Getting enough quality sleep plays a critical role in many health issues, and the study we are looking at today ties adequate sleep to better memory and cognitive function. It specifically addresses the effects of sleep on older African Americans, but I suspect the findings can apply in many ways to people of all ages and races.
Scientists have been intrigued by the purpose and effects of sleep for many years. Research is ongoing, and we seem to be learning more everyday about the importance of both the quality and quantity of our sleep patterns. Among other things, it is known that sleep is needed for the body to cleanse itself of toxins and for cells and tissues to restore and repair themselves. Sleep also helps to strengthen the immune system. According to today's article, we can also add improvement in long-term memory to the list of benefits derived from sleep. These of are some of the reasons why getting enough good sleep is a foundational part of a lifestyle that leads toward wellness. Looking for a non-invasive, drug-free, natural way to improve your health and prevent disease? Try getting more good sleep! Being in bed by 10:00 PM every night (including weekends) is a great place to begin.
Poor sleep tied to memory trouble in black seniors
1 hr 53 mins ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) -- Older African Americans who have difficulty falling asleep seem to be more likely to have memory problems, a new study suggests.
The study, of 174 African Americans ages 65 to 90, found that those who said they often had a hard time falling asleep tended to have poorer scores on standard tests of memory.
Research shows that up to 40 percent of older adults have sleep disturbances, particularly trouble falling asleep. Poor sleep has also been linked to problems with memory and other cognitive functions. However, no studies until now have looked at this relationship specifically in older black adults -- who, some research suggests, tend to be especially vulnerable to sleep problems.
In the current study, reported in the journal Research on Aging, investigators found that participants who'd been having trouble falling asleep over the past year generally had lower scores on tests of short-term and working memory. Working memory refers to the ability to tackle multiple tasks at once.
The link between sleep and memory problems held when the researchers accounted for several other factors, including depression and overall physical health.
The findings raise a number of questions, according to lead researcher Alyssa A. Gamaldo, a Ph.D. candidate at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
For one, Gamaldo said in a statement, "it is not clear if lack of sleep is the issue. Is it the quantity of sleep, the quality of sleep, or something else altogether?"
More research is needed to confirm that a lack of sleep, or a lack of quality sleep, drain memory in older adults, according to Gamaldo's team. If the current findings are confirmed, they add, then spotting and treating sleep problems in older adults could help them preserve their brain power.
"If we can better understand how sleep quantity, as well as quality, influences general cognitive functioning," Gamaldo said, "perhaps we could better maintain memory throughout life -- including later in life."
SOURCE: Research on Aging, November 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081021/hl_nm/us_poor_sleep/print
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Western Diet Huge Factor in Heart Disease
It is no secret that a diet based on high-fat, high-sodium, and nutritionally poor foods can cause heart problems and a myriad of other health concerns. However, this particular study also produced more welcome evidence for the disease-fighting capabilities of a plant-based diet composed mainly of fruits and vegetables. As Western culture spreads around the globe, along with many of its associated health risks, it is important to remember the good news as well as the bad. Namely this: If people can learn to eat well, disease can be both cured and prevented via a lifestyle of wellness that includes a wholesome diet and plenty of physical exercise.
I find it quite ironic that this study was published in the journal of the American Heart Association. One of the most disturbing statements in this article concerns the fact that "Dr. Dean Ornish is one of a few physicians advocating use of healthy diet and lifestyle to treat heart disease." It is disgraceful that the vast majority of conventional medicine practitioners will still not embrace nutritional and lifestyle therapy for the treatment of coronary and other diseases, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting its effectiveness! Perhaps the only thing more hazardous to our health than a Western diet is Western medicine.
Western diet linked to high risk of heart attack
By David Liu, Ph.D.
Oct 21, 2008 - 9:36:38 AM
Tuesday October 21, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- A new study suggests that Western diet with fried foods, salty snacks and meat may drastically increase risk of heart attack than those who use other types of diets.
The study published in Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association showed that those who used Western diet had a 35 percent increased risk of heart attack than those who consumed little fried food and meat.
For the study, Salim Yusuf, D.Phil. at McMaster University in Canada and colleagues examined the association between dietary patterns and risk of heart attack in about 16,000 people in 52 countries.
The researchers were able to classify dietary practices into three groups, namely oriental diet with high intake of tofu, soy and other sauces, prudent diet with high intake of fruits and vegetables and Western diet with high intake of fried foods, salty snacks, eggs and meat.
Among the participants, 5,761 heart attack cases were identified. The researchers found that those who used Western diet were 35 percent more likely to suffer a heart attack than those who did not use much fried food and meat and those who used prudent diet were at a 30 percent reduced risk of heart attack.
They also found that those who used oriental diet were not at increased nor reduced risk of heart attack. Some foods in oriental diet are believed to be protective, but the authors suggested that the effect was neutralized by the high salt sauces.
The findings are consistent with numerous precious studies. Western diet has been linked with a wide range of diseases.
This western diet can affect even young healthy men and women. Of hundreds of soldiers who died in the battles of the Korean War, more than 70 percent were found to have their artery narrowed to some degree, according to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a nutrition professor at Cornell University.
However, cardiovascular condition can be improved by simply following a healthy diet. According to Dr. Dean Ornish, a professor of the University of California in San Francisco who is one of a few physicians advocating use of healthy diet and lifestyle to treat heart disease, a restricted diet can stop progression of heart disease and even reverse the condition in 99% of patients.
Dr. Dean's diet and lifestyle program has been proved in trials to be effective. His diet is comprised of mostly plant-based foods. But oil is highly restricted. No more than 10 percent of calories should come from oil.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/H_eart_amp_B_lood_30/102109362008_Western_diet_linked_to_high_risk_of_heart_attack_printer.shtml
I find it quite ironic that this study was published in the journal of the American Heart Association. One of the most disturbing statements in this article concerns the fact that "Dr. Dean Ornish is one of a few physicians advocating use of healthy diet and lifestyle to treat heart disease." It is disgraceful that the vast majority of conventional medicine practitioners will still not embrace nutritional and lifestyle therapy for the treatment of coronary and other diseases, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting its effectiveness! Perhaps the only thing more hazardous to our health than a Western diet is Western medicine.
Western diet linked to high risk of heart attack
By David Liu, Ph.D.
Oct 21, 2008 - 9:36:38 AM
Tuesday October 21, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- A new study suggests that Western diet with fried foods, salty snacks and meat may drastically increase risk of heart attack than those who use other types of diets.
The study published in Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association showed that those who used Western diet had a 35 percent increased risk of heart attack than those who consumed little fried food and meat.
For the study, Salim Yusuf, D.Phil. at McMaster University in Canada and colleagues examined the association between dietary patterns and risk of heart attack in about 16,000 people in 52 countries.
