I Wish I Were Far From the Madding Crowd

May 31, 2010

“Toxic America” special to air on CNN

CNN special on “Toxic America”

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/toxic.america/

Will air June 2 and 3 at 8 pm ET

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/17/tune.in.toxic.america/index.html

Five toxics that are everywhere

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/31/chemical.dangers/index.html

Bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, formaldehyde, PBDEs, PFOA

Releases of benzene, dioxin, lead, mercury, and trichloroethylene state by state

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/05/health/map.toxic.chemicals/index.html

More info on access to government-held information on the environment, health, and safety can be found on the Right-to-Know Network website at http://rtknet.org.

May 23, 2010

Food safety, marketing, and reducing childhood obesity

White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report

This report was released earlier this month. It discusses issues and offers recommendations relating to childhood obesity, including the usual regarding diet and lack of physical activity, but also notes the role that “obesogens” (endocrine disruptors and other chemicals thought to increase obesity by interfering with the body’s metabolic processes), food marketing, product formulation, access to healthier food, etc., play a part in the obesity epidemic.

Report: Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a Generation

http://www.letsmove.gov/taskforce_childhoodobesityrpt.html

Full reporthttp://www.letsmove.gov/tfco_table_of_contents.pdf (chapters also available as individual PDFs)

Contents
  • Early Childhood – A. Prenatal Care; B. Breastfeeding; C. Chemical Exposures; D. Screen Time; and E. Early Care and Education
  • Empowering parents and caregivers – A. Making Nutrition Information Useful; B. Food Marketing; and C. Health Care Services
  • Healthy Food in Schools – A. Quality School Meals; B. Other Foods in Schools; C. Food-Related Factors in the School Environment; and D. Food in Other Institutions
  • Access to Healthy, Affordable Food – A. Physical Access to Healthy Food; B. Food Pricing; C. Product Formulation; D. Hunger and Obesity
  • Increasing Physical Activity – A. School-Based Approaches; B. Expanded Day and Afterschool Activities; C. The “Built Environment”; and D. Community Recreation Venues

The role of marketing

The report notes:

Food marketing to children and adolescents is a big business. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) estimates that, in 2006, food, beverage, and quick-serve restaurant companies spent more than $1.6 billion to promote their products to young people. Children and adolescents are an important demographic for marketers for several reasons: (1) they are customers themselves; (2) they influence purchases made by parents and caregivers; and (3) they are the future adult market.

The report says that the relationship between marketing and obesity isn’t firmly established, but that advertising does appear to have an effect on kids. Give me a break. Why would companies spend that kind of money if they weren’t getting the results they wanted?

Many books have been written about the ways in which companies try to market products to kids. A couple of note are Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture by Juliet Schor and Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood by Susan Linn. Both books cover food marketing in a good amount of detail (and are well-documented).

One of the things that caught my attention in Born to Buy was Schor’s discussion of how marketing companies want to create a world in which consumers are constantly bombarded by 360-degree advertising (or what one agency refers to as “infinite consumer touchpoint possibilities”).

What are the effects of such marketing? Probably not just obesity. Overstimulation. Psychological effects. Increased materialism. And what are the eventual consequences? In an article, “Children, Commercialism, and Environmental Sustainability,” the authors (Tim Kasser, Tom Crompton, and Susan Linn) argue that “the same generation of children that is being encouraged to prioritize wealth, consumption, and possessions is the same generation that, if current trends continue, will need to drastically reduce its consumption patterns so as to prevent further global climate disruption, habitat loss, and species extinction.”

Food safety issues

The USDA Office of Inspector General issued a report in March 2010 (Audit Report 24601-08-KC) noting that:

One of the public food safety issues facing the United States is the contamination of meat with residual veterinary drugs, pesticides, and heavy metals. “Residue” of this sort finds its way into the food supply when producers bring animals to slaughter plants while they have these residual contaminants in their system. When the animals are slaughtered, traces of the drugs or pesticides contained in these animals’ meat is shipped to meat processors and retail supermarkets, and eventually purchased by consumers. In order to safeguard the Nation’s food supply from harmful residue, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the national residue program.

