Food Manufacturer Knew Plant Had Salmonella
March 15, 2010
The Washington Post
By Lyndsey Layton
The company at the heart of a growing recall of processed foods knew that its plant was contaminated with salmonella but continued to make a flavoring and sell it to foodmakers around the country, according to inspectors at the Food and Drug Administration.
Managers at Basic Food Flavors of Las Vegas learned on Jan. 21 that samples taken a week earlier from their Nevada facility tested positive for salmonella, a potentially deadly bacterium, but they kept shipping their product to foodmakers, according to FDA inspection records.
The company makes hydrolyzed vegetable protein, or HVP, a flavor enhancer used in a wide variety of processed foods, from potato chips to sweet and sour tofu. The additive, which comes as a powder or a paste, is mixed into foods to give them a meaty or savory flavor — similar to the use of monosodium glutamate.
Basic Food Flavors tested surfaces near food-processing equipment throughout its plant twice in January and once in February, and each time the samples showed salmonella contamination, according to FDA records. The company continued to ship products and to make more HVP without cleaning the plant or the equipment in a way that would have minimized contamination, the records said.
“The FDA is reviewing the evidence in association with the current inspection of Basic Food Flavors to determine the appropriate regulatory response,” FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott said.
It is illegal to knowingly sell food products that are contaminated with salmonella.
Officials at Basic Food Flavors did not return calls seeking comment.
No one is thought to have fallen ill from contaminated HVP, and the health risk is considered to be low because most products containing HVP are cooked during processing or carry cooking instructions for consumers, so any salmonella probably would be destroyed before the food was eaten. Ready-to-eat products, such as chips and other snack foods, would carry greater risks.
“It highlights why we need strong rules that would prevent contamination in the first place, so the FDA isn’t swooping in like the cops after the fact,” said Erik Olson, director of chemical and food safety programs at Pew Charitable Trusts.
Legislation that would require companies to take measures to prevent contamination was overwhelmingly passed by the House last year but has been held up in the Senate.
Federal officials were alerted to a problem with Basic Food Flavors in early February by a foodmaker who detected salmonella in one lot of HVP it purchased from the Nevada manufacturer.
Federal inspectors went to the plant within days of the complaint and conducted 14 inspections in the span of about two weeks. They documented dirty utensils and equipment — mixers and tubing coated with brown residue — and cracks and fractures in the floor, as well as standing water on the floor — all conditions where bacteria can breed.
In one area where paste mixers and belt dryers were positioned, FDA inspectors noted “standing, grey/black liquid” in the drain near the area where the hydrolyzed vegetable protein was turned from paste to powder. “We sensed an odor in the vicinity of this drain,” the inspectors wrote.
The company is one of only a handful that manufacture hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and its customer list is extensive. It produces about 20 million pounds of the food additive annually, according to a food industry source.
The contamination is believed to date to September 2009, meaning millions of pounds of potentially tainted HVP — all of which the company has recalled — was shipped in bulk to foodmakers over five months. Many of those companies then sold their products to other clients, complicating the distribution chain and making it hard for federal officials to gauge the scope of the problem.
Food companies had recalled more than 100 products as of Tuesday afternoon, ranging from dips to salad dressings to soup bouillon, and that list is expected to balloon over the next several weeks.
Click here for the full report
Weight Watchers Partnering With McDonald’s
March 15, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Weight Watchers has now officially endorsed Chicken McNuggets as a “healthy meal” in New Zealand, where McDonald’s restaurants will begin carrying the Weight Watchers logo on several menu items. This bizarre and inexplicable decision has now made Weight Watchers the laughing stock of the health world where nutrition and weight loss experts normally don’t use “McDonald’s fast food” and “weight loss” in the same sentence.
As The Guardian reports, “As part of the deal, which the company says is the first of its kind in the world, McDonald’s will use the Weight Watchers logo on its menu boards and Weight Watchers will promote McDonald’s to dieters.”
