If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

Scottish lawmakers announced last week that the government will introduce a “soft opt-out” system for organ donation. The system, which has raised medical ethics questions in other countries, presumes consent unless an individual has opted-out of donations before their death.

“We have made a transforming decision in Scottish politics,” said Anne McTaggart, a lawmaker in the previous Parliament who initially presented the “opt-out” bill.

This system is an attempt to increase the number of life-saving organ donations. The nation has recently invested heavily in donation campaigns, consultations, and petitions. Last year alone, a record-breaking number of people who were waiting for a transplant received an organ they needed, according to NHS Blood and Transplant.

The new law is trying to build on this growth. Previously, adults willing to donate had to “opt-in” and then hold on to a donor card. Now, all adults will be placed on the donor list unless they have officially stated their wish to not donate. However, family members will get the last say. If they don’t want to go ahead with their loved one’s donation, their wishes will be respected.

Public Health Minister Aileen Campbell said “we should not forget that organ donation is a gift, which can only occur as a result of tragic circumstances.”

Though many countries, such as Germany or the United States, still prefer an explicit consent system, Scotland isn’t alone in passing a presumed consent law. In fact, “opt-out” policies are gaining ground in Europe and South America as the need for transplants increases.

France implemented the system in January. Spain has had a comparable policy in place for 25 years and has become the world leader for organ donations with about 43.4 organ donors per million inhabitants. This compares to the United States’ 28.2 donors per million inhabitants in 2015.

In the United Kingdom, Wales also debuted a soft “opt-out” policy in 2013, which inspired Ireland and some U.S. states to consider making the jump.

Last Friday, Theresa May announced that the government will also closely monitor how transplant numbers evolve in Wales and Scotland to assess whether the rest of the Kingdom should adopt this law.

“Organ donation hit a record high last year here and we obviously want that to continue and continue to rise,” a Downing Street spokesperson said.

Mixed reactions to the law

Although the bill was passed after 82 percent of a public consultation agreed to the “opt-out” system, some are resistant or see flaws in the policy.

“The State does not have a right to anyone’s organs. Even a so called soft opt-out system ruins the nature of organ donation as an altruistic gift,” said Dr Gordon Macdonald from CARE Scotland, a Christian action group.

Dr Calum MacKellar, of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (SCHB) believes the system creates a “very significant risk for serious mistakes,” with no guarantee that a deceased’s wishes are followed and a risk for public confidence to be undermined, thereby impacting overall donation levels.

Yet, many Scots are optimistic that this system will bring about much needed help to some of the roughly 500 people waiting for an organ.

“We believe that genuine choice over organ donation can be facilitated through a soft opt-out system,” said Peter Bennie, chair of British Medical Association for Scotland. “If properly implemented, with adequate resources and staff, and backed up by a high-profile campaign, an opt-out system could save or transform people’s lives.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scotland to Presume Consent for Organ Donation with “Soft Opt-Out” Law appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next?

Image courtesy of Daniel Lobo; License: (CC BY 2.0)

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Read the full issue brief here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Issue Briefs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Students attending a suburban Chicago high school were hospitalized on Tuesday after eating gummy bears that authorities suspect to have been tainted.

The Naperville High School students hospitalized suffered varying degrees of illness, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and dry mouth. The school encouraged parents to have an open dialogue with their children about healthy choices in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday night.

Today at Naperville North High School, 14 students were transported to Edward Hospital for medical treatment. We can confirm 12 are being treated as a result of consuming gummy bears that may contain another substance.

This candy made those students both uncomfortable and sick, so they were taken to the nurse’s office for care. For safety precautions, the students were transported to Edward Hospital to receive medical attention. Each student had varying degrees of discomfort and subsequent treatment.

Currently, 2 students are in stable condition and are undergoing evaluation, while 11 have been treated and released. They have been experiencing symptoms that include fast heart rate, dizziness and dry mouth.

We encourage all parents to have conversations with their children about making healthy choices. Our community is fortunate to have a number of resources available through school and other community partners to support the wellbeing of students.

We continue to review the specifics of the situation and will address it appropriately. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your school’s principal.

Students told police that they thought the gummy bears were “laced with something with marijuana, like a liquid-based marijuana substance,” said Naperville Police commander Jason Arres. Authorities determined that the gummy bears were ingested voluntarily, but investigations are underway to determine how the gummy bears were distributed.

According to local news station WLS, a 17-year-old male student was taken into custody, but released without being charged.

“There are a lot of avenues that we can take with juvenile discipline,” Arres said. “Again they’re young, so we want to work through these issues in partnership and collaboration with the school district to make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

One Facebook user commented on the Naperville Police Department’s post and suggested the students might have fallen victim to the notorious Haribo sugar-free gummy bears, which online reviewers have complained made them feel ill.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Naperville incident appears to be the latest in a string of cases where students have sought medical attention after consuming drug-laced candy. Similar reports have appeared in a variety of states–from Pennsylvania to Florida. It seems that students are slowly realizing a “harmless treat” isn’t always as it seems.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Students Hospitalized After Consuming ‘Laced’ Gummy Bears appeared first on Law Street.

What can cause miscarriages, early delivery, diseases that account for 10 percent of deaths in children under five, and harm children’s brain development?

The answer: air pollution.

And it’s getting worse. According to a new report by UNICEF, 300 million children live in areas where the air they breathe is “extremely toxic.” And this causes almost 600,000 children to die from different diseases that are either caused or aggravated by the polluted air. On top of that, millions of kids suffer from respiratory illnesses that not only affect their breathing and physical conditions but also their mental health.

Through use of satellite images, UNICEF found how the air these 300 million children breathe exceeds international guidelines for acceptable outdoor air pollution by at least six times. Another two billion children live in areas where the levels exceed the guidelines by a lesser amount.

With 300million #children breathing toxic air; ‘No society can afford to ignore #airpollution‘ – @UNICEF chief. https://t.co/Zrx5isWid1

— UN News Centre (@UN_News_Centre) October 31, 2016

Indoor pollution is worse in rural areas, where the burning of solid fuels like coal, or the use of wood for cooking and heating is common. Mold, bacteria, cleaning chemicals, and hazardous building materials are also problematic in these areas, while outdoor pollution is more common in urban areas due to exhaust fumes, the use of fossil fuels, and big industries. Needless to say, both kinds of pollution are worse in developing countries and poor communities, where the means or knowledge to use environmentally friendly options are limited.

Children are generally more susceptible to air pollution since their lungs are still developing. They breathe faster than grown ups, and take in more air relative to body weight. Since they are developing and growing, their brains and overall immune systems are also more vulnerable. The worst conditions are in South Asia, with 620 million children exposed to toxic air, closely followed by Africa with 520 million.

UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake said in a statement:

Air pollution is a major contributing factor in the deaths of around 600,000 children under five every year – and it threatens the lives and futures of millions more every day. Pollutants don’t only harm children’s developing lungs – they can actually cross the blood-brain barrier and permanently damage their developing brains – and, thus, their futures. No society can afford to ignore air pollution.

UNICEF is now urging all countries and world leaders to make an effort to meet the World Health Organization’s guidelines for air quality by investing in renewable energy sources and cutting back on harmful fossil fuel. It is also important to make sure kids have access to healthcare and that they are not exposed to other sources of pollution such as factories. To enhance air is to protect children. And both are equally important to our future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UNICEF: 300 Million Children Live In Areas With “Extremely Toxic” Air appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization, one of the world’s leading voices on health policy, is making an interesting change. WHO is set to announce that “single” people who don’t have a child but want one are to be classified as “infertile”–which is defined as a disability. And that may sound strange, but it’s actually coming from a place of progressive good. By doing so, WHO is granting everyone the “right to reproduce” and this move will help heterosexual single men and women, as well as same-sex couples, get equal access to in vitro fertilization.

Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, explained the motivation behind the language and policy change to the Telegraph, saying:

The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.

It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to  reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.

It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should  have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard.  Countries are bound by it.

The rule will be sent out to every health minister next year–although it’s unclear at this point how it could actually substantively affect law or policy from country to country.

However, there are plenty of people who disagree with the new standards. One concern stems from pro-life activists, who worry that it’s an overreach. Josephine Quintavalle, from Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said:

This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely sidelining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman. How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?

There are also concerns from some doctors who work with in vitro fertilization that it’s creating a political matter out of a personal decision made by couples.

