Here’s why.

Almost thirty years ago researchers at Harvard University announced a connection between coffee consumption and cancer.

A few years later they retracted the study and recognized that the findings were flawed.

However, since that first study and the media frenzy that followed, coffee has been labeled with the stigma of being unhealthy.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

As you can see from the links to other pages at the end of this page, coffee can help in the prevention and treatment of diseases and illnesses as varied as Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, liver disease, skin cancer, Parkinsons’s disease and more.

Consider this news item…

Coffee Health Risks: For the moderate drinker, coffee is safe says Harvard Women’s Health Watch.

Despite 20 years of reassuring research, many people still avoid caffeinated coffee because they worry about its health effects. However, current research reveals that in moderation—a few cups a day—coffee is a safe beverage that may even offer some health benefits. The September issue of Harvard Women’s Health Watch weighs the pros and cons of this popular beverage and eases the concerns of moderate coffee drinkers.

The latest research has not only confirmed that moderate coffee consumption doesn’t cause harm, it’s also uncovered possible benefits. Coffee may reduce the risk of developing gallstones, discourage the development of colon cancer, improve cognitive function, reduce the risk of liver damage in people at high risk for liver disease, and reduce the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Coffee has also been shown to improve endurance performance in long-duration physical activities.

Source: Harvard Health Publications, Harvard Medical School, 2006.

And they say there are no coffee benefits when it comes to health?

There is a great deal of research that shows drinking a few cups of coffee a day can be good for you. It not only protects you against a variety of serious diseases, but can also bring a lot of pleasure into your life.

NEW YORK (WOMENSENEWS)–As Lisa Seftel was planning for her first child, she thought she had struck a good deal with her boss.

After the baby came, she’d work three days managing a family-owned consultancy’s Manhattan headquarters and two days at home in a New York suburb. This would give her full benefits and let her share child care with her husband. Seftel would continue to work on the most important projects at the company.

But in 2003 she discovered the “dark side” of the U.S. workplace, she said. After the baby was born, her boss reneged, saying she could either work five days a week in the office or three days at home.

“Like so many women, I was pushed out and became a full-time mother,” said Seftel. “I’m now working as a Mary Kay representative, a position that enables me to meet my financial and caregiving responsibilities, which was impossible in the corporate world.”

The choices her boss offered would have decimated either her earnings or her work-life balance, Seftel said. “If I worked five days, I would have had to pay thousands of dollars for child care, and been relegated to an insignificant role in my daughter’s early life. If I worked three days, our family would have had no health insurance; my husband’s employer didn’t provide it and we couldn’t afford a family policy. My career would have never recovered because I would have been deprived of the experiences necessary to acquire new skills.”

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 60 percent of married mothers are now in the work force, 4 percentage points lower than in 1997. The rate of married mothers of infants who work fell 6 percentage points to 53 percent.

With mothers representing about two-thirds of adult women those figures help explain why the United States is one of only two industrialized countries–the other is Japan–out of 23 where women’s work force participation rate fell between 1994 and 2006, according to data from the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Reversal of Trend

From the 1950s through the 1990s the percentage of U.S. women in the paid work force steadily increased. But that trend has begun to reverse and today 3.3 million fewer women are working than would be if the trend had continued.

While a spate of news reports has explained the trend as women preferring to stay home or “opting out,” an array of women’s policy groups disagree. The real explanation, they contend, is a workplace that fails women on some basic interlocking fronts: inflexible scheduling requirements, job discrimination, lack of child care, lack of parental leave, lack of sick leave.

Researchers for the San Francisco-based Center for WorkLife Law found 13,000 cases of discrimination that showed that mothers were 79 percent less likely to be hired and 100 percent less likely to be promoted because they are held to a higher standard than non-mothers in their companies.

“Many women couldn’t crack the motherhood ceiling,” said Joan C. Williams, founding director of the center. “They were given fewer opportunities to work on challenging assignments and even told, you can have your baby or your career.”

The United States, Swaziland, Liberia, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea are the only countries among 173 surveyed in 2007 by the Institute for Health and Social Policy at Montreal’s McGill University that don’t guarantee paid maternity leave to new mothers.

Limits on Family Leave

The Family Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of job-protected leave to new parents or adoptive parents or caregivers of elderly relatives, only applies to firms with 50 workers or more, said Williams. “This disproportionately affects women who earn low wages . . . or work for small companies.”

Then there’s the cost of child care, which ran between $4,000 and $20,000 a year per child in 2001, according to a study from the Children’s Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. Parents of children with special needs and families who lived in areas where the cost of living was higher paid even more. These costs were prohibitive for one-fourth of U.S. families with children and earnings less than $25,000 a year.

Rosemary Harris, a spokesperson of Milwaukee-based 9to5 National Association of Working Women, says all these hurdles are higher for women in lower-wage work. “Many restaurant, clerical and other workers find that they have been fired when they take off a day to look after a sick child or parent,” she said. “They also work when they are ill and develop serious health problems that force them to give up their jobs.”

In March the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a think tank in Washington, D.C., found that only 48.5 percent of women had earnings each year from 1983 to 1998, compared to 84 percent of men. Three out of 10 women reported four or more years without earnings compared to 1 in 20 men. In any single year, women were more likely to work fewer hours, an average of 500 hours or 22 percent less than men.

“Lower earnings have serious implications for women’s financial security,” said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and a co-author of the report. “Over the 15-year-period, the average woman earned $273,592; 62 percent less than the average man who earned $722,693.”

Hard-Pressed in Old Age

Later in life, the gender wage gap means that women–who live an average of five years longer than men–must depend on Social Security checks of about $800 a month versus $1,177 for the average man. At the same time fewer women than men are qualifying for pensions or employer-sponsored retirement plans.

That leads to 1 in 10 female retirees living on less than $10,000 a year; 1 in 5 unmarried elderly women qualifying as poor.