The Inspector General found that “the national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues. Together, FSIS, FDA, and EPA have not established thresholds for many dangerous substances (e.g., copper or dioxin), which has resulted in meat with these substances being distributed in commerce. Additionally, FSIS does not attempt to recall meat, even when its tests have confirmed the excessive presence of veterinary drugs.”

So the food we eat might actually be a source of obesity in more than one way.  Does this bother anyone else?

May 11, 2010

President’s Cancer Panel recommendations for individuals

I had difficulty copying these from the 7+ MB report (my Adobe Acrobat kept crashing).  Then I discovered that Acrobat Reader 9 lets you save a PDF as text!

Full report URL – http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

Note: I added the links below—they were not in the original report (and they may or may not be sanctioned by the Panel or the U.S. government).

President’s Cancer Panel – What Individuals Can Do: Recommendations

Much remains to be learned about the effects of environmental exposures on cancer risk. Based on what is known, however, there is much that government and industry can do now to address environmental cancer risk. The Panel’s recommendations in this regard are detailed above. At the same time, individuals can take important steps in their own lives to reduce their exposure to environmental elements that increase risk for cancer and other diseases. And collectively, individual small actions can drastically reduce the number and levels of environmental contaminants.

CHILDREN

1. It is vitally important to recognize that children are far more susceptible to damage from environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds than adults. To the extent possible, parents and child care providers should choose foods, house and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize children’s exposure to toxics.
Ideally, both mothers and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and known or suspected carcinogens prior to a child’s conception and throughout pregnancy and early life, when risk of damage is greatest.

CHEMICAL EXPOSURES

2. Individuals and families have many opportunities to reduce or eliminate chemical exposures. For example:

  • Family exposure to numerous occupational chemicals can be reduced by removing shoes before entering the home and washing work clothes separately from the other family laundry.
  • Filtering home tap or well water can decrease exposure to numerous known or suspected carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Unless the home water source is known to be contaminated, it is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of commercially bottled water.
  • Storing and carrying water in stainless steel, glass, or BPA– and phthalate-free containers will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting and other chemicals that may leach into water from plastics. This action also will decrease the need for plastic bottles, the manufacture of which produces toxic by-products, and reduce the need to dispose of and recycle plastic bottles. Similarly, microwaving food and beverages in ceramic or glass instead of plastic containers will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals that may leach into food when containers are heated.
  • Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues. Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these medications if it is available. Avoiding or minimizing consumption of processed, charred, and well-done meats will reduce exposure to carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
  • Individuals can consult information sources such as the Household Products Database to help them make informed decisions about the products they buy and use.
  • Properly disposing of pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, paints, and other materials will minimize drinking water and soil contamination. Individuals also can choose products made with non-toxic substances or environmentally safe chemicals. Similarly, reducing or ceasing landscaping pesticide and fertilizer use will help keep these chemicals from contaminating drinking water supplies.
  • Turning off lights and electrical devices when not in use reduces exposure to petroleum combustion by-products because doing so reduces the need for electricity, much of which is generated using fossil fuels. Driving a fuel-efficient car, biking or walking when possible, or using public transportation also cuts the amount of toxic auto exhaust in the air.
  • Individuals can reduce or eliminate exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in the home, auto, and public places. Most counseling and medications to help smokers quit are covered by health insurance or available at little or no cost.

RADIATION

3. Adults and children can reduce their exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone, texting instead of calling, and keeping calls brief.

4. It is advisable to periodically check home radon levels. Home buyers should conduct a radon test in any home they are considering purchasing.

5. To reduce exposure to radiation from medical sources, patients should discuss with their health care providers the need for medical tests or procedures that involve radiation exposure. Key considerations include personal history of radiation exposure, the expected benefit of the test,
and alternative ways of obtaining the same information. In addition, to help limit cumulative medical radiation exposure, individuals can create a record of all imaging or nuclear medicine tests received and, if known, the estimated radiation dose for each test.

6. Adults and children can avoid overexposure to ultraviolet light by wearing protective clothing and sunscreens when outdoors and avoiding exposure when the sunlight is most intense.

SELF-ADVOCACY

7. Each person can become an active voice in his or her community. To a greater extent than many realize, individuals have the power to affect public policy by letting policymakers know that they strongly support environmental cancer research and measures that will reduce or remove from the environment toxics that are known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Individuals also can influence industry by selecting non-toxic products and, where these do not exist, communicating with manufacturers and trade organizations about their desire for safer products.