Concerns aside, it’s an interesting approach in the name of equality. And we don’t know how it will actually pan out, the rule will be sent out to every health minister next year–it’s unclear at this point how it could actually substantively affect law or policy from country to country. As for the U.S., a Department of Health spokesperson told the Telegraph that it would consider the change for the U.S., but nothing was guaranteed.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Health Organization Deems Single People Disabled, For a Good Cause appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As reported previously on Law Street, Oregon and California recently passed legislation to allow women seeking certain hormonal contraceptives to bypass a doctor and a prescription and speak with a pharmacist instead in an effort to make contraception more accessible for women.

Women in Oregon were able to start getting these contraceptives prescription-free in January.

As of Friday, the law in California has now been enacted and women can begin to use this service.

Advocates believe that this will make it easier and less costly for women to obtain contraception. The issue of unintended pregnancy has been at the forefront of many discussions now because of the heavy debate on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. (6.1 million) are unintended. Fifty-four percent of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. resulted from a non-use of any method of contraception.

Obviously, one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancy is using some form of contraception. Unfortunately, for some women it is not just as easy as picking it up from their local pharmacy. In most cases, a woman must see a doctor in order to get the prescription they need–costly and sometimes inconvenient or impossible for some women.

There is one key difference between California’s and Oregon’s laws. There is no age-restriction for women seeking contraception in California but in Oregon you must be 18 or older and have obtained your first prescription from a doctor.

Other positive steps were taken this week when the FDA loosened regulations on the abortion-inducing pill mifepristone, now allowing women to request a medication-induced abortion up to 70 days after conception, rather than the previous 49 days. The second drug is also now allowed to be taken at home rather than in the doctor’s office.

This news comes at a time when many clinics have been forced to shut down around the country due to strict abortion laws in many states. The Supreme Court has been hearing testimony, debating the issue and will decide on the constitutionality of these key legislations. But for now, the FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction to lessening the burden on women in some of these states where legislatures are trying to outlaw legal abortion.

There is good news coming out of other parts of the West, too. In Colorado, a program was started in 2011 that aimed to have long-lasting contraception, like IUDs and implants, accessible and free to teenagers. Through this program, by 2013, the rate of teenage pregnancy had dropped 40 percent. However, due to the initial funding running out, Gov. John Hickenlooper asked the state for funding to continue the program. Republican lawmakers said no, but the program has survived through private grants and donations, which was an unexpected win for health providers in the state. As a lot of abortion providers are forced to shutter in many parts of the state, these small reproductive rights victories are key.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reproductive Rights Breakthroughs in Oregon and California appeared first on Law Street.

Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to try to get in on the legal marijuana market. She has started the “Whoopi & Maya brand,” which will produce marijuana-infused products advertised as solutions for pesky period cramps.

Whoopi Goldberg partners with Maya Elisabeth, And announces launch of @whoopiandmaya. A product line for women. pic.twitter.com/sUC5N8rs8r

— _DCNetwork_ (@_DCNetwork_) March 30, 2016

Goldberg is teaming up with Maya Elisabeth from Om Edibles, an all-female edibles company, hence the company name. They plan on starting with four products, available this April. The products will only be sold in California right now due to complicated legal restrictions in other states. According to the Daily Beast, the product line will include:

A ‘raw sipping chocolate’ infused with CBD or THC, a tincture (liquid extract) for ‘serious discomfort,’ a THC-infused bath soak, and a topical rub for localized pain.

Goldberg has been transparent about her marijuana use, particularly the fact that she uses a vape pen to help her with pain relief and dealing with stress. Goldberg explained her motivation for creating these products, highlighting the difficulties that are inherent in using medical marijuana:

For me, I feel like if you don’t want to get high high, this is a product specifically just to get rid of discomfort. Smoking a joint is fine, but most people can’t smoke a joint and go to work.

This, you can put it in your purse. You can put the rub on your lower stomach and lower back at work, and then when you get home you can get in the tub for a soak or make tea, and it allows you to continue to work throughout the day.

It makes sense that Goldberg wants to tap into the rapidly-growing marijuana market. The results of early legalization in states like Colorado and Washington look very good, the market is growing annually by 31 percent, and some experts estimate that it could become a $20 billion market by 2020.

While others have called their product niche, Goldberg and Elisabeth disagree, given that women do make up a little over half of the United States population. If the marijuana industry grows as quickly as is expected, and these products catch on, Goldberg and Elisabeth could have a total winner on their hands.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whoopi Goldberg is a Ganjapreneur Who Wants to Help Treat Your Period Cramps appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama’s announcement of the 2017 budget has thrown people for a loop with its liberal cuts and additions. People are starting to realize that, in his last few months as president, liberal changes are on their way. Whether these changes will be quickly undone by a Republican president in the next year or furthered by another Democrat is unclear in this mess of a presidential race that we’ve been seeing thus far. But one of these changes that could potentially have a huge impact on our education system, at least from a health standpoint, is a $10 million dollar cut to grants for abstinence-only sex education. What does this mean for our country? We may finally be able to start educating all our teens nationwide about what it means to have safe sex.

What’s the current state of sex ed in America? Well, for starters, it depends on where you look. One of the biggest problems with our current system is the fact that individual states pick and choose their own curriculums, which leads to discrepancies in what kids are learning. Some states even let counties decide their policies, meaning kids in one school district may be learning all about safe sex while kids only a few miles away are learning exclusively about abstinence. If you have twenty minutes to kill, I highly suggest this John Oliver video on sex education and why it’s so important.

Oliver provides an important–albeit, comedic–analysis of what sex-ed looks like in our country today. In some states, teachers aren’t allowed to show condoms to their classrooms. In others, teachers are still showing videos that shame teens for being sexually active or are blatantly sexist in the way they explain consent. Oliver highlights the ridiculousness of states who try to force abstinence on teenagers and also points out just how polarized the differences in sex education can be from state to state.

The idea behind a lot of these abstinence-only curriculums is the concept that introducing kids to sex will increase the amount of teens having sex at a young age. The abstinence programs are thought to keep kids abstinent, but, in reality, they frequently just lead to unsafe sex because kids don’t know anything about protection against pregnancy and STDs. There are staggering statistics to back up the fact that, in states where there are abstinence-only programs, there are higher rates of teen pregnancy. One of the only states to still have an abstinence-only sex-ed policy (that is, if the schools decide to teach about sex at all, since they are not required to) is Mississippi, which, coincidentally, also has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the country. New Hampshire, on the other hand, provides students with comprehensive sex education, which teaches about contraceptives, safe sex, and abstinence. Its teenage pregnancy rates are some of the lowest in the nation.

How are people responding to Obama’s cuts? Some people are thrilled with the cuts. We will be saving millions of dollars a year, and ending up with more educated young people–what’s not to love?

Good news of today: Obama is removing ALL funding for abstinence-only education for his 2017 budget!

— ♡ little elf ♡ (@cherrycutie) February 17, 2016

Please hold my wand while I do the jumpy-clap dance. https://t.co/DLtygyMZ6t Abstinence-only is garbage. Goooodbye.

— Lyndsay Kirkham (@Lyndsay_Kirkham) February 17, 2016

Others are not so happy. To those people, I say: look at the statistics. Not teaching your kids about sex isn’t going to keep them from having it, it’s just going to keep them from being safe when they inevitably do. Some people have ironically tweeted angrily about the policy, to show just how ridiculous some of the anti-comprehensive sex-ed opinions really are.

Obama just eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education so when my son gets pregnant he’ll be hearing from me.

— Alex Halpern (@HalpernAlex) February 17, 2016

Also in Obama’s proposed budget, along the same vein, is money for expanded access to HIV treatment and prevention for Americans as well as increased benefits under Medicare for pregnant women. Obama is really hitting a home run with the expansion of these programs and, hopefully, it will lead to a healthier and more informed American public. But, until these states start changing their policies on educating young adults about sex, I guess we’ll just stick to the golden rule about sex that we learned from “Mean Girls” and our abstinence-only fifth grade teachers.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post President Obama Cuts Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Would you drink this water?

Here’s what Flint, Michigan’s poison lead water looks like. pic.twitter.com/s2g2ml8UL4

— (´・ω・｀) (@_icze4r) January 15, 2016

Many citizens of Flint, Michigan are refusing to–and for good reason. The water supplied by the city of Flint to many residents has been contaminated with poisonous amounts of lead and other toxins for over two years. The safe level for lead content in drinking water, according to the CDC, is absolutely none. That’s why the EPA’s goal for public drinking water is zero parts per billion (ppb), and why 15 ppb is listed as their action level (the concentration at which water authorities are federally required to lower contamination).

