Whooping cough makes a comeback - vaccines not preventing it

California is experiencing a whooping cough epidemic, the worst in 60 years. Ten babies have died throughout the state in 2010 and more than 7,000 people became sick. Throughout California, about 80 percent of the people diagnosed with whooping cough (also known as pertussis) were vaccinated against it. So how did this happen?

By 1946, mass immunization began in the U.S. and cases of whooping cough dropped dramatically. In 1996, a new vaccine was approved, that was considered to be safer with fewer side effects. About the same time, however, the bacterium which causes whooping cough was morphing and becoming more virulent. A large school of thought says that the 1996 formulation is ineffective against this more virulent strain and the vaccine industry refuses to spend the considerable sum of money required by the FDA to change the formulation. The CDC, however, refutes that there is anything wrong with the current vaccine.

A four-month investigation by the Watchdog Institute, an investigative reporting center at San Diego State University, and KPBS, San Diego’s public broadcast affiliate, found the vaccinations are not working, and that economic ties to vaccine companies that make the pertussis vaccine have knitted a blanket of silence over those whom we would expect to warn the public – people who defend the current vaccine have received financial compensation from one or both of the companies that make the vaccine. Also, Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmith Kline, have funded expert groups that recommend vaccine policy on the disease to government agencies.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory illness that may mimic a cold for the first 10 days. It then can produce a violent and persistent cough with a distinct “whooping” sound. For adults, pertussis may only be a nuisance, like a bad cold. But to infants it can be deadly because they can’t cough up what collects in their lungs and infections can spread. Babies are given the vaccine at the age of two months.  Most children and adults survive whooping cough without any complications whatsoever, but some do not. Similarly, some receive the whooping cough vaccine without a problem, while others do not.

The investigation questions how much influence the vaccine industry has over public health policy. This area of questioning is not new, but it does not often make the mainstream news.

Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, reported that the experts also fail to tell the public that “another Bordetella organism – parapertussis – also can cause whooping cough. B. parapertussis symptoms, while often milder, can look exactly like B. pertussis. But doctors rarely recognize or test for parapertussis. And there is NO vaccine for parapertussis.”

Whether to vaccinate – just a few or none at all – is a critical question all parents face today. There are no guarantees. For help, see the various articles in our reading library. 

President Obama uses EPA to address climate change

For the first time, the federal government is about to regulate greenhouse gasses from factories and fossil fuel power plants – two large industrial sources, representing nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards in 2011 under the Clean Air Act.

“These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home,” Administrator Lisa Jackson said.

Several states, local governments and environmental organizations sued EPA over the agency’s failure to update the pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries. Under this new agreement, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set industry-specific standards for new sources that emit significant quantities of harmful pollutants. These standards, called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), set the level of pollution new facilities may emit and address air pollution from existing facilities.

Administration officials are treading lightly, fearful of stiff Republican resistance – some have likened the EPA to terrorists – and mindful of impacts on job creation and economic recovery. Representative Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is set to become chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he was not convinced that greenhouse gases needed to be controlled or that the E.P.A. had the authority to do so. “This move represents an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs –unless Congress steps in.”

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group financed by Koch Industries and other oil companies, has spread skepticism about global warming.

William K. Reilly, administrator of the environmental agency under the first President George Bush, said the EPA is wedged between a hostile Congress and the mandates of the law, with little room to maneuver. But he also said that anti-E.P.A. zealots in Congress should realize that the agency was acting on laws that Congress itself passed, many of them by overwhelming bipartisan margins.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

So what is it going to take? The pro-business and pro-environment factions in Congress seem to be gearing up for World War Three over this one. Ironically, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are already falling faster than any current legislative or regulatory proposal envisions, because of the recession-driven drop in demand for electricity.

What can you and I do? For one thing, look at our vehicles. We can always choose to buy a vehicle which gets better gas mileage. Car manufacturers do not make any money on our current gas guzzlers. The oil companies do, but that’s another story. Car manufacturers watch the bottom line. If they see a trend toward purchasing more energy-efficient cars, believe me, they will manufacture more energy efficient cars. Just look at the current marketplace.

