advertisement

John's World
Friday, October 12, 2007
 
That's why we call it raw, folks...

The continued revelations of food contamination problems has created an impression for many that our food is suddenly unsafe. Certainly, these incidents could have been prevented, but I think there is much more happening here.
ConAgra Foods on Wednesday asked stores to stop selling pot pies linked to a salmonella outbreak, although the company and the Department of Agriculture defended their decision not to immediately recall the product.

ConAgra asked stores nationwide to pull the Banquet and generic brand chicken and turkey pot pies after two East Coast grocery chains made their own choice to remove the product from their shelves.

The pot pies made by ConAgra have been linked to at least 139 cases of salmonella in 30 states. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said at least 20 people have been hospitalized, but so far no deaths have been linked to the pot pies. [More]

Given the seemingly continuous revelations of food contamination and endless recalls, it would be easy to magnify these problems into an epidemic. And certainly the media would be drawn to stories of "unfair" deaths, especially when the victims are likely to be the very young and the very old.

But it could be less dramatic than that. To begin with almost all food contamination occurs in the kitchen - or at least could be circumvented by actions like clean counters and thorough cooking.
The vast majority of reported cases of foodborne illness occur as individual or sporadic cases. The origin of most sporadic cases is undetermined. In the United States, where people eat outside the home frequently, most outbreaks (58%) originate from commercial food facilities (2004 FoodNet data). An outbreak is defined as occurring when two or more people experience similar illness after consuming food from a common source.

Often, a combination of events contributes to an outbreak, for example, food might be left at room temperature for many hours, allowing bacteria to multiply which is compounded by inadequate cooking which results in a failure to kill the dangerously elevated bacterial levels. [More]

Even with the rising concern, the 5000 annual deaths from food-borne contamination is barely a blip. In fact, it falls under the "all other deaths" category, I guess, because you can't find it easily in CDC statistics. I do not dismiss it, but we need to keep it in perspective.

My feeling is the decline in food preparation skills - specifically undercooking meat, food storage, and not washing produce thoroughly - has placed a larger and perhaps unrealistic burden on food purity at the farm/factory level. Nor will organic provide any significant improvement. Our food is not more dangerous, we are simply incapable of modest food preparation hygiene.

At the same time, longevity raises the portion of our population at risk because of weakened immune systems, which occurs naturally with age. Hence we read too many stories of very young and elderly victims of food poisoning.

I support vigorous efforts to improve food processing in the US, but the best bang for our buck would be better food management skills in our kitchens at home and in restaurants.

Labels: ,

 
Saturday, September 29, 2007
 
A little light on a vexing problem...

I have been curious, like many others, why the United Kingdom seems to be the epicenter of livestock diseases. And it seems to be ongoing, despite vigorous efforts by farmers and health officials. The reasons are subtle, and some would never have occurred to me.
It's been a rough start to the fall for British farmers, with reports of sporadic cases of BSE (mad cow disease) and more cases of foot-and-mouth disease. And then on Friday, British public health officials officially pronounced an outbreak of bluetongue disease among the nation's cattle. So what makes British cattle so sickly?

Heathrow Airport. Agriculture experts say the outbreaks in the United Kingdom are the result of bad luck more than anything else. But the country does have the distinction of being Europe's primary landing spot for global travel, and that could put livestock at risk. Travelers from every continent pass through London Heathrow Airport (the busiest airport in the world for international traffic), and with them comes food waste from airplanes. Pathology researchers consider airline food waste, which is sometimes processed into food for livestock, the greatest danger to animal health in the world. Airline garbage that's contaminated with foreign diseases can end up in livestock troughs, or it goes to landfills where it might infect wild animals—who could then spread illness to domesticated livestock.

It's also possible that British cattle are simply the victims of bad publicity. Most European countries, as well as nations in Africa, Asia, and North America, have had confirmed cases of the three major livestock diseases—mad cow, foot and mouth, and bluetongue. But the United Kingdom happens to have one of the best systems in the world for reporting these outbreaks. Since the country was struck with a devastating BSE epidemic in 1968, British health officials have developed a surveillance network with a very high degree of transparency. This ensures that individual cases of diseases are immediately reported to the government, and appropriate action is taken. So the British cattle may not be any more sickly than those in other parts of the world; they might just be getting watched a bit more closely. [More possible reasons]
I lean toward the reporting exaggeration effect, but having flown through Heathrow several times (and lived to tell the story) I find the airline garbage idea logical as well. British media pick up every tiny scrap of news, and have elevated the coverage of this far beyond the actual risk. It may be such reports will become tiresome, and as no public harm has emerged, indifference will reduce the alarm.

Labels: , ,

 
Thursday, September 20, 2007
 
Thanks a lot, science...

Men's brains are not in their pants, as women constantly claim.

But they could be.

Labels: , ,

 
Thursday, September 13, 2007
 
You can lead a consumer to nutrition...