So with these regulations from the Safe Drinking Water Act, why are some families reporting 25, 100, and even 200 ppb of lead detected in the tap water from their homes? The answer is shrouded in the intricacies of municipal water supply agreements and water main construction, which are enough to make anyone’s eyes glaze over. So let’s break down just how this ‘man-made disaster‘ began: with a corner-cutting move designed to save money.

It Began With a Plan

Flint, Michigan had been getting its tap water from Detroit for over 50 years. But in 2013, the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) began constructing a new pipeline to connect water from Lake Huron to Genessee County, which contains the Flint metropolitan area. This new project would provide water to Genessee and neighboring counties no longer rely on water piped in from Detroit.

A project like this is great news for towns like Flint, which could reduce their public water costs by procuring it locally while also creating jobs to construct and maintain the new system. So construction began on the KWA, and at this point in the story, no public officials or agencies have done anything wrong. That changes.

A Temporary Switch

You see, when this happened, Flint planned to switch to the new KWA pipelines when they finished construction in three years. But in the meantime, they still needed water, and rather than continuing to buy the Detroit water–a pre-treated and sanitary supply from Lake Huron–they switched sources to the Flint River. This switch was estimated to save about $5 million over less than two years.

The trouble was that the water sourced from the Flint River was 19 times more corrosive than the Lake Huron supply. Even after being treated and deemed acceptable, the water eroded the city’s pipes and water lines and accumulated iron, lead, and other metals from the material of the pipes.

By the time the water arrives at neighborhoods, businesses, and schools, the once-drinkable water is tinged brown from the iron, and carrying harmful levels of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous of which is lead.

Flint, Michigan, is suffering a major water crisis. Here’s how you can help. https://t.co/Z01vWiG8JLpic.twitter.com/ecJyIhEtkF

— CNN (@CNN) January 14, 2016

Permanent Health Effects

The presence of lead in drinking water is known to cause kidney problems and related issues in adults, but infants and children are subjected to the worst effects. Lead interferes with development such that children exposed to lead exhibit delays in mental and physical development are often severely impaired by the contaminant’s effects. In September 2015, according to a study performed by the Hurley Medical Center, the proportion of infants and children with above-average levels of lead in their blood nearly doubled since Flint switched its water source.

Given the extent of the problem, residents in Flint have very few options to stay safe. Many homeowners took to boiling large batches of water before bathing their children or giving them water to drink. While that process can help remove some impurities, it actually makes the issue of lead contamination worse. The city issued a ‘Boil Advisory‘ detailing how boiling water just increases the concentration of lead in the tap water.

The only choice left for thousands of residents is to purchase bottled water. The FDA regulates that a bottle of water can have no more than 5 ppb of lead, so bottled water is a safer option for concerned homeowners. For many, this cost is in addition to their water bill, which still may need to use for bathing, and washing dishes. Considering that Flint is often recognized for its poverty (in addition to being among the most dangerous cities in the United States), this burden is especially debilitating.

A Failed Response

After denying that the water in Flint presented a danger to its citizens for nearly two years while residents continuously complained about their water quality, Flint officials finally recognized the contamination problem. When trying to contain a public health epidemic such as this one, it’s important to know the scale of the problem. That seems like a pretty simple task– figure out which homes receive water from pipes made of lead, as those pipes are now corroded and cannot safely transmit water– but as with all things bureaucratic, it wasn’t nearly that simple.

The city government’s data on which houses are serviced by lead water lines was written down on 45,000 index cards stored in a filing cabinet in the city’s public utility building. In October of 2015, transferring this information into a digital spreadsheet was, according to Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft, “on our to-do list,” but only a quarter of the cards had been processed at that time.

Remember that $5 million number? That was the amount Flint expected to save with their water-source switch. The ultimate cost of that “money-saving” maneuver has been estimated at over $1.5 billion dollars by some, as officials evaluate the cost of completely renovating the Flint waterlines with lead-free pipes. That figure also doesn’t take into account any compensation for families and children affected by the contaminated water. The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder has now officially appealed to President Obama for a declaration of disaster and federal aid.

Whether Snyder and the state of Michigan receive the declaration and money they are hoping for, the damage to the people of Flint has already been done. Even as the water source is relocated, the lead pipes servicing Flint will still be compromised. A careless decision by local officials snowballed into a public health crisis of unprecedented scale in the area, and the youngest residents of Flint will pay the highest price.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Call for Help in Flint’s Toxic Water Emergency appeared first on Law Street.

If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.”

Three plaintiffs from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin are claiming that both Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge models, which come equipped with trademarked PurePulse technology, fail to accurately record wearer’s hear rates during workouts. In some cases the plaintiffs claimed the trackers displayed their heart rates as nearly half of their actual heart rates. By reporting drastically lower heart rates, the fitness accessory could pose a potential danger to users’ health.

The plaintiffs allege that contacting Fitbit about the defect didn’t deter the company from continuing to advertise the product, writing,

This failure did not keep Fitbit from heavily promoting the heart rate monitoring feature of the PurePulse Trackers and from profiting handsomely from it. In so doing, Fitbit defrauded the public and cheated its customers, including Plaintiffs.

In many ways Fitbit’s PurePulse technology, which promises to help “make every beat count,” has acted as a major selling point for consumers on the fence about shelling out extra bucks on upgraded models.

If these plaintiffs are right about the feature being potentially defective, it could have a seriously negative impact on the brand–which couldn’t have come at a worse time since the company just unveiled its newest smart fitness watch: Fitbit Blaze. A massive selloff and 20 percent drop in stock prices have shown that investors are taking the allegations seriously.

On the other hand, the preemptive selloffs may prove to be entirely unnecessary. With only three plaintiffs leading the charge on the class action lawsuit, these false advertising and fraud allegations are hardly indicative of a large scale problem with the company’s merchandise. But who knows, this could end up being the catalyst for more people disappointed with their heart rate trackers to come out of the woodwork.

Update 1/11/16:

A Fitbit spokesperson released a statement to Fortune saying that the company does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. The full statement can be read here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate” appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a big fan of powdered caffeine? If so, you might want to watch out. There are some serious health concerns that accompany getting your fix that way. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just sent warnings to five producers of powdered caffeine.

The five companies that the FDA sent warning letters to were SPN, LLC (Smartpowders), Purebulk, Inc., Kreativ Health Inc. (Natural Food Supplements), Hard Eight Nutrition, LLC and Bridge City Bulk. They all produce powdered versions of caffeine that seriously concentrate the drug–one teaspoon of powdered caffeine is equal to roughly 28 cups of coffee. According to the FDA, two teaspoons would kill most adults. What’s most worrisome about powdered caffeine is that it’s very difficult to tell the difference between a “safe” and “unsafe” amount. Given the potency of the product, the line between the two is very narrow.

However, consumers are attracted to the product because it gives an energy boost without the calories or additives inherent in other caffeinated products such as coffee, tea, or soda. It’s often sold in just a plastic bag, without a child lock or warning label. While it’s rare to find powdered caffeine in stores, it’s pretty easy to order online.

Deaths have occurred from the use of powdered caffeine. Two young men died in 2014 after consuming it. One, an 18-year-old teenager from LaGrange, Ohio, suffered cardiac arrhythmia, as well as a seizure, and was found to have a fatal amount of caffeine in his system during his autopsy. His death was noted as one of the catalysts for the FDA investigation.

In addition to the potential dangers of consuming powdered caffeine, the FDA is concerned about the fact that many don’t know how to recognize the symptoms of dangerous levels of caffeine. Given that many Americans indulge in a serving or few a day safely, the symptoms aren’t easily recognizable. In the letter to the five companies from the FDA, the agency stated:

While consumers of caffeinated products such as coffee, tea, and soda may be aware of caffeine’s less serious effects – such as nervousness and tremors – they may not be aware that these pure powdered caffeine products are much more potent and can cause serious health effects, including rapid or dangerously erratic heartbeat, seizures and death. Vomiting, diarrhea, stupor and disorientation are also symptoms of caffeine toxicity.

