access to a range of ordinarily closed venues—from the White House and various Cabinet level agencies, to behind-the-scenes settings at museums, university labs, industrial centers, control rooms in nuclear power plants, even the command center on ice breakers in the Arctic Ocean (yes, I was there, ferried to the deck on a Coast Guard chopper from Barrow, AK). <br /><br />We also get an opportunity to ask questions—and usually are rewarded with answers—from newsmakers, like the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, last Thursday. These events are called press conferences even though increasingly, the reporters who take part don't publish in materials that actually run through presses. <br /><br />June 14th's press conference was a virtual one in every sense of the word. First, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson wasn't in town, but on a farm in New England, and patched into reporters by phone. The reporters, similarly, didn't go to the event. We just dialed into a conference call to listen to a host of disembodied voices. <br /><br />What was particularly weird about this one—on the launching of a study to sample air emissions from confined-animal-feeding operations, or CAFOs—was that it started on the dot at 12:15 p.m. EDT and ended 15 minutes later. Johnson was joined by three other individuals, including the Purdue scientist who was leading the study. All said a little to reporters. <br /><br />Then, they opened the event to questions. But not many. <br /><br />Each news organization, we learned, would be allowed one question. But not every news organization would get to ask one because after about five, time was up and they ended the press conference.<br /><br />Mind you, they told us so little during the introduction, that most of the details had to be elicited, bit by bit, during our one-question-per-reporter access. And with time for few questions, little information was exchanged. <br /><br />I've NEVER attended a news conference that was so brief and conveyed so little data. <br /><br />Yes, I'm annoyed at the new limits on access to newsmakers. But the big loser is the public. We get to serve as its voice, asking the questions our readers or listeners would like to if they were here. <br /><br />Of course, we were directed to check the agency's website for more info. But as one might expect, that information was limited and certainly didn't answer my questions. Less than a minute after the press conference ended, I was on the phone to EPA's news office to ask a public-information officer for more details. I was put into his voicemail, and got a call back long after I needed the information. <br /><br />This isn't an isolated instance. I'd heard of this happening before from colleagues, but has thought they must be exaggerating the brevity of access. Even my husband, a reporter and bureau chief for a major energy publication, has encountered this phenomenon—the excessive truncation of news conferences. <br /><br />Remember, it's the public that is really losing access here, and in this case to the people that are supposed to be their servants. <br /><br />I think the real message is that public servants are short-changing <em>we, the people</em>, on service.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-42926348702855763072007-06-15T00:19:00.001-04:002007-06-18T09:15:43.006-04:00Chinese Toothpaste Scare Hits ColgateRemember the Chinese toothpaste scare that broke 2 weeks ago? At the time, the Food & Drug Administration noted that only off-brand products might carry the toxic tainting with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylene_glycol">diethylene glycol</a> (DEG). Well, now comes word that products carrying the Colgate name might also be affected.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/toothpaste.html">FDA announced</a> that it had confirmed it had identified "counterfeit" toothpaste, imported from South Africa, carrying the Colgate name. It wasn't made by Colgate, but had been fraudulently labeled as such, according to spokespersons for the company. Colgate doesn't have manufacturing plants in South Africa or import toothpaste from there.<br /><br />Yesterday, <a href="http://investor.colgate.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=249085&ReleaseType=Company&ReleaseDate={ts%20'2007-06-14%2000:00:00'}&header=&Archive=">Colgate-Palmolive reported</a> that the misbranded product "has been found in several dollar-type discount stores in four states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. There are indications that this product does not contain fluoride and may contain Diethylene Glycol." Clues that will help recognize these fakes: they're labeled as coming from South Africa and contain misspellings, such as South Afrlca and South African Dental Assoxiation.<br /><br />DEG, as you may recall, is a solvent commonly used as an anti-freeze. It's poisonous and doesn't belong in anything that makes contact with the mouth. In some developing countries, low-cost DEG is substituted for the more costly glycerin, a popular sweetener used in liquid over-the-counter and prescription-drug products—and now, apparently, in toothpastes as well.<br /><br />Just a month before the DEG-toothpaste link made news, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01628.html">FDA warned</a> drug manufacturers and health professionals that unscrupulous foreign firms had occasionally been swapping the toxic DEG for glycerin. In one episode last September, in Panama, DEG tainted medicines resulted in 40 deaths. <br /><br />"Colgate is working closely with the US FDA to help to identify those responsible for the counterfeit product," a company press release announced yesterday. It recommended that consumers who suspect they may have purchased such a fake to call Colgate's toll-free number at (800)-468-6502.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-84085594788674339902007-06-11T21:56:00.001-04:002007-06-13T18:04:29.473-04:00Why Alcohol Might Be Good for DiabeticsSeveral studies over the years have found that diabetics who regularly drink a little—and we do mean alcohol—tend to live longer and keep their glucose under better control. For instance, I <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1999/15604/15604-04.pdf">reported in 1999 </a>that "diabetes sufferers who enjoy an occasional libation, compared with those who eschew alcohol, have just half the risk of dying from coronary artery disease. Those<br />who down a drink a day face only 20 percent of the teetotalers’ heart-disease mortality."<br /><br />It's perplexed physicians as to why. And posed a dilemma. After all, doctors don't usually want to prescribe alcohol since it's basically empty calories, can addle thinking, and can contribute to the development of alcoholism in some individuals. So, particularly where a mechanism to explain the association remained murky, doctors generally ignored the link.<br /><br />It may become a little harder to do so, now.<br /><br />A study published in this month's <em>American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</em> finds that when people were served alcohol with a meal, their bodies more slowly converted the carbohydrates in the meal into blood sugar. And that's a good thing.