Nutritionists, not surprisingly, were shocked at the announcement. The idea of eating at McDonald’s to lose weight seems a bit ridiculous, and anyone who believes that eating Chicken McNuggets will cause you to lose weight is arguably one nugget short of a Happy Meal. Sometimes you just have to point out the stupidity of these things, even at the risk of offending someone who has convinced themselves that eating more Chicken McNuggets is their ticket to a slim, fit and sexy body.
Watch your weight balloon!
Weight Watchers, by the way, never actually claims that eating the foods they endorse will cause you to lose weight. If you examine it carefully, even their name isn’t really about weight loss. It’s about weight watching… as in, watch your weight grow larger by the day…
A “weight watch” is sort of like a “tornado watch” or a “tsunami watch.” You keep your eyes peeled and wait for something disastrous to happen — such as ballooning to 300 pounds while engaging in unhealthy eating McHabits based on snarfing down meat parts from factory-farmed cows raised in bovine concentration camps that might more accurately be called “Cowschwitz.”
If Weight Watchers is going to endorse McNuggets, then why not just endorse the entire McDonald’s menu and throw the logo behind Big Macs and ice cream shakes, too? It’s not like Weight Watchers is trying to “protect its reputation” by not crossing a line, you know. Once you’ve endorsed McDonald’s as “healthy” food, that line is no longer anywhere in sight.
Of course, McDonald’s products merely join a long list of questionable foods marketed under the “Weight Watchers” brand name — a brand that in my opinion has discovered great commercial success in selling the false hope of weight loss to clueless consumers who are unwilling to read ingredients lists on food labels.
Not coincidentally, Weight Watchers has now become the “McDonald’s” of the weight loss industry — and industry filled with so many scams and shams that the idea of eating Chicken McNuggets to lose weight doesn’t even seem that strange to many people.
We live in a world where corporate promotional lies are disgusting at best, and criminal at worst. We’re told that psychiatric drugs will make you happy, that chemotherapy will make you healthy and that eating at McDonald’s will make you lose weight. We’re told that sugary junk drinks will give you “energy”, that toxic vaccines are necessary for your immune system to work correctly and that buying silly pink-ribbon products will somehow cure cancer.
At the same time, we’re told that vitamins are dangerous, that sunlight causes cancer and that there’s no such thing as a cure for type-2 diabetes. Everything that’s good for you is discredited as bad while everything that’s toxic is hyped up as “healthy.”
I suppose in light of the corporate-sponsored sick-care insanity that passes for medical advice these days, the idea that eating at McDonald’s will make you lose weight doesn’t seem as insane as it really should.
But that doesn’t make it any more true.
In a world gone mad with dietary misinformation touting fictional foods, insanity can now be marketed to the intoxicated mainstream as if it somehow made sense.
… and people swallow it.
Click here for the full report
US Mulls Placing Black Boxes in All Cars
March 12, 2010
Reuters
By Kevin Krolicki and John Crawley
Unprecedented discounts after a series of damaging recalls boosted Toyota Motor Corp’s (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research) (TM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) U.S. sales in early March, as U.S. regulators weighed new auto safety measures.
Toyota’s U.S. sales surged by nearly 50 percent in the first eight days of March compared with the year-ago period due to zero-percent financing offers and other incentives, industry tracking service Edmunds.com and dealers said on Thursday.
Edmunds, which analyzes U.S. auto sales trends, also estimated that Toyota’s U.S. retail market share in early March had jumped to 16.8 percent, up sharply from 12.8 percent a month earlier when safety problems had sent sales tumbling.
“What they’re doing right now is they are picking low-hanging fruit,” said Chester Schriesheim, professor at the University of Miami School of Business Administration.
“These are the people who are undecided about the brand but given the lower price, now that provides incentives to go ahead and purchase,” he said. “But they’re going to exhaust that pool of individuals and then they’ll find it harder in the longer term to raise the prices backward.”