The FDA also warned of action it might be taking moving forward, explaining to the companies that it will be carefully monitoring the market, and if it needs to, seizing products or obtaining court injunctions to stop the sales. The warning letter doesn’t necessarily tell the companies to stop producing or selling powdered caffeine–although some may as a result. Others may take stronger precautions, such as using warning labels or including measuring devices. But it’s clear the FDA is no longer messing around when it comes to powdered caffeine.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Rallies Against Powdered Caffeine appeared first on Law Street.

It started a few years ago: the calories and sodium that you are consuming when you sit down to eat a Big Mac or a Whopper stare at you from the side of the package. This phenomena occurred because of something called obesity lawsuits–legal claims by people who consume fast food at least a few times a week that they didn’t realize what they were putting into their bodies. Read on to learn about obesity lawsuits, their popularity, and the legal arguments behind them.

What Are Obesity Lawsuits?

The national conversation about what we eat and what is in it isn’t new, but it has exploded recently, from First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives to the school systems and even popular media. The food and drink community has been changing the way they make, market, and package foods, and it has all been either a direct result or a symptom of obesity lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits that fit into this category come from people who blamed fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight. They said that they weren’t aware of just how many calories they were consuming and that the companies used false advertising to say that they were healthier than they actually are. These lawsuits, as an overarching theme, also “claim that companies failed to warn consumers of the harmful contents of their food; that food advertising is misleading or deceptive; that food is addictive…or that defendants’ food contributed to consumers’ obesity.”

Obesity lawsuits have been around for decades. At least 26 states have banned any type of lawsuit against a fast food company, both restaurants and manufacturers. The Washington Post goes into more detail about these laws, stating they are:

‘Commonsense consumption’ laws, which prohibit people from suing food purveyors for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or adding to their high blood pressure.

LegalZoom points out that even though there isn’t a federal ban on the cases, there is a distinct bias from the system, which is why the ban proceeded with so much support.

Those who were for the ban on obesity lawsuits spoke out on Fox News:

‘The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat,’ says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bill’s sponsors.

‘We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry,’ notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

In a conversation with The New York Times, the Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, which represents the 858,000 small and large restaurant businesses around the country, said:

Within the industry, it has gotten everyone’s attention. While we are concerned, we think them to be frivolous.

But are these lawsuits frivolous, or are they surrounded by the stigma against the obese?

Obesity Lawsuits in Court

Negligence

Many of the plaintiffs that go up against fast food restaurants say that the food they receive is not as healthy as the restaurant would have them believe and that the quality of the food is not what was advertised in commercials. One of the most prolific cases against a fast food restaurant, Ashley Pelman et. al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, alleged that McDonald’s food items were dangerous for consumption and that McDonald’s was negligent in warning its customers. When proving this negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The danger was not apparent to the average consumer;
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
3. The plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question; and
4. The harm would not have occurred had an adequate warning been given.

The judge who presided over this case said that:

If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.

He dismissed the case.

Proving negligence can be hard, especially in situations of other unhealthy choices on the part of the consumer. This particular case did not do that, but it is held in high regard as one of the foremost cases for how to successfully sue a fast food company for negligence–those who do try to sue make sure that they can prove those four points before continuing onward.

Accountability

But what accountability does the fast food restaurant have? Those who have filed lawsuits against fast food restaurants have often said that the food is “unsafe for consumption,” due to its nutritional content, which is a harder sell in the court systems as there is no legal limit. For example, this is the same argument used against firearm manufacturers as well, but in those cases the arguments have not succeeded.

Plaintiffs also try to prove the manufacturer’s intent to sell the food using advertisements, public statements, and even internal documents. Once again returning to Pelman, they claimed that the promotional materials that said things like “Big N’ Tasty Everyday” encouraged regular consumption. They also quoted one of the nutritionists that McDonald’s featured on its website:

Our wide range of choices on our menu makes it possible for people to eat there three times a day if they wanted to.

Changing Habits and Addiction

The plaintiffs must be able to convince the courts that, if they had been given the appropriate and correct warnings about the food they were consuming, they would have changed their dining habits to something healthier. In other words: if the plaintiff had known that they were consuming something that was bad for them, would they continue to eat there?

There is really no foolproof way to determine that, but the courts must ask questions to make assumptions. Questions might include their current eating habits and if they lost any weight since they ceased visiting the fast food restaurant.

Overall, these cases are very hard to prove because of the amount of guesswork that needs to go in on all sides. A McDonald’s spokesman even said:

I don’t think that any of these lawsuits will prevail unless and until there is proof that fast food companies are intentionally and maliciously putting stuff into their food in an effort to make people ill or to addict them to the product. There is no proof of that–no hint of any proof of that–and I think that missing element makes these sorts of claims very difficult for courts to take seriously.

Results of Obesity Lawsuits

We first saw nutritional labels going onto our fast food containers around 2003 when the government believed that it would help Americans make healthier choices about their meals. This movement was all part of the Menu Education and Labeling Act that was proposed to make those choices easier. While the bill seemed to stall, McDonald’s was actually one of the first companies to start listing calories on its menus, saying it was to help customers make healthy choices.

There have been some modest improvement over the last ten years in some of the offerings available at fast food restaurants. According to Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC,

Given the role of fast food in Americans’ diets, restaurants are in a unique position to help improve the diet quality in the U.S. by improving the nutritional quality of menu offerings. Modest improvements in average nutritional quality of menu offerings across eight fast-food restaurant chains were observed, which is consistent with both legislative efforts (e.g., banning trans fat) and the industry’s own statements about creating healthier menu options. However, considering that fast food is ubiquitous in the U.S. diet, there is much room for improvement.

Still, there hasn’t been much improvement in the choices that people are making while they are actually in the restaurant. In fact, fewer than half of the patrons at fast food shops actually notice that their food has calories listed, and it also really didn’t have an impact on what they ordered.

Conclusion

Obesity lawsuits and litigation are a problem that we need to solve, and that might just start with better education on all fronts. The stamping of calories and nutritional content on the sides of cups and the backs of hamburger cartons is a start for the companies. Now it is up to consumers to make the right choices for themselves. The argument will likely continue onward, even as more states push toward a complete ban on the obesity lawsuits.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: MEAL Act

Food and Drug Administration: Summary of Changes in the FDA Food Code 2013

Additional

Bloomberg Business: McDonald’s Obesity Case Can’t Proceed as Group Suit

CBS News: McDonald’s Wins Fat Fight

Fox News: House Votes to Ban ‘Obesity Lawsuits’ Against Fast Food Industry

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Availability of Nutrition Information From Chain Restaurants in the United States

The New York Times: Teenagers’ Suit Says McDonald’s Made Them Obese

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law: Fast-Food Lawsuits and the Cheeseburger Bill: Critiquing Congress’s Response to the Obesity Epidemic

Sun Sentinel: Fending Off the Big Mac Attack

Washington Post: These 26 states Won’t Let You Sue McDonald’s For Making You Fat

ABC News: Obese Man Sues Fast-Food Chains

Bloomberg Law: Where’s the Beef? The Challenges of Obesity Lawsuits

Huffington Post: Calorie Labels at Fast Food Restaurants Don’t Make a Difference

LA Times: Liability, Guns and the Law

Legal Zoom: Can You Sue a Restaurant For Making You Obese?

The New York Times: McDonald’s to Start Posting Calorie Counts

NPR: Nutrition Labels For Fast Foods

Organic Consumers Association: Junk Food/Obesity Lawsuits Alarm U.S. Food Giants

Politico: The Plot to Make Big Food Pay

Time: Can You be Fat and Fit — or Thin and Unhealthy?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obesity Lawsuits: Who’s to Blame When Fast Food Makes You Fat? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short.

When it comes to health, concerns abound that we’re wasting money, time, and lives by spending too much on treatment and recovery and not enough on prevention. Public health interventions like smoking cessation programs and disaster preparedness initiatives save lives. The more we learn about the power of these interventions, the more experts call to keep them afloat with better funding. Spending a few dollars to get a person to quit smoking makes more sense than spending thousands of dollars to try to treat their lung cancer several years down the road. Preparing for a natural disaster beforehand is preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards.

So what is public health? It’s something that aims to keep you alive as long as possible. From preventing diseases to preparing for disasters, public health programs keep a wary eye out for threats and then help populations avoid or mitigate them. For example, if data shows a high diabetes risk for a certain population, public health programs will target that population with preventative messages about diet and exercise. Public health departments might also help local school systems prepare for potential natural disasters, like Florida does with its Children’s Disaster Preparedness Program.