But you can't make him eat better. At least, not very much very fast. After a year of careful labeling, this is what one grocery chain discovered.
After analyzing a year’s worth of sales data, Hannaford found that customers tended to buy leaner cuts of meat. Sales of ground beef with stars on their labels increased 7 percent, and sales of chicken that had a star rating rose 5 percent. Sales of ground beef labeled with no stars dropped by 5 percent, while sales of chicken that had a zero-star rating declined 3 percent.

Similarly, sales of whole milk, which received no stars, declined by 4 percent, while sales of fat-free milk (three stars) increased 1 percent.

Sales of fruits and vegetables, however, remained about the same as they did before the ratings were introduced. All fresh produce received stars. [More]

Of course, that isn't slowing down efforts to attract more at-risk people to healthier eating.
The measure, to be introduced in 2009, will see all expectant mothers given a one-off payment of around GBP120 (US$244) to spend on healthy food when they are seven months pregnant. Sure, some could argue that perhaps seven months is a bit late when trying to boost the nutrition a foetus gets in the womb. And, of course, while there is no compulsion to spend the cash on mangoes, melons or mushrooms, women may spend the money on alcohol and cigarettes instead.

In some quarters, the measure has been derided as a misguided policy from the “nanny state”. However, combined with intensifying health campaigns on the importance of a balanced diet – as well as the dangers of drinking and smoking during pregnancy – the cash may just be the carrot many mothers need to give their kids’ a healthier start in life. [More]

It could be it takes generations to change these choices. After all, it even took very cheap, questionable-benefit food a few decades to take over.

Labels: ,

 
Friday, September 07, 2007
 
We kinda knew there would be a hitch...

In a frank and moving essay (at least for us 50-somethings) Lillian Rubin, writing in Dissent, captures the reality of preparing for retirement only to find the previous generation has first claim on your life.
“I always expected to inherit some money because my parents have been reasonably well off for most of my life. Not rich, but comfortable and careful with money,” explains a sixty-two-year-old college professor. “But now, I doubt it. My father had Alzheimer’s and spent his last years, nine of them, in a nursing home. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been through it really understands how terrible that is. I don’t mean just the financial burden, which, by the way, was over three-quarters of a million, but the human cost. Seeing someone you love turn into a thing, not a person, and there’s no way out, it’s just terrible, one of the worst experiences in life.”

He stops talking, visibly moved, struggles to contain his emotions, then brightens. “My mother, bless her, is eighty-two and doing great. She moved into one of those assisted-living places a year or so ago, and before she was there a month, she was already practically running the place. It’s great; it keeps her busy. But it’s very expensive. Even with the money she got from selling their house, if she lives another eight to ten years, which right now seems likely, she’ll use up her money, and my sister and I will have to find a way to pay the bills.
“That’s a big twist, isn’t it? You go from knowing you’ll inherit money from your parents to wondering how you’re going to support them. I don’t begrudge her, don’t misunderstand me.” He hesitates, smiles, then in a voice that mimics an Old West cowboy twang, “Ah’m just tellin’ you the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” [More]
This article is worth reading to the end, regardless of your age. The relentless addition of years to our lives means more years of relative dependence - we are simply outliving our OEM equipment. These additional years are to use the economic euphemism almost always "less than fully funded", especially with the end of defined-benefit retirement programs and the looming possibility of Social Security shortfalls.

In fact, the one program growing to match the longer lifespans - Medicare - is in a way exacerbating the core problem by extending lives even further. Hardly a bad thing.

We think.

The experiences of Boomers caring for our very old parents as described above is doubtless reshaping our own planning. This will reverberate downstream, I believe, particularly in asset-heavy family businesses like farming.

I'm looking for clues to these attitude shifts, and would welcome your own thoughts or concerns. For example, I think Boomers will have an even more difficult time releasing control of assets since the prospect of long, long term disability late in life will require seemingly immense assets.
The average cost of long term care in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and in the home increased over the past year, with assisted living and in-home costs rising more sharply than nursing home care, according to Genworth Financial's annual "Cost of Care" survey. And, in the face of rising costs for all categories of long term care, Genworth found 65 percent of Americans surveyed in a new national poll admit to having made no long term care plans for themselves or a spouse.

The average annual cost for a private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility rose 7 percent from the 2005 survey, to $32,294, while the combined average hourly rate for a home health aide for in-home long term care spiked 13 percent to $25.32 per hour. The average annual cost for a private room in a nursing home rose modestly by 2 percent over last year to $70,912. [More]

Given we are a singularly selfish generation to begin with, this excuse will feed right into our historic self-absorption and provide the justification to keep our hands on every penny until we die.

Secondly, I am working to devise a scheme to prevent myself from entering the whirlpool of medical care. Hey, I know it's futile, but there's gotta be a better way to draw the line on life-extending medical care earlier than the now-common do-not-resuscitate orders. I have no idea how that's going to play out.

