Restaurants Now Adding ‘Health’ Charge to Bill
February 28, 2010
Chicago Tribune
By Ed Perkins
Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a “health” charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers’ mandatory contribution to the City’s “Healthy San Francisco” health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer’s bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants’ excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they’re paying for employees’ health coverage. That’s the same excuse hotels use when they add “resort” or “housekeeping” fees to unsuspecting guests’ room bills. It’s the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it’s sheer nonsense. Employees’ health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, “It’s not hidden; we print a notice on our menus.” But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven’t seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren’t shy about piling on other fees and charges.
So far, I haven’t heard of “health” fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.
What can you do to avoid this fee? Presumably, not many of you would feel strongly enough about this minor scam to get up and walk out of a restaurant the minute you saw a notice about such a fee. And you probably wouldn’t feel like making a fuss when you’re paying your bill, either. But when you leave, you can certainly let the restaurant know that you resent this deception and that you won’t be returning.
I’ve noted before — and you have undoubtedly found out firsthand — that hidden mandatory fees have become a bane of travelers and of consumers generally. The reason seems clear: As more and more of you use the Internet to compare prices, suppliers find it increasingly important to make their first-screen prices look as low as possible. As a result, they’ve taken to carving out part of what should be the true base price and instead adding it in only later — sometimes before you buy, sometimes not until later.
Currently, mandatory extra hotel fees are far more troublesome than restaurant fees. Trip-Advisor (tripadvisor.com) posts more than 72,000 traveler reports of unexpected hotel fees of various types. Although some of those reports obviously cover the same hotels, the number of hotels resorting to this deception has got to be in the thousands.
Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking “there oughta be a law” soapbox positions. But it seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to police deceptive advertising, but it moves at a glacially slow pace and even then gives wide latitude to miscreants. What consumers need is some sort of overall national “buyability” standard for advertised prices, along with robust enforcement authority. Certainly, such a requirement is workable; it works pretty well right now for airfares.
Click here for the full report
Doctors Wonder Why the Flu Season Has Fizzled
March 2, 2010
Wall Street Journal
By Betsy McKay
This has been a flu season like few others.
Normally at this time of year, influenza is rampant in the U.S., prompting hundreds of thousands of people to stay home in the dead of winter with fever, aches and pains.
Now, after raging through college campuses and communities last summer and fall, cases of the new H1N1 swine flu virus have dwindled to a trickle, and run-of-the-mill seasonal flu has barely made an appearance. Not one state reported widespread flu illness to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the week ended Feb. 20, the latest data available. The percentage of all doctors’ visits by patients with influenza-like symptoms has dropped from a high of 7.8% in late October—the largest peak since the agency began surveillance in 1997—to 1.8% in late February, well below the norm for flu season.
Doctors and flu experts say the lull is unusual. “This is typically the peak of flu,” said James Turner, executive director of the University of Virginia’s department of student health. He said the Charlottesville, Va., student health center usually sees as many as 130 students a week complaining of flu symptoms this time of year. Recently, no more than three to five students a week have been coming in with fever, cough or other signs of flu, he said.
It is not clear why there is so little flu, particularly swine flu, going around, experts say. “Surely there’s a sufficient number of people who haven’t been infected or vaccinated,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Many scientists say the answer probably has to do with how the flu virus progresses. Influenza comes and goes in waves, normally running from October through May. But pandemic viruses—new viruses that emerge and spread quickly around the globe—often move to a different rhythm, and can reach their busiest stage at unusual times like summer and early fall, although the reason for this isn’t understood. Flu has peaked in late February or early March in 20 of the past 26 flu seasons, said Lyn Finelli, the CDC’s chief of flu surveillance and outbreak response. But the latest swine flu wave started in August, and peaked in late October, before waning.
Widely publicized preventive measures such as hand washing, and the large national vaccination effort thus far, may also have played a role in the sharp drop off in H1N1 infections, but it is not clear by how much, said Anthony Fiore, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s influenza division.
By mid-January, swine flu had sickened about 57 million people in the U.S. and killed roughly 11,700—mostly young adults and children—from the time it emerged in late April through mid-January. Young people who ordinarily fight off flu easily ended up in intensive care units on advanced life support. Pregnant women, children, and other people at risk of flu complications stood in line for hours for vaccine, as slow production and delays prompted limited supplies.