The researchers were able to classify dietary practices into three groups, namely oriental diet with high intake of tofu, soy and other sauces, prudent diet with high intake of fruits and vegetables and Western diet with high intake of fried foods, salty snacks, eggs and meat.
Among the participants, 5,761 heart attack cases were identified. The researchers found that those who used Western diet were 35 percent more likely to suffer a heart attack than those who did not use much fried food and meat and those who used prudent diet were at a 30 percent reduced risk of heart attack.
They also found that those who used oriental diet were not at increased nor reduced risk of heart attack. Some foods in oriental diet are believed to be protective, but the authors suggested that the effect was neutralized by the high salt sauces.
The findings are consistent with numerous precious studies. Western diet has been linked with a wide range of diseases.
This western diet can affect even young healthy men and women. Of hundreds of soldiers who died in the battles of the Korean War, more than 70 percent were found to have their artery narrowed to some degree, according to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a nutrition professor at Cornell University.
However, cardiovascular condition can be improved by simply following a healthy diet. According to Dr. Dean Ornish, a professor of the University of California in San Francisco who is one of a few physicians advocating use of healthy diet and lifestyle to treat heart disease, a restricted diet can stop progression of heart disease and even reverse the condition in 99% of patients.
Dr. Dean's diet and lifestyle program has been proved in trials to be effective. His diet is comprised of mostly plant-based foods. But oil is highly restricted. No more than 10 percent of calories should come from oil.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/H_eart_amp_B_lood_30/102109362008_Western_diet_linked_to_high_risk_of_heart_attack_printer.shtml
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
New Drugs Pose New Hazards
A very alarming new study has indicated that the risks involved with using many newer drugs may be even greater than feared. Big Pharma and conventional medicine had high hopes for next generation medicines known as biological drugs, which are supposedly composed of living materials rather than chemicals that are foreign to the body. Researchers are discovering that many of these drugs, which are often manufactured using genetic engineering and other artificial processes, have hidden hazards (such as suppressing the immune system, the one thing needed MOST when fighting disease) that are sometimes linked to life-threatening side effects including major infections and cancers. If these are the next generation of pharmaceuticals then I say, NO THANKS! Conventional medicine continues to head in the wrong direction.
The entire drug industry is based on the formation and sale of artificial substances that are designed to "treat" or cover up symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of illness. True healing can only occur when approaches are used that help to repair and support the body's natural healing mechanisms as contained in many herbs, organic foods and food-grade supplementation.
Today's post also shines some light on the ludicrous way that the FDA tests and approves drugs. They know that there are significant hazards associated with the vast majority of drugs -- these are dangerous chemicals that kill many people every year. Yet, the thinking is that these risks are just a necessary evil that must be tolerated for the greater good of mankind. The enormous amount of money involved in the pharmaceutical industry is a major factor that allows for this madness -- erroneously labeled 'medicine" -- to continue.
Safety a problem for new generation drugs, too
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
1 hr 8 mins ago
CHICAGO -- Nearly a fourth of widely used new-generation biological drugs for several common diseases produce serious side effects that lead to safety warnings soon after they go on the market, the first major study of its kind found.
Included in the report released Tuesday were the arthritis drugs Humira and Remicade, cancer drugs Rituxan and Erbitux, and the heart failure drug Natrecor. All wound up being flagged for safety.
That might surprise some doctors who may have thought that these new treatments might be safer than traditional chemical-based medicines.
Researchers found that most of the warnings came within five years after these biologicals won government approval in the United States and Europe between 1995 and 2007.
Many traditional medicines wind up with safety warnings too after they go on the market. But experts said there were no similar studies of older medicines that made it possible to compare safety issues between the two groups of drugs.
The new study, by Dutch researchers, is the first comprehensive examination of these newer medicines, a driving part of the biotech revolution.
The drugs are known as biologicals because they're made from living material and they typically affect the body's disease-fighting immune system. Many relieve severe symptoms by suppressing that system.
It's that same mechanism that can result in side effects often not seen with traditional chemical-based medicines, said Dr. Charles Bennett, a Northwestern University drug safety expert. These can include brain and fungal infections and cancer.
Many are genetically engineered and Bennett said that because they typically resemble naturally occurring proteins, many doctors have assumed they were safer than traditional chemical-based medicines. But he said the study shows that's not necessarily true.
"They have an important role," Bennett said. "They're really the next generation of pharmaceuticals."
He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.
Among the drugs under examination are Genentech Inc.'s psoriasis drug Raptiva, which just last week the Food and Drug Administration warned may contribute to a life-threatening brain illness and infections; and Exubera, an inhaled insulin product, linked with lung cancer risks. Exubera was approved by the FDA in 2006 but Pfizer Inc. stopped selling it last year.
The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
It involved 136 biologics approved in the United States and 105 in the European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. A total of 41, or nearly 24 percent, got safety warnings issued through June 2008.
The results are a concern, and they underscore the need for closer scrutiny of drugs after their approval, said lead author Thijs Giezen of the University of Utrecht.
But he said the study also is reassuring because most problems showed up relatively soon after the drugs became available, which minimized the potential for widespread harm.
"If most issues are discovered within the first few years, then the system is working," Giezen said.
Bennett says it's unreasonable to think that the studied drugs' safety issues should have been discovered before they were marketed. That's because drug approval is based on relatively small studies with patients who generally are healthier than those in the general population. It often takes real-world experience for side effects to appear, he said.
Many biological drugs have advantages over conventional medicine, but the study shows their risks need to also be considered, said Thomas Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.
For example, non-steroid arthritis medicines including ibuprofen can reduce pain by decreasing inflammation, but they can cause stomach bleeding.
Biologic rheumatoid arthritis medicines Remicade, Enbrel and Humira are designed to ease painful joints by keeping the body's immune system from attacking itself, the underlying problem in the disease. But they are much more expensive and have been linked with higher risks for potentially fatal infections. Also, the FDA is investigating possible cancer risks.
"My message to patients is that these biological products often can treat very difficult to treat diseases but may have very substantial risks and that you need to take extra care to educate yourself as to what those risks might be," Moore said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_he_me/med_biotech_drug_risks/print
The entire drug industry is based on the formation and sale of artificial substances that are designed to "treat" or cover up symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of illness. True healing can only occur when approaches are used that help to repair and support the body's natural healing mechanisms as contained in many herbs, organic foods and food-grade supplementation.
Today's post also shines some light on the ludicrous way that the FDA tests and approves drugs. They know that there are significant hazards associated with the vast majority of drugs -- these are dangerous chemicals that kill many people every year. Yet, the thinking is that these risks are just a necessary evil that must be tolerated for the greater good of mankind. The enormous amount of money involved in the pharmaceutical industry is a major factor that allows for this madness -- erroneously labeled 'medicine" -- to continue.