The early sales estimate comes a week after Toyota launched the most aggressive discounts in its history to win over U.S. consumers and recover from an embarrassing slew of product safety problems that have tarnished its reputation and cut into sales and financial results.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the regulator is considering whether to make “black boxes” mandatory for all new vehicles. [ID:nN11246251]
The devices can capture data on speed, braking effort and other details which can be vital in reconstructing accidents.
Toyota has recalled more than 8 million vehicles globally to address the risk that accelerator pedals on a range of its vehicles could become stuck because of a loose floor mat or a glitch in the pedal assembly.
Unintended acceleration in the company’s Toyota and Lexus vehicles has been linked to at least five U.S. crash deaths since 2007. Authorities are investigating 47 other Toyota crash deaths over the past decade.
TOYOTA, GM BOOST MARCH INDUSTRY SALES
Edmunds.com said that industrywide U.S. auto sales are tracking to hit a rate of 12.5 million vehicles in March because of the steep discounts on Toyota vehicles and a competitive campaign launched by General Motors Co [GM.UL].
GM is offering car shoppers rebates of up to $3,000 on vehicles including the Malibu mid-size sedan, or zero-percent financing.
Toyota, which has traditionally spurned such discount programs in order to protect resale values, has offered up to $3,000 in rebates and dealer incentives on a range of vehicles, including its top-selling Camry, or cut-rate financing.
Both manufacturers are offering steeper discounts on their competing full-size pickup trucks, GM’s Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra and the Toyota Tundra.
Edmunds said GM’s sales incentives lifted Chevy’s retail market share to 12.9 percent, up from 11.4 percent a month earlier.
Several major Toyota dealers said their own sales were running slightly higher than the Edmunds estimate through Tuesday. That would mark a sharp reversal from sales declines in January and February tied to the automaker’s recall crisis.
Paul Atkinson, president of the Toyota national dealers’ council and a Toyota dealer in Texas, said he expected that the March sales boost from incentives would mirror what the automaker saw during the 2009 “cash for clunkers” program.
Toyota was the big winner from that U.S. government-funded scrappage program, which offered tax credits of up to $4,500 to swap out of older and less fuel-efficient vehicles.
Toyota had a 19.4 percent share of vehicles sold under the “clunkers” program which ran from late July through the third week of August 2009. Toyota’s share was the highest in the industry.
“I truly believe that March could rival cash for clunkers,” Atkinson said.
Sales at his own dealership in early March were running at three times the level of January and February, he said. Customers shopping for the bargains do not appear concerned by Toyota’s recalls, he said.
“Honestly, I think the public has had enough,” he said.
Just this week, as Toyota sought to shift attention away from the safety problems, at least three U.S. drivers reported new cases of driving Prius or Lexus vehicles that appeared to surge out of control.
Atkinson has encouraged Toyota dealers to protest GM’s incentives in March, saying they amounted to a taxpayer-funded program of discounts because the U.S. government funded GM’s restructuring in bankruptcy with $50 billion in aid.
“We just want a level playing field,” he told Reuters. “These GM incentives are kind of like using tax dollars to encourage my fellow citizens to not do business with me.”
GM has defended its use of incentives, saying such discounts are a well-established part of the way cars are sold in the U.S. market.
Click here for the full report
ABC News Goes After Fish Oil
March 3, 2010
ABC
By Kate McCarthy
Fish oil supplements are constantly touted for their seemingly miraculous health benefits because they contain omega-3 fatty acids. But a new lawsuit contended that they may contain something else, too: PCBs, industrial chemicals that were banned in the 1970s because they caused cancer and birth defects.
New lawsuit claims some supplements are tainted with dangerous PCBs.
Environmental activists who tested 10 different fish oil supplements say each contained PCBs.
While people should always be concerned with exposure to toxins, the charges still need to be verified, ABC News’ senior health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said. He explained that only one sample of each product was tested and more testing is needed to truly determine potential exposure.
It should also be noted that requirement for product labeling in California is very conservative and the World Health Organization considers these levels of exposure to be safe, Besser said.