OK, what do we do about the enormous economic clout of the oil producers? Follow the State of Texas which refuses to implement any of the federal legislation about clean air? The same State of Texas which has a cluster of autistic children that developed in direct proportion to the increase in their air pollution? If we love the State of Texas sufficiently to stay in it, then perhaps we go to court to force change. Or… we just get sick and blame it on something else. If we are not so tied to the State of Texas, then we can always vote with our feet. Change is difficult, but not impossible.

Just to dream a little… What if the government created better incentives so that oil producers put some of their enormous revenue into the development of clean technologies – wind, or water, or solar, or thermal power? We can always dream… In the meantime, there is ALWAYS a way out. You may have to look up at the ceiling to see the door out of the room in which you are trapped. But there is always a door. We just have to adjust our minds to see it.

Pharmaceutical industry rips off government more than the military

The drug industry has surpassed the defense industry to become the biggest defrauder of the federal government, as determined by payments it has made for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), according to a new Public Citizen study released in mid-December.

The Pentagon used to be the leading recipient of private-sector fraudulent deals, but the mantle has been passed now to the Department of Health and Human Services. GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Schering-Plough were the largest offenders.

According to the study, the practice of illegal off-label promotion of pharmaceuticals has been responsible for the largest amount of financial penalties levied by the federal government over the past 20 years. Deliberately overcharging state health programs, mainly Medicaid fraud, has been the most common violation against state governments and is responsible for the largest amount of financial penalties levied by these governments.

“Desperate to maintain their high margin of profit in the face of a dwindling number of important new drugs, these figures show that the industry has engaged in such activities as dangerous, illegal promotion for unapproved uses of drugs and deliberately overcharging vital government health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe. He compiled and analyzed the data with physicians from the Johns Hopkins General Preventive Medicine program, Drs. Sammy Almashat and Charles Preston, as well as Columbia University public health student Timothy Waterman, all of whom worked at Public Citizen.

In some of cases, companies denied illegal activity such as fraud and kickbacks while making major payments to settle investigations, and the government agreed to settlements rather than pursue the cases further.

“The danger to public safety and loss of state and federal dollars that comes with these violations require a more robust response,” Wolfe said.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

Dr. Wolfe hit the nail on the head. Expect to see more fraud, since nobody is going to prison and the companies settle without any admittance of guilt. Furthermore, the companies have deep pockets and they fund an army of Washington DC lobbyists who write large campaign checks. The couple hundred dollars that you and I might give to a candidate barely registers. Add to that, ubiquitous TV advertising that makes people think it is normal to take a daily array of drugs.

There is so much prescription drug use now that excreted dosages show up in our drinking water – people who have never taken a hypertensive drug, for example, can test positive for it.

And there is related news – the December 28^th Wall Street Journal ran an article, “So Young and So Many Pills.” It says more than 25% of kids and teens in the U.S. take prescription drugs on a regular basis. The biggest sellers: asthma meds, ADHD meds, antidepressants, antipsychotics, antihypertensives, sleep aids, non-insulin diabetes, and statins.

The FDA rewards drug companies for testing medications in children. “In more than a third of these studies,” the WSJ reporter tells us, “there have been surprising side effects … Long-term effects of drugs in kids are almost never known since pediatric studies, like those in adults, tend to be relatively short.”

The article quotes a doctor in Arkansas who says obesity is the number one problem he sees in kids, yet only about 10 percent of the parents follow his recommendations for exercise and a change in diet. The addictive nature of today’s processed food makes it almost as hard to change our eating habits as it is to quit smoking.

For kids on the brain altering drugs and statins, there are safer answers that also give better results long-term. We’ve seen kids with ADHD and brain disorders make incredible strides with the drug-free BrainAdvantage program.