In past years, when seasonal flu was the big worry, influenza has typically sickened about 25 million people a year, and directly killed about 8,000, according to the CDC.
To continue reading this report, click here.
Psychiatry Disorders a Step in the Wrong Direction
March 2, 2010
Washington Post
By George F. Will
Peter De Vries, America’s wittiest novelist, died 17 years ago, but his discernment of this country’s cultural foibles still amazes. In a 1983 novel, he spotted the tendency of America’s therapeutic culture to medicalize character flaws:
“Once terms like identity doubts and midlife crisis become current,” De Vries wrote, “the reported cases of them increase by leaps and bounds.” And: “Rapid-fire means of communication have brought psychic dilapidation within the reach of the most provincial backwaters, so that large metropolitan centers and educated circles need no longer consider it their exclusive property, nor preen themselves on their special malaises.”
Life is about to imitate De Vries’s literature, again. The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry’s encyclopedia of supposed mental “disorders,” is being revised. The 16 years since the last revision evidently were prolific in producing new afflictions. The revision may aggravate the confusion of moral categories.
Today’s DSM defines “oppositional defiant disorder” as a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.” Symptoms include “often loses temper,” “often deliberately annoys people” or “is often touchy.” DSM omits this symptom: “is a teenager.”
This DSM defines as “personality disorders” attributes that once were considered character flaws. “Antisocial personality disorder” is “a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.” “Histrionic personality disorder” is “excessive emotionality and attention-seeking.” “Narcissistic personality disorder” involves “grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious.” And so on.
If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a “disorder” akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, “disabilities” include any “mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”; “mental impairments” include “emotional or mental illness.” So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk. (See above, “antisocial personality disorder.”)
The revised DSM reportedly may include “binge eating disorder” and “hypersexual disorder” (“a great deal of time” devoted to “sexual fantasies and urges” and “planning for and engaging in sexual behavior”). Concerning children, there might be “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria.”
This last categorization illustrates the serious stakes in the categorization of behaviors. Extremely irritable or aggressive children are frequently diagnosed as bipolar and treated with powerful antipsychotic drugs. This can be a damaging mistake if behavioral modification treatment can mitigate the problem.
Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled “disorders” to be “cured.” If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality.
Furthermore, intellectual chaos can result from medicalizing the assessment of character. Today’s therapeutic ethos, which celebrates curing and disparages judging, expresses the liberal disposition to assume that crime and other problematic behaviors reflect social or biological causation. While this absolves the individual of responsibility, it also strips the individual of personhood and moral dignity.
James Q. Wilson, America’s preeminent social scientist, has noted how “abuse excuse” threatens the legal system and society’s moral equilibrium. Writing in National Affairs quarterly (“The Future of Blame”), Wilson notes that genetics and neuroscience seem to suggest that self-control is more attenuated — perhaps to the vanishing point — than our legal and ethical traditions assume.
The part of the brain that stimulates anger and aggression is larger in men than in women, and the part that restrains anger is smaller in men than in women. “Men,” Wilson writes, “by no choice of their own, are far more prone to violence and far less capable of self-restraint than women.” That does not, however, absolve violent men of blame. As Wilson says, biology and environment interact. And the social environment includes moral assumptions, sometimes codified in law, concerning expectations about our duty to desire what we ought to desire.
It is scientifically sensible to say that all behavior is in some sense caused. But a society that thinks scientific determinism renders personal responsibility a chimera must consider it absurd not only to condemn depravity but also to praise nobility. Such moral derangement can flow from exaggerated notions of what science teaches, or can teach, about the biological and environmental roots of behavior.
Or — revisers of the DSM, please note — confusion can flow from the notion that normality is always obvious and normative, meaning preferable. And the notion that deviations from it should be considered “disorders” to be “cured” rather than stigmatized as offenses against valid moral norms.
Click here for the full report.
Psychiatry Revamp? New Psychiatry Manual a Stretch
March 2, 2010
Wall Street Journal
By Edward Shorter
To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline’s floundering writ large. Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications. Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn’t exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo.
Psychopharmacology, or the treatment of the mind and brain with drugs, has come to dominate the field. The positive side is that many illnesses respond readily to medication. The negative side is that the pharmaceutical industry seeks the largest possible market for a given drug, and advertises huge diseases, such as major depression and schizophrenia, the scientific status of which makes insiders uneasy.
