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.

Healthy Happy Meals

McDonald's Trims its Happy Meal

In response to complaints from parents, health groups, and legislation in San Francisco, McDonald's is trying to make its Happy Meals healthier.  San Francisco passed a law that banned restaurants from including toys in meals for children unless certain nutritional requirements are met, such as a serving of fruit and vegetables.  Similar legislation is being considered in New York City, so McDonald's is now reducing the amount of fries in Happy Meals and adding fruit.

"Parents will have the option of requesting more fruit or, possibly at a later date, vegetables instead of fries. McDonald’s will also offer a fat-free chocolate milk option, along with the option of low-fat milk or the traditional soda. The price is not expected to change.

Today’s Happy Meal with chicken nuggets has 520 calories and 26 grams of fat, and the reconstituted version, with 1 percent milk, will total 410 calories and 19 grams of fat, according to the company" (Strom)

McDonald's has had the option for parents to request apples in lieu of fries for awhile, but research conducted by Yale University showed that only 11% of parents took advantage of this option.  In addition, through research, McDonald's found that when they suggested eliminating fries all together or removing the option of soda for a drink, parents and consumers reacted negatively.

Blaming McDonald's for children's poor eating habits is a little ridiculous, in my opinion. I think that parents need to take more responsibility for what they are feeding their kids.  As McDonald's spokesperson, Dayna Proud, stated: “...ultimately, it’s a parent decision to make about their child’s well-being” (Strom).  

Updated Food Pyramid

Nutrition Plate Unveiled, Replacing Food Pyramid

I had high hopes for this new "Nutrition Plate," but honestly, it looks like a middle schooler created this in Microsoft paint. It conveys no helpful information, other than emphasizing an increased intake of fruits and vegetables.  I completely support Michelle Obama's campaign against obesity and the overall goal of improving the nutrition of Americans by redesigning the food pyramid, but I think they could have done a much better job. As Dr. Nestle pointed out, "labeling a large section of the plate 'protein' was confusing and unnecessary, because grains and dairy products also are important sources of protein and most Americans get far more protein than they need."
It's at least a step in the right direction.

Wal-Mart Rolling Back Trans Fats

Last week, Wal-Mart announced a plan to make healthy foods more easily accessible to consumers by lowering the salts, fats and sugars in the products of its house brand, Great Value, and by lowering the prices of fruits and vegetables.  While this is a smart public relations move for Wal-Mart, the company is a little late to jump on the bandwagon to encourage healthy eating choices and fight childhood obesity, as has been largely promoted by Michelle Obama.

From NYTimes.com

According to an article in the New York Times by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (Wal-Mart Shifts Strategy to Promote Healthy Foods), Wal-Mart has been working closely with Michelle Obama for more than a year to design and initiate this five-year plan.  The plan “…sets specific targets for lowering sodium, trans fats and added sugars in a broad array of foods — including rice, soups, canned beans, salad dressings and snacks like potato chips…” (Stolberg, para. 3).

In addition, Wal-Mart will work with some of its major food suppliers and encourage them to follow its example; one of the examples given was Kraft, which is interesting because Kraft was one of the very first food companies to cut down on trans fats, etc. when the obesity epidemic began years ago.

Regardless, Wal-Mart’s plan for Great Value should make a big impact on the affordability of healthy foods because as Stolberg mentions, Wal-Mart “…sells more groceries than any other company in the country…” (para. 8) and traditionally, healthy foods have a higher sticker price, making it difficult for customers to fit them into their budget.

Wal-Mart plans to create a symbol or seal to place on the packaging of healthy foods (as determined by their sodium, fat, and sugar content) to assist customers in making healthy choices (Stolberg).

However, Michael Jacobson, the executive director of Center for Science in the Public Interest, feels that Wal-Mart could be acting more aggressively; the changes will occur slowly over the next five years and will reduce sodium by 25 percent and sugars by only 10 percent (Stolberg).

With rising healthcare costs and the growing obesity epidemic, healthier, affordable food choices are desperately needed, but is this just a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) stunt for good press? You’d think that a company as powerful as Wal-Mart would be able to get more done faster.

Cigarette Packs Get a Makeover

In June 2009, the House passed a tobacco bill that allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products through their content, their packaging and their advertisements  (Wilson).  One of the changes in the bill was to have color graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking cigarettes that take up 50% of each cigarette package by 2012 (Wilson).   Yesterday, the FDA unveiled some of the possible warning labels, as shown below (Harris).

Photo taken from The New York Times, Harris

Currently, there are 36 proposed warning labels, some of which are a little graphic, such as a man laying in a coffin and a mother blowing smoke on her baby, but the FDA hired a company to conduct research on which labels would be most effective and want to narrow it down to 9 (Harris).  The company will use survey research to reach 18,000 smokers and find out which labels would most likely encourage a smoker to quit and which labels would most likely discourage teenagers from beginning to smoke (Harris).

The U.S. decision to change cigarette warning labels from the classic “Surgeon General’s Warning” came from 39 other countries that print large graphics of the effects of smoking on their packages, such as in Europe, where they use pictures of “blackened teeth and decaying mouths” (Harris). 

Of these new cigarette labels, secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, said, “Today marks an important milestone in protecting our children and the health of the American public” (Harris).  In 2009, Obama said the tobacco bill will “protect our kids and improve our public health” (Wilson).  These anti-smoking efforts appear to want to improve the health of the “20.6 percent of the nation’s adults, or 46.6 million people, and about 19.5 percent of high school students, or 3.4 million teenagers” (Harris) that smoke cigarettes, which they do, but the real reason for encouraging people to stop smoking lies within half of one sentence in this article: “About 440,000 people die every year from smoking-related health problems, and the cost to treat such problems exceeds $96 billion a year (Harris).”  Yes, we are trying to cut down on healthcare spending. 

I personally think that these labels won’t tell anyone anything they don’t already know about smoking cigarettes, but some researchers feel that the graphics will speak more to teenagers than the fine print does.  I think that these new labels could be effective in shaming people into not buying cigarettes anymore, but that’s not exactly good public relations on behalf of the government.  I think that these labels will only annoy and anger smokers, but if they do prevent teenagers from starting then that will be quite an accomplishment.  So what do you think, will these new extreme warning graphics prevent teenagers from picking up their first pack?