Friday, June 23, 2017

Why Be Responsible?

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times.  In fact I probably have said it one hundred times, because out of about 630 little essays here, this is the 107th that refers to the subject of responsibility; specifically, when you don’t exercise responsibility, you give up some of your freedom because someone is always eager to step in and take over the job for you.

In many cases the helper, the one seeing to it that your careless actions don’t hurt you or someone else, is the government.  In those case the irresponsible actions of a few result either in an additional cost to everyone, an additional restriction on everyone’s actions or both.  In the latest case it is probably just a minor cost, but the example is revealing.

It seems a few people buckle their children into the child safety seat in the back seat of the car on a hot day, drive to their destination and walk away, forgetting the child is locked in a potentially dangerous car.  According to Reuters this has resulted in 800 accidental deaths since 1990.  Now that’s a long period of time, but small steps may save the lives of about 40 children a year.  (It has happened 9 times already this year and the summer temperatures are just beginning in many parts of the country.)

In response, three lawmakers in Washington have proposed a new regulation requiring that automakers install “devices to remind drivers to check their back seats for passengers before getting out.”  Safety experts agree and General Motors will already include this feature in a few high-end 2018 models.  This should not be much of a challenge or a cost.  It requires a bell or a light on the dashboard as a check-the-back-seat reminder when the car is turned off.  It should be easy as there are so many lights and bells in cars today warning of open doors, unfastened seatbelts, front airbags, etc.

One concern would be whether such a system would be easy to grow accustomed to and ignore, although some might find it helpful to remind them of a briefcase riding in the back seat.  Also, unless all the cars were recalled, it would take about 20 years to be universally installed and in that time we could lose hundreds more children.

Of course, true to the new American mythology of an excuse for everything, we are assured that it’s not really our fault.  We are too stressed out.  From Consumers Union:  “Dr. David Diamond, the director of the Neuroscience Collaborative Program and Center for Preclinical and Clinical Research on PTSD at the University of South Florida, noted that competing brain functions can cause a parent to lose awareness that their child is in the car.”  He blames the negligent acts on “flaws in the brain.”

The cost is unknown.  Congress rarely thinks about these small costs when imposing more regulations.  But if this simple fix costs less than five dollars per car, then based on annual sales of about 10 million vehicles with back seats (16 million minus some pickups and sports cars), the total cost would be under $50 million, less than or about $1.25 million for each child saved.  This would be reasonable, based on the assumption that no one ever knowingly leaves a kid in the carseat to run a quick errand. 

But that’s $50 million per year not available to spend on other things – there’s always a trade off.  What would we rather spend that money on if a few people didn’t have this "brain flaw" that interfered with their behavior as responsible parents?

The final concern is that when this is successful in saving a few lives, Washington will continue to feel duty bound to take on more of our irresponsible behavior with costs and restrictions, like this suggestion by a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine.  She believes sugary drinks should be regulated similarly to alcohol.  “We regulate alcohol… We do not sell alcohol to children. We tax it and you can’t drink while you are working.”

Some fail in the dimension of responsibility and we all lose.  Little by little we pay more and we give up our freedom.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Just Another Oil Crisis

This has nothing to do with OPEC and strife in the Mideast.  It’s another press release about oils in our diet.

It started with a headline on the BBC declaring:  “Coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef dripping and butter, say US heart experts.”  As usual, we have to be very wary of headlines, especially ones like this one designed to scare.  It turns out that the information is from the American Heart Association (AHA).  They are concerned that coconut oil is considered by some to be a health food containing fat that “may be better for us than other saturated fats.”  The AHA says there are no good studies backing up this claim.  According to them, all saturated fat is bad.

But all the differing opinions about good fat and bad fat can be very confusing.  Generally animal fat is considered unhealthier than vegetable fat, but not everyone agrees with that distinction either.  I wrote about this just five months ago when the story came out that Nutella contains palm oil which has recently been placed on the bad list.  In that piece I reviewed a number of different sources showing how they ranked the oils in different orders of healthiness.

Another article (coincidentally also) from the BBC but a year earlier, “Diet debate: Is butter back and is sat fat good?” gives a balanced explanation.  At one time the experts felt that all cholesterol is bad, but now everyone knows about HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol).  The oil and fat debate is equally subtle, making the comparison to butter in that latest headline questionable.  Furthermore, any research is difficult because it depends on many people accurately reporting what they eat over long periods of time.

Back in the 1950s some researchers found evidence that fat was the culprit.  To understand the history in detail an interesting source is the book The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz.  It tells of some of the problems with study methods – in one case looking at Italians during Lent to assess their usual eating habits – and of the politics involved – when the US Government commits to a particular diet recommendation, studies with contrary findings are often ignored and scientists risk loss of funding.  Those who thought sugar, not fat, was the problem were marginalized.  As a NY Times Magazine piece from 2002 put it:  While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.”

That Times article also gives a great summary of the history and politics.  At one point they explain it this way:  A huge government study “concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith.”  With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, they assumed that “if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.”  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion.