Read on to learn about public health spending in the United States, and where we might need to invest some more time and money.

Where’s the money?

In April, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released its report Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding and Key Health Facts. The report highlights many ways America falls short on public health spending. They say America’s public health system “has been chronically underfunded for decades.” In Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health, author David Hemenway says this is because the benefits of public health spending today aren’t seen until potentially far in the future. Governments and politicians want to see the benefits of their investments in the present day, so they favor spending on medical treatment and other immediately fulfilling initiatives.

Here are some of the key findings:

Public Health Spending is Actually Shrinking

According to TFAH, when you adjust for inflation, public health spending in 2013 has sunk 10 percent from 2009. Many simply don’t see the benefits of spending on public health programs that yield intangible, future benefits when money could be spent on initiatives that produce immediate results like transportation or construction projects.

All States are Not Created Equal

States vary widely in what they spend on public health as funding is determined by the set-up of each state’s unique public health department. Indiana came in at a low of $15.14 per person, while Alaska spends $50.09 per person. This could be why health levels also vary widely from state to state.

Communities Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement Funding helps communities respond to natural disasters, epidemics, and outbreaks. It was backed by $919 million in 2005. In 2013, it was supported by just $643 million.

Hospitals Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) gives healthcare facilities funding to beef up their preparedness measures. Funding for this program has been slashed by almost half, dropping from $515 million in 2004 to $255 million in 2015.

It’s estimated that 2/3 of all deaths in the United States result from chronic diseases typically linked to behaviors like diet or substance abuse. These diseases could be prevented by well funded intervention programs to decrease the behaviors that eventually lead to chronic diseases. Public health spending could save Americans millions in treatments for preventable diseases. Likewise public health under-spending could be costing us more than we’re saving.

In this video, the American Public Health Association outlines financial returns on every dollar of public health spending for different activities:

The above video states that every dollar spent on fluoride in our water supply could save $40 in dental care costs and that a dollar spent on nutrition education could save $10 in health care costs. The main point? Public health programs make for a smart investment.

The Consequences of Meagre Public Health Budgets

So, America spends too much money on treatment and not enough on prevention. The results aren’t pretty. In Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System, authors Chernichovsky and Leibowitz write,

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has an inefficient and expensive health care system with poor outcomes and many citizens who are denied access.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010 report put the U.S. up against other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.), a program that advocates to improve economic and social outcomes. Since 1990, the U.S. has fallen in rankings for both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In 1990, the U.S. stood at the number 20 spot for life expectancy.  By 2010, it was down to number 27.  In 1990, the U.S. also enjoyed the number 14 spot for healthy life expectancy. The year 2010 found us in the 26th spot.

Under-spending in public health doesn’t just lead to generally poor health, it also impedes our ability to respond to emergencies. Assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Gautam Mukunda, referred to Ebola as a “wake-up call” for the state of U.S. health preparedness. In Ebola as a Wake-Up Call he wrote,

Ebola may serve as a badly needed wake-up call about something the public health and biosecurity community has been banging the drum about for years: the U.S. has massively underinvested in public health.

Mukunda says the Ebola situation highlighted the measly number of extreme disease cases our U.S. hospitals can handle. Hospitals have decreased their capacity for extreme cases to increase their efficiency, only to lose the ability to treat patients when rare diseases strike. Although the need for extreme treatments arises only occasionally, hospitals should always be prepared for them. But with limited funding, it’s hard to be prepared for the unlikely “worst case scenarios.”

How does the future look?

The good news: The Senate finally passed a joint budget resolution after a five year absence of agreement.

The bad news:  Their budget slahes non-defense government spending by about $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The budget cuts spell trouble for discretionary educational public health programs. From disease prevention to health care worker training, programs to promote good health may suffer across the board.

In an APHA press release opposing the measure, Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, says,

Simply put, our federal, state and local public health agencies will not be able to do their jobs to protect the health of the American people if these drastic cuts are enacted.

The budget would also annihilate the Affordable Care Act, including the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that focused on moving America towards a preventative health model by funding prevention communications, research, surveillance, immunizations, tobacco cessation programs, health-care training, and more.

The resolution isn’t yet a binding law, but indicates a set of collective and alarming priorities that steer America farther from the path of an integrated, preventative public health system. The Appropriations Committee still has to draft the spending bills, so there’s room for opposition. President Obama for one said he’ll veto bills following the restrictive budget.

Evidence to Inform the Future

According to the article, Evidence Links Increases In Public Health Spending To Declines In Preventable Deaths, published in Health Affairs, mortality rates fall anywhere from 1.1 – 6.9 percent for every 10 percent uptick in public health spend. The researchers made observations over thirteen years and found that the localities with the highest upsurges in public health spending had the most significant reductions in preventable deaths. The relationship held true in multiple causes of death and across different demographics. While the study is only a correlation, the linkage presents compelling evidence for the death-decreasing value of public health spending. The researchers believe a lack of substantial evidence for the ROI of public health campaigns may have hindered spending in the past, and their report takes one step towards getting that evidence.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) advocates for an America with increased core public health spending. They also recommend ways to spend the money correctly. They call for a solid public health foundation for all populations in all states so everyone can be healthy no matter where they live. After that’s established, they advise investing in strong, evidence-backed public health programs and efforts to fortify emergency preparedness. Finally, they believe public health expenditures should be completely transparent and accessible to the American public.

Experts at a recent forum of National Public Health Week looked past mere spending to consider the future of public health and consider novel ways of approaching health to make America a healthier nation. The speakers want to stretch health thinking beyond the doctor’s office to focus on environmental and lifestyle factors that promote well-being like employment, housing, education, and even racism.

These experts dream of an improved, 360 degree view of public health. But sadly, their dreams need funding to become reality. If we continue on this path, it will be very hard to become a more healthful nation.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Prevention and Public Health Fund

Additional

American Journal of Public Health: Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System

The New Yorker: Why America is Losing the Health Race

Harvard Business School: Ebola as a Wake Up Call

Public Health Newswire: NPHW Forum: Creating Healthiest Nation Requires Addressing Social Determinants of Health

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health

The Washington Post: Senate Passes Budget Even as Impasse on Spending Continues

Public Health Newswire: House Adopts ‘Devastating’ Budget Agreement

Public Health Newswire: Senate Passes Budget that Batters Public Health

American Public Health Association: APHA Calls Budget Agreement Devastating

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding & Key Health Facts

Health Affairs: Evidence Links Increases in Public Health Spending to Declines in Preventable Deaths

The National Priorities Project: Military Spending in the United States

New England Journal of Medicine: Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Spending Enough on Public Health? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, 140 million children around the globe have lost one or both parents. These children are classified as “orphans.” While there are many reasons that children can become orphans, it is a global problem that affects a wide range of nations. Read on for a spotlight on some of the particular nations and regions that have the most orphans, and what is being done to help those children in need.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to many orphans. Although sub-Saharan Africa is a large region, its nations share some of the same problems. The onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa began in the 1970s, and continued at high levels in the 1980s. In addition to HIV/AIDS, other diseases such as malaria and TB, and war and conflict in some states have left some 52 million of sub-Saharan Africa’s children without one or both parents.

In 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa, it was estimated by UNICEF that about 11 percent of children under 18 were orphans. Many of those children became orphans as a result of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the region. According to Nancy E. Lindborg, assistant administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, 15 million children in sub-Saharan Africa have lost their parents specifically to the disease in 2014. However, as frequent as it is that children are orphaned because their parents die of HIV/AIDS, there are also other factors that leave them in non-parental care. For instance, high poverty rates can lead to the abandonment of children, particularly in rural areas or if the parents are migrant workers and unable to take their children to different locations with ease. Other diseases, such as malaria, can also play a role. While sub-Saharan Africa is a huge region and not all the issues faced by one country would be faced by another, these are common threads that many sub-Saharan nations experience.

Spotlight: Ethiopia 

Ethiopia, located in the horn of Africa, has a population of more than 90 million people. According to UNICEF, over four million of that population is made up of orphaned children. Just under one million are children who have been orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS.

Addressing those health concerns is paramount to stopping the rising orphan levels in Ethiopia. Health care should be provided to ill parents to prevent mother to child transmission and to ensure that they can care for their children as long as possible. Children should benefit from access to quality health care, especially if they are HIV positive themselves.