Safety a problem for new generation drugs, too
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
1 hr 8 mins ago
CHICAGO -- Nearly a fourth of widely used new-generation biological drugs for several common diseases produce serious side effects that lead to safety warnings soon after they go on the market, the first major study of its kind found.
Included in the report released Tuesday were the arthritis drugs Humira and Remicade, cancer drugs Rituxan and Erbitux, and the heart failure drug Natrecor. All wound up being flagged for safety.
That might surprise some doctors who may have thought that these new treatments might be safer than traditional chemical-based medicines.
Researchers found that most of the warnings came within five years after these biologicals won government approval in the United States and Europe between 1995 and 2007.
Many traditional medicines wind up with safety warnings too after they go on the market. But experts said there were no similar studies of older medicines that made it possible to compare safety issues between the two groups of drugs.
The new study, by Dutch researchers, is the first comprehensive examination of these newer medicines, a driving part of the biotech revolution.
The drugs are known as biologicals because they're made from living material and they typically affect the body's disease-fighting immune system. Many relieve severe symptoms by suppressing that system.
It's that same mechanism that can result in side effects often not seen with traditional chemical-based medicines, said Dr. Charles Bennett, a Northwestern University drug safety expert. These can include brain and fungal infections and cancer.
Many are genetically engineered and Bennett said that because they typically resemble naturally occurring proteins, many doctors have assumed they were safer than traditional chemical-based medicines. But he said the study shows that's not necessarily true.
"They have an important role," Bennett said. "They're really the next generation of pharmaceuticals."
He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.
Among the drugs under examination are Genentech Inc.'s psoriasis drug Raptiva, which just last week the Food and Drug Administration warned may contribute to a life-threatening brain illness and infections; and Exubera, an inhaled insulin product, linked with lung cancer risks. Exubera was approved by the FDA in 2006 but Pfizer Inc. stopped selling it last year.
The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
It involved 136 biologics approved in the United States and 105 in the European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. A total of 41, or nearly 24 percent, got safety warnings issued through June 2008.
The results are a concern, and they underscore the need for closer scrutiny of drugs after their approval, said lead author Thijs Giezen of the University of Utrecht.
But he said the study also is reassuring because most problems showed up relatively soon after the drugs became available, which minimized the potential for widespread harm.
"If most issues are discovered within the first few years, then the system is working," Giezen said.
Bennett says it's unreasonable to think that the studied drugs' safety issues should have been discovered before they were marketed. That's because drug approval is based on relatively small studies with patients who generally are healthier than those in the general population. It often takes real-world experience for side effects to appear, he said.
Many biological drugs have advantages over conventional medicine, but the study shows their risks need to also be considered, said Thomas Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.
For example, non-steroid arthritis medicines including ibuprofen can reduce pain by decreasing inflammation, but they can cause stomach bleeding.
Biologic rheumatoid arthritis medicines Remicade, Enbrel and Humira are designed to ease painful joints by keeping the body's immune system from attacking itself, the underlying problem in the disease. But they are much more expensive and have been linked with higher risks for potentially fatal infections. Also, the FDA is investigating possible cancer risks.
"My message to patients is that these biological products often can treat very difficult to treat diseases but may have very substantial risks and that you need to take extra care to educate yourself as to what those risks might be," Moore said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_he_me/med_biotech_drug_risks/print
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Behavioral Therapy for Autism More Effective Than Drugs
The article highlighted in today's post caught my eye because it discussed issues surrounding a non-invasive, drug-free treatment for autism that, while very expensive, has produced some excellent results in autistic children. Autism advocates are putting pressure on state governments to require insurance companies to pay for this therapy.
It is refreshing to see such a method of therapy gain popularity, rather than the use of stimulants and other drugs that are typically offered to autistic families. I applaud regulations that mandate health insurers to cover this treatment, and would encourage parents of autistic kids to investigate how they may apply some of these same principles in dealing with their own children's illness.
It appears this sort of behavioral therapy provides a much safer, more effective, and better long-term solution than the hazardous medications that simply drug patients up without addressing the root causes behind autistic behavior.
Parents press states for autism insurance laws
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 20, 6:28 am ET
CHICAGO -- In Washington state, Reza and Arzu Forough pay more than $1,000 a week for behavior therapy for their 12-year-old autistic son.
In Indiana, Sean and Michele Trivedi get the same type of therapy for their 11-year-old daughter. But they pay $3,000 a year and their health insurance covers the rest.
Two families. Two states. Big difference in out-of-pocket costs.
If autism advocates get their way, more states will follow Indiana's lead by requiring health insurers to cover intensive and costly behavior therapy for autism.
In the past two years, six states -- Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana -- passed laws requiring such coverage, costing in some cases up to $50,000 a year per child.
The powerful advocacy group Autism Speaks has endorsed bills in New Jersey, Virginia and Michigan and is targeting at least 10 more states in 2009, including New York, California and Ohio.
Other states, including Illinois, have similar bills in the works but aren't working directly with Autism Speaks.
"This is the hottest trend in mandates we've seen in a long time," said J.P. Wieske, a lobbyist for an insurance coalition that argues that these state requirements drive up insurance costs for everyone. "It is hard to fight them."
For lawmakers, voting against these measures means voting against parents who are struggling to do the best for their children.
Parents tell moving stories about how behavior therapy works better than anything they've tried. In two states, bills got nicknames like "Steven's Law" and "Ryan's Law," so voting against them was tough.
Arzu Forough of Kirkland, Wash., who is pushing a bill in her state, credits behavior therapy for teaching her son Shayan, at age 3, to make a sound to ask for a drink of water. Now 12, he is learning to converse about his favorite food and music, and to talk about his frustrations rather than throw tantrums.
Trained therapists, using principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA), created a system of rewards to teach Shayan these skills. As a preschooler, he got a piece of cheese when he said "bubba" for water. Now a therapist rewards him with tokens when he responds in conversation. He uses the tokens to "buy" privileges like going for a car ride.
Shayan's improvements are a welcome relief to his mother, who once called for police help with her out-of-control son while she was driving.
"I pulled over to the side of the road," she said. "I had to call the police to drive behind me so I could drive safely home."
The Foroughs have health insurance, but it doesn't cover Shayan's therapy. Although they both work full time, they must live rent-free with her elderly mother to be able to afford his treatment.
Meanwhile, the Trivedi family of the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, get 25 hours a week of behavior therapy for 11-year-old Ellie. They contribute co-pays and a deductible, totaling about $3,000. Insurance pays the rest, about $47,000 a year.
Michele Trivedi is an autism activist. She fought for years after a vaguely worded 2001 Indiana law required coverage but insurers still refused to pay for ABA. Finally in 2006, she helped convince the state's insurance commissioner to issue a bulletin spelling out what was expected of insurers.
"It's no longer acceptable that blatant discrimination against people with autism occur," Trivedi said.