Consumers should not necessarily avoid the fish oil supplements because of PCB concerns, Besser said. But weighing the risk really comes down to how beneficial fish oil supplements are to the consumer, he said.
For people with heart disease, omega-3 acids can greatly reduce the risk of heart attack or dying from heart failure, Besser said, adding that he would not advise heart patients to stop taking fish oil supplements based on the known information.
But if someone has a low risk of heart disease and is concerned, then he or she could stop taking the supplements until further testing is done, Besser said. Instead, he suggested, follow the guidelines from the American Heart Association to find other sources of omega-3 acids such as fatty fish.
Click here for the full report
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
Genetically Modified Wheat Now Invading Your Life
January 25, 2010
Natural News
By E. Huff
Monsanto, the multinational agriculture giant most known for its propagation of genetically-modified (GM) crops, has decided to resurrect its pursuit of GM wheat. Abandoned in 2004 due to opposition from American growers, merchants, and consumers, Monsanto’s GM wheat program is making a comeback.
Apparently many American wheat growers have since changed their mind about the issue. A survey conducted back in February revealed that more than 75 percent of wheat farmers are now interested in growing GM wheat. Citing concerns about pestilence and disease, farmers are reevaluating GM wheat based on claims by Monsanto that GM wheat will fare better than conventional in resisting bugs, disease, drought and frost.
Many nations around the world, including industrialized nations in Asia and Europe, have wholly rejected GM crops and foods that are made with them. Since 45 percent of the U.S. wheat crop is exported to Europe and Japan alone, the decision to allow GM wheat to be grown in the States will have a huge negative impact on the wheat business.
Hinged upon the recent food crisis in 2008 that caused the price of wheat to more than triple, Monsanto’s endeavors to capitalize on wheat by altering it genetically could not have been timed more precisely. Both China and Australia have been researching and running trials on Monsanto’s GM wheat for years and North America looks to be next if the AgriGiant has its way.
Earlier this year, Monsanto purchased Montana-based WestBred, a company that specializes in germplasm wheat breeding. This move indicates that the corporation intends to move forward with its plan to bring GM wheat to North America.
Concerns about the negative effects of GM crops, which include a variety of illnesses and digestive tract problems when consumed, continue to warrant opposition to their use. Conventional crop fields have also been shown to become contaminated with GM seed through pollination and cross-contamination.
If the public hopes to prevent wheat from taking the same GM course that corn and soy have, it is going to have to express loud and clear opposition to its introduction.
Click here for the full report
The Cost of Drug Advertising Raising Healthcare Costs
December 11, 2009
Natural News
By Paul Louis
Prescription drug ads are banned in all industrialized nations except New Zealand and the USA. Yet most off those other nations have effective medical care programs while managing to keep costs from soaring. In 1997, the FDA opened the floodgates to prescription drug advertising in the USA. This was based on an earlier Supreme Court decision that said restricting such advertising was illegal.
Last summer, some U.S. Congress members were mounting campaigns to refute the Supreme Court’s decision by restricting prescription drug advertising. In August of 2009, the New York Times selected a panel of eight highly qualified individuals for its “Editorial Room for Debate” section and posed the following two questions:
How much harm do prescription drug ads do to consumers? Are these ads a valuable way to educate people?
All but one panelist agreed that commercials and ads for prescription drugs were harmful and should be banned or at least restricted for a variety of reasons. The lone dissenter in the panel claimed that TV ads for prescription drugs educate and empower.
Disputing that premise, another panel member pointed out that people in countries banning prescription drug ads are better educated about health matters than Americans. Another panel member cited the deaths and heart problems from Vioxx created by Merck’s aggressive advertising campaigns before Vioxx’s safety could be determined.
The general consensus of the panel was that drug ads, especially TV commercials, tend to create a pill popping public rather than health conscious citizens. (Patients often demand advertised pharmaceuticals from their doctors!) Big Pharma’s annual advertising budget is double the federal budget for the FDA.
So how does this advertising outlay from drug companies affect the market? The cost of advertising is included in drug pricing. But the drug makers insist that their high advertising budgets create more sales, thus enabling prices to drop.