<br /><br />Australian researchers at the University of Sydney's Human Nutrition Unit fed a group of 10 men and women "meals"—usually amounting to no more than white bread with margarine or mashed potatoes. Why these carbs? Because ordinarily the body breaks them down into gluocse—blood sugar—so quickly that eating them is not much better than directly downing a teaspoon of table sugar.<br /><br />However, when alcohol was consumed with the food—or even up to an hour beforehand—the body digested the food into glucose far more slowly. It parsed out the glucose into blood at a nice, steady pace, which is exactly what the doctor wants to see happen. Why? Because spikes in blood sugar can confuse the body's insulin-making machinery, leading to a spike in insulin, which is NOT good for the blood vessels.<br /><br />Jennie C. Brand-Miller and her colleagues conclude that "under realistic conditions," moderate quantities of beer, wine, or gin—all three of which were tested in amounts equivalent to two predinner drinks—can lower blood-sugar values following a meal by up to 37 percent,. This, of course, is all relative to dining alcoholfree.<br /><br />"These effects may provide a hitherto unreconized benefit of moderate alcohol consumption for cardiovascular health," the scientists say.<br /><br />There is a caveat—isn't there always: The test subjects were all lean and healthy, i.e. <em>not</em> diabetic. However, there is the expectation that this may be one way for people who are at least prediabetic to stay that way.<br /><br />Here's another caveat: In the new study, the scientists administered white wine in one round of the tests. In fact, red wines might have provided an even more robust advantage, based on data I reported 3 years ago. <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040501/bob10.asp">In that story</a>, experiments—admittedly conducted in diabetic rats—showed that even without its alcohol, red wine's constituents could control their blood sugar after a meal as well as nondiabetic animals.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-12350094988519415082007-06-06T22:27:00.000-04:002007-06-13T22:22:34.893-04:00Boys Just Start Out BiggerEveryone knows why girls generally don't play on boys' football or basketball teams—they're too small to match the competition. But I always thought that any size advantage in males was due to genetic programming that caused them to grow faster and bigger, starting in toddlerhood.<br /><br />Wrong. Boys start out bigger in the womb and just keep building on that size advantage after birth.<br /><br />The revelation comes from a paper by Radek Bukowski of the University of Texas Medical Branch and his colleagues at 10 other U.S. medical institutions, not to mention the University of Cambridge, England and Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland.<br /><br />This august group studied fetal growth in nearly 29,000 babies. Even at just 8 to 12 weeks following conception, boys were bigger than girls. The difference was small, which was why it took so many babies to statistically confirm it was something other than a fluke finding.<br /><br />Boys retained their subtle size advantage through birth, when they weighed in at some 120 grams more, on average, than girls. That's among boys that were conceived the old fashioned way. However, even among those conceived in a test-tube—and these accounted for 3.5 percent of the babies—boys weighed an average of 90 grams more at birth than girls.<br /><br />Accounting for mom's height, weight, smoking status, or race didn't alter the trend, the researchers report in the May 15 <em>American Journal of Epidemiology.</em>Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-82551213910881755712007-06-05T23:48:00.001-04:002007-06-13T22:02:19.682-04:00Antifreeze Doesn't Belong in ToothpastesFew people would knowingly reach for a tube of Chinese toothpaste—at least in a U.S. supermarket, pharmacy, or big-box store. However, a number of bargain brands are, in fact, Chinese imports. And even that wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that our Food & Drug Administration inspectors have identified several shipments of these Chinese toothpastes tainted with a poison: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylene_glycol">diethylene glycol</a> (DEG), also known as diglycol.<br /><br />On June 1, FDA issued an "import alert" about these products" and <a href="http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01646.html">announced </a>that: "Out of an abundance of caution," it recommends that consumers pitch out away toothpaste labeled as originating in China.<br /><br />DEG is an antifreeze and solvent used in many commercial resins, dyes, oils and organic chemicals. It's also a "humectant"—an additive that keeps products moist—for tobacco, cork and glues. Although toxic to animals, including humans, China permits the use of DEG in toothpastes. The United States does not. In some of the imported products tested by FDA, DEG constituted 3 to 4% by weight of the toothpastes. Not all of the products were even labeled as containing DEG.<br /><br />FDA identified about a dozen different brands of tainted toothpastes—none major name brands. Interestingly, none of the contaminated brands had received an <a href="http://www.ada.org/">American Dental Association <em>Seal of Acceptance</em></a> either. This is a designation that ADA deems the labeled product safe and effective.<br /><br />According to FDA, DEG is commonly used in some developing countries as a cheap substitute for glycerin and propylene glycol. Where it has been used in products such as over-the-counter cough syrups and pain relievers, deaths have resulted.<br /><br />Bottom line: Sometimes it pays to ante up for a name brand, or at least one with a medical group's seal of approval.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-12464837054517857922007-06-05T23:47:00.000-04:002007-06-06T21:43:22.765-04:00Hot Flash Newsflash IIIWomen of a certain age, as we like to say, find themselves prone to hot flashes—a sudden flush and drenching sweat. Not only are these episodes uncomfortable and potentially embarrassing, but they can also become a major distraction from any events at hand. Which is why they're not usually welcomed. However, a new study suggests that perhaps they should be in certain breast-cancer survivors—those taking the drug tamoxifen to ward off a cancer recurrence.<br /><br />Joanne Mortimer of the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine led a study that followed 1,551 women. All had survived early-stage breast cancer and were taking part in a Women's Healthy Eating and Living study, which began in 1995. The study was designed to evaluate whether l0w-fat diets that were high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables might help limit the cancer's return. Slightly more than half of the recruits had been prescribed tamoxifen, and more than 75 percent of these women—674, to be exact—experienced hot flashes.<br /><br />That's not surprising, since hot flashes are a common side effect of breast-cancer treatment, notes Mortimer. However, among tamoxifen users, hot flashes proved a strong predictor that a woman's cancer would not come back, Mortimer's team reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, yesterday. Breast cancer returned in roughly 13 percent of the patients who'd experienced hot flashes, but in 21 percent of those who didn't.