Furthermore, we need to devise a new or at least updated social contract with succeeding generations. Their retirement will be severely impacted by my longevity. Some trade-offs - economic or otherwise need to be made.

Long-term care insurance (LCTI) has been hard to justify, but perhaps deserves a second look, as the numbers have now changed and odds increased for both men and women to spend some time in a nursing or assisted living facility. I genially despise most all insurance, but do recognize this black swan is becoming more likely every day for me.

The constant philosophical struggle to balance life and wealth is not getting any easier. Guidance from our religious and social traditions may only carry us so far compared to the new horizons technology (medicine) extending before us today.

In the end we are faced with a pretty stark question: How much life can we afford?

Labels: , , ,

 
Sunday, August 19, 2007
 
This would explain Packer fans...

Having bad dreams? You know, the kind where you realize you are standing naked on the floor of the Board of Trade and suddenly your second-grade teacher shows up with a hippopotamus...

No? Well, never mind...

Part of your problems could be eating cheese.
The chemistry of dreams goes back to before biochemistry began.

Scrooge blamed his nocturnal ghosts on a "crumb of cheese", and I know what he meant. I find it almost impossible to get an undisturbed night's sleep after eating the stuff and - worse - after drinking red wine.

The effect is very real - the last time I tried a refreshing bottle of red late at night I ground my teeth so hard that I smashed a molar.

Now the substances behind such unwanted nightmares are being tracked down. Tyramine, the main culprit, is based on the carbon ring of Kekulé's dream, and is broken down by the same enzymes as those hard at work during paradoxical sleep.

Aged cheeses, like Stilton, and heavy red wines are most to blame, while soy sauce and smoked fish are both rich in the stuff. [More]
But wait - it gets even better. You can choose your dreams.

85% of females who ate Stilton had some of the most unusual dreams of the whole study. 65% of people eating Cheddar dreamt about celebrities, over 65% of participants eating Red Leicester revisited their schooldays, all female participants who ate British Brie had nice relaxing dreams whereas male participants had cryptic dreams, two thirds of all those who ate Lancashire had a dream about work and over half of Cheshire eaters had a dreamless sleep.

Commenting on the study, Neil Stanley, PhD Director of Sleep Research HPRU Medical Research Centre at the University of Surrey says: "The Cheese and Dreams study conducted by the British Cheese Board is the first study of its kind and suggests that eating cheese before you go to bed may actually aid a good night’s sleep.

What is particularly interesting is the reported effect different types of British cheese have on influencing the content of dreams. It seems that selecting the type of cheese you eat before bedtime may help determine the very nature of often colourful and vivid cheese induced dreams”
[More]

This is all well and good for the Brits. But my question is will a Double Cheese Whopper make me dream about Carol Drinkwater and me surfing off Baja California?

It's all about science, ya know.




What??...

Labels: , , ,

 
Thursday, August 02, 2007
 
More good news for grumpy old men...

It seems like suddenly I know many people coping with prostate cancer. (By the way, have you ever noticed how softly people talk about prostate cancer?) One big reason is advanced detection techniques, but that in itself can be a mixed blessing. As many as two thirds of those diagnosed with prostate cancer struggle through the problems of incontinence and impotence unnecessarily - causing more than a few of us to think long and hard about how and whether to have treatment at all.

Maybe important help is on the way.
Scientists have found a new way to identify a particularly deadly form of prostate cancer in a breakthrough that could save tens of thousands of men from undergoing unnecessary surgery each year.

In contrast to many cancers, only certain prostate tumors require treatment. Many are slow-growing and pose little threat to health. But separating the "tigers" from the "pussycats" -- as oncologists dub them -- is tricky.

Now that is set to change with new research showing how a genetic variation within tumour cells can signal if a patient has a potentially fatal form of the disease. [More]

I hope so. Too many of my friends have endured bravely through this experience, and likely a few them need not have.

Labels:

 
Sunday, July 29, 2007
 
I only look 58...

Take this "real age" test. I found it to be a real encouragement for a healthy lifestyle (and moderate drinking - yippee!)

In fact, I going to have a beer to celebrate.

[via Presurfer]

Labels: ,

 
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
 
No, really - I'm listening, honey...

Yawning may be misunderstood. You're not bored, you're cooling your brain.
These results clearly suggest that yawning regulates the temperature inside your head, and that perhaps we yawn to cool our brains. What we don't have here is any biochemical cause-and-effect, but this is an incredibly interesting theory all the same.

The findings, if valid, draw a few unexpected conclusions about yawning. First of all, rather than stimulating sleep, a good yawn should fend off falling asleep. And secondly, far from being an indicator of boredom, yawning would appear to be a mechanism for maintaining attention.