Autism is a range of disorders that hinder the ability to communicate and interact. Most doctors believe there is no cure. An estimated 1 in 150 American children are diagnosed with it.
Supporters say behavior therapy has decades of research behind it and can save money in the long run by keeping people out of institutions. Researchers agree, but say much remains unknown about which therapy works best for autistic kids, whether long-term gains can be claimed, and whether it works with older children.
Some states require behavior therapy coverage up to age 18 or 21. But the scientific evidence for ABA is strongest for the youngest, ages 2 to 5. Some researchers have reported on individual children with autism who no longer appeared disabled when they reached school age.
The most rigorous studies, though, show mixed results. A study published in 2000 showed that preschoolers who got intensive behavior therapy had greater gains in IQ than children who didn't get the therapy. But there was little difference in the two group's language development or the intensity of behavior problems. And the children most severely affected by autism showed no comparative gain.
Another study in preschoolers, published in 2005, showed little difference between an intensive ABA-based program run by therapists and less-intensive therapy from parents; children in both groups improved.
When it comes to older children, the research is sparse, said Tristram Smith of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, who co-authored the 2000 autism study. "You could make a decent case for the little kids up to 6 or 7 that (insurance mandates) would be appropriate," Smith said. "I think it would be hard to make that case for older kids."
Another autism researcher, Laura Schreibman of the University of California at San Diego, said "fly-by-night" behavior therapists could defraud insurers with ineffective therapy.
"I would like to see insurance cover this kind of intervention because it's documented to be effective," she said. "But insurance companies have every right to monitor whether it's working. If it's been two years and there are no gains, an insurance company should be saying, 'What are we paying for here?'"
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, the industry lobbying arm, estimates autism mandates increase the cost of insurance by less than 1 percent by themselves, but when combined with other requirements make insurance less affordable.
Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry has been wary of laws ordering a specific treatment because when new scientific evidence emerges, the mandate remains frozen. And she questions whether behavior therapy is medical or educational.
The American Academy of Pediatrics includes ABA therapy in its clinical report on autism, but describes it as an "educational intervention."
"There has been an effort to transfer the response to autism from school systems to the health care system," Pisano said.
Nevertheless, some big companies and the U.S. military are providing ABA-based autism therapy as a benefit.
The U.S. military's Tricare health insurance program not only covers up to $2,500 a month for the therapy, but also recently expanded the definition of who can provide it to make it more accessible. And some self-insured companies, including Microsoft and Home Depot, pay for autism behavior therapy.
Gaining insurance coverage state by state is the top lobbying priority for Autism Speaks.
"It's the No. 1 thing we hear from parents," said Elizabeth Emken, the group's vice president of government relations. "What's more difficult than knowing there's an effective treatment for your children, but you can't afford to offer it to them because it's not covered by insurance?"
A new federal law requiring insurers to make coverage for mental health conditions equitable with other health coverage was tacked onto the recent financial industry bailout package.
Autism Speaks applauds the law, but says autism is not a psychological condition and that the insurance industry has refused to cover autism treatments in states with mental health parity laws on the books.
"We hope it sets the stage for the Congress and the next president to continue this effort to end discrimination in the health insurance marketplace," Emken said. "Whichever party is elected, autism will be on the table and be a major point of discussion. There may have to be a federal mandate."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_he_me/med_autism_coverage/print
It is refreshing to see such a method of therapy gain popularity, rather than the use of stimulants and other drugs that are typically offered to autistic families. I applaud regulations that mandate health insurers to cover this treatment, and would encourage parents of autistic kids to investigate how they may apply some of these same principles in dealing with their own children's illness.
It appears this sort of behavioral therapy provides a much safer, more effective, and better long-term solution than the hazardous medications that simply drug patients up without addressing the root causes behind autistic behavior.
Parents press states for autism insurance laws
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 20, 6:28 am ET
CHICAGO -- In Washington state, Reza and Arzu Forough pay more than $1,000 a week for behavior therapy for their 12-year-old autistic son.
In Indiana, Sean and Michele Trivedi get the same type of therapy for their 11-year-old daughter. But they pay $3,000 a year and their health insurance covers the rest.
Two families. Two states. Big difference in out-of-pocket costs.
If autism advocates get their way, more states will follow Indiana's lead by requiring health insurers to cover intensive and costly behavior therapy for autism.
In the past two years, six states -- Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana -- passed laws requiring such coverage, costing in some cases up to $50,000 a year per child.
The powerful advocacy group Autism Speaks has endorsed bills in New Jersey, Virginia and Michigan and is targeting at least 10 more states in 2009, including New York, California and Ohio.
Other states, including Illinois, have similar bills in the works but aren't working directly with Autism Speaks.
"This is the hottest trend in mandates we've seen in a long time," said J.P. Wieske, a lobbyist for an insurance coalition that argues that these state requirements drive up insurance costs for everyone. "It is hard to fight them."
For lawmakers, voting against these measures means voting against parents who are struggling to do the best for their children.
Parents tell moving stories about how behavior therapy works better than anything they've tried. In two states, bills got nicknames like "Steven's Law" and "Ryan's Law," so voting against them was tough.
Arzu Forough of Kirkland, Wash., who is pushing a bill in her state, credits behavior therapy for teaching her son Shayan, at age 3, to make a sound to ask for a drink of water. Now 12, he is learning to converse about his favorite food and music, and to talk about his frustrations rather than throw tantrums.
Trained therapists, using principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA), created a system of rewards to teach Shayan these skills. As a preschooler, he got a piece of cheese when he said "bubba" for water. Now a therapist rewards him with tokens when he responds in conversation. He uses the tokens to "buy" privileges like going for a car ride.
Shayan's improvements are a welcome relief to his mother, who once called for police help with her out-of-control son while she was driving.
"I pulled over to the side of the road," she said. "I had to call the police to drive behind me so I could drive safely home."
The Foroughs have health insurance, but it doesn't cover Shayan's therapy. Although they both work full time, they must live rent-free with her elderly mother to be able to afford his treatment.
Meanwhile, the Trivedi family of the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, get 25 hours a week of behavior therapy for 11-year-old Ellie. They contribute co-pays and a deductible, totaling about $3,000. Insurance pays the rest, about $47,000 a year.
Michele Trivedi is an autism activist. She fought for years after a vaguely worded 2001 Indiana law required coverage but insurers still refused to pay for ABA. Finally in 2006, she helped convince the state's insurance commissioner to issue a bulletin spelling out what was expected of insurers.
"It's no longer acceptable that blatant discrimination against people with autism occur," Trivedi said.
Autism is a range of disorders that hinder the ability to communicate and interact. Most doctors believe there is no cure. An estimated 1 in 150 American children are diagnosed with it.
Supporters say behavior therapy has decades of research behind it and can save money in the long run by keeping people out of institutions. Researchers agree, but say much remains unknown about which therapy works best for autistic kids, whether long-term gains can be claimed, and whether it works with older children.