In the 1950s and ’60s, when psychiatry was still under the influence of the European scientific tradition, reasonably accurate diagnoses still sat at center stage. If you felt blue, uneasy and generally jumpy, “nerves” was a common diagnosis. For the psychotherapeutically oriented psychiatrists of the day, “psychoneurosis” was the equivalent of nerves. There was no point in breaking these terms down: clinicians and patients alike understood “a case of nerves,” or a “nervous breakdown.”
Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms. A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has “social anxiety disorder” or “seasonal affective disorder.” The increased specificity is spurious. There is little risk of misdiagnosis, because the new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches.
For those more seriously ill, contemplating suicide or pacing restlessly and saying “It’s all my fault,” melancholia was the diagnosis of choice. The term has been around for donkey’s years.
All the serious disorders of mood were once lumped together technically as “manic-depressive illness”—and again, there was little point in differentiating, because medications such as lithium that worked for mania were also sometimes effective in forestalling renewed episodes of serious depression.
Psychopharmacology—the treatment of disorders of the mind and brain with drugs—was experiencing its first big push, and a host of effective new agents was marketed. The first blockbuster drug in psychiatry appeared in 1955 as Wallace Lab’s Miltown, a “tranquilizer” of the dicarbamate class. The first of the “tricyclic antidepressants” (because of their chemical structure) was launched in the U.S. in 1959, called imipramine generically and Tofranil by brand name. It remains today the single most effective antidepressant on the market for the immediate treatment of serious depression.
To continue reading this report, click here.
Your Exercise Plan: Interval Training
March 2, 2010
Associated Press
By Maria Cheng
People who complain they have no time to exercise may soon need another excuse. Some experts say intense exercise sessions could help people squeeze an entire week’s workout into less than an hour. Those regimens — also called interval training — were originally developed for Olympic athletes and thought to be too strenuous for normal people.
But in recent years, studies in older people and those with health problems suggest many more people might be able to handle it. If true, that could revolutionize how officials advise people to exercise — and save millions of people hours in the gym every week. It is also a smarter way to exercise, experts say.
“High-intensity interval training is twice as effective as normal exercise,” said Jan Helgerud, an exercise expert at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “This is like finding a new pill that works twice as well … we should immediately throw out the old way of exercising.”
Studies on intense training have been published in sports medicine journals and have largely been based on young, healthy people. Experts say more studies are needed on how older and less fit populations handle this type of exercise before it can be recommended more widely.
Intense interval training means working very hard for a few minutes, with rest periods between sets. Experts have mostly tested people running or biking, but other sports like rowing or swimming should also work.
Helgerud recommends people try four sessions lasting four minutes each, with three minutes of recovery time in between. Unless you’re an elite athlete, it shouldn’t be an all-out effort.
“You should be a little out of breath, but you shouldn’t have the obvious feeling of exhaustion,” Helgerud said.
In Britain and the U.S., officials recommend that people get about 2 1/2 hours each week of moderate exercise. Those guidelines target a mostly sedentary population and are intended to help with weight control and heart health, not boosting fitness levels, increasing strength or endurance.
Some experts have cautioned that ordinary people shouldn’t substitute their regular exercise routine for intense training.
“There isn’t enough evidence to say people should do one or the other,” said Gary O’Donovan, a sports and exercise expert at the University of Exeter. “Any bout of exercise has the potential to improve your blood pressure or lower your cholesterol, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be intense.”
Still, O’Donovan said more intense exercise would probably produce better benefits.
Helgerud says the time people spend in the gym could be slashed dramatically if they did interval training instead. He said officials have been too afraid of recommending intense training for fear it would be too much for some people.
“I’m much more afraid of people not exercising at all,” he said. “Inactivity is what’s killing us.”
When compared to people on a normal exercise routine, like jogging, research has shown those doing interval training can double their endurance, improve their oxygen use and strength by more than 10 percent and their speed by at least 5 percent. Even studies in the elderly and in heart patients found they had better oxygen use and fitness after doing interval training.
Still, experts advise people to consult a doctor before starting any fitness program.
For Adamson Nicholls, a 36-year-old Londoner and martial arts enthusiast, interval training is a way to boost his endurance so he can outlast sparring opponents. “It’s a shortcut to explosive fitness,” he said, adding the training resulted in snappier and heavier punches.
Using interval training, Nicholls got into top shape last year in about six weeks with weekly 45-minute sessions. He estimates the same level would have taken about three months via regular training.