Those economic risks, however, are rarely depicted in media reports, according to a 2006 study by the Center for WorkLife Law, a research and advocacy group at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law.

The analysis of 119 newspaper articles published from 1980 to 2006 often found a story about women voluntarily “opting out”–cutting back on work or leaving the work force–because they realized they “couldn’t have it all” and were foregoing careers in favor of traditional motherhood.

In addition to downplaying the impact on overall family finances, the articles painted an overly rosy picture of women’s chances of picking up their careers.

“Women aren’t opting out,” said the center’s Williams, lead author of the report. “They are pushed out by job discrimination, lack of child care and workplace inflexibility.”

Plenty of women’s groups are calling for change.

“We have proposed a mothers’ economic empowerment agenda that includes paid family leave for both parents, a refundable caregiver tax credit and benefits for part-time wage earners and other policies,” said Valerie Young, advocacy coordinator for the National Association of Mothers’ Centers, based in Jericho, N.Y. “If the U.S. wants to remain competitive in the global economy, it must do a better job of keeping our high value capital–women–in the paid labor force and available to those who depend upon them for care.”

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org . -

- Read More In the States

Related Stories Deliver ‘The Memo’ to Conventions http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3609 Spotlight on 2008 Presidential Election http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3410/ Unions’ Appeal to Women Includes Caregiving Help http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3599 Child Care Gets Special Mother’s Day Promotion http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3585 Work-Life Imbalance Acute for Hourly Wage Parents http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2694 Pregnancy Remains Heavy Load for Working Women http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2639

For more information:

Institute for Women’s Policy Research - http://www.iwpr.org/index.cfm

Center for WorkLife Law - http://www.worklifelaw.org/

Note: Women’s eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of Web pages we link to may change without notice.

Please donate now by going to:
https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=225

Sources: Sharon Johnson - WeNews correspondent. Sharon Johnson is a New York City freelance writer.

Reprinted With Permission

Women’s eNews
135 West 29th Street, Suite 1005
New York, NY 10001
________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2008 Women’s eNews. The information contained in this Women’s eNews report may–with the prior written authorization of Women’s eNews–be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed. To obtain permission, go to http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/showConfigurator?WT.mc_id=PubLink and provide the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site, newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach. Answers to your most frequently asked questions about permissions to reprint or repost Women’s eNews content are available here: http://www.womensenews.org/reprint_faq.cfm

Canadian reporters struggle to shed light on a muddled debate that’s as much about business as it is about health.

When federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced $300 million in funding for a program to vaccinate girls and young women against the virus known as human pappiloma, it was hailed as the most important development in women’s reproductive health since the Pill.

This vaccine promises to tackle more than the warts caused by certain strains of HPV. It is billed as the first-ever anti-cancer vaccine designed to prevent the vast majority of cervical cancer cases.

But it’s too early to tell whether this is just a victory for women’s health or also the triumph of an aggressive, multimillion-dollar marketing campaign that has infiltrated our living rooms and the political backrooms.

The process has been so tainted by one drug company pursuing its own commercial interests that it’s difficult to know whether financing the human pappiloma virus (HPV) vaccine is the right decision from a public health perspective. It might well be, but the heavy lobbying effort, from the prime minister’s former aide on down, muddles the debate.

In coming weeks, the Ontario government is expected to announce its financing of the vaccine, which in partnership with federal funds, is crucial to the establishment of an HPV vaccine program. The province, like Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, has come under intense drug company lobbying.

Meanwhile, we have seen health officials and women’s groups debate the merits of this vaccine on the front pages of newspapers. Many are in favour of the vaccine, calling it a revolution in health care, while others aren’t so sure it’s necessary and wonder if other health care needs are more pressing, such as reducing wait times for cancer surgery or the doctor shortage.

Parents have weighed in, admitting they don’t know whether they want their preteens and teens vaccinated.

Many people are confused. No wonder. This isn’t just a health story, it’s a business story, and when we look at it in that light, the urgency around the issue makes more sense.

The multinational drug giant Merck Frosst makes Gardasil, the only approved HPV vaccine available, and it has a lot riding on a successful launch of the vaccine.

According to last week’s Wall Street Journal, Merck faces patent expirations on other best-sellers and legal costs related to Vioxx, the withdrawn painkiller linked to heart attacks and strokes. Some analysts believe Gardasil’s annual sales could reach $2 billion U.S. or more by 2010.

Until its competitors can get their own versions of an HPV vaccine approved (GlaxoSmith Kline has one in the pipe), Gardasil is the only girl in the pageant. And that makes Merck quite keen to see a government program to finance wide-scale vaccination while it has the only vaccine on the market.

But in order to create a public appetite for the vaccine, it must convince us our daughters need this vaccine. It also has to deal with our lapses in medical knowledge (who knew a virus caused cancer?), as well as our squeamishness around an issue most of us don’t want to think about — our preteen girls one day having unprotected sex.

Sheila Murphy, spokeswoman for Merck, explained in an e-mail how difficult it is to explain Gardasil to the masses.

“The fact that a virus causes cancer, in this case anogenital cancers, is a big paradigm shift for many people,” she wrote, adding, “When I started working on the Gardasil team, I didn’t know that HPV was the reason I
was having a Pap test.”

She said it’s equally challenging to communicate to people that a vaccine exists to prevent those cancers.

“We are working with individuals and groups who share our desire to improve the wellness of Canadian women by communicating information on HPV.

“We are using all the channels of communication open to us to get the message about our cancer-preventing vaccine out.”

Gardasil is a three-course vaccination that prevents four strains of the human pappiloma virus, including HPV 16 and 18, thought to cause 70 per cent of cervical-cancer cases. While cervical cancer is common in developing countries, it’s relatively rare in North America. About 400 women will die of cervical cancer each year in Canada. Women already have a very effective method of prevention — regular Pap tests. During the past five decades, this exam has contributed to an 80 per cent reduction in cervical-cancer deaths. However, some critics argue the $300 million would be better spent ensuring Pap tests for immigrants, aboriginals and women who live in poverty — all disproportionately represented among cervical cancer cases.