For the first time in two centuries, the current generation of children in America may have shorter life expectancies than their parents. Making kids pop handfuls of pills each week and suffer their side effects will not change this picture for the better. What can you do? Learn. Look behind the marketing messages and the effects of industry’s heavy-handed lobbying and understand how to protect yourself. For starters, read the book, An Alphabet of Good Health. Engage in the blog conversation.

Monsanto exerts influence on European GMO policies

The latest batch of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveals how the Unites States exerts pressure on European countries to further the commercial interests of the biotech industry by promoting genetically modified foods. 

A cable from Craig Stapleton, the US ambassador to France, expressed his frustration with the idea that France might pass environmental laws that would hamper the expansion of GMOs:

"Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin to turn this issue in France."

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, said this in a “Democracy Now” interview:

"We’ve been saying for years that the United States government is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union.”

A story broke in EL Pais on December 19th, revealing that the Spain has been working hand in hand with the U.S. to protect the interests of the biotech industry against those EU countries that hold national bans on GE crops. Spain, cultivates the most GE maize (Monsanto MON810) in Europe and is very worried by the rise of the anti-GE movement in Spanish society. The French are also mostly against GE crops and Germany has been introducing GE crop bans - allying with countries such as Austria, Luxembourg and Italy. Spain doesn't want to be outnumbered in Europe on this issue and has been looking for support elsewhere.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

This is pretty ugly. And there is more.

Last September, Jeremy Scahill’s article in The Nation exposed that in 2008-2009 Monsanto hired the controversial military contractor known as Blackwater. Scahill wrote that “Blackwater, through [its sister company] Total Intelligence, sought to become the ‘intel arm’ of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.” This is clear evidence of what animal activists and health advocates who oppose GMOs are up against.

Animal studies have indicated serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. The only human feeding study ever published on GMOs, the 2004 Netherwood study, revealed that transgenes from soy transfer into the DNA of bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function. So eat a handful of chips made from GMO corn and you have a pesticide replicating in your gut.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods saying, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.” But the U.S. government has not agreed to examine the health effects of GMOs. It should.

In the U.S., we have not won the battle to have GMOs labeled. We can avoid most of the GMOs by not eating processed foods because 80 percent or more of all processed food has GMOs in it. Soda, for example, is often made with high fructose corn syrup that is made from genetically modified corn. Unless the label specifies “pure cane sugar,” you are probably eating something made from genetically modified sugar beets. And almost all the soy found in food products is GM.

The Hershey Company plans to reformulate its European products to be free of GMOs in order to meet consumer demand and to comply with the non-GMO requirements of Asda, the U.K. subsidiary of Wal-Mart that will be Hershey's exclusive retailer in the U.K. However, Hershey's has no intentions of changing any of its U.S. formulas, all of which are tainted with GMOs.

What can we, as individuals, do about GM food products? We can refuse to buy them. We can call or send letters to the consumer products divisions of the companies whose foods we are concerned about, asking them if there are any GM elements in their products. The companies will begin to realize that we are concerned and that we care. The power of the pocketbook is enormous – look at what happened with BPA in our water bottles and baby bottles – it is no longer present because of the outcry of the Mommy Blogosphere. We can do the same for any other GM foods – we just have to care enough to write, and to find a substitute.

Oregano protects grilled meats from bacteria and cancer-causing compounds

Adding oil of oregano to meat before grilling could reduce the formation of potentially cancer-causing compounds by up to 78 percent, University of Arizona researchers have found. It also helps inactivate harmful E. coli O157:H7 in the meat.

Research conducted by U.A. microbiologist Sadhana Ravishankar has shown that a compound in oregano reduces the formation of heterocyclic amines, the potentially cancer-causing culprits that can form in grilled meat.