A focus on community and capacity building ensures that healthcare facilities will be functioning institutions now and in the future. Healthcare professionals need to be trained within the country, and healthcare centers need to be available in villages and local communities. Recently, there has been a focus on a cycle of health care that can sustain itself. As Worldwide Orphans, the first group to bring HIV/AIDS drugs to orphans in Ethiopia, explained about its process:

Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals needed to be trained and mentored by experts in the treatment and ongoing care of children with HIV/AIDS. And so, WWO recruited an extraordinary team of pediatric AIDS specialists from Columbia University to work side by side with in-country professionals, examine and test each child, decide upon treatment, and consult on follow-up care. Seminars were held, with all materials translated into the country’s language. As a result, more than 400 healthcare professionals have been trained and taken their learning back to villages, towns, and cities across their countries.

This kind of community building can also be applied to education and development activities.

Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe’s experience at the end of the twentieth century was characterized by war, turmoil, and poverty. Even Eastern European nations that had rather advanced and progressive social services practices–such as the former Yugoslavia–were devastated by the infighting after the breakup of the Soviet Union and forced to revert back to a reliance on orphanages. As those institutions were often underfunded, overcrowded, and lacking appropriate resources, they didn’t help children to grow and thrive. While many Eastern European countries are moving toward shutting down these institutions, there is still much work to be done to ensure that children in these nations receive adequate support.

Spotlight: Bulgaria 

Bulgaria’s orphan population is high, at an estimated 94,000 in 2009. While the vast majority of these children are “social orphans,” meaning their parents are alive but unable to care for them or have abandoned them, they still require the same support and resources as children who have lost one or both parents.

For a long time, Bulgaria’s many orphans were kept in orphanages, which by their nature often are only able to provide a few staff members to care for large groups of children. For young children, this can be particularly damaging, as they don’t get the attention and nurture that they need. Studies show that for every three months in institutionalized care, infants and toddlers lose about one month of developmental growth. As a result of these concerns about orphanages, Bulgaria announced in 2010 that it would be moving toward de-institutionalization. The country hopes to close all orphanages by 2025. The Bulgarian government is looking to implement a model similar to what we see in the United States, where the focus is on placing children in foster families, kinship care, or small group homes. Dr. Jane Aronson, founder of Worldwide Orphans, described this process in 2011:

They have already done the first level of developmental screening of the most complex children and now they will go deeper into the psycho-social and family issues of these children. Their goals are reuniting the children with their families, closing large institutions, group home assignments and foster care.

This strategic plan will then be used for the orphanages for healthy children.

Many orphans in Bulgaria, and other parts of Eastern Europe, are Roma. Traditionally the Roma, or Romani people, have been oppressed and discriminated against throughout Europe. Due to that cycle, many Roma children become “social orphans” and are left in institutions. Recent estimates indicate that approximately 60-80 percent of children in orphanages are from the Roma minority who represent only four percent of the Bulgarian population. In addition, a 2011 study by the Helsinki Committee found that up to 50 percent of Bulgaria’s orphans are of Roma descent. Empowering this community and providing educational resources to these vulnerable children will help break the cycle of poverty and abandonment.

Latin America and the Caribbean

The country facing a large-scale orphan crisis in the Caribbean and Latin America is Haiti, particularly in light of the devastating earthquake that happened in January 2010. Nevertheless, there are a significant number of orphans in the region. While UNICEF reports 340,000 orphans in Haiti alone, there are many others in the region who have their own unique obstacles to overcome. UNICEF in 2013 put the number in the region at just over 8.4 million.

Spotlight: Haiti

Most estimates prior to the 2010 earthquake, including those from Worldwide Orphans, put the number of orphans in Haiti at over 400,000. While those numbers are now around 340,000, Haiti sees many of the issues similar to those in Ethiopia and Bulgaria, including intergenerational poverty and HIV/AIDS infection. UNICEF estimates the number of children orphaned in Haiti due specifically to HIV/AIDS at 100,000.

Due to the 2010 earthquake and the subsequent destruction of significant portions of the infrastructure, addressing the orphan issue effectively and efficiently in Haiti has been very challenging. Furthermore, even before the disaster, educational opportunities and jobs were hard to come by. Providing orphaned young people with skills and opportunity will help them to be resilient, by extension improve their communities, and hopefully break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. As Worldwide Orphans explains about its “Haitians Helping Haitians” program,

The youth training model has been replicated in a hospital in Port-au-Prince, where young adults are trained to work with babies and infants who have been abandoned at the hospital. This model provides them with much needed income, job skills and a chance to build self-esteem and positively contribute to their own community. Whether playing with infants and toddlers in the WWO Toy Library, or serving up arts and crafts, nature, performing arts, life skills, education, teambuilding activities at camp and in after-school programming, WWO’s youth corps of trainees are not only providing valuable enrichment to children suffering from chronic disease and the emotional scars of abandonment, they are building their own skills in child development which will serve them in future employment and in their own journeys into parenthood.

By providing children with resources to help themselves and their communities, Haiti will be better positioned to rebuild a nation that is still feeling the effects of such a devastating natural disaster.

Conclusion

Currently there are 140 million orphans worldwide. Most orphans are “social orphans” and likely have identifiable families–if there is the social infrastructure to find them. Unfortunately, in developing nations, there are so many orphans and very limited financial resources to reintegrate and reunite families.  Nations like Ethiopia, Bulgaria, and Haiti each demonstrate how issues of poverty, disease and conflict impact children in different cultures. However, it is important to remember that these problems are not necessarily unique. Virtually all across the world, children lose parents to disease (HIV, Malaria, etc) conflict and war, poverty, natural disasters and experience trauma that impacts their development. There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to preventing orphaning. Instead, a combination of approaches, including early intervention, community capacity building, de-institutionalization, establishment of group homes and foster care, and other critical psychosocial support programming, like the work that Worldwide Orphans undertakes, needs to be implemented to ensure that every child grows up safe, independent, and healthy.

Resources

Primary

UNICEF: Ethiopia

UNICEF: Bulgaria

UNICEF: Haiti

UNICEF: State of the World’s Children 2015

Additional

Food, Nutrition and Agriculture: Orphans and the Impact of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa 

Borgen Magazine: House Subcommittee Discusses African Orphans

Worldwide Orphans: Ethiopia

Worldwide Orphans: Capacity/Community Building

Medwire: Bulgaria Special Report: Children Continue to be Neglected Due to ‘False Reforms’

NIH: Neurodevelopmental Effects of Early Deprivation in Post-Institutionalized Children

Worldwide Orphans: Bulgaria 

Huffington Post: Bulgaria: Changing Orphans’ Lives

EU Business: Abandoned Roma Children Fill Europe’s Orphanages

Children and Youth in History: UNICEF Data on Orphans by Region

Worldwide Orphans: Haiti

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post State of the World’s Orphans appeared first on Law Street.

Counterfeit drugs pose both domestic and global threats, presenting serious health risks worldwide. Although the issue is most prevalent outside the United States, Americans aren’t immune to the illegal market’s reach, as there have been far-reaching counterfeit drug cases in the U.S. As a result, there’s been a large effort to combat the problem in America. Read on to learn more about the proliferation of counterfeit drugs, and what’s being done to stop them.

What are counterfeit drugs?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

Counterfeit medicine is one which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or with fake packaging.

The issue was first addressed in the 1995 WHO Conference of Experts on Rational Drug Use in Nairobi, Kenya. Since then, the market has expanded, but preventive measures have also multiplied. Most counterfeited drugs consist of antibiotics, hormones, analgesics, steroids, and antihistamines. In all, counterfeit drugs are divided into six categories: products without active ingredients (32.1 percent of counterfeits), products with incorrect quantities of active ingredients (20.2 percent of counterfeits), products with wrong ingredients (21.4 percent of counterfeits), products with correct quantities of active ingredients but with fake packaging (15.6 percent of counterfeits), copies of an original product (1 percent of counterfeits), and products with high levels of impurities and contaminants (8.5 percent of counterfeits).

The FDA believes the growth in the counterfeit drug market may be due to the escalating costs of prescription drugs, advanced technologies to develop counterfeit drugs, and the anonymity and ease of the internet.

Health Risks

The severity of the risk factors for any specific counterfeit drug will vary. Generally, they can actively cause unexpected side effects, an allergic reaction, the worsening of the existing medical condition, and/or prolong treatment periods.