With all this conflicting evidence, what’s an eater to do?  The best answer has to do with moderation: in fat, in sugar, and in portion size.  Contradictory news will continue to pour in.  For example, eggs that we were told just a few years ago were "worse than smoking cigarettes" (for the cholesterol) are back on the good-guy list.  Popular Science reported just two weeks ago “An egg a day could help babies grow bigger and taller.”

So the answer is not to take all the headlines too seriously and to practice moderation.  You heard it here first! – Except this is really just common sense.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Trying to Stay Non-political

As I’ve said before, I try to keep away from any political subjects, first because there are many other writers who love to make political comments, but more important because Washington is unable to fix problems we have brought on through our own behavior.  The only difficulty with this stance is that almost everything that happens lately is reframed as a political dispute making it very difficult to find behavioral examples of a non-political nature.  (A clear demonstration of a national perspective failing is that Senate hearings take center stage while what used to be considered real news is treated as an afterthought.)

Perspective is about values, what is important and what is trivial, setting appropriate priorities, separating wants from needs and gratitude for our blessings.  Two stories this week, when taken from a nonpolitical angle, reinforced this need for perspective:  the President’s son’s shirt and the Boston Globe’s comments on air conditioning.

As Barron Trump exited the helicopter with his parents upon arrival on the White House lawn, he was wearing a t-shirt with the words “The Expert” on the front.  Within a matter of hours people going to J. Crew’s website found a message saying that the shirt was sold out and offering other suggestions.  Some observers point out that the shirt was already sold out before everyone saw young Trump wearing one, but others attribute some of its popularity to his appearance on camera.

It could have been the news spot or the President’s son could have just jumped on the same bandwagon as many others.  In either case a $30 t-shirt most people didn’t even know existed suddenly became a must-have item.

In the second instance the Boston Globe published an editorial suggesting that readers should reduce or eliminate the use of air conditioning for the summer.  They pointed out that since “the first window unit was brought to market in 1939, air conditioners have become ubiquitous in the United States. Today, almost 90 percent of American households have one – as do the vast majority of restaurants, stores, museums, and office buildings.”  They go on to warn about the high amount of energy usage with a global-warming impact equivalent to each family driving 10,000 extra miles per year. 

Conservative sites were quick to point to it as another example of climate-change hysteria and to question whether the Globe would be turning off the air conditioning in their own building.

Setting aside the politics, the Globe has a point that air conditioning is one more thing we take for granted.  It wasn’t that long ago, certainly within my memory, that families would look for an excuse to go to the movies in the summer just to enjoy a couple of hours of air conditioned comfort before returning home to the sweltering heat.  People in cities would sleep on the fire escapes and those in the suburbs might spend the night in the basement.  Today we look at an outside temperature of 92 and decide we will stay in the house in comfort.  Jokingly referring to a 4-60 air conditioning system in the car (4 windows open at 60 mph) would be lost on today’s car buyers.

We can live without it, but would prefer not to, and are probably more productive at work and at home with it.  From a perspective point of view, A/C has crept from nice to necessary in only a couple of generations.  Many can’t imagine living without it, but many others in the world have no choice.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Yet Another Chocolate Study

Isn’t it great to find out that something you love is also good for you!  That’s probably why so many scientists study the health effects of chocolate.  It guarantees publicity.  Look at a few of the many studies that made the news.

I found this information on WebMD.  It cites a study from University of Cologne, Germany published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2003.  They found that dark chocolate lowers high blood pressure.

In the same month Italy's National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research in Rome in another study praised dark chocolate as being “a potent antioxidant” with potential benefits against heart disease and other ailments associated with free radicals in the body.  Both recommended eating chocolate only in moderation.

In 2012 the headline on the Women’s Health Magazine website read:  “Chocolate isn't junk food anymore! Here, the health perks of your new favorite superfood.”  They went to describe healthy chocolate, that is dark with 70% cacao, as a “disease-killing bullet...packed with healthy chemicals like flavonoids and theobromine.” 

Here are the benefits they listed and the source:
  • Heart healthy – a 9-year Swedish study
  • Weight loss – the University of Copenhagen
  • Happier Babies (if enjoyed during pregnancy) – a Finnish study
  • Diabetes Prevention – University of L'Aquila in Italy
  • Reduced Stress – from Swiss scientists
  • Sun Protection – from London researchers
  • Higher Intelligence – from the University of Nottingham
  • Cough Relief – National Heart and Lung Institute
  • Diarrhea Relief – the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute
A couple of years ago the Washington Post told usa surprising number of studies have found that dark chocolate can reduce the risk of death from a heart attack, decrease blood pressure and help those with chronic fatigue syndrome.”  Unlike the previous studies, this one found no difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate and their idea of moderation was more precisely defined.  From 15 to 100 grams were effective with the more the better.  Note that 100 grams is about 500 calories, a significant portion of the recommended total daily calorie consumption.