"We are preventing the formation of potentially carcinogenic compounds in the grilled meat itself, so people can eat safer grilled meat," said Ravishankar, an assistant professor in the U.A.'s department of veterinary science and microbiology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Heterocyclic amines form in grilled, charbroiled or fried meat in two essential steps. First, a raw juicy hamburger is slapped on the grill. As the meat heats up, amino acids and glucose in the meat react with each other to create molecules known as intermediates. Next, these intermediates react with creatinine, a molecule that is present in muscle. The result is heterocyclic amines.

Once the nice and crispy hamburger is eaten, the heterocyclic amines potentially could lead to cell malfunction. Several epidemiological studies have shown a possible correlation between the consumption of well-done meats and different types of cancers in humans.

So maybe people can live without that extra crispy texture on their meat. Unfortunately that strategy has a pitfall too: There are established standards for cooking ground beef in order to eliminate harmful E. coli bacteria in the vast majority of commercial meat. Restaurants often recommend well-done meat to minimize the potential for foodborne illness.

"We added the active ingredient of oregano oil, called carvacrol, to the meat. Then we grilled the meat, and we were able to reduce the formation of these compounds," said Ravishankar. "Carvacrol has anti-oxidative properties, so we are thinking that it binds to or reacts with some of the intermediates and prevents them from forming the heterocyclic amines. The mechanism is not clear yet."

Carvacrol also has antimicrobial properties that inactivate E. coli: a membrane-active compound, it breaks the chain of fatty acids that makes up the outer membrane of an E. coli cell, causing the cell to leak its contents.

Her study was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

Ravishankar's research has shown for the first time a way to simultaneously inactivate harmful E. coli and reduce the formation of potentially carcinogenic compounds in grilled meat.

It is important not to confuse oil of oregano with the oregano that is used as a spice for cooking. The common oregano spice is typically Origanum Marjoram, while oregano oil is derived from Origanum Vulgare. Oil of oregano is a natural substance extracted from wild oregano plants, and two key compounds found in it are carvacrol and thymol. Quality oregano oil should sell for between $10 to $16 per 15 ml at health food stores.

The ancient Greeks were one of the first people to recognize oregano oil for its health benefits and medicinal qualities. It is known to be a potent antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal, and antiparasitic oil that can reduce pain and inflammation and effectively fight off infections.

IOM report on vitamin D is wrong, wrong, wrong

New vitamin D recommendations, released by the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the says that persons between the ages of 1 and 70 do not need more than 600 IU of vitamin D daily. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report also makes what many feel is an outrageous claim that few people are actually vitamin D deficient.

This is the government’s first official vitamin D recommendation since 1997. The IOM’s committee set a new “dietary reference intake” for vitamin D. Assuming that a person gets virtually no vitamin D from sunshine, and that this person gets adequate amounts of calcium, the committee recommends the following:

·         Infants age 6 to 12 months: adequate intake, 400 IU/day; maximum safe upper level of intake, 1,500 IU/day

·         Age 1-3 years: adequate intake, 600 IU/day; maximum safe upper level of intake, 2,500 IU/day

·         Age 4-8 years: adequate intake, 600 IU/day; maximum safe upper level of intake, 3,000 IU/day

·         Age 9-70 years: adequate intake, 400 IU/day; maximum safe upper level of intake, 4,000 IU/day

·         Age 71+ years: adequate intake, 800 IU/day; maximum safe upper level of intake, 4,000 IU/day

This raises the recommended vitamin levels from 200 to 600 IU/day for most Americans. However, that is far lower than many doctors and major medical groups have been advocating. The Alliance for Natural Health said the IOM guidelines defy overwhelming scientific evidence that confirms the significant medical benefits of higher vitamin D levels, and that one-third of Americans are vitamin D deficient.

The IOM committee dismissed concerns that many Americans and Canadians are vitamin D deficient, noting that there is no scientifically validated level that's considered optimum. Even so, the panel concluded that for 97% of the population, a blood level of 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter is sufficient.