It’s expected the vaccine will not only reduce cancer deaths but the number of actual infections, the developments of precancerous lesions and the need for biopsies. In Canada and the U.S., even before the vaccine was approved, Merck financed information campaigns that linked the little-talked-about human pappiloma virus with cancer.

Last April in the U.S., Merck began the “Tell Someone” advertising campaign featuring girls (actresses), in interview style, expressing surprise about the cause of cervical cancer and promising to tell other women.

These ads didn’t mention the vaccine — Merck wasn’t allowed because it hadn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration — but represented a first step in linking cancer with a virus. At the time, a Merck spokesperson denied the campaign had anything to do with the vaccine.

In Canada, women can consult www.tellsomeone.ca, which describes the link. It also tells viewers about a vaccine against HPV but, of course, Merck’s name isn’t mentioned because direct-to-consumer advertising for cancer therapies is not allowed.

Once the FDA granted approval in the U.S. last June, a full-scale ad campaign began which Canadians are generally exposed to because these advertisements show up in our homes on American TV channels.

In one TV spot, girls skipping ripe on a sidewalk are chanting: “O-N-E-L-E-S-S.

I want to be one less. One less.” In another, a young women skateboarder faces the camera and says, “I could be one less. One less statistic.” The ads are poignant and gripping.

In Canada, we won’t be seeing the “One Less” type advertising. While direct-to-consumer advertising is generally allowed for vaccines, in the case of Gardasil, Merck cannot mention cancer in any ads. This has to do with the classification of the disease.

In the absence of the TV ads, Merck has to rely on various doctors and women’s groups to promote the product. It hasn’t been difficult.

A spokeswoman for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada told the Citizen that Merck gave the doctors’ group a $1.5-million grant to educate people about HPV. The SOGC’s website on the issue (www.hpvinfo.ca) does not mention Merck, but serves the larger purpose of educating people about the cancer/viral link.

The society, which has come out strongly in favour of the vaccine, was only too happy to oblige when asked by Merck to educate the public about HPV. One of their main mandates is public education, said SOGC spokeswoman Kelly Nolan. Dr. Vyta Senikas, the executive vice president of the SOGC, said that aggressive marketing of products is a fact of life. She likened Merck’s marketing of Gardasil to Microsoft’s marketing of the video game system Xbox. She said physicians are smart enough to withstand any undue pressure and believes Canadians will receive unbiased information about a new product she thinks is revolutionary. She stressed that, despite Merck financing, all information coming from the SOGC is peer-reviewed and fact based.

Merck has also had to convince lawmakers of the vaccine’s value, which has been particularly difficult in some parts of the U.S., where the Christian right feared protection from a sexually transmitted disease might lead to promiscuity.

Still, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26, Merck, which has lobbied state-by-state to get vaccination laws passed, has had many successes. Twenty states are considering mandatory vaccination, while Texas* and Virginia required it for girls entering sixth grade.

In February, Merck halted its lobbying when it was learned that at least some of the lawmakers had accepted donations from the company. The Associated Press reported the Texas governor’s chief of staff met with key aides about the vaccine the same day its manufacturer donated $5,000 to the governor’s campaign. An organization backed by the company continues to push for similar laws.

In Canada, the campaign to make the vaccine a must-have for every preteen is more of a backroom affair.

Shortly before Flaherty announced funding for vaccination in the budget, Merck hired Ken Boessenkool, a former aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to lobby the federal government. Boessenkool works for Hill & Knowlton, a giant public relations and lobbying firm. After his hiring was revealed by the Citizen, a Merck spokesperson said Hill & Knowlton
would help explain the importance of the new vaccine to policy makers.

Now, with the federal money committed, Merck is lobbying the individual provinces for matching funding and the establishment of vaccination programs.

Last month in Ontario, two lobbyists registered on behalf of Merck to lobby the health minister and others on “the proposed policy decision to support a childhood immunization program for HPV and funding related thereto.” Both men work for Hill & Knowlton. One of them, Jason Grier, was the former executive assistant to Health Minister George Smitherman.

Merck has also courted other groups with the power and potential to lobby the Ontario government. The seemingly innocuous health committee of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, for example, is considering a resolution that, once passed, would urge the Ontario government to expedite funding of vaccines.
Why would this group have much interest — except as parents — in the funding of Gardasil? In fact, the committee counts as members representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, including one from Merck.

Another pharmaceutical industry representative on the committee — Jeff Connell, who works for the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association — told the Citizen he has complained about Merck’s involvement in the resolution.

“Once I found out that the OCC Health Resolution was part of Merck Frosst’s international campaign to get governments to pay for Gardasil, I raised concerns with the OCC Health Committee,” he said.

Prior to this resolution, he said the issue of immunization had never been raised at the committee.

He said he told the committee, “I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that the immunization funding resolution represents the voice of Merck Frosst far more than the voice of Ontario business.”

Connell wrote to the group, asking them to reconsider the resolution, although he acknowledged it would still be passed.

So there you have it: A very small glimpse into the lengths Merck has gone in order to convince politicians and the people that millions of Canadian girls and young women need this vaccine.

Reprinted With Permission: Ottawa Citizen

Rushing out the door to work, you grab yourself a bag lunch: a soy-make-believe-turkey sandwich on whole wheat, salad with a little bit of dressing, a handful of walnuts, and two tangerines. A healthy meal you think.

More than healthy: As a matter of fact, researchers believe that those foods may help you fight cancer.

“Most of the top anti-cancer foods are not only good for you, they are also rich in antioxidants,” says Michael J. Wargovich, PhD, a Professor of Pathology at University of South Carolina School of Medicine and Director of Basic Research for the South Carolina Cancer Center.