Some states require behavior therapy coverage up to age 18 or 21. But the scientific evidence for ABA is strongest for the youngest, ages 2 to 5. Some researchers have reported on individual children with autism who no longer appeared disabled when they reached school age.
The most rigorous studies, though, show mixed results. A study published in 2000 showed that preschoolers who got intensive behavior therapy had greater gains in IQ than children who didn't get the therapy. But there was little difference in the two group's language development or the intensity of behavior problems. And the children most severely affected by autism showed no comparative gain.
Another study in preschoolers, published in 2005, showed little difference between an intensive ABA-based program run by therapists and less-intensive therapy from parents; children in both groups improved.
When it comes to older children, the research is sparse, said Tristram Smith of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, who co-authored the 2000 autism study. "You could make a decent case for the little kids up to 6 or 7 that (insurance mandates) would be appropriate," Smith said. "I think it would be hard to make that case for older kids."
Another autism researcher, Laura Schreibman of the University of California at San Diego, said "fly-by-night" behavior therapists could defraud insurers with ineffective therapy.
"I would like to see insurance cover this kind of intervention because it's documented to be effective," she said. "But insurance companies have every right to monitor whether it's working. If it's been two years and there are no gains, an insurance company should be saying, 'What are we paying for here?'"
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, the industry lobbying arm, estimates autism mandates increase the cost of insurance by less than 1 percent by themselves, but when combined with other requirements make insurance less affordable.
Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry has been wary of laws ordering a specific treatment because when new scientific evidence emerges, the mandate remains frozen. And she questions whether behavior therapy is medical or educational.
The American Academy of Pediatrics includes ABA therapy in its clinical report on autism, but describes it as an "educational intervention."
"There has been an effort to transfer the response to autism from school systems to the health care system," Pisano said.
Nevertheless, some big companies and the U.S. military are providing ABA-based autism therapy as a benefit.
The U.S. military's Tricare health insurance program not only covers up to $2,500 a month for the therapy, but also recently expanded the definition of who can provide it to make it more accessible. And some self-insured companies, including Microsoft and Home Depot, pay for autism behavior therapy.
Gaining insurance coverage state by state is the top lobbying priority for Autism Speaks.
"It's the No. 1 thing we hear from parents," said Elizabeth Emken, the group's vice president of government relations. "What's more difficult than knowing there's an effective treatment for your children, but you can't afford to offer it to them because it's not covered by insurance?"
A new federal law requiring insurers to make coverage for mental health conditions equitable with other health coverage was tacked onto the recent financial industry bailout package.
Autism Speaks applauds the law, but says autism is not a psychological condition and that the insurance industry has refused to cover autism treatments in states with mental health parity laws on the books.
"We hope it sets the stage for the Congress and the next president to continue this effort to end discrimination in the health insurance marketplace," Emken said. "Whichever party is elected, autism will be on the table and be a major point of discussion. There may have to be a federal mandate."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_he_me/med_autism_coverage/print
Monday, October 27, 2008
Hidden Latex Allergens
Allergic reactions to latex are becoming more common, and they can range from minor to life-threatening. They are most often associated with medical or dental care, but the article below points out some less obvious situations that may lead to latex exposure. If you are allergic to latex, this post may give you a heads up as to potential sources of latex you should be aware of.
Allergies to latex or any number of common allergens are triggered by a faulty immune system response. A natural health practitioner can often alleviate allergies through dietary and nutritional interventions that bolster your immune system and help bring your body back into balance. Lifestyle changes such as these are much safer, more effective, and offer better long-term solutions than the medications often prescribed for many allergic conditions.
Look Out For Latex In Unexpected Places
Article Date: 06 Oct 2008 - 10:00 PDT
Allergic reactions to latex happen commonly in medical settings, where rubber gloves are in abundant supply. But less-visible elements in other environments can also pose danger, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI).
"Consider that restaurant meals are frequently prepared by cooks wearing latex gloves. In schools, the cafeteria may be a threat, but there is also potential exposure to latex in school supplies," said Donald H. Beezhold, PhD, FAAAAI, chair of the AAAAI Latex Allergy Committee. "This type of inadvertent exposure poses a serious health risk to millions of Americans."
Estimates of latex allergy prevalence vary, but the condition disproportionately affects healthcare workers and others with frequent exposure to latex - including those who have had multiple surgeries. At least 10 percent of healthcare workers and more than half of individuals with spina bifida are believed to have the allergy, versus 1 percent to 6 percent of the general population.
Reactions to latex can result in skin irritation or anaphylaxis - which can be life-threatening.
Avoidance is key to preventing an allergic reaction and the responsibility of education often falls to the patient. The AAAAI offers resources on latex allergy in the Diseases 101 section of its Web site, http://www.aaaai.org. The AAAAI recommends these tips for latex-allergic patients:
- Avoid contact with latex products, including gloves, balloons and condoms.
- Inform your doctors, dentist, family, employer and school personnel of the allergy and request accommodations as needed.
- Remember that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act provides workplace protections for individuals with latex allergy. If protective gloves are required for your job, your employer should consider an alternative synthetic material, which is equally effective in most situations.
- Ask your physician if you should wear a medical bracelet identifying your allergy.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/124377.php
Allergies to latex or any number of common allergens are triggered by a faulty immune system response. A natural health practitioner can often alleviate allergies through dietary and nutritional interventions that bolster your immune system and help bring your body back into balance. Lifestyle changes such as these are much safer, more effective, and offer better long-term solutions than the medications often prescribed for many allergic conditions.
Look Out For Latex In Unexpected Places
Article Date: 06 Oct 2008 - 10:00 PDT
Allergic reactions to latex happen commonly in medical settings, where rubber gloves are in abundant supply. But less-visible elements in other environments can also pose danger, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI).
"Consider that restaurant meals are frequently prepared by cooks wearing latex gloves. In schools, the cafeteria may be a threat, but there is also potential exposure to latex in school supplies," said Donald H. Beezhold, PhD, FAAAAI, chair of the AAAAI Latex Allergy Committee. "This type of inadvertent exposure poses a serious health risk to millions of Americans."
Estimates of latex allergy prevalence vary, but the condition disproportionately affects healthcare workers and others with frequent exposure to latex - including those who have had multiple surgeries. At least 10 percent of healthcare workers and more than half of individuals with spina bifida are believed to have the allergy, versus 1 percent to 6 percent of the general population.
Reactions to latex can result in skin irritation or anaphylaxis - which can be life-threatening.
Avoidance is key to preventing an allergic reaction and the responsibility of education often falls to the patient. The AAAAI offers resources on latex allergy in the Diseases 101 section of its Web site, http://www.aaaai.org. The AAAAI recommends these tips for latex-allergic patients:
- Avoid contact with latex products, including gloves, balloons and condoms.