Several major medical groups, including the Endocrine Society and the International Osteoporsis Foundation, have concluded that a level of 30 ng/ml is necessary for optimal bone health. Studies have also shown that at levels below 30 ng/ml, the body seeks calcium for everyday needs by leaching it from bones.

Dr. Michael Holick, a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine who testified before the IOM committee, recommends that adults take 2,000 to 3,000 IUs per day and notes that he had done studies giving subjects 50,000 IUs twice a month for six years and seen no harmful effects.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

We know that vitamin D in all forms (sunlight, sun lamps, or supplements) reduces the incidence of respiratory infections. It boosts immune function and suppresses inflammation. Flu viruses (including swine flu) induce a massive inflammatory response that can kill the victim. In other words, it is not the virus that often kills, but the body’s hyper-reaction to the virus in the form of uncontrolled over-production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Vitamin D down-regulates the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha. As people age, they often over-express these same destructive pro-inflammatory cytokines. The result is chronic low-level inflammation that damages aging arteries, joints, and neurons. By down-regulating excess pro-inflammatory cytokine production, vitamin D can save the lives of those stricken with acute influenza, or the dozens of inflammatory diseases that afflict millions of aging Americans each year.

This is why it is said that vitamin D is more effective than the flu vaccine, which almost everyone except the CDC says is not very effective. This from the British Medical Journal: "The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest…"

Many feel conflicts of interest explain why the IOM made this very conservative recommendation. The Alliance for Natural Health reports:

There is, unfortunately, a hidden agenda afoot. A pharmaceutical company is developing a patentable man-made vitamin D analog – yes, a synthetic drug version of vitamin D. And Glenville Jones, PhD, one of the committee members who determined the new vitamin D guidelines and who is quoted as saying that under these guidelines, most people ‘probably don’t have vitamin D deficiency’ and ‘We think there has been an exaggeration of the public’s interest in vitamin D deficiency,’ is an advisor for that same pharmaceutical company.

During the Industrial Revolution, rickets were epidemic in temperate zones where the pollution from factories blocked the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Today, rickets are making a comeback. Headlines tell us the growth of the computer generation and our sedentary lifestyle have led to a vitamin D deficiency and a rise in cases of rickets. The doses recommended by the IOM may be enough to prevent rickets, but are not sufficient to fulfill other important functions.

Studies have linked low vitamin D levels to a higher risk of a slew of chronic health problems including heart disease, diabetes, cancers, auto-immune diseases, infections, osteoporosis, depression and cognitive decline.

Consider this: Humans evolved near the equator and spent days outdoors, allowing the skin to generate ample amounts of this vitamin. About 50,000 years ago, some of our ancestors migrated toward the poles, where winter sunlight isn’t intense enough for vitamin D production. However, their diet of vitamin D-rich fish compensated for the deficit. The new recommended daily dose of 600 IU is equal to just four minutes of mid-day full-body summer sun exposure. About thirty minutes of sunshine would produce approximately 4,000 to 5,000 IU of natural vitamin D in many American latitudes, which the new guidelines indicate may be an overdose. Nature knows best.

Today, we don’t get outside much and when we do, we tend to slather on sunscreen which blocks our ability to make D. Cod liver oil is a time-honored source of vitamins D and A; in the first half of the 20^th century, school children had to take one spoonful each day.

Airport scanners emit cancer-causing radiation

Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon, author, lecturer, is advising travelers to opt out of X-ray scans at the airport. He says:

“Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.

“One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

“This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

“As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma.

“About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.

“It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.

As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.” 

“When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.”

Dr. Grout’s comment:

I agree. Thank you Dr. Blaylock for a clear description of the issue.

Earlier this year, the President’s Cancer Panel issued a surprisingly candid report about how to reduce the environmental factors we know contribute to the high rate of cancer. One of the report’s recommendations was to avoid unnecessary medical screening because X-rays cause cancer.

For this same reason, many of us applauded the revised guidelines released a year ago by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that called for less mammography screening – a mammogram is an X-ray of the breast.