So be sure and remember this for your next staff meeting -- it's an excellent excuse, and possibly even a valid one! [More]

Right - and dozing off is a way of concentrating your thoughts.

[via Daily Dish]

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
 
Eating for health...

I have frankly been unconvinced by different campaigns to link a specific food to the battle against a specific disease. But there exists a popular impression that nature provides its own pharmaceuticals. We just need to match them up with our ailments.

Partly this is due to technology alienation. Modern drug chemistry - let alone medicine itself - is way past intuitive. Natural remedies seem understandable at least, which can actually change our rational thinking process, making them seem like the logical decision.

And once a dreaded disease is diagnosed, the "what harm could it do?" mindset often helps victims turn to natural remedies. As frequently is the case, the truth likely lies somewhere between folk medicine and high science. Unfortunately, when you make that statement the inference is drawn that the it lies halfway between. I think it rests very close to the "science end" myself.

Perversely enough the best way to prove natural remedies are effective is the same way we prove any other physical fact: the scientific method, with double-blind studies, for example. And those results have not been supportive of many food-based therapies.

For all of you men over 40, this good summary of what we know about food and prostate cancer might be helpful. One popular food supplement is the pomegranate.
Drinking an eight ounce glass of pomegranate juice daily increased by nearly four times the period during which PSA levels in men treated for prostate cancer remained stable, a three-year UCLA study has found. The study involved 50 men who had undergone surgery or radiation but quickly experienced increases in prostate-specific antigen or PSA, a biomarker that indicates the presence of cancer. UCLA researchers measured "doubling time," how long it takes for PSA levels to double, a signal that the cancer is progressing, said Dr. Allan Pantuck, an associate professor of urology, a Jonsson Cancer Center researcher and lead author of the study. [More]

Note the size of the studies in these examples. They are way too small to reliably base conclusions upon. Indeed, my largest complaint with the almost daily announcements is they imply a level of efficacy that is simply not there. Despite adroit wording the public is left with a strong belief that we can eat our way to cures.

Worse still for our industry, the reverse is also embraced: our ills are caused by what we eat (or fail to). This is the atmosphere in which our products are judged, and unless agriculture remains firmly committed to the scientific method - even when it shows us to be in the wrong - we could see our business plans rewritten by a handful of activists.

Our own choices as medical consumers have impact as well. Observable hypocrisy, such as applying insecticides and opposing power lines due to disproven health scares hardly is a reassuring example for food customers.

Labels:

 
Saturday, June 09, 2007
 
It's not about insurance...

Masked by the political persiflage of the '08 Campaign is the quiet realization that the health care issue is really, really about controlling costs - not extending coverage.
After more than a decade in the wilderness, health care has returned to the center of the political discussion. But the only topic getting any serious attention is universal health insurance. It’s the entire point of the ambitious new program in Massachusetts and a similar proposal in California. Universal coverage has dominated both the news media’s coverage of the Democratic presidential candidates’ reform ideas and the candidates’ own jockeying over those ideas. [More of an insightful article]
The underlying problem is painfully (no pun intended) obvious. We cannot afford, individually or collectively all the health care we think we need. Worse still, we don't need much of what we want.

Trying to sort these two ideas out will be the challenge. Our cultural obsession with medicine as the fix for bad choices complicates our thinking. Insurance masks the reality of health care by foisting the costs on third parties, penalizing those who by virtue genetics, luck or behavior need less care. This insulation is both seductive and destructive.
Ultimately, I think we are headed for a collision of cultural values. We prefer insulation to real insurance. We expect services to be readily available, without the supply limitations or waiting lists that exist in countries where government is responsible for more health care funding. And yet we are growing increasingly concerned over the expansion of health care spending that takes place in a system that lacks constraints on either supply or demand.

Real health insurance may not be popular now. But when Americans see that the providers of insulation, including Medicare, have to turn to the rationing of health care services in order to meet budgetary constraints, real health insurance may start to look like a good alternative. [More]

This is a discussion we can't avoid forever. And it may turn out less rancorous than we fear. Our powerful economy is making such decisions a little less painful every day.

Labels: , ,

 
Monday, May 21, 2007
 
Food and justice...

The strengthening connection between food and politics should be of interest to producers, I believe. While the livestock sector will feel it first and most powerfully, it could redound* to change the methodology of grain productions as well.
The Rabbinical Assembly, which represents Conservative rabbis, has endorsed the idea of a hechsher tzedek ("certificate of justice"), a Jewish seal of approval that would go beyond the usual dietary rules to include the compensation and working conditions of people who produce kosher food. It's the brainchild of Minnesota rabbi Morris Allen, who was upset by reports that immigrant workers at a kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa are poorly paid, receive meager health benefits, and get inadequate safety training. Not surprisingly, Orthodox rabbis, who have long dominated the business of certifying food as kosher, are not pleased with Morris' idea. [More]

Aside the obvious connection to food processing, most interesting to me are the litmus tests for "fairness". Note the prominent mention of "health benefits". As more Americans join the ranks of the uninsured, the outcry of inequality will increase.