Then there was the fraudulent study purporting to link eating chocolate to weight loss.  The science journalist confessed later that he purposely offered this study for publications to show how lax some of the standards were and that it got far more attention than he ever expected.  (Oops, that’s the second benefit listed by the Women’s Health Magazine.)

The latest one is from Denmark last month  (Interesting how all these chocolate studies seem to happen in Europe.)  This one found that people who “regularly eat chocolate reduce their risk of heart rhythm disorders.”  Knowing that previous studies showed the benefits of dark chocolate, they followed more than 55,000 people between the ages of 50 and 64 for 13.5 years looking for beneficial effects on atrial fibrillation.

“The researchers cautioned that the results are not definitive. The chocolate eaters in the study were naturally healthier and were highly educated, which are factors associated with good health. The study also failed to take account of other risk factors for atrial fibrillation, like kidney disease or sleep apnea.”  Not much there, but since it had to do with chocolate, it made the news.

I saw the last story on one of those health-news fillers on local TV and was unfamiliar with the website where I found it, so I looked at some of the links to other stories to see how much I should trust it.  That was an eye-opener.  They included:  How to dissolve 50 years of artery plaque; the natural remedy of the century; one trick to burn two pounds as you sleep; and the blood pressure secret revealed in the Bible.  It’s obviously not a place for critical thinkers to hang out.

In summary, the health benefits of chocolate seems to be a good subject for those who are more interested in believing things than in real science.  Personally, I intend to continue to enjoy chocolate – in moderation – and fortunately, I’m a big fan of dark chocolate.  But I’m not doing it for the magical health benefits –  that what the red wine is for!

Friday, June 9, 2017

One More Time: Dietary Supplements (3)

In previous entries, most recently last October, I warned about the use of dietary supplements.  Manufacturers and retailers continue to get bolder in their advertising trying to maintain and grow the size of their market.  This is big business in America with these companies cashing in on misleading claims about the benefits of their products.  Products classified as dietary supplements include vitamins, minerals, herbs, probiotics and fish oil.

Near the end of last year, the New York Times put it bluntly:  “Americans spend more than $30 billion a year on dietary supplements – vitamins, minerals and herbal products, among others – many of which are unnecessary or of doubtful benefit to those taking them. That comes to about $100 a year for every man, woman and child for substances that are often of questionable value.”  These are often the same people who see themselves as being so careful in other cases about what they put into their bodies.

A boom in sales came after the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, pushed through by lawmakers with close ties to the supplement lobby.  The number of products grew from 4,000 to 55,000+ over the next 20 years.  The law allowed the industry to sell their products without submitting any evidence to the Food and Drug Administration as to their safety or effectiveness.  Marketers are legally allowed to promote products as supporting the health of various parts of the body but are banned from any claims that they prevent, treat or cure any condition.  Clever advertising often skirts this provision and sometimes violates it completely.

But the problem is not just that they may be ineffective, that is, a waste of money.  Last fall the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a summary of studies done on supplements.  “During the past 2 decades, a steady stream of high-quality studies evaluating dietary supplements has yielded predominantly disappointing results about potential health benefits, whereas evidence of harm has continued to accumulate.”  They cite various examples of the increased problems including more than 10,000 calls per year to national poison centers since 2002 “related to ephedra poisonings.”

Surprisingly, as more research shows that particular substances are no more effective than the sugar pill, the sales do not generally decrease.  Consumers seem to think that if they don’t work for the target ailment, they at least promote general good health.  A list of supplements that have failed to live up to the advertisers' promises includes vitamin C, vitamin E and glucosamine/chondroitin.

What about consumer protection?  The government is very involved in this – considering the fact that they cannot act until actual harmful effects are reported or the vendors cross the line by promising more than supporting good health.  According to this release from the Truth in Advertising website, the supplement store GNC, “which has more than 9,000 store locations worldwide, has been the subject of numerous federal and state actions and has been named in more than 100 consumer lawsuits.”

Since 1984 the Department of Justice has cited problems in advertising 3 times.  Two resulted in fines or settlements and the latest in an agreement to take aggressive steps to prevent illegal products and ingredients from being sold in its stores.  The Federal Trade commission has taken seven actions against GNC or its suppliers, including “Sensa for its deceptive ‘sprinkle, eat and lose weight’ claims.”  On top of that there have been three USPS probes, six investigations by individual states and ten problems with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  (Details are provided in the Truth in Advertising link.)

There are valid reasons to use supplements such as for known deficiencies.  In the UK for example, some researchers are recommending that vitamin D be added to some food, like it is to milk in the US, to address the problem of a populations with lower exposure to sunlight.  In general, though, it is always better to get nutrients from food rather than popping a pill.  If supplements are needed, patients should use caution and critical thinking and consult with a health care professional to confirm that a problem exists and that the particular supplement will be effective in solving it.  Research continues to show that taking a pill just because it “makes you feel better” is about the same as throwing away your money.