A recent study seems to disprove that assertion. Michael Law headed up a group in The Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia and looked into the connection between advertising and product costs. The team studied advertising expenses and pharmaceutical sales data for Plavix or clopidogrel.
Plavix is often dispensed to senior citizens for heart conditions. Law’s group focused on 27 Medicaid programs from 1999 through 2005. Their study, which was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, concluded that product costs went up, yet there was no increase in sales to help lower costs.
From this study, it’s easy to conclude that pharmaceutical advertising expenses contribute to the soaring costs of health care while encouraging the public to pop pills for every symptom imaginable.
Click here for the full report
Harmful Chemicals Found in Many Pregnant Women
December 7, 2009
Organic Consumers Association
The “Earliest Exposures” study, a research project conducted by Washington Toxics Coalition in collaboration with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition found pregnant women’s bodies were polluted with chemicals found in consumer products. This first-of-its kind study investigated the living environment of nine fetuses through testing the blood and urine of the nine mothers taking part in the biomonitoring study. Tests measured the levels of five chemical groups, including phthalates, mercury, perfluorinated compounds or “Teflon chemicals,” bisphenol A (BPA), and the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A.
The women, all in their second trimester, were all found to have BPA, phthalates, mercury, and “Teflon chemicals” in their bodies. Cause for concern is that these toxic chemicals, known to disrupt development and hormonal systems cross the placenta and are absorbed by the fetus. They not only hinder fetal development, but the growing fetus has limited ability to detoxify these foreign substances.
Of the more than 80,000 chemicals found in consumer products today, only approximately 200 have been tested for safety since the inception of The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Until more strict regulations govern the use of ingredients in consumer products, consumers can take an active role in lowering their toxic exposure. Start by purchasing Phthalate and BPA free products, switching from flame retardant clothing and bedding to organic, and substituting conventional body care for third-party certified organic body care.
Karen Ciesar, Founder and Formulator of Trillium Organics states, “I am sadly not surprised at these findings. The pervasiveness of petrochemicals in the modern world makes avoiding exposures a task which requires research and vigilance. Luckily, there are many non-profit organizations dedicated to informing consumers, some of my favorites are; SafeCosmetics.org (searchable database of cosmetic safety), Healthystuff.org (searchable database of family product safety), HealthychildHealthyworld.org, a comprehensive and informative site about environmental exposures, OrganicConsumers.org (an activist website about all issues surrounding Organic, food, personal care and fibers). It takes some time and effort to find safe products for your family, but every green purchasing choice you make increases your child’s chance at a healthy future in a greener world.”
Trillium Organics has recently been endorsed by the Organic Consumers’ Association as a “brand to trust” in their recent BUYcott campaign. Trillium Organics has been a leader in the movement for clean, safe personal care since 1994.
Click here for the full report
Raw Milk Undercover Operations
December 7, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Imagine being watched by two undercover cops as you engage in an illicit deal in a deserted parking lot. The buyer hesitantly hands you some cash. You flash a look over your shoulder, just to make sure the coast is clear, then you hand over the contraband. Neither of you says a word. You just nod, acknowledging the deal is done, then you head back to your car and buckle up for the drive home.
But before you can even put the car into drive, a screeching formation of police cars, surrounds you, sirens wailing. Armed officers leap from their vehicles, guns drawn and sunglasses glaring. “Come out with your hands up!” they shout.
You slowly open the driver’s door of your car and inch out of your seat with both hands raised in surrender, cowering behind the open door. “What did I do, officer? What’s my crime?”
Their answer comes back loud and intimidating: “SELLING RAW MILK!”
Springfield Missouri: Where farmers are branded criminals
The above description is a dramatization of real events that happened recently in Springfield, Missouri, where the state has decided to spend considerable taxpayer resources running a sting operating against a family that was caught dealing — gulp! — raw milk in a parking lot.