Of course, few are willing to discuss how to pay for all the medical services we can now provide - they want to talk health insurance. This is mindless. Insurance is way of spreading the costs of random occurrences across all potential victims - not an bottomless pit of assets available for every medical miracle. Nor should we be surprised when non-random health problems such as lifestyle choices wrench such schemes into unworkability.

Nonetheless, the debate will increasingly be framed in the form of "affordable medical insurance" - not the harder debate about how much care can we give to every person, especially at the end of life.

Simply put, this is an insufficient answer.

* Don't ask me, it just seemed like the right word.

Labels: , ,

 
Sunday, May 13, 2007
 
On the other hand...

I support strongly the emergence of an agrarian sector that sells not just products (beans, lettuce, eggs, beef, etc.) but process (free range, organic, local, biodynamic, etc.). It is a true market response to consumer choices propelled by entrepreneurship, passion and very little government support (which could be the reason it's thriving).

But, here's the catch. I also am an enthusiastic proponent of industrial agriculture. These are farms like mine that grow products that meet every standard required, in environmentally responsible ways, and using every bit of technology I can get my mind around.

These two sectors in agriculture really do not compete much head-to-head. Only our insistence on one vision for farming makes that seem the case.

Still when I read articles about agrarian farming I lament the witless drivel that passes for informed comment about what I do for a living. Consider this paragraph from a paean to local agriculture:
The American Farmland Trust estimates 1.2 million acres of cropland, pastureland, and rangeland are lost each year to development. Farms are increasingly being swallowed up by new houses, roads, and strip malls—86 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables and 63 percent of dairy products currently come from areas in the path of urban sprawl. This loss of farmland combined with the shift during the past century toward industrialized agriculture has greatly extended the distance produce and meats travel. The average American meal today journeys more than 1,500 miles from where it’s grown or raised to where it’s bought—at a big cost. Green-house gases emitted during food transport contribute to climate change. Our produce is not as fresh as it would be if it were grown closer, which would improve its taste and, health experts say, possibly its nutritional value. And because our food is so heavily mass-produced and transported, the origins of outbreaks of E. coli, like those from last year’s much-reported batch of tainted spinach, cannot always be pinpointed in time to prevent human illness, sometimes even death. [More]
To save make my responses more coherent, I will insert them into the original text.
The American Farmland Trust estimates 1.2 million acres of cropland, pastureland, and rangeland are lost each year to development. [Wait - lost? Those acres have gone missing? Actually those acres simply have houses on them, and houses have to be somewhere. This familiar trope insinuates that the strong instinctive urge for permanent housing should be satisfied only for the affluent and that the need for food requires every acre. (See ethanol, etc.)] Farms are increasingly being swallowed up by new houses, roads, and strip malls—86 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables and 63 percent of dairy products currently come from areas in the path of urban sprawl. [ Where exactly would you site a fruit/vegetable operation - New Mexico? Of course valuable crops like sod are grown on the outskirts of development. Transportation costs matter. Besides, if this land is developed those valuable crops will still be grown just outside urban areas. This statistic has not changed appreciably for decades, and should be recognized for what it is: an inversion of cause and effect. Farmland is valuable because it's close to people and and hence a candidate for high-value agriculture. People are the key - not land] This loss of farmland combined with the shift during the past century toward industrialized agriculture has greatly extended the distance produce and meats travel. The average American meal today journeys more than 1,500 miles from where it’s grown or raised to where it’s bought—at a big cost. [Oddly, the market will sort this out if you price in all costs.] Green-house gases emitted during food transport contribute to climate change. [Okey-doke, let's include this cost via a carbon tax] Our produce is not as fresh [Can you actually discern something 80% as fresh?] as it would be if it were grown closer, which would improve its taste and, health experts say, possibly [or possibly not] its nutritional value. And because our food is so heavily mass-produced and transported, the origins of outbreaks of E. coli, like those from last year’s much-reported batch of tainted spinach, cannot always be pinpointed in time to prevent human illness, sometimes even death. [But we did pinpoint it, thanks to industrial records/tracking. As for death, compare food contamination deaths now to truly agrarian times.]
It is not necessary to have an internecine battle to address consumer wishes about food. It is also foolish to believe the agrarian model could provide a reliable food supply on the scale of industrial agriculture.

On the coasts of America, around metropolitan areas and in scenic rural areas like New England or Lancaster County, these concerns can be addressed with the enormous amount of money available there. But transferring those values to my county or northwest Iowa, for example, yields no return for society and overrides Constitutional freedoms.

We have room and need in America for industrial and agrarian farms. And best of all, consumers can make the choice.

Labels: , ,

 
Friday, April 27, 2007
 
Happy news...

For men my age.