- Inform your doctors, dentist, family, employer and school personnel of the allergy and request accommodations as needed.
- Remember that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act provides workplace protections for individuals with latex allergy. If protective gloves are required for your job, your employer should consider an alternative synthetic material, which is equally effective in most situations.
- Ask your physician if you should wear a medical bracelet identifying your allergy.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/124377.php
Friday, October 24, 2008
More Vaccines Forced on Our Children
A new frontier has been reached in the blatant violation of healthcare freedoms and parental rights. New Jersey is the first (and hopefully the last) state to pass legislation mandating both flu and pneumococcal vaccines for pre-schoolers and children entering daycare. Despite well-documented dangers, including mercury-laced thimerosol and sometimes deadly reactions, and despite the lack of credible research indicating the necessity or safety of such vaccines for young children, the NJ Health Department is standing their ground. They have even come out in opposition against conscientious objection options for concerned parents.
So now we have mandated vaccines being given to children for the flu, which is not even considered a deadly disease, especially in that age group. What's next? A vaccine for the common cold (oh, they'd love that) or for diaper rash or for stinky feet? As ridiculous as this may sound, authorities have proven that no scenario is too far-fetched for the profit-driven medical-governmental complex. Parents beware!
Speaking of the flu, please read an excellent article about the flu and Vitamin D levels and why you should have your Vitamin D levels checked:
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/epidemic-influenza-vitamin-d.html
NJ flu-shot mandate for preschoolers draws outcry
By DAVID CRARY -- 4 days ago
As flu season approaches, many New Jersey parents are furious over a first-in-the-nation requirement that children get a flu shot in order to attend preschools and day-care centers. The decision should be the parents', not the state's, they contend.
Hundreds of parents and other activists rallied outside the New Jersey Statehouse on Thursday, decrying the policy and voicing support for a bill that would allow parents to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for their children.
"This is not an anti-vaccine rally -- it's a freedom of choice rally," said one of the organizers, Louise Habakus. "This one-size-fits-all approach is really very anti-American."
New Jersey's policy was approved last December by the state's Public Health Council and is taking effect this fall. Children from 6 months to 5 years old who attend a child-care center or preschool have until Dec. 31 to receive the flu vaccine, along with a pneumococcal vaccine.
The Health Council was acting on the recommendations of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has depicted children under 5 as a group particularly in need of flu shots. But no other state has made the shots mandatory for children of any age.
"Vaccines not only protect the child being vaccinated but also the general community and the most vulnerable individuals within the community," New Jersey's Health Department said in a statement. It has depicted young children as "particularly efficient" in transmitting the flu to others.
Opposition to the policy is vehement. Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk, one of the speakers at the rally, said she now has 34 co-sponsors for a bill that would allow for conscientious objections to mandatory vaccinations.
"The right to informed consent is so basic," she said in an interview. "Parents have a right to decide for their own children what is injected in their bodies."
State policy now allows for medical and religious exemptions to mandatory vaccinations, but Vandervalk said requests for medical exemptions often have been turned down by local health authorities. She said 19 other states allow conscientious exemptions like those envisioned in her bill.
New Jersey's health department has come out strongly against the legislation.
"Broad exemptions to mandatory vaccination weaken the entire compliance and enforcement structure," it said.
The department also contends that New Jersey is particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases -- with a high population density, a mobile population and many recently arrived immigrants.
"In light of New Jersey's special traits, the highest number of children possible must receive vaccines to protect them and others," the department said.
Several hundred people attended Thursday's rally, some with signs reading, "Mommy knows best."
Among the speakers was Robin Stavola of Colts Neck, N.J., who said her daughter, Holly, died in 2000 at age 5 less than two weeks after receiving eight different vaccines, including a booster shot.
"I am not against vaccines, but I do believe there are too many," she told the crowd.
State health officials and the CDC insist the flu vaccine is safe and effective, but Vandervalk and the parent groups who support her bill contend there has been inadequate research into the vaccine's impact on small children. Critics note that flu vaccines contain trace amounts of thimerosol, a mercury-based preservative; the CDC says there's no convincing evidence these trace amounts cause harm.
More generally, many of the parents mobilizing against the state policy believe various types of vaccine are being overused, resulting in more cases of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other neurological problems in children.
"There's not been a response from the government that is credible in terms of doing the scientific research that will screen out vulnerable children," said Barbara Loe Fisher, a speaker at the rally. She is co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, Va., an advocacy group skeptical of vaccination policies.
"There's an acknowledgment that prescription drugs can cause different reactions in people, but there's a blanket statement by health authorities that we all have to vaccinate, all in the same way," Fisher said.
Fisher is a prominent player in a nationwide movement challenging the scope of vaccination programs. She was harshly critical last year when school officials in Maryland's Prince George's County threatened to impose jail terms and fines on parents whose children didn't get required vaccinations.
Many of the activists in New Jersey accept the need for mandatory vaccinations for certain highly dangerous diseases, such as polio, but argue that the state went too far in requiring flu shots.
"The flu is not a deadly disease," said Barbara Majeski of Princeton, N.J., who does not want her two preschooler sons to get the vaccination.
In fact, flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year and hospitalizes about 200,000. But children make up a small fraction of the victims -- 86 died last year, from babies to teens, according to federal figures. Only two flu deaths of children in New Jersey have been recorded since 2004.
"Mother Nature designed our bodies to be able to fight off infections through natural means -- you need to be exposed and develop immunity," Majeski said. "We've just gotten a little too overprotective with our children."
Associated Press writer Mel C. Evans in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0-BzSiuBeFJ9WGOM36G7jN2p3-wD93RQCN80
So now we have mandated vaccines being given to children for the flu, which is not even considered a deadly disease, especially in that age group. What's next? A vaccine for the common cold (oh, they'd love that) or for diaper rash or for stinky feet? As ridiculous as this may sound, authorities have proven that no scenario is too far-fetched for the profit-driven medical-governmental complex. Parents beware!
Speaking of the flu, please read an excellent article about the flu and Vitamin D levels and why you should have your Vitamin D levels checked:
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/epidemic-influenza-vitamin-d.html
NJ flu-shot mandate for preschoolers draws outcry
By DAVID CRARY -- 4 days ago
As flu season approaches, many New Jersey parents are furious over a first-in-the-nation requirement that children get a flu shot in order to attend preschools and day-care centers. The decision should be the parents', not the state's, they contend.
Hundreds of parents and other activists rallied outside the New Jersey Statehouse on Thursday, decrying the policy and voicing support for a bill that would allow parents to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for their children.
"This is not an anti-vaccine rally -- it's a freedom of choice rally," said one of the organizers, Louise Habakus. "This one-size-fits-all approach is really very anti-American."