“The fruits and vegetables you eat are especially important because nature endowed them with phytochemicals (chemicals found in highly colored fruits and vegetables) that protect us against cancer,” says Kevin Vigilante, MD, author of Low-Fat Lies High-Fat Frauds (Lifeline Press). Some of these phytochemicals, such as carotenes, function by helping cells communicate in suppressing the growth of cancerous cells.

Feast in the top 10 anti-cancer foods

1. Tomatoes: One of the natural colorings that make tomatoes red is a “carotenoid” called lycopene. Aside from its luscious color, this chemical may significantly reduce a man’s risk of prostate cancer and also may help the body avoid breast and lung cancer. Researchers have found that those who eat foods with tomato sauce, ketchup and pizza sauce absorb enough lycopene to lower their cancer risk (though lycopene is also available in supplements). In food, your body can absorb plenty of lycopene from cooked tomatoes that includes some oil. Since carotenes like lycopene are what food chemists call lipophilic or fat loving, fat eaten with them helps them get into your bloodstream more effectively. Research: Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 218, 1998: 129-39; Nutr Cancer 34(2), 1999: 153-9.
2. Walnuts: When you bite down on walnuts, you also bite down on a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids. Research shows fatty walnuts may reduce rates of cancer in addition to their role in fighting heart disease. Beneath those wrinkled shells, walnuts also contain vitamin E, an antioxidant that helps the body fight off the harmful effects of environmental carcinogens. Research: Cancer Letter 136(2), 1999 Mar 1: 215-21.
3. Olive Oil: Don’t forget to drizzle those salads with olive oil and vinegar. Studies show that countries where people consume plenty of olive oil (such as Greece) experience low rates of cancer. Olives contain lots of antioxidants (though not all of them make it into the oil). Still, olive oil is a monounsaturated fat which resists oxidizing, a process that creates harmful molecules called free radicals. The fatty acids in olive oil are thought, to help protect against breast, prostate and colon cancer. On the other hand, polyunsaturated fats like corn, safflower and sun- flower oil are thought to stimulate cancer cells when consumed at the high levels Americans are prone to. Research: Arch Intern Med 158(l), 1998: 41-5; IntJ Cancer 80(5), 1999 March 1: 704-8; Carcinogenesis 19(2), 1998 Peb: 287-90.
4. Red, Orange, Green and Yellow Fruits and Vegetables: Are you looking for anti-cancer carotenoids in all of the right places? The more color in your fruits or vegetables (think carrots, sweet potatoes, red peppers and tangerines), the more cancer- fighting flavonoids and carotenoids they contain. Flavonoids are natural chemicals that scavenge and help eliminate free radicals (unstable molecules that may promote tumor growth). Carotenoids are believed to also help make cancer cells behave. And while fruits like bananas have healthy minerals and vitamins, their pale stuffing contains few of these cancer-fighting pigments. Research: i Am Diet Assoc 97, 1997: S199-S204; Anticancer Res 18 (6A), 1998 Nov-Dec: 4201-5.
5. Cruciferous Vegetables: Parents have been fighting with their kids for ages to get them to eat cruciferous vegetables (named for their cross-shapes). These green wonders which kids resist include kale, Brussels sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower. Their secret ingredient: a biochemical called dithiolthione, which revs up the body’s detoxifying enzymes. Researchers find that people who eat large helpings of these vegetables run a reduced risk of colon and bladder cancer. Research-. National Cancer Institute 91(7), 1999 April 7: 605-13; Am J Clin Nut?i 71(2), 2000 Feb: 575-82.
6. Garlic: Garlic, a prominent member of the allium family of plants (along with onions, shallots and leeks) is believed to protect against many types of cancer by enhancing immunity. At the same time, it boosts liver function, slows the spread of cancer cells and increases the production of enzymes that help eliminate cancer-causing substances. Research: Carcinogenesis 17, 1996: 1041-44; jpn J Cancer Res 90(6), 1999 Jun: 614-21; Urol Clin Nortb Am 27(l), 2000 Feb: 157-62.
7. Green and Black Tea: A spot of tea may help prevent spots on your x-rays. Green and black teas (though primarily green tea) contain polyphenols, powerful antioxidants that research shows may reduce your risk of colon and skin cancers. In the lab, the phytochemicals in green tea have inhibited the development of tumor cells in animals. Researchers also think that milk in your tea may slow absorption of these desirable biochemicals. So try lemon instead. Research: Columbia P”sbyterian Biomedical Frontiers Fall 1996; Cancer Res 60(4), 2000 Feb 15: 901-7.
8. Soy foods (soy milk, tofu): Soybeans are a treasure trove of phytochemicals like genistein, which may suppress the growth of cancer cells in the prostate, colon and urinary tract. Soybeans also contain isoflavones, a family of weak, natural estrogens (phytoestrogens) that have been shown to decrease estrogen in the blood. How does this help fight cancer? The theory: Phytoestrogens bind to estrogen receptors on breast tissue cells, slowing or eliminating the cancerous effects of letting real estrogen link up to those cells. Research: Am J Clinical Nutrition 68(6), 1998 Dec: 1426S-30S; Clin Cancer Res 6(l), 2000 Jan: 230-6.
9. Whole Grains: Whole grains usually contain more vitamins, fiber and miniscule amounts of healthy fat. Refined grains lack these reputed cancer-fighters. The fiber in these whole foods has been found to lower rates of colon and breast cancer. Whole grains like brown rice and whole oats retain the bran husks on the seeds. Theory: Fiber speeds undigested food through your intestines, eliminating carcinogens that might otherwise increase cancer risk. Research: j Natl Cancer Inst 82, 1990: 561-569; Proc Nutr Soc 49, 1990: 153-71.
10. Red and Purple Grapes, and Red Wine: They contain a compound called resveratrol, a potent polyphenol (antioxidant) that may help prevent tumors and also ward off heart disease. ActiVin, a grape seed extract available as a supplement, has been found to help the body fight off the free radical effects of environmental pollution. Research: J Biol Chem 273, 1998: 21875-82; Anticancer Res 19(6B), 1999 Nov-Dec: 5407-14.