<br /><br />These findings held for women at any age, and proved a better predictor of whether cancer would return than how advanced her cancer had been at diagnosis or whether the cancer was estrogen-receptor negative—the type most resistant to therapy with a synthetic hormone, such as tamoxifen.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-57161826309157573192007-06-05T08:22:00.000-04:002007-06-05T09:42:00.148-04:00The Climate of World Environment Day 2007<a href="http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/home%7c10001%7c10051%7c-1">Hallmark </a>missed this one. It's not even on your calendar, although the <a href="http://www.un.org/english/">United Nations </a>would put it there if it could. We're talking about commemoration of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Environment_Day">World Environment Day</a>, which celebrates it's 35th anniversary today.<br /><br />Established by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly">United Nations General Assembly</a>, it was created to focus world attention for at least 24 hours, each year, on sustainability and environmental stewardship. The host city for focal celebrations rotates each year. <a title="Tromsø" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tromso">Tromsø</a>, <a title="Norway" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway">Norway</a>, the 2007 venue, lies just north of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle">Arctic Circle</a>—a fitting site for this year's theme: "<a href="http://www.wed.npolar.no/world-environment-day-2007/view?set_language=en">Melting Ice—A Hot Topic</a>."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.who.int/dg/chan/en/index.html">Margaret Chan</a>, the <a href="http://www.who.int/en/">World Health Organization's </a>Director-General, issued a statement—food for thought, if you will—on the subject of health in a changing climate. "Limiting the impact of climate change is about saving lives and livelihoods, as much as it is about protecting the natural environment," she says.<br /><br />For perspective, she points out that an estimated 60,000 people—most of them in the developing world—die from climate-related natural disasters each year. However, the developed world is not immune. More than 35,000 people died in Europe's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave">2003 summer heat wave</a>, and countless more lost their homes, jobs, and future as a result of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina">Hurricane Katrina </a>2 years later.<br /><br />However, Chan says, "Even these dramatic numbers do not adequately reflect the potential indirect impact of climate change on health. " She points to several global killers—<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria">malaria</a>, <a href="http://www.oneworldhealth.org/pdf/Diarrheal%20Disease%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?PHPSESSID=4e0c79d12d75a3b1868938cab12a4607">diarrhea</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition">malnutrition</a>, for instance—that "are highly sensitive to climatic conditions. . . . Without effective action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, the burden of these conditions will be greater, and they will be more difficult and more costly to control."<br /><br />Earth's warming climate is already <a href="http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin1/010221a.asp">melting icecaps and glaciers</a>. If allowed to continue, such huge releases of pent-up fresh water could submerge coastal areas where millions of people now live. A changing climate also means rains will likely become less predictable and surface moisture will evaporate more quickly. Together, she says, such developments risk seriously limiting "the quality and the quantity of drinking water, and eventually bringing drought."<br /><br />Chan argues that "there are two things that we can and must do to respond to this challenge": strengthen public health systems, the first line of defence against climate-related health risks, and "remember that prevention is just as important as cure." She's talking here, about what has come to be known as the <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a>.</em> Indeed, Chan maintains, "Many of the actions that are necessary to reduce our impact on the global climate can also reduce pollution and save lives now."<br /><br />What kinds of actions? She recommends moving towards reliance on cleaner energy sources and more <a href="http://www.ecoplan.org/vancouvr/stprincp.htm">sustainable transport systems</a>. I'm guessing this rules out gas-hogging <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUV">SUVs</a> and airline travel to short-haul destinations where good rail and road infrastructures exist. Americans might also adopt a tactic common in Europe: Walking whereever possible to the market, cinema, and restaurants?<br /><br />Today's words from Dr. Chan have been offered as a counterpoint to <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html">Michael Griffin's </a>at <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/">NASA</a>, last week. These two individuals offer a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang">yin and yang </a>of informed discourse on the future of our responsibilities in affecting climate and the potential repercussions of investing in mitigating strategies sooner rather than later.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-70684847579620937462007-06-03T23:35:00.000-04:002007-06-05T14:25:55.120-04:00Coffee StatsAs a tea drinker, I realize I'm in the minority. Most of the world around me—especially in North America—prefers coffee. And I'd have thought, based on consumption trends among my friends and colleagues, that coffee was still the beverage king. So, it was with some surprise that I read some new statistics in an Agriculture Department newsletter, known as <em>Amber Waves</em>. It reports that <strong>U.S. coffee consumption in 2005</strong>, the most recent year for which data are available, <strong>was 24.2 gallons per person—down from a per capita high of 46.4 gallons in 1946</strong>.<br /><br />One likely cause of the post-war downturn, write Jean C. Buzbyand Stephen Haley of USDA's Economic Research Service, "is the increased availability of alternative benverages, particularly soft drinks."<br /><br />Does Starbucks know this?Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-73996722071362314742007-05-31T20:19:00.000-04:002007-06-01T22:06:30.842-04:00NASA on Climate ChangeDouble-speak? Triple-speak? Spin-speak?<br /><br />Just what was NASA Administrator Michael Griffin trying to tell us in the National Public Radio interview, today, on Morning Edition?<br /><br />"I'm aware that global warming exists," he flatly admits to NPR's Steve Inskeep. "I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a 1-degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century . . . I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have . . . pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade."<br /><br />Sounds like he's a believer in the message Al Gore has stumped for over the past 2 years (and eloquently articulated in what became the Academy Award winning film, <em>An Inconvenient Truth). </em><br /><em></em><br />However, where Gore and the science community have largely concluded global warming is bad for the planet, Griffin waffled on his assessment this morning, saying that "Whether [the current global warming trend] is a long-term concern or not, I can't say."<br /><br />In fact, Griffin took a fairly strange tack in explaining his position to Inskeep, arguing that "To assume that it [global warming] is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had . . . "<br /><br />Interestingly, that's not the assumption I've made--nor have heard anyone else make.<br /><br />Griffin goes on to charge that it's "a rather arrogant position" for people to accord themselves the right "of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here, today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings."<br /><br />The problems I find with that line of reasoning is that<br /><br /> 1) no one has said today's climate is the best. Indeed, it probably should be a bit cooler than it is today if human habitability is going to be our yardstick. After all, sea-level rise, due to the current global warming, has already begun encroaching on human settlements, especially on island nations, reducing their terrestrial real estate. Moreover, current average-global-temperature increases are undoubtedly contributing to droughts that are making farming more costly in large parts of the globe, including much of Florida, Arizona, the Plains states, and California. Climate change is also fostering more erratic weather, in many regions changing the onsets of monsoons and their intensities, both of which can also negatively affect farm cycles.<br /><br /> 2) humans aren't the only animals of value. People share the globe with zillions of other species--from mighty oaks and algae to such charismatic megafauna as polar bears in the Arctic and penguins in the Antarctic. The latter are already losing their habitat as glaciers and polar ice sheets have begun melting at rates unheard of in recorded history. The greenhouse gases that human activities spew are certainly contributing to the warming cycle that threatens these polar zones with precipitous change, even as our own regions are slowly altering. And<br /><br /> 3) recent warming trends have spurred the spread of disease-causing mosquitoes and other pests. No one would argue that fostering the spread of tropical and other diseases would be a global good.<br /><br />Over the past few years--and especially the past few months--the august Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued reports representing the concensus of more than 1,000 of the world's best informed scientists on climate and its impacts. They conclude that human activities are driving up average global temperatures.<br /><br />Indeed, just last month, IPCC issued a report to policymakers on the likely impacts of current climate trends. It concluded, contrary to many conservative pundits, that a synthesis of the accumulating data show dire impacts are likely to begin soon. Not only will corals, which play an integral role in ocean health, bleaching--a sign of stress and vulnerability to sickness, but wildfire risks are going to skyrocket. Sickness and death rates in human populations are predicted to soon rise due to those emerging diseases, inability to deal with heat waves or unusual flooding and droughts. Grain yields will suffer will fall at low latitudes but climb a bit at higher ones. Unfortunately, the soils at higher latitudes are often not suitable for grains.<br /><br />Overall, it says to expect major disruptions to agriculture, falling freshwater supplies, and increased risk of sickness and death from communicable diseases.<br /><br />Why is Griffin waffling on whether this is a long-term concern? Because some of the prediction may not happen?<br /><br /><div>I'm betting Griffin buys life, fire, and homeowner's insurance. Why isn't he willing to acknowledge that the planet may need some insurance policies too?</div><div> </div><br />Could it be politics? Can the fate of the globe afford to rest on politics instead of science?<br /><br />This is truly food for thought...Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-47247829960512261102007-05-31T09:29:00.000-04:002007-05-31T09:39:31.579-04:00Food Security StatOne of the Agriculture Department's 5-year goals has been to reduce the prevalence of very low food security among low-income households (those having incomes at 130 percent of the nation's poverty line or lower) to no more than 7.4 percent by this year. A new report, released today, suggests that achieving that goal will be next to impossible.<br /><br />In 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, "<strong>the prevalence of very low food security among low-income households stood at 12.6 percent, up from 10.9 percent in 2000</strong>."<br /><br />USDA defines very low food security as being where: "at times during the year, food intake of one or more household members is reduced and normal eating patterns disrupted because the household lacks sufficient money and other resources for food."<br /><br /><strong>Source:</strong> Nord, M. 2007. Characteristics of Low-Income Households With Very Low Food Security: An Analysis of the USDA GPRA Food Security Indicator. USDA Economic Research Service Report #EIB-25 (May) Available at: http://<br /><a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib25">www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib25</a>Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-66311024915800837722007-05-31T09:23:00.000-04:002007-05-31T09:26:06.966-04:00Fish Stat"<strong>Aquaculture</strong> is the fastest growing segment of world food production, <strong>accounting for 43% of seafood consumed globally</strong>. This $63 billion global industry will play a crucial role in coming years due to increased demand for seafood."<br /><br /><strong>Source:</strong> May 30, 2007, Seafood Choices Newsletter, produced by SeaWeb. Available at: <a href="http://www.seafoodchoices.org/secure/newsletter-afishianado.php">http://www.seafoodchoices.org/secure/newsletter-afishianado.php</a>Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-23401741923639348562007-05-30T08:46:00.001-04:002007-06-06T22:24:15.765-04:00Cancerous Vacations?The development of dark moles—known as melanocytic nevi—are the best predictor of whether an individual will eventually contract melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer. Sun exposure is the primary environmental cause of those melanocytic nevi. A new study now finds that among 2,189 German children between the ages of 6 and 7, nevi counts correlated best with a history of vacationing in a sunny locale with a high solar-ultraviolet-light index.<br /><br />The higher the UV index, the higher the melanocytic nevi count, Olaf Gefeller of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, and his coworkers report in the May 15 <em>American Journal of Epidemiology</em>.