May 10, 2010

President’s Cancer Panel report on “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk”

Nicholas Kristof blogged about the President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) issuing its Annual Report for 2008-2009 entitled “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, What We Can Do Now,” in “New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer“.  While his blog is very informative, the report itself can be found at Annual Report for 2008-2009 (the URL for the PCP reports page is http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm).

The Panel looked at Sources and Types of Environmental Contaminants, including Exposure to Contaminants from Industrial and Manufacturing Sources, Exposure to Contaminants from Agricultural Sources, Environmental Exposures Related to Modern Lifestyles, Exposure to Hazards from Medical Sources, Exposure to Contaminants and Other Hazards from Military Sources, and Exposure to Environmental Hazards from Natural Sources.

The text of the letter accompanying the report:

Though overall cancer incidence and mortality have continued to decline in recent years, the disease continues to devastate the lives of far too many Americans. In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action. The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy. However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

To jumpstart this national effort, the President’s Cancer Panel (the Panel) dedicated its 2008–2009 activities to examining the impact of environmental factors on cancer risk. The Panel considered industrial, occupational, and agricultural exposures as well as exposures related to medical practice, military activities, modern lifestyles, and natural sources. In addition, key regulatory, political, industrial, and cultural barriers to understanding and reducing environmental and occupational carcinogenic exposures were identified. The attached report presents the Panel’s recommendations to mitigate or eliminate these barriers.

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.

While BPA has received considerable media coverage, the public remains unaware of many common environmental carcinogens such as naturally occurring radon and manufacturing and combustion by-products such as formaldehyde and benzene. Most also are unaware that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults. Efforts to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them must be increased. All levels of government, from federal to local, must work to protect every American from needless disease through rigorous regulation of environmental pollutants.

Environmental exposures that increase the national cancer burden do not represent a new front in the ongoing war on cancer. However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures. The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.

What the Panel recommends people do….

May 5, 2010

PepsiCo CEO: “If all consumers exercised … obesity wouldn’t exist”

Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi tells Fortune Magazine that obesity is all our fault

FORTUNE: You’ve said that Pepsi should be part of the solution, not the cause, of obesity. How are you and PepsiCo planning to go about that?

Nooyi: If all consumers exercised, did what they had to do, the problem of obesity wouldn’t exist….

(Thanks to Fooducate for finding that one!)

So there you have it.  It’s all our fault! (Since that’s the case, maybe we should just stop buying PepsiCo products.)

Based on the above, I would be willing to bet that Nooyi would disagree with the following article’s conclusions.  I would also be willing to bet that most major food and beverage companies spend a lot of money not just on advertising, but on marketing research, too.

Neurophysiological Pathways to Obesity: Below Awareness and Beyond Individual Control, Deborah A. Cohen, Diabetes July 2008 vol. 57 no. 7 1768-1773

doi: 10.2337/db08-0163

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/57/7/1768.full

I think Cohen makes some very good arguments, but I would quibble with her on two points.

One, she says “the suppositions that a change in genetics and/or metabolism is responsible for the increase in obesity over the past three decades are implausible due to lack of evidence of mutations over this short period of time….” But if changes in metabolism are being caused epigenetically by exposure to chemicals in the environment, the rate of such changes could be much more accelerated than the rate of mutations one would expect from random mutations to people’s DNA.

Two, she says that arguments that it is totally the individuals’ fault that they are overweight or obese imply that 30 years ago people had more self-control.  Well, frankly, maybe they did!  That should not be discounted as a possibility.  But I would tend to go with the argument that most of the problem is caused by eating more and not being active enough.

Having said that,  I think her arguments about why people are eating more are quite valid and that food and beverage manufacturers are probably not going to make eating less any easier.

For the sake of argument let’s say that food and beverage manufacturers actually do want you to eat and drink less (well, at least as long as you keep eating and drinking their products).

So which companies are going to willingly cede market share to other companies?  Umm … none?  So what does that mean?  It means that they’re going to continue marketing their products as aggressively as they have in the past.  (It’s like a tragedy of the common food court!)  They’re just going to try to use different techniques to persuade people to but their products.  “Healthy. Organic. Natural.”  Most importantly, “Much better for you than that other company’s products….”