Remember that eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables may give your body a larger anti-cancer arsenal than a single fruit or vegetable. (A multivitamin for nutritional insurance won’t hurt either.) Frozen fruits or vegetables retain reputed cancer-fighting biochemicals. Organic produce (grown with out artificial chemicals) lowers your risk of being exposed to pesticide residues. Restrict your consumption of processed foods, which have had many of the cancer-fighting compounds taken out.

“For the most part, our diets can either promote or inhibit cancer,” says Dr. Wargovich. By making the right food choices, you can make certain that you (and not cancer) will remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to your health.

Low-Fat Lies

People think that a low-fat diet is the healthiest. Not so, says Low-Fat Lies author Kevin Vigilante. The traditional Mediterranean diet is 40% fat, yet the Mediterranean countries that eat this diet enjoy the lowest rates of cancer in the world. A few anti-cancer tips:

Fats such as olive and canola oil, and omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, may help prevent cancer. Stay away from meaty saturated fats and limit polyunsaturated fats, such as corn, safflower and cotton- seed. Hydrogenated oils in margarines may increase your risk of cancer and heart disease.

Eat your veggies with a little bit of oil (try extra virgin olive oil) to help your body absorb their carotenoids more effectively.

Limit your meat consumption. A study in the November 1998 Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that women who regularly ate very well-done red meat ran a much higher risk of breast cancer than women who liked theirs rare or medium. The reason: Chemical carcinogens created by browning or barbecuing. Chicken or fish have fewer of these chemicals. Fish also yields omega-3 fatty acids.

Cut back on fast food and deep-fried foods such as French fries and fried chicken, which are loaded with unhealthy saturated and polyunsaturated fats (they raise LDL levels), and avoid processed foods, which have had all the vitamins, minerals and nutrients taken out.

Drink alcohol in moderation. Two or more alcoholic drinks a day can raise your risk for cancer. However, red wine is linked to a reduced rate of heart disease because it appears to inhibit platelet clotting more than white wine or other types of alcohol.

The passage of DSHEA witnessed the biggest victory for consumers in the history of Congress. More letters were written to Congress than on any other piece of legislation in the history of our country. The voice of the people spoke louder on dietary supplements than even on the Vietnam war. This historic legislation assured the public’s right to safe and high quality dietary supplements. The people expressed their overwhelming desire to take care of themselves, by accessing dietary supplements to prevent the onset of chronic disease and reduce the risk of ill health.

The American public spoke for health and wellness choices. President Bill Clinton, in signing the bill, said, “The passage of this legislation…speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them.”

Now the people must speak again to preserve their legacy under DSHEA—for good health care options, to access dietary supplements, and to make Congress listen to you, the American people. Since the passage of DSHEA, the FDA has failed to fully implement and enforce the law. The FDA failed to prevent the misuse of the herb, Ephedra, which put people at risk. Critics say the industry is unregulated and that dietary supplements are dangerous. They claim consumers must be protected. These are lies. These lies are used to advocate that Congress give even more powers to FDA. If government wants to protect consumers, it must make FDA enforce DSHEA, not destroy it. Let’s protect consumers’ freedom to choose health-enhancing dietary supplements. The FDA has the powers, given to it under DSHEA, to seize products and to warn, to fine, to prosecute and to jail manufacturers who do not obey the law.

Yet, the FDA has failed to act. What’s been happening in Washington DC?

There are now five bills pending before Congress that will affect your rights to access safe and beneficial supplements.

Under the guise of protecting the public, these bills will make it easier to take away public access to supplements. The FDA is unable, or is unwilling, to enforce the law.

Only one bill recognizes the possibility that the FDA needs more money to fulfill its duties under DSHEA. The Hatch Harkin bill, S. 1538, says we should give more money to the FDA to do its job.

The other four bills seek to give the FDA even more powers—powers that would quickly destroy your nutritional health care rights.

Public confidence in the safety and quality of dietary supplements has come under pressure because the FDA has not taken action to enforce the law.
The FDA does not need more powers. It needs to use the powers it already has to assure your dietary supplements are safe and of high quality. It can and it will when you, the American people, send a clear message back to Congress—Do not mess with DSHEA, help the FDA fully fund and implement the law!

In response to the actions of Congress, the Nutritional Health Alliance, one of the main organizations that fought so hard for its passage of DSHEA ten years ago, has activated a new Save and Strengthen DSHEA campaign. The NHA will work with other like-minded groups and individuals to achieve these objectives. Don’t let Congress take your dietary supplements away—protect your rights and protect DSHEA. In the coming months, you will be hearing from the NHA and we will work with consumers and store owners to make sure your voices are heard in Washington DC.

Go to www.nha2004.com and voice your support for DSHEA. Access the names and addresses of your Congressmen and Senators, view sample letters and fax and write Congress today. Prevent the loss of your right to stay healthy with dietary supplements. Don’t let Congress take your dietary supplements away!

Pending Bills in Congress Could Take Away Your Health Care Rights to Buy Vitamins and Herbs Nutritional Health Care Alliance Reactivated to Protect DSHEA

Big Pharma is at it again, this time teaming up with other anti-supplement cohorts to spearhead a petition that urges the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement stringent new limitations on manufacturers of weight-management supplements. Of course, it should come as no surprise that the particular large pharmaceutical corporation which helped launch the petition is the very same company that recently released the first-ever FDA-approved over-the-counter (OTC) weight-loss drug. It’s as transparent as it seems: Big Pharma is after big bucks, and it will stop at nothing to eliminate the competition.