It is projected today that 1 in 3 women, and 1 in 2 men will get cancer in their lifetime. The TSA needs to find a better way to provide security than putting Americans at risk for cancer.

San Francisco bans toys in McDonald’s “happy meals”

It is official: a ban in California’s Santa Clara County and effective December 2011 in the city of San Francisco, will prohibit restaurants from offering a free toy or prize with meals that exceed 600 calories, 650 mgs of sodium, and fat levels exceeding 35% of total calories. All meals (except breakfast) must also contain a half-cup of vegetables and fruit.

“It’s only going to pick up steam,” said Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who introduced the ban. “The fast-food chains must realize that the tide has turned.” Yeager says that officials in New York, Chicago, and Orange County have contacted him about possible measures of their own.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is preparing a case against McDonald’s that would further ban the use of toys to market Happy Meals. As CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner said, the suit claims such marketing is illegal under various state consumer protection laws irrespective of the alleged health risks.

Dr. Grout’s comment:

Interesting move. McDonalds has been very cautious in responding to this. A company spokeswoman said, “Parents tell us it’s their right and responsibility – not the government’s – to make their own decisions and to choose what’s right for their children.” Certainly many people feel that this is an over-reach by the “nanny state.” And it may be.

But it begs the question: How do we intervene in the CDC projection that 1 in 3 people will have diabetes by the year 2050 unless something is done to curb unhealthy lifestyle trends in the United States? Nearly 1 in 5 youngsters is now obese. More than 50% of children will suffer from chronic health diseases in their childhood ranging from ADHD and asthma to obesity and diabetes, according to a JAMA February 17, 2010 article. Children can't change their exercise and eating habits by themselves. They need their families to set the example. Chef Jamie Oliver applauded the ban. He told CNN the job of the nanny is to take care of the child. The government already makes tobacco and alcohol off limits from kids because those products are not healthy. The FDA is gearing up to ban the addition of caffeine in alcoholic beverages like Four Loko because “the combinations of caffeine and alcohol in these products pose a public health concern.” So too does a lot of the food sold today.

What concerns me is how we decide what good food is. The subject is fraught with politics – everything from special interests designing the USDA food pyramid and farming laws that favor large corporate agriculture, to soda manufacturers “partnering” with dietary associations to develop nutrition guidelines and industry-sponsored studies that amazingly find no fault with chemical additives like synthetic sugars and high fructose corn syrup.

This new ban says suggests fat levels should not exceed 35% of total calories. Where is that written? Remember in the 1980s how pasta and starchy crabs were heavily promoted? All that did was sell a lot of pasta makers and spike everyone’s insulin levels. Now the mainstream news delivers much better information about carbs, that those kinds of carbs are the bad carbs and veggies are the good carbs. But we are still being fed bad information about fats. The old dogma is that eating fat makes you fat. Wrong. There are bad fats including soy and corn and most other cheap vegetable oils, and any fat that has been re-heated and used over and over to fry foods in a fast-food joint. There are good fats including butter, grass fed meats, fish oil, nuts, lard, and unrefined coconut and olive oil. Pervasive lobbying from special interest groups still clouds that picture for many.

Good fats are the prescription for providing energy, making strong cell membranes, making hormones, and eating in moderation. Without fat at the table, your body has trouble absorbing the vitamins and minerals from the veggies on your plate. Without fat, you don't feel full and stop eating. Eating hamburger from cows or buffaloes raised organically on grass is a good quality fat; a fast food hamburger from a cow fed hormones, steroids, genetically modified corn and then positioned between two refined pieces of bread, slathered in hydrogenated vegetable oils masquerading as mayonnaise and high fructose corn syrup masquerading as a catsup, is not. Eating truly unprocessed coconut oil may even help you lose weight. Eating a salad with the typical manufactured salad dressing made of vegetable oils will likely pack on the pounds. Many native people ate a diet that was considerably more than 35 percent fat – but it was good fat.

Let’s start improving the discussion about fat.