Boy, have we lowered our excitement threshold!

Labels:

 
Sunday, April 01, 2007
 
This would explain Jan on gardening...

While always delightful, Jan's mood perks up even more in spring when she can work in the garden and especially compost. It may not be just the pastime - it could be a chemical reaction to dirt.
A lack of serotonin is linked with depression in people.

The scientists say more work is now needed to determine if the bacterium Mycobacterium vaccae has antidepressant properties through activation of serotonin neurons.

Lead researcher Dr Chris Lowry said: "These studies help us understand how the body communicates with the brain and why a healthy immune system is important for maintaining mental health.

"They also leave us wondering if we shouldn't all spend more time playing in the dirt." [More]

We already suspect living dirty may boost our immune system as well.

Of course, this development might have a few implications for others - like say,
farmers.


Labels:

 
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
 
Forget the fat tax...

One response to the obesity problem in the US is the suggestion to tax unhealthy food, thus steering consumers to better choices.

Popularly known as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.


Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances," Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term public health nutrition programs. [
More]


It sounds reasonable, but likely won't work as well as it might seem.
Americans have been getting fatter since at least the mid 1980s. To better understand this public health problem, much attention has been devoted to determining the underlying cause of increasing body weights in the U.S. We
examine the role of relative food prices in determining an individual's body
mass index, arguing that as healthful foods become more expensive relative to
unhealthful foods, individuals substitute to a less healthful diet. Using data
from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the period 1982-1996, we
find that individual BMI measures, as well as the likelihood of being overweight
or obese, exhibit a statistically significant positive correlation with the
prices of healthful relative to unhealthful foods. These results are robust to
endogenizing the relative price measure. While the magnitudes of our estimates suggest that relative price changes can only explain about 1 percent of the
growth in BMI and the incidence of being overweight or obese over this period,
they do provide some measure of how effective fat taxes would be in controlling the obesity epidemic. Our estimates imply, for example, that a 100 percent tax
on unhealthful foods could reduce average BMI by about 1 percent, and the same tax could reduce the incidence of being overweight and the incidence of obesity
by 2 percent and 1 percent respectively.
[Full report]

It is the level of effect that matters in such economic speculation. Sure, higher prices have an effect, but at the level indicated above, not much.

I'm not sure how we can push people to better health habits. I think ending first dollar health plans is one way - and we seem to be moving toward that.

But the single best "pull" might be the heightened appreciation for good food. As a rule, home prepared meals offer better nutition and especially portion control.

Bring home cooking back!

[via Metafilter]

Labels: ,

 
Saturday, March 24, 2007
 
The better mosquito...

Since the banning of DDT, malaria has gained ground as a major cause of death and despair in poor tropical countries. The DDT outcry was triggered by Rachel Carson's epic environmental tome, Silent Spring. It was as politically powerful as it was wrong.

To be fair, we didn't know then, but her assertion that pesticides are killing us has had a long, long half-life. Even now, writers blithely toss off statements that our water is fouled with pesticides and pesticides cause all sorts of health problems - all without much evidence.

You'd think in this setting, GM solutions - which greatly reduce the need for pesticides - would be hailed as wonderful solutions.

You'd be wrong.

Nonetheless, the march of GM progress continues to offer potent weapons to attack many of humankind's oldest scourges. One of these is the malaria-carrying mosquito.
After mosquitoes bite a host with malaria, the parasite that causes the disease proliferates in the insect, readying itself to infect the next human victim. It's no fun being infected, and one might think that mosquitoes would have developed a resistance to the malaria parasite over time. But several studies have suggested that mosquitoes engineered to build defenses against malaria are less fit than insects that chose to live with the parasites.

Now there's reason to take heart. Several years ago, a group of medical entomologists at Johns Hopkins University created a strain of Anopheles stephensi (a mosquito that bites rodents) equipped with a gene called SM1 that makes the mosquitoes resistant to infection with Plasmodium berghei, a rodent malaria parasite. In the new study, published online this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group carried out a series of experiments in which 250 of these insects were put in a cage together with 250 wild-type counterparts and allowed to feed on malaria-infected mice. The resistant insects lived longer and produced more eggs than did those not resistant to the parasite, and after nine generations, some 70% of the population was resistant. The researchers speculate that carrying SM1 is a less costly strategy than whatever defenses malaria-resistant mosquitoes develop in the wild. [More]

I didn't realize it was a parasite and not the mosquito who was the culprit. What I do know is conquering malaria would be close to a miracle for Sub-Saharan Africa.
GM mosquitoes that interfered with development of the malaria parasite would make it more difficult for the organism to become re-established after it had been eradicated from a target area, they said.

Malaria, spread by the single-celled parasite Plasmodium, is endemic in parts of Asia, Africa, and central and south America.

The organism is passed to humans through the bite of the Anopheles mosquito. Each year it makes 300 million people ill and causes a million deaths worldwide.