The pharmaceutical industry has a lot riding on OTC weight-loss pills. Safe, natural nutrition that works with the body to support healthy weight management is a considerable threat to Big Pharma’s OTC weightloss drug profits. Consumers are increasingly aware that while nutrition supports health as nature intended, drugs can subject them to side effects and even neutralize nutrition’s benefits.

The recently approved OTC weightloss pill exemplifies this: By acting on the body’s absorption of fats within the intestines, the drug inhibits the body’s ability to absorb important fat-soluble nutrients like vitamins A, D, E and K. As for the weight loss drug’s potential side effects—suffice it to say that the drug’s manufacturer cautions that users may have to wear dark pants and bring a change of clothes to work.

Being Overweight Is a Disease?

As questionable as the OTC weight-loss drug may be in and of itself, it is the latest development—the drug’s manufacturer urging the FDA to crack down on weightmanagement supplements— that is most disturbing. The petition’s logic: Nutritional supplements should not be allowed to claim that they support healthy weight management because being overweight really should be regarded as a state of disease. According to the law, only drugs may claim to have an effect on disease. But since when is being overweight, even just a few pounds, a disease?

Even more absurd is the petition’s next illogical leap: It claims that since being overweight can be associated with disease states, then supplements that support healthy weight management are, by proxy, claiming to have an impact on those diseases. That’s quite a stretch! The petition’s authors appear to be trying very hard to create a link between weight management supplements and disease claims that simply does not exist—as a result, the petition appears desperate and nonsensical.

Weight Loss the Right Way

Meanwhile, nutritional supplement manufacturers market their products truthfully: Any quality supplement intended to support weight management is promoted in conjunction with healthy diet and exercise. If Americans consistently choose healthy diet, exercise and natural nutrition, not only will they lose weight, they will elevate their overall state of health. Such a scenario is Big Pharma’s worst nightmare. If America is happy, energetic and at a healthy weight, there is no need for synthetic medications—and Big Pharma makes no profits.

So how do you feel about Big Pharma’s latest gambit to undermine natural nutrition? If the petition to limit weight-management nutrition fills you with outrage, start your own petition supporting natural health. Let your elected officials know how you feel! Another way to make your voice heard is through the dollars you spend: Patronize independent natural health food stores and purchase safe, natural nutritional supplements from companies that have no pharmaceutical industry ties. To join with other people who feel as you do, become a member of the Nutritional Health Alliance (NHA) health freedom advocacy group. For the sake of health freedom, join the NHA today!

Reprinted with permission: Nutritional Health Alliance (NHA)

In April 2005, FDA notified healthcare professionals that patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.  Since issuing that notification, FDA has reviewed additional information that indicates the risk is also associated with conventional antipsychotics.

Antipsychotics are not indicated for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.  

This information reflects FDA’s current analysis of data available to FDA concerning these drugs. FDA intends to update this sheet when additional information or analyses become available.

FDA is requiring the manufacturers of conventional antipsychotic drugs to add a Boxed Warning and Warning to the drugs’ prescribing information about the risk of mortality in elderly patients treated for dementia-related psychosis similar to the Boxed Warning and Warning added to the prescribing information of the atypical antipsychotic drugs in 2005.*  See the last page of this document for a list of conventional and atypical antipsychotic drugs.

Considerations for Healthcare Professionals

• Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

• Antipsychotic drugs are not approved for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.  Furthermore, there is no approved drug for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.  Healthcare professionals should consider other management options.

• Physicians who prescribe antipsychotics to elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis should discuss this risk of increased mortality with their patients, patients’ families, and caregivers.

Background Information and Data

Previously, in April 2005, FDA informed healthcare professionals and the public about the increased risk of mortality in elderly patients receiving atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat dementia-related psychosis (April 2005 Public Health Advisory and Information for Healthcare Professionals).  At that time, the analyses of 17 placebo-controlled trials that enrolled 5377 elderly patients with dementia-related behavioral disorders revealed a risk of death in the drug-treated patients of between 1.6 to 1.7 times that seen in placebo-treated patients.  Although the causes of death were varied, most of the deaths appeared to be either cardiovascular (e.g., heart failure, sudden death) or infectious (e.g. pneumonia) in nature.  Based on this analysis, FDA requested that the manufacturers of atypical antipsychotic drugs include information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section of the drugs’ prescribing information.

Recently, two observational epidemiological studies^1,2 were published that examined the  risk of death in patients who were treated with conventional antipsychotic drugs.

Gill et al.¹ performed a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada of 27,259 adults, 66 years of age or older, with a diagnosis of dementia between April 1997 and March 2002.  The investigators compared the risk for death with use of an atypical antipsychotic versus no antipsychotic and the risk for death with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that  atypical antipsychotics were associated with increased mortality as compared to no antipsychotic use as early as 30 days and persisting until study end at 180 days. The investigators found that conventional antipsychotic use showed a marginally higher risk of death compared with atypical antipsychotic use. The causes of death were not reported in this study.

Schneeweiss et al.² performed a retrospective cohort study in British Columbia, Canada of 37,241 adults, 65 years of age or older, who were prescribed conventional (12,882) or atypical (24,359) antipsychotic medications for any reason between January 1996 and December 2004. The investigators compared the 180-day all cause mortality with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that the risk of death in the group of patients treated with conventional antipsychotic medications was comparable to, or possibly greater than, the risk of death in the group of patients treated with atypical antipsychotic medications. The causes of death with the highest relative risk were cancer and cardiac disease.

FDA considers that the methodological limitations in these two studies preclude any conclusion  that conventional antipsychotics have a greater risk of death with use than atypical antipsychotics. FDA has determined, however, that the overall weight of evidence, including these studies, indicates that the conventional antipsychotics share the increased risk of death in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis that has been observed for the atypical antipsychotics.  The prescribing information for all antipsychotic drugs will now include the same information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section.