Experts say that’s because intense bursts of activity are precisely what the body needs to build stronger muscles. Traditional workouts lasting an hour or more simply don’t push the body enough.
“A lot of the (benefits) from exercise are due to a stress response,” said Stephen Bailey, a sports sciences expert at the University of Exeter. “If you disturb your muscles, there’s an imbalance created and your body will start signaling pathways that result in adjustments.”
Bailey said intense bursts of exercise help the body to convert one type of muscle fiber into another type that uses oxygen more efficiently and is capable of exercising a lot longer. Even though interval training only takes a few minutes, its effects last for hours.
“You’ve exercised at such a high intensity that you’re going to create a massive disturbance in your muscles,” Bailey said.
That creates a higher metabolism for several hours afterward, which the body will bring down by burning fat and carbohydrates.
“This is definitely the way forward to save time on your exercise,” Nicholls said. “The results are worth it.”
Click here for the full report.
Jenny McCarthy in the Center of the Autism Debate
March 2, 2010
Time
By Karl Taro Greenfeld
In person, surprisingly, Jenny McCarthy comes across as corn-fed cute rather than overwhelmingly beautiful. She has a common touch, and a woman even slightly more beautiful would struggle to connect as she does. When McCarthy meets a mom, when she spits forth a stream of profanity and common sense — the foulmouthed comedian from Chicago never far from the surface — she is there as a mother, not as a celebrity or starlet. That’s what got her there, but that’s not who she is once she’s there. She speaks to so many frustrated, despairing mothers of autistic children because she is plausible, authentic. If you needed a woman to bring hope to these mothers, you couldn’t ask for better casting than Jenny McCarthy.
We are sitting around a sushi-laden coffee table in the Sherman Oaks, Calif., headquarters of Generation Rescue, the autism advocacy group she heads. It’s a gray, one-story house with white trim and a picket-fence-enclosed yard, across the street from the home she lived in for four years with her son Evan, 7, and John Asher, who is her ex-husband and Evan’s father. She has converted the house into a state-of-the-art school for very young autistic kids, an intensive early-intervention program called the Teach2Talk Academy. The school is a model in many ways, not least because of its 1-to-1 teacher-student ratio and sparkling facilities. It’s the kind of place she was desperate to get Evan into when he was first diagnosed with autism in 2005. (See TIME’s photo-essay “A Journey into the World of Autism.”)
The lacerating pilgrimage that parents of autistic children know all too well, lugging their child from specialist to specialist, from program to program, seeking help, answers, a cure — catalyzed her mission. First McCarthy was a mother “finding a window” into her son. Then she became a mother who felt she needed to tell other mothers how she found that window. Those mothers have become her flock. She greets them all, here in Sherman Oaks, on her way through airport terminals, in restaurants, on talk-show sets; she will stop, nod, listen, proffer advice, give a phone number and tell these mothers, these families, to never give up hope. “Hope is the greatest thing for moms of autism,” McCarthy says. “Hope is what gets us out of bed in the morning. I’m on a mission to tell parents that there is a way.” (See Karl Taro Greenfeld’s story about growing old with autism.)
McCarthy’s way, however, is one that flies in the face of all credible research on what does and does not cause autism and whether it can be treated. McCarthy claims Evan was healed through a range of experimental and unproved biomedical treatments; even more controversially, she blames the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine for giving her son autism. And yet research conclusively shows that vaccines are safe for children; just last month, the U.K. scientist who had published a study linking the MMR shot to autism was found by a British medical panel to have acted unethically. McCarthy says she does not believe all vaccines are bad — though she swears she will never allow Evan to receive another — nor is she saying you shouldn’t vaccinate your child. Her position is more slippery but just as heretical to prevailing medical wisdom: do everything necessary to cure your child, no matter what the doctors tell you.
This message has won her a wide audience, based on her three best-selling books on autism. She has just completed shooting the pilot for a daytime talk show for Oprah Winfrey’s TV network to begin airing later this year — which will be, she promises, yet another platform for her message. But her profile has also made her, among pediatricians, other doctors and many parents, a deeply polarizing figure. Though close to 80% of American children receive the standard battery of vaccinations, skepticism about their safety remains widespread, in part because of the antiscientific clamor of the McCarthy camp. Enough parents are refusing to vaccinate that some long-dormant maladies, like measles and meningitis, have re-emerged. Nonvaccination rates among kindergartners in some California counties have been reported at 10%. To McCarthy’s opponents, from the public-health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the pediatricians of the American Academy of Pediatrics, this makes McCarthy much worse than a crank: she’s a menace to public health. (See six tips for traveling with an autistic child.)