Some 90% of cases are in sub-Saharan Africa, where a child dies of malaria every 30 seconds. [More]

My point is not to excoriate early environmentalists like Carson, who certainly acted in good faith, and had significant beneficial impact on how we use the tools of technology. But technology does not stand still, and if we cannot revise our decisions in the light of new knowledge, we shall not advance the cause of bettering the human condition.

This it the way, I believe, genetic modification will slowly become a technology we feel comfortable using. Just like steam engines terrified pre-industrialists with their power, GM technology will have a acclimatization period. We should take the time. Launching polemics or trading attacks will not advance this cause.

Good science will.

Labels: , , ,

 
Saturday, March 17, 2007
 
CPR may soon be CR...

Years ago I taught Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation as a volunteer for the Red Cross. Since then I have noticed the methods have been changed almost annually. Fair enough - rescuers have undoubtedly learned more from actually using the technique.

Well, a BIG change may be coming. Forget the mouth-to-mouth stuff (at least for cardiac arrest).
Forget mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. When somebody collapses in cardiac arrest, experts now say, bystanders should not bother breathing into his or her mouth, once considered a key component of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

"Rescue breathing is an oxymoron," says Gordon Ewy of the University of Arizona College of Medicine. "We've been doing it wrong for 40 years." [More]

One reason compressions-only has been more successful is the reluctance of bystanders to do full CPR, so no compressions at all were given. Updating the methods taught will also end a standard joke set-up that was worn out years ago. (Bunch of guys - one collapses - all argue about who does the "kiss of life" - etc.)

For a really good demonstration and some pretty straightforward information about how successful resuscitation may be, click here.

Important to remember for farmers: mouth-to-mouth is still imperative for drowning, suffocation, etc. when breathing has stopped first.

Labels:

 
Sunday, March 11, 2007
 
Why don't we do it in our sleeves?...

I made through the winter only to catch a cold in March. So I've been doing my homework.

Labels: ,

 
Sunday, February 25, 2007
 
The problem with getting older...

Not only are we living longer, the rate of longevity increase is accelerating.

But these statistics do not relate to anything as mundane as prices. Rather, they are about the more gruesome topic of death. Specifically, Blake is predicting how long our children, and children's children, will live - and his conclusions are striking: over the past century, life expectancy in the western world has not only risen, but the rate of increase has accelerated. While someone in the 1840s lived, on average, to 40, today's generation can expect to hit 80, "and for our grandchildren, it could be 160," says Blake, stabbing a pale green corner of his fan chart. Until recently, such morbid number-crunching was of interest only to actuaries, the pensions industry, scientists and doctors. After all, death is not a topic that many of us want to discuss - except in the most abstract terms. And the pensions world was such a slow- moving, sleepy backwater that it rarely attracted the interest of high-flying bankers. [More]

While this may offer an investment opportunity for financial wizards, for most of us it presents a good news/bad news scenario. The probability we will outlive our plans and resources grows every day - and not is a good way for most.

If you have not been on the front line of caring for the very old, you may not fully appreciate how many times you will mutter, "I don't want it to be like this for me" even as you become more convinced that is your future.

I have tastelessly remarked from time to time that all the "good" deaths are being eliminated: the "grabber" in the corn crib, the undiscovered cancer that kills in months, infections that overwhelm, the relative quick decline of a lonely widow(er) from simple malnutrition by forgetting to eat, or simply wearing out by overwork.

Nope - what we have to look forward to is Alzheimer's, prostate cancer, dementia, strokes, and assorted lingering wasting deaths - all of which will be funded by somebody.

By this point, I have likely offended some who are still grieving a loved one. I deeply regret this, but it does not change my rather bleak assessment of what modern medicine is trying to accomplish. We are adding some pretty grim years onto many lives at great cost.

There will always be a #1 cause of death. Looking at the contenders:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

bullet graphicHeart disease: 654,092

bullet graphicCancer: 550,270

bullet graphicStroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147

bullet graphicChronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

bullet graphicAccidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

bullet graphicDiabetes: 72,815

bullet graphicAlzheimer's disease: 65,829

bullet graphicInfluenza/Pneumonia: 61,472

bullet graphicNephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

bullet graphicSepticemia: 33,464


I'm having trouble choosing my favorite.

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
 
This is your web on drugs...


Spiders coping with dangerous drugs, like oh, caffeine...

The spider on marijuana drifted off before finishing the job. The spider on benzedrine, an upper, worked energetically but without much planning. The spider dosed with chloral hydrate, a sedative, soon fell asleep.

To the surprise of Dr. Noever et al, caffeine did the most damage of all the substances tested. The spider dosed with it proved incapable of creating even a single organized cell, and its web showed no sign of the “hub and spokes” pattern fundamental to conventional web design.