References

1.  Gill SS et al.  Antipsychotic drug use and mortality in older adults with dementia.  Ann Intern Med.  2007;146:775-786

2.  Schneeweiss S et al.  Risk of death associated with the use of conventional versus atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients.  CMAJ.  2007;176:627-632.

Back to Top     Conventional Antipsychotics

PDF requires the free Adobe Acrobat Reader

Date created: June 16, 2008

Blocking the body’s response to ghrelin has been suggested as a weight loss treatment but it may also produce unintended effects on mood, they said.

The Nature Neuroscience study found mice with increased levels of the hormone showed fewer signs of depression and anxiety.

Experts said the idea was interesting but further studies were needed.

Ghrelin is released by the empty stomach into the bloodstream before moving to the brain, where it triggers feelings of hunger.

An unfortunate side effect, however, is increased food intake and body weight Dr Jeffrey Zigman

Treatment with the hormone itself - or a drug designed to cancel its effects - might be able to help both people who are eating too little, such as cancer patients, or those who eat too much, researchers believe.

In the latest study, Dr Jeffrey Zigman and colleagues restricted the food intake of laboratory mice for 10 days, causing their ghrelin levels to quadruple.

Compared with mice who had free access to food, the calorie-restricted mice showed lower levels of depression and anxiety when subjected to mazes and other behaviour tests.

Hormone response

The team also looked at mice genetically engineered to be unable to respond to ghrelin.

When they were fed a restricted-calorie diet they did not experience the antidepressant or anti-anxiety effects.

The researchers found the same thing when they induced higher ghrelin levels by subjecting the mice to stress.

Those mice that could not respond to ghrelin had greater levels of depression-like symptoms than the normal mice.

“Our findings in mice suggest that chronic stress causes ghrelin levels to go up, and that behaviours associated with depression and anxiety decrease when ghrelin levels rise,” said Dr Zigman, a researcher at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

“An unfortunate side effect, however, is increased food intake and body weight,” he added.

He said the results made sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as hunter-gatherers may have had a survival advantage in remaining calm and collected in times of hunger in order for them to successfully find food.

The researchers are now hoping to look at the antidepressant effect of the hormone in conditions such as anorexia.

Professor Stephen Bloom, an expert in appetite regulation at Imperial College London, said it was reasonable to believe that ghrelin had an impact on behavioural responses other than just hunger.

But he said there was a lot of research to be done before it could be confirmed that a hormone released in the stomach can have an effect on mood in the brain.

“The role of ghrelin in the gut and in the brain are likely to be completely different,” he said

But since it’s an abortion drug, since it weathered a congressional investigation two years ago–and since it’s in short supply–researchers have yet to test its full potential.

That, says Amy Allina, program director of the Washington-based National Women’s Health Network, is the story on mifepristone. “This drug has the potential to make women healthier in many ways,” says Allina. “But the politics surrounding it have made it difficult to secure funding for more research, and scientists are shying away from studying the drug because they fear getting research protocols approved will be difficult.”

A 2006 paper in the medical journal Gynecological Endocrinology agreed, saying “association with abortion limits the clinical applications of mifepristone.”

Susan Wood, former director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office on Women’s Health and now a research professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C., says Election Day might make a big difference.

“A new presidential administration could change the atmosphere at the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research, and the FDA, which oversees it,” says Wood, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 to protest delays in granting emergency contraceptives over-the-counter status. “A new administration has the potential to reduce the hesitancy that government and private funders might have about mifepristone.”

Short Supplies

Kevin Fiscella, an associate professor at New York’s University of Rochester Medical Center, says studies on mifepristone’s applications beyond abortion have been limited by a shortage of the drug.

“For more than a decade, it was difficult for American researchers to get their hands on mifepristone because there wasn’t a U.S. supplier,” says Fiscella. “Now it’s available through Danco Laboratories, a relatively small supplier that may not be able to produce quantities needed for larger studies.”

Mifespristone was the subject of congressional hearings in 2006 that followed the deaths of six U.S. women and one Canadian who took it to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

All the women died of bacterial infections, and the FDA strengthened the drug’s warning label to stress the risk, though it was never withdrawn for use in medical abortion.

In the two years since the hearing, authorities have not established a definitive link between those fatalities and the use of mifepristone to induce abortions, but widespread research into the drug remains sidelined by an anti-choice federal government.

More than 900,000 U.S. women and more than 2 million women in 37 other countries have used mifepristone in medical abortions, according to its New York-based manufacturer, Danco.

More than 97 percent of users surveyed would recommend the method to a friend, according to the New York-based Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Even so, the FDA has received reports of more than 950 problems (mostly hemorrhaging and infection) associated with mifepristone’s use for abortions.

Higher Risk for Medical Abortion

Though only 0.016 percent of users experience these side effects, medical abortion still carries 10 times the risk of death associated with surgical abortion, according to Planned Parenthood.

Mifepristone is offered by 60 percent of U.S. abortion providers and accounts for 13 percent of all abortions and 22 percent of those before nine weeks’ gestation, according to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

In 2006, Ohio legislators passed a measure that would restrict the drug’s use for abortions and as a research subject in the state but the law was struck down by a federal court.

In 2007, two mifepristone researchers in Canada reportedly received death threats from anti-choice activists, but nevertheless moved forward with their research.

Mifepristone was in various stages of research investigation before the scare in 2006.

Fiscella, at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is investigating the drug’s potential to treat fibroids. His research shows taking mifepristone can lead to a 40 percent reduction in the size of fibroids, noncancerous uterine growths that can impair fertility and cause pelvic pain and anemia.

“In small doses, mifepristone blocks the reproductive hormone progesterone, which is why it may help with progesterone-affected conditions such as fibroids, endometriosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancers,” says Fiscella. “In larger doses, mifepristone blocks glucocorticoid hormones released during stress, which is why it may help treat conditions affected by these hormones, such as depression and Cushing’s syndrome.”