But she can’t be ignored. If the debate about vaccine safety is settled — vaccines don’t cause autism; they don’t injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health — then why are so many parents reconsidering vaccinating their children? The answer has to do with our era’s strained relationship with scientific truth, our tendency to place more faith in psychological truths than scientific ones. McCarthy’s emergence — the Playmate turned pseudoscientist, the fart-joke teller cum mother warrior — can make one feel nostalgic for the time when celebs turned up on talk shows only to hawk their flicks or books, not to promote explosive public-health ideas. But McCarthy says she is speaking the truth — her truth.
To contine reading this report, click here.
Challenge of the Raw Milk Ban
March 2, 2010
Grist.org
By David Gumpert
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is taking on the Big Enchilada in the raw milk war: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s prohibition on interstate shipment of raw milk.
The FTCLDF filed suit over the weekend in U.S. District court against FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg, and the secretary of the FDA’s parent agency, Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, challenging the constitutionality of the agency’s prohibition, enacted in 1987. It filed the suit on behalf of consumers and a farmer from six different states; the consumers all travel from states where raw milk sales are illegal to buy it in states where it’s allowed for sale and the farmer sells to out-of-state consumers.
The suit is notable for seeking to shift the focus of the interstate raw milk prohibition to consumers from farmers, where the FDA has focused its efforts, most notably in prosecuting the largest raw dairy in the country, Organic Pastures Dairy Co. in California, for selling milk outside its home state. The agency was behind a criminal case against the dairy, which ended with a guilty plea last year and an agreement by the dairy to confine its sales to California, and a civil case, which is still pending. The agency has also been active behind the scenes in urging crackdowns on raw milk in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New York, among other states.
The case is also notable for the FTCLDF, which was formed less than three years ago to counter an aggressive FDA-led campaign against raw milk producers that began in 2006. While the legal organization has filed suits against state agriculture officials on behalf of raw dairy farmers in New York, Wisconsin, and California, as well as a suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on behalf of farmers affected by the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), this is its first encounter with the FDA, and as such, definitely the biggest case in its brief history.
All the consumer plaintiffs in the suit live in states where raw milk sales are prohibited—New Jersey, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia. The suit says the consumers buy their milk in neighboring states where raw milk is legal, and are being forced to break the law each time they travel back home with their milk.
The suit charges that “all Plaintiffs are being deprived of their fundamental and inalienable rights of (a) traveling across State lines with raw dairy products legally obtained and possessed; (b) providing for the care and well being of themselves and their families, including their children; and (c) producing, obtaining and consuming the foods of choice for themselves and their families, including their children.”
At stake, it says, are “the Constitutional Right to Travel; the Constitutional Right of Privacy; the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (the Separation of Powers/Non-delegation doctrine) … “
According to Gary Cox, the lawyer for the FTCLDF, “This case challenges the legality of the FDA rule that bans the interstate distribution of raw milk in final package form for human consumption. It also challenges the legality of FDA’s ‘standard of identify’ for milk which requires that all milk needs to be pasteurized.”
Ironically, the FDA was dragged kicking and screaming back in the 1970s and 1980s into its current role of policing the transport of raw milk across state lines. It resisted the efforts of consumer groups to involve the agency-feeling the matter was a local issue-until a federal judge in 1987 responded to a consumer group suit by ordering the agency to draft regulations about the interstate shipment of raw milk. Since then, it has shifted from reluctant participant to aggressive enforcer and warning source against raw milk consumption. Its dairy chief, John Sheehan, is famous for his line, “Consuming raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your health.”
To continue reading this report, click here.
Lawsuit to Ban Genetically Modified Sugar Beets
March 2, 2010
New York Times
By Associated Press
Organic farmers fear this year’s spring breezes will be carrying pollen from genetically altered sugar beets, which they say could render their crops worthless, and they hope to persuade a federal judge this week to halt the plantings nationwide.
Experts and industry groups say such an injunction could jeopardize U.S. sugar supplies, about half of which comes from the biotech beets planted on more than 1 million acres in 10 states stretching from Michigan to Oregon.