<br /><br />Where might one encounter a high UV index? At southerly locations, such as Mediterranean beaches. At high altitudes, such as alpine ski resorts. Or in even mid-latitude cities during the height of summer.<br /><br />In contrast to many other studies, total sun exposure alone did not prove a good predictor of nevi risk. For instance, exposures at home didn't raise risks, not did vacation exposures at northern, sunny sites. The findings suggest, the researchers conclude, that "exposure to intense intermittent doses of UV radiation induced by frequent vacations early in life shows a strong association with [large mole] development."<br /><br />In the past, history of severe childhood sunburns has proven a somewhat useful risk factor for malignant melanoma. However, teasing out the importance of other sun exposures has proven more difficult, the researchers note. The new study's large size and the children's common hometown made it fairly easy for the researchers to attribute differences in nevi development to difference in vacation sites.<br /><br />The message these data really bring home is the importance of slathering a child with sunscreen if intense sun exposures—even relatively brief ones—are expected.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-55134123350446895552007-05-27T12:03:00.000-04:002007-05-27T12:15:30.239-04:00Freetopia...Charitopia's Younger SisterGoogle Freetopia and you'll get 2290 listings--at least as of today. This past week, the Stanford University team behind <a href="http://www.charitopia.org">Charitopia</a> launched a new sister website that will also be known as Freetopia.<br /><br />Explains co-developer Michael Genesereth, the new site is "for people who wanted to offer goods to others for free. Just like eBay, but restricted to items offered for free."<br /><br />Good luck finding it, however. As of today, the new website's URL (<a href="http://www.freetopia.org">http://www.freetopia.org</a>) will just direct you to the <a href="http://logic.stanford.edu/">Stanford Logic Group</a>, the computer scientists' general-research home page.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-13777479904880381172007-05-27T11:25:00.000-04:002007-05-27T12:06:21.039-04:00More on CharitopiaA few days ago, I reported the unveiling of <a href="http://www.charitopia.org/">Charitopia</a>, a website developed by <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/">Stanford University</a> computer scientists that matches up donors of goods and charitable groups that could use those cast-offs. At the time I noted that details were sketchy. Well, Charitopia developer <a href="https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/lookup?search=Genesereth&submit=Search">Michael Genesereth</a> has since gotten back to me with some details.<br /><br />As I suspected, the new program is currently operating only around the San Francisco Bay area, largely because arranging for the movement of "free" goods becomes problematic when the donor is in Chicago and the charity in Atlanta. However, he fully expects the program to eventually go international.<br /><br />For now, Genesereth explains, "We try to match by zipcode. Getting goods transferred remains a problem even in this case. At any rate, it is the charity that is responsible for 'arranging' the exchange. In some cases, this means picking goods up. In some cases, it means asking donors to drop things off. We are also working with organizations like the UPS to do free pickup and delivery; however, we do not yet have any such deals signed. Finally, we are contemplating a volunteer service--to drive around on weekends to pick up and drop things off. Not yet in place either. This is a summer project for some students here."<br /><br />Although Charitopia went live in March, as of last Friday, only 10 donors and charitable recipients had registered with the project's website (<a href="http://www.charitopia.org">http://www.charitopia.org</a>).<br /><br />By the way, in just the last 4 days, that site has vastly expanded its utility. For instance, individuals no longer have to register and log in (which is, of course, free) to see what is available or what categories of goods it's currently soliciting.<br /><br />Or, which charities have signed up. As of today, there are eight: <a href="http://www.aidsfreeafrica.org/">AidsfreeAfrica</a>; <a href="http://www.ravenswood.k12.ca.us/schools/bellehaven/">Belle Haven School</a>; <a href="http://www.buddingballerinas.com/">Budding Ballerinas</a>; Charitopia; <a href="Freetopia">Freetopia</a>; Gomoa Achiase School; <a href="http://www.habitat.org/">Habitat for Humanity</a>; and <a href="http://logic.stanford.edu/">Stanford Logic Group</a>.<br /><br />However, things are moving along swiftly, Genesereth says. Later this week, he says, "We expect to have the system in full service, including email notifications of complementary listings and so forth."<br /><br />Speaking of Freetopia, what's that? See the next post.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-7540092414602897002007-05-25T08:22:00.000-04:002007-05-25T08:58:41.684-04:00Flame Retardant GullsLast evening, I cited research indicating that people may acquire much of their daily exposure to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_flame_retardant">brominated flame retardants</a>—ubiquitous and potentially toxic chemicals used to render many plastics, fabrics, and other materials resistant to burning—from the air in our homes. Well, today's post points out that wildlife also accumulate these chemicals, byproducts of humanity's love affair with plastics and foam-based goods.<br /><br />The new paper, published Tuesday online—and slated to appear soon in a print edition of <em><a href="http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/index.html">Environmental Science & Technology</a></em>, reports Canadian research on fetal exposures to herring gulls (<em><a href="http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Larus_argentatus.htm">Larus argentatus</a></em>) living around each of the <a href="http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/">Great Lakes</a>. Not only did eggs of the birds contain anywhere from around 185 to 400 parts per billion (ppb) of <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031025/bob10.asp">polybrominated diphenyl ethers</a> (PBDEs), but they also carried low-ppb concentrations of other types of brominated flame retardants as well.<br /><br />Many of these are agents that manufacturers have been turning to now that two of the three major classes of PBDEs have been phased out in the United States and Europe. These replacements for PBDEs include chemicals with long, intimidating names, such as <a href="http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0161.htm">hexabromobenzene</a>, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/penbroeb.htm">pentabromoethylbenzene</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexabromocyclododecane">hexabromocyclododecane</a>.<br /><br />Lewis T. Gauthier of <a href="http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1">Environment Canada </a>in Ottawa and his colleagues argue that since mother gulls are depositing these chemicals into their eggs, these newer non-PBDE flame retardants must taint the birds' freshwater prey.