Yes, both the Missouri Dept. of Health and the state Attorney General (Chris Koster) have decided that prosecuting a farm family for illegally “trafficking” raw milk should be at the top of their list of priorities. The family being targeted by state officials is the Bechard family, of Armand and Teddi Bechard, and their children Joseph, Hananiah, Kazia and Katie.
The name of the cow offering the milk is reportedly “Misty.”
As the Springfield, Missouri News-Leader paper reports, “Two undercover investigators with the Springfield-Greene County Health Department allegedly caught two of the couple’s daughters on two occasions selling a gallon of milk each from a Springfield parking lot. Charges followed in municipal court.”
In case you’re not yet sure what you’re reading here, note carefully that these daughters were not caught selling crack, meth or crank. They weren’t dealing second-hand pharmaceuticals to yuppie school kids. They weren’t selling e.coli-contaminated hamburger meat, cancer-causing diet sodas (made with aspartame) or canned soups laced with MSG. They weren’t even selling broiler chickens contaminated with salmonella — just as you can find in every grocery store in America. Nope, they were selling raw milk. You know, the bovine mother’s milk, unpasteurized, unprocessed, non-homogenized and wholly pure, natural and innocent. The stuff America was raised on. The stuff your parents fed you when you were a kid, if your family was lucky enough to have a cow.
In Missouri today, selling such a natural product is now apparently a criminal act. What’s next? A ban on farm-fresh eggs because the Dept. of Health doesn’t control their quality? The outlawing of raw broccoli because broccoli contains natural anti-cancer medicine?
Fortunately, the Bechard family is fighting back. As reported by the News-Leader:
“They will not sign a consent order to make the state’s complaint go away and they’re defending themselves against the city charges, too. They’ve gotten legal help from the The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization made up of farmers and consumers pooling resources to fight for the rights of family farmers trying to get unprocessed food to consumers who want it.”
A view from the Missouri-born Health Ranger
I grew up in Raytown, Missouri, just a few miles from Springfield. I spent more than a few summers on a farm near St. Louis, where we would milk the cows, gather fresh eggs from the chickens, and fish for catfish in the pond. I’m not exactly a farm boy, but I’m familiar enough with living off the land to know the difference between real food and processed food (a distinction the Missouri Dept. of Health still hasn’t gleaned…)
Click here for the full report
Why We Use Natural and Alternative Remedies
November 18, 2009
EurekAlert.org
Alternative health remedies are increasingly important in the health care marketplace. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research explores how consumers choose among the many available remedies.
“Examples of the wide array of health remedy options available to consumers include drugs, supplements, acupuncture, massage therapy, Ayurveda, and Traditional Chinese Medicine (to name a few). Such medical pluralism is common in both developed and developing countries and raises the questions: How do consumers choose among health remedies, and what are the consequences for a healthy lifestyle?” write authors Wenbo Wang (New York University), Hean Tat Keh (Beijing University), and Lisa E. Bolton (Pennsylvania State University).
The authors use “lay theories of medicine” to explain how consumers choose between Western medicine and its Eastern counterparts, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Ayurvedic medicine.
“Western Medicine is primarily concerned with the material aspect of the body and views all medical phenomena as cause-effect sequences, relying on rigorous scientific studies and research that seeks empirical proof to all phenomena,” write the authors. “On the other hand, TCM and Ayurvedic Medicine favor a holistic approach, view the mind and body as a whole system, and rely upon inductive tools and methods for treatment.”
Based on a series of experiments and surveys in the United States, China, and India, the authors found that consumers prefer TCM (over Western medicine) when uncertain about the cause of an illness (i.e., diagnosis uncertainty)—because a holistic medicine tolerates uncertainty better than Western Medicine. Similarly, consumers prefer TCM (over Western medicine) because of lay beliefs that TCM offers an underlying cure (versus symptom alleviation by Western Medicine).
“These findings add to the growing debate over the regulation of health marketing and the delivery of health care, the role of direct-to-consumer advertising, and marketing efforts to promote a healthy lifestyle,” the authors conclude.
Click here for the full report.