”It will be a big problem,” if the injunction is granted, said Carol Mallory-Smith, professor of weed science at Oregon State University. ”The industry really had converted to this.”
The beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s popular herbicide Roundup, comprise 95 percent of the crop after two seasons of planting. All the seed comes from Oregon’s Willamette Valley.
Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups already have won a lawsuit forcing federal authorities to reconsider their 2005 approval of the Roundup Ready beets for unrestricted use, saying the government failed to take a hard look at cross-pollination risks.
If granted at a hearing scheduled for Friday in San Francisco, a requested injunction would halt planting of the altered beets until the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does an environmental impact statement — a process that could take two or three years.
The farmers also want to bar the sale of any sugar made from generally engineered beets.
”The sugar beets were unlawfully deregulated,” said Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental public interest law firm representing plaintiffs. ”The court has already found that. Legally, they shouldn’t be on the market.
To continue reading this report, click here.
Medical Errors Cause of 200,000 Hospital Deaths Each Year
March 2, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
According to “Dead By Mistake,” a report detailing the findings of an investigation by the Hearst Corporation, approximately 200,000 people die in the United States every year from hospital infections and preventable medical errors. To make matters worse, the situation has not changed from 10 years ago, when the recommendations of a similar report by the federal government went ignored.
Car accidents, often classified as the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, kill fewer than 50,000 people per year.
“Ten years ago, the highly-publicized federal report, ‘To Err Is Human,’ highlighted the alarming death toll from preventable medical injuries and called on the medical community to cut it in half in five years,” the new report says. “Its authors and patient safety advocates believed that its release would spur a revolution in patient safety. But … the federal government and most states have made little or no progress in improving patient safety through accountability mechanisms or other measures.”
According to “Dead By Mistake,” only 20 states require that medical errors be reported, and even among these, standards vary widely and enforcement is inconsistent. Five states are implementing mandatory reporting systems, five have voluntary systems, and 20 have no error reporting systems at all.
The Hearst report accuses lobbyists of working to ensure that the 1999 report’s recommendation of a nationwide mandatory error reporting system was never implemented.
Common medical errors include prescription errors and surgeries or other procedures conducted on the wrong organ or the wrong side of the body. Common causes of medical errors include sleep deprivation by care providers, poor patient-doctor communication, insufficient nurses, poor documentation and illegible handwriting.
The report recommends that patients look after their own safety by becoming better informed about procedures and medications they are being given, which includes actively asking questions of health care providers. Specific measures, such as having a doctor mark the site of an operation in permanent marker, can also decrease the risk of certain errors.
Click here for the full report.
FDA Relying on Medical Fraud to Promote Devices
March 2, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the American Journal of Therapeutics (AJT) have both published papers criticizing the way in which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical devices. Citing a lack of legitimate safety and effectiveness studies, the papers allege that the FDA is approving medical devices without proper scientific evidence proving that they work and will not harm patients.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, pored over seven years worth of FDA public summaries concerning approved medical devices. Researchers from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston wrote the AJT piece, concluding that the FDA’s safety and effectiveness data for medical devices is inconsistent and unreliable. William Maisel, one of the researchers, indicated that the FDA needs to improve its clinical trial standards for medical devices.
When drugs are approved, they typically go through a series of studies prior to even being evaluated by the FDA. A medical device, however, can be approved based on the results of a single study which may or may not contain important specifics such as who participated in the study. Critics note that, since a medical device is usually a permanent addition to someone’s body, it deserves even more intense scrutiny than prescription drugs which can be discontinued if found to be harmful. This is especially true with heart devices that are necessary in order to keep a person alive.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, acting director of the FDA’s device division and co-author of one of the studies, conceded that the FDA’s process for evaluating medical devices is inadequate. He explained that the FDA is working on creating stronger standards for evaluation and approval but that device manufacturers need to work more closely with them to establish study goals.
Janet Trunzo, an executive vice president of AdvaMed, an advocacy group for the medical device industry, defended the FDA’s current approach to approving medical devices. She expressed that device manufacturers submit extensive data to the FDA who spends 1,200 hours reviewing it all prior to approving a device.
Many approved medical devices have been recalled over the years for safety reasons. The FDA maintains a list of the most serious medical device recalls for which the products in question may cause “serious health problems or death.” There are over 30 devices on the list from 2009 alone. Since 2004, there have been 137 medical devices recalled by the FDA.
Click here for the full report.