<br /><br />What makes the findings potentially troubling: Almost no toxicity data exist for these non-PBDE flame retardants, despite the fact that they are starting to show up in measurable amounts in wildlife.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-48691127973448396622007-05-24T17:18:00.000-04:002007-05-25T09:04:57.024-04:00Flame Retardant Air?A fairly ubiquitous class of flame retardants—chemicals used to keep products from readily burning—have been showing up in the environment, in animals, and in ourselves. Studies are just beginning to tease out the potential toxicity of one of the more prominent classes of these agents: They're PBDEs, an acronym which stands for a chemical mouthful—<a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs68-pbde.html">polybrominated diphenyl ethers</a>. A new study now reports data suggesting that roughly one-fifth of the exposure of urban residents may come from the air in their homes.<br /><br />Isn't that a pleasant thought.<br /><br /><a href="http://sph.bu.edu/index.php?option=com_sphdir&id=239&Itemid=340&INDEX=12505">Joseph G. Allen </a>of the <a href="http://sph.bu.edu/">Boston University School of Public Health </a>and his coworkers installed air-sampling devices in the bedrooms and main living rooms for each of 20 local volunteers. The devices ran for a week whenever the individuals were at home. The researchers also fitted each recruit with a personal air sampler that traveled with him or her around the home. Its intake was clipped to the recruits' shirt collars so that it would sniff the air at roughly nose level. At bedtime, the personal air sniffer was placed at bed height in the bedroom.<br /><br />What's rather disturbing: The personal air sniffers picked up significantly more PBDEs than did devices just randomly sampling room air. For instance, the average concentration of these chemicals sniffed in the vicinity of the volunteers' heads was ~765 picograms per cubic meter in air—some 300 pg/m³ higher than in bedroom- or living-room air. The findings appear in a paper published online today and due to appear in print soon in <em><a href="http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/">Environmental Science & Technology</a>.</em><br /><br />The good news: Measured concentrations were low. However, these pollutants are remarkably persistent, meaning they don't readily degrade. So, there's a distinct possibility that exposures could accumulate, leading to a slow buildup of some of these compounds. What there is no question about is that these compounds do make it into our bodies in measurable quantities. Four years ago, university scientists in this country reported that human exposures begin in the <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031025/bob10.asp">womb</a> and is augmented by breastmilk. That's troubling because studies have suggested that at least of few of these <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/pubs/proj-plan32906a.pdf">PBDEs </a>can trigger subtle toxicity.<br /><br />Presumably, the relatively high personal readings reflect individuals spending time in close proximity to household items treated with PBDEs. These might include sofas, mattresses, computer cases, electronics, or any of many other products. However, in this study, Allen's team was unable to correlate air readings with the presence of particular products in the tested homes.<br /><br />Concern over the potential health effects of these agents led to a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/pubs/qanda.htm">U.S. phase-out </a>in the production and sale of two of the three common classes of them. The voluntary move by the manufacturers came after discussions with—and presumably more than a little pressure by—the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/">Environmental Protection Agency</a>. At the time, Europe had already instituted a ban on these chemicals. Together, these two classes comprise nearly 200 different PBDEs, although a few particular ones dominate each mix.<br /><br />The third class, represented primarily by the deca-brominated PBDE, which is known as PBDE-209, remains in commercial use throughout the United States. In the new study, offgassing vapors of all three PBDE classes were detected in indoor air and by the personal-air sniffers (although concentrations of the deca-PBDE were second highest, on average, of the 12 individual PBDEs assayed).<br /><br />What's the health significance of the new findings? No one knows. However, <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060415/note16ref.asp">one recent study </a>reported that fat cells exposed to brominated flame retardants undergo changes that would appear to foster obesity and type 2 diabetes. <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030524/note15ref.asp">Another study </a>showed that sunlight can break down some of these flame retardants into unusual members of the dioxin family. And European scientists, working with lab animals, <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031025/bob10.asp">linked </a>PBDE exposures to reproductive and brain problems.<br /><br />And what the new study reinforces is that our homes are not necessarily havens from these pollutants.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-90945247553829634622007-05-24T17:12:00.001-04:002007-05-27T11:38:14.281-04:00Recycling CharitablyCharitopia. I guess what the <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/">Stanford University </a>researchers had in mind when they named their <a href="http://www.charitopia.org/">website </a>was some vision of a utopia for charitable giving. It's actually a site that matches up individuals having things to donate—from an unopened box of pencils to a car—with charities that can use them. There's no charge for the matchmaking service, either to donors or recipients. The site's developers also promise no advertising or spam.<br /><br />A news release that went out to reporters, today, recommends the site for students finishing their school year and at wits end what to do with that chair, TV, and bookcase—items that worked well in the dorm but won't fit in the car to go home. Now, instead of pitching unwanted goods on the street, they can be matched up with hospitals, homeless shelters, or schools.<br /><br />According to <a href="https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/lookup?search=Genesereth%20&submit=Search">Michael Genesereth </a>and Michael <a href="https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/lookup?search=Kassoff&submit=Search">Kassoff</a>, the scientists who designed the program, the site's matching abilities depend on the application of a branch of computer science that endows those number crunchers with reasoning skills. Both donors and would-be recipients identify what they have or want, based on descriptions of the goods in terms that both people and computers can understand. Then, the computer applies logical rules to pair up donors and charities. Donors can even select the type of charity they do or don't want to receive their items.<br /><br />The project receives no outside funding beyond the Stanford computer-science department, and legal services for the site have been "secured" pro bono by Genesereth, who is research director of Stanford's <a href="http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/codex/">Center for Computers and Law</a>.