A counterfeit drug that substitutes an inert substance for the active ingredient will not improve a person’s medical condition. For example, the main ingredient in Lipitor (a commonly counterfeited drug in the U.S.) is atorvastatin. Its purpose is to lower high cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and therefore reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack. If a patient believes he/she is taking atorvastatin, but in fact is consuming an inert substance, the consequences could be deadly. Even worse, in some cases, not all substituted or added substances are inert, but are instead hazardous.

 U.S. and Global Statistics About Counterfeit Drugs

The international counterfeit drug market amasses $200 billion a year. Internet sales make up $75 billion of that market. Most counterfeits are made in China and India. In the United States, 80 percent of counterfeit medicine is brought into the country from outside.

The WHO estimates that up to ten percent of the drugs sold internationally are counterfeit. In some countries this number can reach up to 50 percent. Developed countries that have strict regulations and institutions like the FDC, are estimated to sell less than one percent of counterfeit drugs. However, the United States has seen its share of highly publicized cases. With a few exceptions, the United States counterfeit market is generally focused on “lifestyle” drugs like diet, erectile dysfunction, and hair growth pills.

The counterfeit market is growing in the U.S. In 2014, an estimated 60 various Pfizer products were being counterfeited compared to just 20 in 2008. One of the most popular counterfeited pharmacy items is ChapStick. China reported holding 1,300 alleged counterfeiters and confiscating $362 million worth of counterfeit product in 2013.

According to the WHO, an estimated 200,000 people die a year due to “ineffective, fake, and substandard malaria drugs” that don’t eliminate parasites from a person’s system. To make matters worse, the fake drugs often contain a smaller dosage of the active ingredient than necessary. Thus the fake drug cures symptoms without curing the disease and fuels drug-resistant strands.

Counterfeit Drugs in the U.S.

A counterfeit maker of Avastin, a cancer drug, accessed the U.S. supply chain in 2012. This was the first major exception to the notion that counterfeits in the U.S. were limited to lifestyle drugs. Undetected, doctors and purchasing managers for oncology clinics “bought and administered the counterfeit medicines to their patients.”

In May 2012, a counterfeit version of Teva Pharmaceutical’s Adderall 30 mg tablets entered the market. The FDA labeled the counterfeit “unsafe, ineffective, and potentially harmful.” The counterfeit version did not contain the active ingredients dextroamphetamine saccharate, amphetamine aspartate, dextroamphetamine sulfate, and amephtamine sulfate. Instead, it contained ineffective ingredients tramadol and acetaminophen. The original product is orange and peach in color with markings, while the counterfeit is white and devoid of any markings. Entering the counterfeit market for Adderall was probably seen as a lucrative opportunity, as Adderall is on the FDA’s drug shortage list, which means that it is dispersed only when available.

The drug Procrit, used to treat anemic patients with “cancer and other serious diseases,” had a large counterfeit scare in 2013. FDA investigators found three fake batches bearing three different lot numbers and expiration dates. The fake medicines contained a clear liquid with no active ingredient and two life-threatening strains of bacteria. Not only was patients’ anemia going unchecked, but already-weak patients were consuming potentially deadly bacteria. The FDA dispersed a warning to the public and provided ways to check the authenticity of the product.

Precautions to Avoid Counterfeit Drugs

There are ways to help ensure that patients and customers purchase legitimate prescription drugs. Most counterfeited drugs are sold through the internet. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy investigated 10,000 pharmaceutical sites and found that only three percent of the sites appeared “to be in compliance with pharmacy laws and practice standards.”

Internet sites to be avoided include those outside the United States; those that don’t offer a physical address; those that don’t display a license by the applicable state board of pharmacy;  those that don’t provide a licensed pharmacist to answer questions; and sites that don’t require a prescription. Consumers should also look for the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) seal. There are over 30 online pharmacies that display this seal, which was created by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to combat sites selling counterfeit drugs.

Consumers must also be cautious when inspecting the packaging of their product by looking for altered or unsealed containers or any physical differences in the appropriate packaging or product appearance. A change in taste and side effects could signal counterfeits as well.

 Actions Against Counterfeit Drugs

In 2012, the United States and 110 other countries participated in INTERPOL’s Pangea sting operation. The operation resulted in:

11,000 illegal online pharmacies being shut down, the removal 19,000 ads for fake drugs on social media sites, the seizure of 9.4 million doses of phony medicines…Google agreed to spend $50 million annually over the next five years to crack down on advertising for illegal online pharmacies.

Pharmaceutical companies also have their own internal investigations to fight against counterfeit medicines. For example, one method is similar to fingerprinting. Pfizer designed an infrared spectrometer that analyzes a product’s chemical bonds. Every drug has unique “reflected and absorbed wavelengths.” A graph will produce peaks and valleys–like a fingerprint–depending on the ingredients and their quantities. Those in the Pfizer lab can superimpose fake “fingerprints” over the real ones on the computer and note the differences. Further testing with X-ray diffraction can show exactly what ingredients the fake is composed of.

In 2014, Eli Lilly, an Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company, invested $110 million in creating traceable, unique stamping codes for all of its products sold globally. The stamping codes will allow the company to trace each product from manufacturing facility to patient, and combat fakes.

The Legal Side of Drug Counterfeiting

The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 (modified in 1992) effectively closed off the United States supply chain. The law directly aimed at protecting American consumers and avoiding counterfeit drugs by providing legal safeguards. It “provides that prescription drug products manufactured in the United States and exported can no longer be reimported, except by the product’s manufacturer.” It also provides uniform standards for all distribution channels including hospitals and wholesalers.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act was enacted in July 2012. It granted the FDA new and enhanced powers to regulate prescription drugs and combat counterfeit drugs in the U.S. The FDA, for example, can now “administratively detain drugs believed to be adulterated or misbranded, and the authority to destroy certain adulterated, misbranded, or counterfeit drugs offered for import.”

The 2013 Drug Quality and Security Act “outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed in the United States.” Pharmaceutical companies must implement a tracking system by 2015 and tag serial numbers to each singular unit sold in the U.S. by 2017.

Conclusion

The counterfeiting of medicines is not a problem secluded to developing countries. Without proactive enforcement, counterfeit drugs could erupt in the United States. It is a highly lucrative industry for the black market. Pharmaceutical companies and consumers alike need to be responsible with prescription drugs, as the potential health risks can be deadly. This is a global problem that requires global cooperation.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Counterfeit Drugs, Questions and Answers

CDC: Counterfeit Drugs

FDA: Counterfeit Drugs

Additional

Nova Next: Cracking Down on Counterfeit Drugs

CBS News: Your Anemia Drug May Be Fake

Fierce Pharma: Lilly Steps up War on Counterfeits With $110M Serialization Program

HRF: 20 Shocking Counterfeit Drug Statistics

Medscape: Counterfeit Version of Adderall Unsafe, Ineffective, FDA Warns

PhRMA: Counterfeit Drugs

National Center for Biotechnology Information: The Prescription Drug Act of 1987

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The United States Isn’t Immune to Counterfeit Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

West Coast anti-vaxxers beware! After an initial voting delay, a California Senate committee overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday that will require schoolchildren in the state to be vaccinated.

According to the Herald, the Senate Education Committee voted 7-2 on the bill proposed by Senator Richard Pan, a Democratic pediatrician from Sacramento. It’s now being passed along to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing next week that will surely be part of a drawn out legislative process.

Lawmakers had reportedly delayed a vote on the bill last week after some on the Education Committee worried it would potentially deprive unvaccinated children of an adequate education.

Pan’s proposal is one of many national vaccination initiatives that were born out of the Disneyland measles outbreak, which sickened more than 100 people in both the U.S. and Mexico. Presently, parents who are opposed to vaccinating their children can abstain by obtaining exemptions for “personal-belief and religious” reasons. Pan’s bill would prevent children with these kind of exemptions from being able to attend public or private schools. Only children with health problems would be allowed to obtain exemptive medical waivers.

Democratic Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica helped Pan craft amendments to the bill which expand the home schooling and independent study programs available to children who are not vaccinated and therefore cannot go to public or private schools. Allen told the Sacramento Bee,

While this bill won’t reach everyone, it will increase everyone’s safety against vaccine-preventable diseases. We think we’ve struck a fair balance here that provides more options to parents who are concerned about not vaccinating.

The bill’s amendments would allow unvaccinated children to still be able to get an education through “private home schools that cover multiple families or through independent study programs that are overseen by school districts and given access to public school curricula.” According to the Bee, in the bill’s former version only those serving a single family or household had qualified.