New Jersey's policy was approved last December by the state's Public Health Council and is taking effect this fall. Children from 6 months to 5 years old who attend a child-care center or preschool have until Dec. 31 to receive the flu vaccine, along with a pneumococcal vaccine.
The Health Council was acting on the recommendations of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has depicted children under 5 as a group particularly in need of flu shots. But no other state has made the shots mandatory for children of any age.
"Vaccines not only protect the child being vaccinated but also the general community and the most vulnerable individuals within the community," New Jersey's Health Department said in a statement. It has depicted young children as "particularly efficient" in transmitting the flu to others.
Opposition to the policy is vehement. Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk, one of the speakers at the rally, said she now has 34 co-sponsors for a bill that would allow for conscientious objections to mandatory vaccinations.
"The right to informed consent is so basic," she said in an interview. "Parents have a right to decide for their own children what is injected in their bodies."
State policy now allows for medical and religious exemptions to mandatory vaccinations, but Vandervalk said requests for medical exemptions often have been turned down by local health authorities. She said 19 other states allow conscientious exemptions like those envisioned in her bill.
New Jersey's health department has come out strongly against the legislation.
"Broad exemptions to mandatory vaccination weaken the entire compliance and enforcement structure," it said.
The department also contends that New Jersey is particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases -- with a high population density, a mobile population and many recently arrived immigrants.
"In light of New Jersey's special traits, the highest number of children possible must receive vaccines to protect them and others," the department said.
Several hundred people attended Thursday's rally, some with signs reading, "Mommy knows best."
Among the speakers was Robin Stavola of Colts Neck, N.J., who said her daughter, Holly, died in 2000 at age 5 less than two weeks after receiving eight different vaccines, including a booster shot.
"I am not against vaccines, but I do believe there are too many," she told the crowd.
State health officials and the CDC insist the flu vaccine is safe and effective, but Vandervalk and the parent groups who support her bill contend there has been inadequate research into the vaccine's impact on small children. Critics note that flu vaccines contain trace amounts of thimerosol, a mercury-based preservative; the CDC says there's no convincing evidence these trace amounts cause harm.
More generally, many of the parents mobilizing against the state policy believe various types of vaccine are being overused, resulting in more cases of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other neurological problems in children.
"There's not been a response from the government that is credible in terms of doing the scientific research that will screen out vulnerable children," said Barbara Loe Fisher, a speaker at the rally. She is co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, Va., an advocacy group skeptical of vaccination policies.
"There's an acknowledgment that prescription drugs can cause different reactions in people, but there's a blanket statement by health authorities that we all have to vaccinate, all in the same way," Fisher said.
Fisher is a prominent player in a nationwide movement challenging the scope of vaccination programs. She was harshly critical last year when school officials in Maryland's Prince George's County threatened to impose jail terms and fines on parents whose children didn't get required vaccinations.
Many of the activists in New Jersey accept the need for mandatory vaccinations for certain highly dangerous diseases, such as polio, but argue that the state went too far in requiring flu shots.
"The flu is not a deadly disease," said Barbara Majeski of Princeton, N.J., who does not want her two preschooler sons to get the vaccination.
In fact, flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year and hospitalizes about 200,000. But children make up a small fraction of the victims -- 86 died last year, from babies to teens, according to federal figures. Only two flu deaths of children in New Jersey have been recorded since 2004.
"Mother Nature designed our bodies to be able to fight off infections through natural means -- you need to be exposed and develop immunity," Majeski said. "We've just gotten a little too overprotective with our children."
Associated Press writer Mel C. Evans in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0-BzSiuBeFJ9WGOM36G7jN2p3-wD93RQCN80
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Hazards of Bottled Water
In spite of the massive increase in sales of bottled water over the last few decades, there are indicators that it may be just as harmful to your health, if not more so in some cases, than regular tap water. It also appears that many suppliers have deceived consumers into believing that bottled water is purer and safer than tap water.
There are few regulations that force bottled water companies to divulge the source of their product or the presence of known contaminants. The use of plastic bottles, especially if the water is stored in warm or hot temperatures, poses additional chemical risks.
A steady supply of clean water is one of the foundational necessities that lead towards wellness. Your best source for good water is a high-quality home water filtration system that will assure you and your family the pure water you need to stay well and prevent disease.
Bottled Water Is No Purer Than Tap Water, Group Says (Update1)
By Rob Waters
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Bottled water sold in markets and convenience stores may be no more free of pollutants than the water that pours from the kitchen tap at a fraction of the cost, said an environmental group that tested samples.
Ten top-selling brands of bottled water contained a total of 38 pollutants including fertilizer, industrial chemicals, bacteria and the residue of drugs such as Tylenol, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group based in Washington, D.C. The bottled water showed an average of eight pollutants in each sample.
Americans drank more than twice as much bottled water in 2007 as they did in 1997, guzzling 8.8 billion gallons at a cost of $10.3 billion in 2007, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp., a research and consulting firm based in New York. Although commercials often show pristine mountain springs, the reality is that bottled water often comes from city water supplies, said Renee Sharp, an Environmental Working Group senior scientist.
``If you're going to pay 1,500 times more for bottled water than for tap you'd expect that you'd be getting a cleaner, better product,'' said Sharp. ``And that's not necessarily true.''
Public water utilities are required to inform customers about contaminants that may be present in tap water and, in most states, to tell customers where the water comes from and how it's purified. Companies selling bottled water have few similar rules, Sharp said.
California, which has stricter standards than most states, requires companies to disclose whether bottled water comes from municipal water systems and also to warn consumers about contaminants that may pose health risks.
No Assurances
``But even in California, consumers still can't be assured they're getting a better product'' than they could get from their kitchen sink, Sharp said.
Sharp and her colleagues started their research by buying samples of 10 different brands and sending them to an independent laboratory for testing. They noticed that bottles from Wal-Mart's and Giant Food Inc., a supermarket chain owned by Koninklijke Ahold NV of Amsterdam, seemed to bear the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment, Sharp said.
In three samples of Sam's Choice purified drinking water sold at Wal-Mart stores near San Francisco, levels of a group of chemicals known as trihalomethanes exceeded state standards, the report said. These are byproducts of chlorine and other chemicals used to kill microbes and can cause cancer at high doses.
Quality is `Top Priority'
Tests conducted by Wal-Mart and its suppliers don't show ``any reportable amounts of chlorine or chlorine by-products,'' Shannon Frederick, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said yesterday in an e-mail.
``The suppliers of Sam's Choice water regularly test to verify compliance and quality,'' she said. ``Product quality is a top priority at Wal-Mart, and we stand behind the quality of our bottled water.''
Giant Food spokesman Jamie Miller said in an e-mail today the water marketed by the company is produced with ``numerous safety and quality assurance controls, including a filtration process that assures that the quality of the product meets all regulatory standards for safe drinking water in the areas where we operate.''
