Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?

"THE 'fact' that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, 'when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...' or 'it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.'


This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28."

I LOVE every single word of this article written by Mark Bittman.  PLEASE read on for his full argument: Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?

nytimes.com

In addition, to support my argument I made about healthier happy meals a couple of weeks ago:

"Real cultural changes are needed to turn this around. Somehow, no-nonsense cooking and eating — roasting a chicken, making a grilled cheese sandwich, scrambling an egg, tossing a salad — must become popular again, and valued not just by hipsters in Brooklyn or locavores in Berkeley. The smart campaign is not to get McDonald’s to serve better food but to get people to see cooking as a joy rather than a burden, or at least as part of a normal life."

Another Benefit of IUDs

According to this article from USA Today, Study: IUDs may also prevent cervical cancer by Liz Szabo, women who use an IUD have about half the risk of developing cervical cancer as women who don't.  "The international analysis, published in The Lancet Oncology, combined data from 26 studies with a total of more than 20,000 women" (Szabo, 2011). 

Mirena

Scientists aren't sure as to why the IUD could prevent cervical cancer, and I have a feeling it could be the result of an outside variable.  For example, as the article states, cervical cancer is caused by an HPV infection (humanpapilloma virus), which is a common STD.  However, since the IUD is only effective in preventing pregnancy and not STDs, and IUDs are generally marketed to women who are married or in committed relationships, it would be logical to assume that the majority of women who have the IUD do fall into that category and are not exposed to HPV or other STDs. Therefore, they are less likely to develop cervical cancer.


Just a thought! Read the article and see what you think!

Lucentis & Avastin, pt. 2

USA Today

In November, I published a post about the drugs created by Genentech, Lucentis and Avastin.  Lucentis is most commonly used to treat macular degeneration and costs about $2,000 an injection.  Avastin is only approved by the FDA to treat cancer, but studies have shown that it is as effective as Lucentis when used to treat macular degeneration, so it is commonly prescribed off-label because it only costs about $50 per injection.  This cost difference ended up saving the government and patients more than hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

My previous post discusses the ethics of using drugs off-label in return for kick backs from pharmaceutical companies, but the point of this post is to illustrate why I am always wary of the use of drugs off-label.  This story by Andrew Pollack in the New York Times reinforces my original thought.

According to Pollack, about 21 patients located in Miami, Nashville and Los Angeles that have been treated with Avastin for macular degeneration and other eye diseases have experienced serious side effects including: eye infections, loss of vision and brain damage.

The infections are thought to be caused by bacterial contamination of the drug, which can happen easily because "to use Avastin for eye disease, a vial meant for a cancer patient must be divided into numerous tiny doses and each dose placed in a syringe for injection into the eye. The extra handling increases the risk of bacterial contamination and other problems" (Pollack, 2011b).

Because these problems occurred when the drug was being used off-label, Genentech is not accepting responsibility for the infections:

"Genentech said it would not comment on the litigation, but said that it had always cautioned against use of Avastin in the eye.  'Avastin is not manufactured or approved and to date has not been proven safe for use in the eye,' a spokesman for the company said Tuesday" (Pollack, 2011a).

Even though drugs that are approved by the FDA are sometimes recalled or are found to cause harmful side effects after approval due to a longer "testing period" on actual consumers/patients, I think that this example proves that doctors and pharmaceutical companies need to be more careful when promoting the use of drugs off-label.  One thing important to point out, however, is that "the 12 cases of lost vision in Miami had been traced to a single compounding pharmacy" (Pollack, 2011b) and Avastin has been prescribed over the past 6 years with few problems.