What does the web of a caffeinated spider (which can hardly be accustomed to the jolt of a morning latte) have to do with human behavior? Unlikely as it sounds, it may be the most vivid illustration of caffeine’s disorienting effect on caffeine-sensitive people, many of whom may be misdiagnosed as mentally ill.

[Thanks, Jack]

Labels: ,

 
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
 
Medical posturing from the ivory towers...

President Bush's purported health insurance SOTU proposal has been leaked and the economist-blogosphere is buzzing with instant analyses. I've read about 10 and not one - that's right, ZERO - seem to address the fundamental underlying problems:
  1. Providing all the medical care we now have to everybody.
  2. Including the growing number of "uninsurables" (thanks to rapidly improving screening such as genetic testing) outside groups or self-employed.
One can only assume that most academic economists have pretty darn good coverage through their universities, and have never confronted the issue of being able to pay for insurance but being turned down.

Health insurance is simply a way to hand the bill around. It does nothing to tackle the hard problem of how many liver transplants a person is allowed, or whether to do bypass surgery on a 90-year old or how does a 25 year-old independent trucker with genetic markers for MS get coverage.

Our problem is not just medical insurance. It's paying for all the medical care we now can provide, such as drugs and procedures never imagined 10 years ago. And for how long? The expenditure of increasing portions of our economic output in the final few months of lives is a growing problem that nobody want to tackle, even as it threatens to consume us.

Labels: , ,

 
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
 
Thanks a lot, Mom...

As many of us farmers settle in for a long winter's computer session, we may be in for back problems. The reason is surprising:

Your mother probably told you, as her mother told her: sit up straight. Whether at table, in class or at work we have always been told that sitting stiff-backed and upright is good for our bones, our posture, our digestion, our alertness and our general air of looking as if we are plugged into the world.

Now research suggests that we would be far better off slouching and slumping. Today’s advice is to let go and recline. Using a new form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a team of radiologists have found that sitting up straight puts unnecessary strain on the spine and could cause chronic back pain because of trapped nerves or slipped discs. [More]


Once again, we find that ignoring our own slovenly instincts was a bad decision.

I may never shave again...

Labels: ,

 
Thursday, November 23, 2006
 
Family memories: good and not so good...

I hope yours is a wonderful Thanksgiving. We have family here and my goodness - what a beautiful day! Perfect for stringing up the Christmas lights, and walking off turkey. And sharing family memories.

But then I read about an outbreak of whooping cough in a Chicago school and it triggered some awful memories. My oldest sister got whooping cough (pertussis) in high school and her struggle remains a terrifying part of my childhood. The "whoop" that gives the name is a noise created by a desperate attempt to get air after coughing uncontrollably.

This follows a similar outbreak of mumps in the same general area.

America has decided to depend on artificial immunity to prevent childhood fatalities. But the decision is not quite as simple as that. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what my sister did, but is seems to me the effort to eliminate all childhood diseases has left many of our children with less than robust immune systems.

Gaining natural immunity involves considerable risk. Diseases that otherwise are vaccine-preventable can kill or cause permanent disability, such as paralysis from polio, deafness from meningitis, liver damage from hepatitis B, or brain damage (encephalitis) from measles. Immunity from a vaccine offers protection similar to that acquired by natural infection. At the same time, vaccines rarely put individuals at risk of the serious complications of infection.

Some people believe that many of those affected during a disease outbreak are in fact the ones who were previously vaccinated. And they argue that immunity from vaccines isn't effective. It's true that vaccines aren't 100 percent protective. Most childhood vaccines are effective for 85 percent to 95 percent of recipients. During a disease outbreak, a number of vaccinated people will indeed catch the disease. However, those who were immunized usually have a less serious illness, while those not vaccinated are in the greatest danger. [More]

Regardless now there is less choice. Get and keep current your family's vaccinations. Especially your college-age children. Things seem to be transmitted really fast among that age group.

Go figure.

Labels:

 
US Farm Report host John Phipps surfs the Web so you don't have to...

My Photo
Name: John Phipps
Location: Chrisman, Illinois, United States

Jan and I farm 1700 acres near Chrisman, IL. I have also written humor and commentary for Farm Journal and Top Producer for 13 years. Please visit my website (www.johnwphipps.com) to learn about my speaking services for your group's next meeting.

ARCHIVES
April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 /


advertisement

MORE FROM JOHN
On the Coffee Table

Farm JournalTop ProducerBeef TodayDairy TodayAgDay
U.S. Farm ReportPro FarmerPro Farmer Members

AgWeb Professional - Subscription InformationAdd AgWeb.com to your Favorites

FAQContact UsPrivacy PolicyAdvertise on AgWeb.com

Quotes by eSignal • Quotes delayed at least 10 min

© Copyright 2006 AgWeb.com a division of Farm Journal, Inc.

Home    |    Agriculture News    |    Weather    |    Money & Markets    |    Ag Discussions    |    Site Map