Or perhaps they figure that if their products are going to make us overweight or obese, then they’ll just sell us drugs to deal with metabolic syndrome and other health problems later.  (Huh, I wonder if any of the big food and beverage companies own any pharmaceutical firms.  Or have invested in them?)

Anyway, in the article Cohen identifies what she says are 10 neurophysiological pathways that can lead people to make food choices subconsciously or, in some cases, automatically.

These pathways include reflexive and uncontrollable neurohormonal responses to food images, cues, and smells; mirror neurons that cause people to imitate the eating behavior of others without awareness; and limited cognitive capacity to make informed decisions about food.

Given that people have limited ability to shape the food environment individually and no ability to control automatic responses to food-related cues that are unconsciously perceived, it is incumbent upon society as a whole to regulate the food environment, including the number and types of food-related cues, portion sizes, food availability, and food advertising.

There is a growing consensus that the global obesity epidemic is the result of increasing urbanization and globalization, coupled with significant changes in the food environment. Obesity was initially highest in developed countries, but developing countries are quickly catching up.

The dominant thinking about obesity is that prevention and treatment is a matter of self-control and individuals making wiser food choices.  However, if this is really the case, then it implies that 30 years ago, before obesity increased, the population had more self-control and made wiser choices, and since then, our collective capacity for self-control must have diminished. It also suggests that people who live in other countries with lower rates of obesity have more self-control than Americans.

Just as the suppositions that a change in genetics and/or metabolism is responsible for the increase in obesity over the past three decades are implausible due to lack of evidence of mutations over this short period of time, the idea that the levels of personal responsibility, knowledge, intelligence, or moral character of a majority of the population are rapidly declining is also not a credible explanation of this phenomenon. It is unlikely that the nature of people has changed so dramatically. What has changed dramatically, however, is the environment in which we now live.

The availability and affordability of food has increased, due to a combination of technological advances in food preservation and packaging, increased food production and crop yields, and decreases in food costs relative to total income. In many parts of the world, food is available to all socioeconomic classes 24 h/day, 7 days a week. Moreover, while food advertising is not new, greater sophistication in marketing—including the development of branding, expanded use of vending machines and other mechanisms for self-service, technologies like eye movement tracking, and the application of social psychology — are all widely used to increase impulse buying and sales of highly processed foods. The techniques are increasingly more sophisticated, customized, and targeted to increase their efficacy. (Emphasis added.)

Could the increases in food availability, food salience, and the sophistication of modern marketing explain the obesity epidemic? If so, there must be neurophysiological pathways within humans that facilitate consumption of readily available food. Further, these mechanisms should affect all population groups similarly, regardless of income or level of education.

Although individuals with a higher level of education have lower rates, the prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing in well-educated individuals at roughly the same rate as in less educated individuals. It is not unusual to see doctors, nurses, and dietitians possessing expert knowledge about nutrition and weight control who are themselves overweight or obese. Thus, it is likely that the mechanisms affecting food intake are not a matter of conscious decision making based on knowledge but are operating below the level of individual awareness and beyond individual control.

This article will review the interaction between the food environment and human neurophysiology to provide some initial evidence that, to a large extent, obesity is the consequence of automatic and largely uncontrollable responses to an environment with excessive food availability and aggressive and unrelenting cues that cause people to eat too much. Ten possible neurophysiological pathways are proposed that, in conjunction with unprecedented increases in food availability and food marketing, might explain how and why people consume more calories than they expend, especially without their full awareness or control of their behavior. The mechanisms include 1) physiological reflexive response to food and images of food; 2) inborn preferences for sugar and fat; 3) hardwired survival strategies, including foraging behaviors in response to food variety and novelty, also without awareness; 4) inability to judge volume or calories either through visual perception or internal signals of satiety; 5) natural tendency to conserve energy; 6) mirror neurons that lead people to mimic the behavior of other humans, often without awareness; 7) automatic stereotype activation; 8) conditioned responses that result in desire for food when confronted with food-related cues; 9) automatic responses to priming; and 10) limited cognitive capacity and self-regulatory control. In addition, speculations on specific mechanisms that deserve further study and direction for obesity control are discussed.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.