While Sharp and her colleagues tested eight bottled water brands in addition to those of Wal-Mart and Giant, the report didn't name the others.
The largest producer of bottled water in the U.S., Nestle Waters North America, a unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA, said today in an e-mailed statement that the environmental group's report was ``false and misleading'' and seeks to ``undermine the integrity of bottled water.''
Multistep Filtration
Water used in Nestle's brands, which include Poland Spring and San Pellegrino, are tested regularly by independent labs and undergo ``multistep filtration,'' said Heidi Paul, the unit's vice president, in the statement.
``Contrary to the EWG's attempt to equate tap water quality with bottled water, our water is held to a higher standard,'' Paul said.
The Environmental Working Group notified Wal-Mart yesterday that it intended to sue the company for violating the terms of California's Proposition 65, a measure passed by voters in 1986. The regulation requires businesses to notify consumers if products they sell contain significant amounts of chemicals known to cause harm.
Wal-Mart's Frederick said she had no comment on the possible lawsuit.
The increased consumption of water sold in disposable plastic bottles also creates serious environmental problems, Sharp said.
`Enormous Environmental Impacts'
``The environmental impacts of bottled water production are enormous in terms of the amount of energy that goes into producing the bottles and shipping them around the country,'' she said. The bottles also clog landfill sites and increasingly pollute oceans, where they endanger marine animals, she said.
While Giant Food's Acadia brand had similar levels of trihalomethanes, the environmental group doesn't plan to sue the chain under the California statute because it doesn't have stores in the state, Sharp said.
The environmental group wants to see stricter, nationwide standards requiring full disclosure of the contaminants in bottled water and urges consumers to switch from bottled water to tap water. People who are concerned about tap water quality can purchase home filtration systems for a small portion of the cost they pay for bottled water, Sharp said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Rob Waters in San Francisco at rwaters5@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: October 15, 2008 13:36 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a4gqSuLAeFYU&refer=home
There are few regulations that force bottled water companies to divulge the source of their product or the presence of known contaminants. The use of plastic bottles, especially if the water is stored in warm or hot temperatures, poses additional chemical risks.
A steady supply of clean water is one of the foundational necessities that lead towards wellness. Your best source for good water is a high-quality home water filtration system that will assure you and your family the pure water you need to stay well and prevent disease.
Bottled Water Is No Purer Than Tap Water, Group Says (Update1)
By Rob Waters
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Bottled water sold in markets and convenience stores may be no more free of pollutants than the water that pours from the kitchen tap at a fraction of the cost, said an environmental group that tested samples.
Ten top-selling brands of bottled water contained a total of 38 pollutants including fertilizer, industrial chemicals, bacteria and the residue of drugs such as Tylenol, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group based in Washington, D.C. The bottled water showed an average of eight pollutants in each sample.
Americans drank more than twice as much bottled water in 2007 as they did in 1997, guzzling 8.8 billion gallons at a cost of $10.3 billion in 2007, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp., a research and consulting firm based in New York. Although commercials often show pristine mountain springs, the reality is that bottled water often comes from city water supplies, said Renee Sharp, an Environmental Working Group senior scientist.
``If you're going to pay 1,500 times more for bottled water than for tap you'd expect that you'd be getting a cleaner, better product,'' said Sharp. ``And that's not necessarily true.''
Public water utilities are required to inform customers about contaminants that may be present in tap water and, in most states, to tell customers where the water comes from and how it's purified. Companies selling bottled water have few similar rules, Sharp said.
California, which has stricter standards than most states, requires companies to disclose whether bottled water comes from municipal water systems and also to warn consumers about contaminants that may pose health risks.
No Assurances
``But even in California, consumers still can't be assured they're getting a better product'' than they could get from their kitchen sink, Sharp said.
Sharp and her colleagues started their research by buying samples of 10 different brands and sending them to an independent laboratory for testing. They noticed that bottles from Wal-Mart's and Giant Food Inc., a supermarket chain owned by Koninklijke Ahold NV of Amsterdam, seemed to bear the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment, Sharp said.
In three samples of Sam's Choice purified drinking water sold at Wal-Mart stores near San Francisco, levels of a group of chemicals known as trihalomethanes exceeded state standards, the report said. These are byproducts of chlorine and other chemicals used to kill microbes and can cause cancer at high doses.
Quality is `Top Priority'
Tests conducted by Wal-Mart and its suppliers don't show ``any reportable amounts of chlorine or chlorine by-products,'' Shannon Frederick, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said yesterday in an e-mail.
``The suppliers of Sam's Choice water regularly test to verify compliance and quality,'' she said. ``Product quality is a top priority at Wal-Mart, and we stand behind the quality of our bottled water.''
Giant Food spokesman Jamie Miller said in an e-mail today the water marketed by the company is produced with ``numerous safety and quality assurance controls, including a filtration process that assures that the quality of the product meets all regulatory standards for safe drinking water in the areas where we operate.''
While Sharp and her colleagues tested eight bottled water brands in addition to those of Wal-Mart and Giant, the report didn't name the others.
The largest producer of bottled water in the U.S., Nestle Waters North America, a unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA, said today in an e-mailed statement that the environmental group's report was ``false and misleading'' and seeks to ``undermine the integrity of bottled water.''
Multistep Filtration
Water used in Nestle's brands, which include Poland Spring and San Pellegrino, are tested regularly by independent labs and undergo ``multistep filtration,'' said Heidi Paul, the unit's vice president, in the statement.
``Contrary to the EWG's attempt to equate tap water quality with bottled water, our water is held to a higher standard,'' Paul said.
The Environmental Working Group notified Wal-Mart yesterday that it intended to sue the company for violating the terms of California's Proposition 65, a measure passed by voters in 1986. The regulation requires businesses to notify consumers if products they sell contain significant amounts of chemicals known to cause harm.
Wal-Mart's Frederick said she had no comment on the possible lawsuit.
The increased consumption of water sold in disposable plastic bottles also creates serious environmental problems, Sharp said.
`Enormous Environmental Impacts'
``The environmental impacts of bottled water production are enormous in terms of the amount of energy that goes into producing the bottles and shipping them around the country,'' she said. The bottles also clog landfill sites and increasingly pollute oceans, where they endanger marine animals, she said.
While Giant Food's Acadia brand had similar levels of trihalomethanes, the environmental group doesn't plan to sue the chain under the California statute because it doesn't have stores in the state, Sharp said.
The environmental group wants to see stricter, nationwide standards requiring full disclosure of the contaminants in bottled water and urges consumers to switch from bottled water to tap water. People who are concerned about tap water quality can purchase home filtration systems for a small portion of the cost they pay for bottled water, Sharp said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Rob Waters in San Francisco at rwaters5@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: October 15, 2008 13:36 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a4gqSuLAeFYU&refer=home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