<br /><br />I tried contacting the Charitopia people earlier today to find out if their project has a national reach yet, or just works with parties in California. I've yet to hear back, and the website doesn't offer a clue.<br /><br />Clearly, even though the site went live in March, the project is a work in progress. Today's news release notes that the Stanford team has hired a summer intern to manually update and increase the classifications for goods that can be listed with the site.<br /><br />It certainly seems like a good idea. As the parent of a college student, I know how much stuff these young adults acquire over the course of 8 to 9 months—far more than our car can retrieve. Which is why I want to know: Is this service available in Pittsburgh yet?Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-41052275899044430622007-05-21T22:06:00.000-04:002007-05-25T09:07:36.669-04:00A Less Fattening Fat?Few people have trouble losing weight—especially over the short run. The problem is keeping the shed pounds from returning. A new study suggests that substituting 5 grams per day of <a href="http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/gam_0120.shtml">gamma-linolenic acid</a> (GLA), an <a href="http://efaeducation.nih.gov/sig/overview1.html">essential fatty acid</a>, for an equivalent amount of olive oil can limit how many pounds are regained in the first years following a major paring down of weight.<br /><br />Marie A. Schirmer and Stephen D. Phinney of the <a href="http://www.ucdavis.edu/index.html">University of California, Davis</a>, recruited 50 formerly obese people to take part in a year-long, double-blind trial. That means that neither the researchers nor the participants knew which half of the volunteers were receiving olive oil capsules and which were getting capsules of GLA-rich borage oil. The recruits were also encouraged to log food intake and exercise daily.<br /><br />Periodically, the researchers weighed each volunteer, calculated his or her body's lean-to-fat ratio, and looked at how the supplemented fat was distributing itself into body fat.<br /><br />In the May <em><a href="http://www.nutrition.org/journal/journal.html">Journal of Nutrition</a></em>, the nutrition scientists report that men and women randomly assigned to receive the GLA gained, on average, 2.17 kilograms (4.8 lbs), during the first year on the supplements. Those who had instead been taking the olive oil capsules gained more—8.78 kg (more than 19 lbs.).<br /><br />The researchers then selected 12 subjects in each group to continue on for another year and 9 months. In this case, all openly received the GLA capsules. At the end of this phase, each group had gained back even a little more weight, although now at the same rate. The researchers conclude that GLA, a polyunsaturated fat, may help people limit the speed and overall amount of weight regained by formerly obese individuals.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-83931776851957591292007-05-21T21:17:00.000-04:002007-05-21T22:01:20.915-04:00Protein Helps Curb HungerAll things being equal, diets higher in protein are better at holding hunger at bay than meals richer in fat or carbs. That's the finding of a set of prolonged feeding trials run by scientists at Purdue University.<br /><br />John W. Apolzan and his coworkers advertised for volunteers in the local newspapers and ended up enrolling 12 men between the ages of 21 and 43 and another 10 between the ages of 63 and 79. After calculating how many calories it would take for each man to maintain his current weight, the researchers tailored diets to deliver just that much energy to each man over the course of three 18-day cycles. All foods except for water were supplied the participants, and any uneaten food was returned and weighed.<br /><br />The recommended intake of protein is 0.8 gram per kilogram of bodyweight—or about 2 ounces for a 155 pound man. In one cycle, each man got slightly more than that: 1 g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day. In the other cycles, he got 0.5 or 0.75 g/kg day. The ordering of these 18-day dietary cycles were randomly assigned to each participant. At the end of each cycle, the scientists administered hourly questionaires throughout the waking hours of one day to assess hunger and desire to eat in each of the volunteers.<br /><br />In the May <em>Journal of Nutrition</em>, Apolzan's group reports that the men reported being 20 percent less hungry after the highest protein diet phase than after either of the others. Similarly, each man's desire to eat was, on average, almost 30 percent greater on the mid-level protein diet and 50 percent greater on the low-protein diet than when the volunteers got the high-protein fare.<br /><br />It now appears that for those of us wishing to curb the siren call of calories, eating too little protein—as 15 to 40 percent of older Americans do—might foster overeating.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-27305899404439792007-05-21T07:38:00.001-04:002007-05-27T13:43:59.540-04:00Not Enough Time to CookThere has been the expectation that as income falls, the amount of time a family spends cooking will climb--in part to economize but also because less time employed outside the home leaves individuals more time to cook. However, contrary to patterns seen in the past, it now appears that low-income U.S. families spend very little time preparing meals.<br /><br />Indeed, a study issued this week reports that low-income families don't allocate nearly as much time to food preparation as would be necessary to implement the Thrifty Food Plan, an Agriculture Department program which shows Food Stamp recipients how to prepare nutritious meals using low-cost foods available under the Food Stamp program.<br /><br />Preparing meals from scratch that comply with recommendations of the Thrifty Food Plan take an estimated 80 to 130 minutes, on average, per day. In fact, the new study finds, low-income families where all adults work full-time typically reserve only 40 minutes per day for meal preparation.<br /><br />Studies by the boatload have shown that people tend to down healthier fare when they eat at home. Moreover, meals cooked from scratch tend to have more nutrients, fewer preservatives, less salt, less sugar, and less fat than foods that have been commercially processed.<br /><br />In their new report, "Who Has Time to Cook?", Lisa Mancino and Constance Newman of the Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service sifted through data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau on how individuals use their time throughout the day. For this analysis, they focused, of course, on time spent cooking.<br /><br />As might be expected, women who don't work outside the home--people who in the past might have been termed housewives--spent the most time in the kitchen. On average, they devoted slightly more than 70 minutes a day preparing meals. Women who worked part-time outside the home averaged about 55 minutes a day fixing meals, and full-time working women spent a mere 38 to 46 minutes a day cooking.