Studies Showed Promise

Mifepristone studies underway before the 2006 congressional hearings include ones related to breast cancer (the University of California); depression (Stanford University); ovarian cancer (the University of South Dakota); and endometriosis, or the growth of uterine tissue outside the uterus (the Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine). All these studies showed positive outcomes before 2006.

Although rarely prescribed this way, mifepristone can work as an emergency contraceptive if taken within five days of unprotected sex, though it is a different drug from Plan B, also called the “morning-after” pill.

“Mifepristone can serve as emergency contraception as safely and effectively as it terminates early pregnancy,” says Beverly Winikoff, president of the New York-based Gynuity Health Projects.

Other studies have found possible applications of the drug for Alzheimer’s disease, glaucoma, ulcers, meningiomas (tumors that arise from the membranes lining the brain and spinal cord) and Cushing’s syndrome (a condition in which prolonged exposure to stress hormones causes stretch marks, high blood pressure and other health problems).

If patients want to try mifepristone for other applications besides its FDA-approved use to induce abortion, doctors may prescribe it “off label,” a common practice in which physicians can write prescriptions for a drug approved for one purpose for that drug’s use in a second purpose.

Off-label use is considered safe if it is supported by research. In fact, many drugs prescribed to women for pregnancy-related conditions are prescribed off-label. Drugs developed specifically to treat pregnant women are rarely developed by pharmaceutical companies and no new classes of drugs for pregnancy-related treatments have been developed in the past two decades, according to a study published in January.

However, health advocates say mifepristone’s widespread use for emergency contraception and for the treatment of endometriosis, fibroids, cancer and other illnesses will only come with more study and with official FDA approval for these uses. Off-label prescriptions are not encouraged until research on a drug is definitive.

“The Bush administration has been staunchly opposed to reproductive choice in general and to the use of mifepristone in particular,” Allina says. “But having a new administration after the 2008 election could result in less stigma, more federal and private funding and eventual FDA approval for more uses.”

By Molly M. Ginty - WeNews correspondent
Molly is a freelance writer based in New York City.

Reprinted with Permission:

Copyright 2008 Women’s eNews. The information contained in this Women’s eNews report may–with the prior written authorization of Women’s eNews–be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed. To obtain permission, go to http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/showConfigurator?WT.mc_id=PubLink and provide the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site, newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach. Answers to your most frequently asked questions about permissions to reprint or repost Women’s eNews content are available here: http://www.womensenews.org/reprint_faq.cfm

Printer-friendly PDF (310 KB)

On this page:

• Why FDA is Taking Action
• Labeling Background
• Look of the New Labeling
• What’s Next?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken action to give women and their health care professionals better information about the effects of medicines when used by a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding.

The action is a proposed rule, published May 29, 2008, that would require major changes to the sections of prescription drug labeling (the prescribing information) concerning pregnancy and lactation (secretion of breast milk).

back to top

Why FDA is Taking Action

FDA wants women and their health care professionals to have the most useful and up-to-date information about the benefits and risks of medications when used during pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

“With this proposal, FDA’s goal is to help women, their physicians, and their pharmacists have better information about the effects of prescription medicines so that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and breastfeeding infants will benefit,” says Rear Adm. Sandra Kweder, M.D., Deputy Director of FDA’s Office of New Drugs.

Women and health care professionals need to be armed with available information on the effects of drugs when used in pregnancy because

• women take an average of three to five drugs during pregnancy
• many pregnant women have medical conditions, such as asthma, high blood pressure, depression, or diabetes, that require them to continue taking drugs they were on before pregnancy
• new medical problems may begin or old ones may get worse during pregnancy, requiring drug treatment
• a woman’s body changes throughout the term of her pregnancy, which can affect the dose she needs of a particular drug
• a woman will often need and take medications while she is breastfeeding, potentially exposing her child to the effects of these medications
• about half of the six million pregnancies in the United States each year are unplanned, exposing women to drugs before they know they are pregnant; improved labeling will help with assessing the risks of unintended drug exposure to the developing baby.

back to top

Labeling Background

The current standard for information on pregnancy and lactation in drug labeling dates back to 1979. It categorizes the risks of taking a drug during pregnancy under a five-letter system. Over the decades, medical experts have criticized the category system as confusing, overly simplistic, and not reflective of newer studies and medical knowledge.

Over the last 10 years, FDA has responded to this criticism by

• holding public meetings
• conducting focus groups
• assembling advisory committees
• inviting comments from health care professionals, scientific experts, consumer advocates, and others

Through these activities, FDA concluded that drug labeling needed major changes to improve the quality of information about a drug’s effect on pregnancy and lactation.

back to top

Look of the New Labeling

Under the proposed rule, the current drug labeling format and category system would be replaced with a new format that gives more detailed information in the pregnancy and lactation sections. The new labeling will provide better information about a drug’s risks to the expectant mother, the developing baby, and the breastfed infant. The labeling will also discuss the data about these risks, including information from pregnancy exposure registries.

Pregnancy exposure registries collect and maintain data on the effects of drugs and vaccines that are used by pregnant women. These registries do not require women to take an experimental drug or a drug they would not ordinarily take. Instead, the registries collect information on the effects of already approved drugs prescribed to pregnant women by their doctors. FDA encourages drug companies to maintain pregnancy exposure registries.

If you are pregnant and want to know more about participating in a pregnancy exposure registry, visit www.fda.gov/womens/registries/default.htm.

back to top

What’s Next?

After a 90-day comment period, FDA will consider all comments and prepare a final rule.

For More Information

Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling
www.fda.gov/cder/regulatory/pregnancy_labeling/default.htm

Pregnancy Information from
FDA’s Office of Women’s Health
www.fda.gov/womens/healthinformation/pregnancy.html

back to top

Date Posted: May 28, 2008