<br /><br />Single women found less incentive to cook. On average, those that worked spent 15 fewer minutes per day cooking than those who were married or lived with partners. Perhaps surprisingly, <u>single <em>non</em>-working women spent a half-hour less cooking food per day than those who were married or otherwise partnered</u>.<br /><br />What about men? Fuhgeddaboudit, as my New York relatives would say. Regardless of income level, those with full- or part-time jobs spent 13 to 17 minutes a day cooking; those who were unemployed spent a mere half-hour or less, on average.<br /><br />The bottom line, Mancino and Newman say, is that the Thrifty Food Plan doesn't account for how little time people now find available for meal preparation. To offer useful guidance, this Plan will need significant a retooling, they argue, finding recipes for alternatives that can be whipped up in far less time.<br /><br />As a woman who typically spends 11 to 14 hours outside the home at work and in commuting, I can attest that even when the larder is well-stocked, I have little enthusiasm for spending an hour or more preparing dinner. Except on weekends, even breakfast is prepared on the fly.<br /><br />Indeed, I'm convinced that too little time and motivation to cook has become one major fallout of our overextended workforce. A correllary, those of us who don't have the energy to cook are also unlikely to possess the energy to exercise in what little free time they can find.<br /><br />It's not even that we're all doing this just to chase the almight buck. Many jobs require long hours--and exist great distances from where the workforce is likely to live. When will society decide to value quality of life? Once we're all fat and sick? Oops...we're already there, aren't we?Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-36258784661271902372007-05-20T21:54:00.000-04:002007-05-20T22:09:42.580-04:00Killer Stats IILast Friday, I reported on lethal trends, mostly in disease, affecting people around the globe. Tonight, I ran across a paper with an interesting chart that compares all causes of mortality in Americans. <strong>Heart diseases ranked first, accounting for 27 percent of U.S. deaths. Number 2: cancer, at 23 percent. </strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Those chart toppers probably come as little surprise. What may raise an eyebrow or two: chronic lower respiratory diseases (#4 on the list) kill 6% of people each year, and accidents (#5) kill nearly 5% more. The next two most frequent causes of death: diabetes at 3% and Alzheimer's at 2.8%. Murder, #15 on the list, accounts for 17,360 deaths, or 0.7 percent, a value just slightly behind the 18,000 lives lost to Parkinson disease. The latter is especially troubling because there is little information on what causes most cases of Parkinson disease--and still no cure.<br /><br /><strong>Source:</strong> Jemal, A., et al. 2007. Cancer Statistics, 2007. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 57(January/February):43.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-9715934621776060682007-05-20T21:23:00.000-04:002007-05-20T21:48:09.629-04:00Hot Flash Newsflash IIEven people who don't cotton to tofu usually find soy nuts palatable. The hard, toasted seeds taste sort of like a cross between peanuts and pretzels. It now turns out that as snacks go, these may have an extra benefit--at least for women experiencing menopausal symptoms. Eating a handful of soy nuts at various times throughout the day cut the number of hot flashes they experienced by at least 40 percent.<br /><br />The study recruited 60 heathy postmenopausal Boston-area women to take part in a pair of eight-week dietary sequences. In one, they ate a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet rich in calcium and fish. In the other sequence, they ate this diet supplemented with a half-cup of soy nuts each day, with the "nuts" to be spread out in three or four portions several hours apart. Half started on the diet without soy nuts, the rest on the soy-supplemented one.<br /><br />In addition to experiencing fewer hot-flash episodes while they were in the soy-nut phase of the trial, the recruits also reported fewer other physical and emotional symptoms of menopause. Francine K. Welty and her colleagues at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston report their team's findings in the April <em>Journal of Women's Health. </em><br /><em></em><br />The amount of soy and its consumption throughout the day were each intended to mimic, in part, the typical day-long intake of soy in many Asian cultures, where the prevalence of hot flashes is low. Indeed, Welty's group notes, an estimated 10 to 25 percent of Chinese and Indonesian women typically experience this menopausal symptom compared to some 60 to 90 percent of women in Western countries.<br /><br />I happened onto this paper while I was taking advantage of a nice offer by the publisher of this journal. In honor of National Women’s Health Week, last week, it opened access to the contents of this issue and any other issue of the journal at no cost--but only through June 15. To do so, log in to http://<a href="http://mail.sciserv.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe23157372600c7a721675%26ls=fdf511717665017d7c127976%26m=ff281776736c%26l=fe9115767666037a71%26s=fe2e17797465047a711173%26jb=ffcf14%26t=" target="_blank">www.liebertonline.com/jwh</a>.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-78262629337278802142007-05-20T20:41:00.000-04:002007-05-20T20:51:57.962-04:00Stunted StatsThe World Health Organization has just crunched data collected from national surveys in 139 countries to gauge the costs of poor nutrition across the globe. One set of statistics is especially disturbing. It shows that <strong>throughout the developing world, malnutrition has stunted the growth of one-third of</strong> the 179 million <strong>children there under age 5</strong>.<br /><br />However, stunting rates vary widely by geography. WHO found that in 39 countries, the rate of stunting in children 5 and under was 40 percent. Among these nations, 22 are in Africa, seven in Southeast Asia, four each are in the eastern Mediterranean and west Pacific, and a single country each are in Europe and in the Americas.<br /><br /><strong>Source</strong>: World Health Statistics 2007, released May 18, by the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 13.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5107153573204001170.post-14309783480870452392007-05-20T16:42:00.000-04:002007-05-20T16:52:44.565-04:00Endangered Species StatsMention endangered species, and most people think of pandas, black-footed ferrets, or whooping cranes. However, as of March 19, the largest number of endangered species in the Unied States were plants. In all, <strong>598 of them, mostly flowering species, were formally listed as endangered, compared to just 412 animals</strong>.<br /><br />Among animals, families with the most species endangered with extinction: birds with 76 , fish with 74, mammals with 69, and clams with 62.<br /><br /><strong>Source:</strong> 2007. Endangered Species Bulletin, 2006 Highlights edition(May):56.Janet Raloffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03653735464309368025noreply@blogger.com0