Opponents of the vaccine bill are already vowing to continue their fight against the bill. Jean Keese, a spokeswoman for the California Coalition for Health Choice said,

We will continue to show our strength, and we will continue to educate lawmakers and the public about why this is a bad bill.

These individuals who oppose mandatory vaccinations, sometimes nicknamed “anti-vaxxers,” often have the belief that modern vaccination methods cause a wide range of health problems, despite evidence to this effect being debunked by both medical and scientific experts and dubbed a pseudoscience.

If approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, this bill would provide peace of mind to concerned parents in the state who are fearful of another large-scale outbreak like Disney’s potentially affecting their children. However official approval of the bill will likely be unsuccessful in squashing all anti-vaccination efforts.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Schoolchildren Vaccination Bill Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, there are 153 million children across the globe who are defined as orphans. These children, and others, are at risk for poverty, health concerns, neglect, and abuse. They are the world’s orphans. Read on to learn about how children can become orphans, what it means to be an orphan, and how underlying social problems lead to children being orphaned.

No Easy Definition

The definition of an orphan is not just a child who has lost both parents–instead, many international bodies recognize as orphans children who have lost one or both parents. Moreover, orphans aren’t necessarily children who are in need of homes. Many orphans live with grandparents, aunts or uncles, or other family members.

The expansive definition was created out of a desire to recognize that a child who does not have one or both parents may be vulnerable in some way, whether that is a lack of support, resources, or opportunity. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) explains the move to the broader definition of orphan as follows:

This definition contrasts with concepts of orphan in many industrialized countries, where a child must have lost both parents to qualify as an orphan. UNICEF and numerous international organizations adopted the broader definition of orphan in the mid-1990s as the AIDS pandemic began leading to the death of millions of parents worldwide, leaving an ever increasing number of children growing up without one or more parents. So the terminology of a ‘single orphan’ – the loss of one parent – and a ‘double orphan’ – the loss of both parents – was born to convey this growing crisis.

There are also many children whose parents may be alive, but live far away or are otherwise unable to care for their children. Overall, the global definition of orphan as followed by many aid and advocacy organizations focuses on aiding children who lack in support, protection, and/or caregiving.

How do children become orphaned?

There are countless ways that children can lose one or both parents, or be put in a position where they don’t have support. It’s almost impossible to make a full list, but some of the most pressing and prevalent include children in refugee camps from war and conflict, poverty or abandonment, family turmoil, or social isolation. Each of these problems comes with its own challenges and requires unique resources and approaches, and many orphans can face more than one of these challenges.

Refugee Camps, War, and Conflict

There are a few different ways that children can end up in refugee camps. The two most common are natural disasters and conflicts that force children and families from their homes. Often those disasters or conflicts kill one or both of a child’s parents, or leads to the child being separated from them. Internationally, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), approximately half of the world’s refugees in 2013 were under the age of 18. That proportion is borne out by statistics of people living in refugee camps, as children also amount to half of the overall refugee population in camp-type accommodations.

Children in refugee camps face unique challenges. Malnutrition is prevalent in refugee camps, particularly among very young children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that in South Sudanese refugee camps in Ethiopia, malnutrition rates for children under the age of five ranged from approximately 25-30 percent.

Refugee camps are also fertile ground for preventable diseases, both because of the crowding that occurs at camps, as well as a lack of access to hygiene materials or proper sanitation. Take the camps set up in Syria in light of the recent civil conflict there, for example. Those Syrian camps are seeing cases of measles and even polio.

Refugee camps create an obviously unusual environment for a child to grow up in. Institutions that provide support and education for children, such as schools, are not necessarily found in refugee camps. For refugees who are constantly on the move, children may not have the ability to work with one school or one teacher consistently enough to build strong educational skills, and schools may be open only once a week for certain age groups.

Children who are refugees, whether in camps or in less structured situations, also have to become the breadwinners for themselves, and possibly for younger children in their families as well. This leads to an influx of child labor. In Syria, UNICEF estimates that one in ten of the refugee children there are engaging in labor in an attempt to support themselves.

While there are many difficulties that children, particularly those who have lost one or both parents, in refugee camps have to contend with, these are some of the most prevalent.

Poverty

Many children who are at risk and are considered “orphans” grow up under conditions of extreme poverty. Poverty is often cyclical–a child born into poverty may lose his parent to illness or a number of other causes. Then, he doesn’t have the resources to provide for himself and will likely fall victim to malnutrition and illness, and will not be able to pursue an education. Subsequent children are then born into poverty as well, and the cycle continues.

Poverty can also lead to “social orphans.” Those are children who haven’t necessarily lost one or both parents, but whose parents can’t take care of them. According to Worldwide Orphans CEO & President Dr. Jane Aronson, children in institutions such as orphanages in Bulgaria are mostly those who do have surviving parents; only two percent are “full orphans”–meaning both parents are deceased. It’s difficult to estimate how many children are social orphans, but in some nations the problem is clearly profound. For example, UNICEF estimates that 70 percent of Moldova’s children in residential care are social orphans.

HIV/AIDS Crisis

With the rise of the HIV/AIDs crisis, more and more children are orphaned every day. In addition, many children who become orphans because of HIV/AIDS are stigmatized in their communities because they may also suffer from the disease. According to UNICEF, 17.9 million children have become orphans because one or both parents died from AIDS. Most are located in Africa, although there are other nations worldwide that have been hit particularly hard by the AIDS crisis.

Children whose parents have HIV/AIDS may be affected well before their parent passes away, as the sickness may make it difficult to adequately carry out caregiving responsibilities. A situation like this can lead to children becoming the de facto head of their household, dropping out of school, and engaging in labor that could become risky–such as commercial agriculture or sex work.

Studies have shown that children whose parents die of HIV/AIDS suffer higher rates of psychological stress than children who are orphaned in other situations. A Swedish study from Lund University conducted in rural Uganda found that “12 percent of children orphaned by AIDS affirmed that they wished they were dead, compared to three percent of other children interviewed.”

Part of this stress may come from the fact that in many places, HIV/AIDS is still deeply feared and stigmatized. Children whose parents have died of HIV/AIDS may be turned away from schools or other public places out of fear that they also have the disease, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how HIV/AIDS is spread.

In addition, children who have HIV/AIDS are victims of discrimination and abandonment as well, leading to orphan status. Dr. Aronson explains the challenges that children with HIV/AIDS face in nations such as Ethiopia:

The task of reuniting orphans living with HIV with their family was daunting from so many angles. These children were abandoned because of their HIV status and to have their families take them back into their hearts is a gargantuan achievement. Learning a new way of thinking is one of the hardest challenges for all human beings… and this step is breathtaking. Just go back to the 1980s and 90s in the U.S. when Ryan White, an American boy with HIV, wasn’t allowed to go to school; when hospital staff donned spacesuits to serve meals to patients with HIV; and when people feared friends with HIV/AIDS. And finally all over the world, disclosure of HIV status takes years of hard work and rarely seems to occur.

What issues do orphans face?

When children are vulnerable, there are many concerning fates that can befall them. The most prevalent include conscription into forces as child soldiers, child trafficking, child prostitution, and early marriage. These challenges are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases more than one can be present in a vulnerable child’s life.

Child Soldiers

UNICEF estimates that 300,000 children are involved in armed conflict worldwide. These include children who are involved with both state and non-state actors. A child soldier is defined by the organization Plan as “anyone under the age of 18 who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity.” Children don’t just act as combatants, but also provide support to armies or groups as messengers, through work in camps, or they are used for forced sexual services. There are a number of reasons why children may take on these roles; they may be forcibly recruited or join because of poverty or abuse. They may turn to the armed group as a way to provide an income or because of societal pressures. Children in vulnerable situations–including those who are without their families or homes–are more likely to become child combatants.

Child Trafficking and Child Prostitution 

Vulnerable children may fall victim to human trafficking. Human trafficking is defined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as “the recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person by such means as threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation.” According to a 2014 UNODC report, children now make up one third of all trafficking victims worldwide. Those numbers do vary by region: in Africa and the Middle East children make up 62 percent of trafficking victims; in the Americas they account for 31 percent; in South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific children are 36 percent of trafficking victims; and in Europe and Central Asia they are 18 percent of those trafficked. The most common reasons why children may be trafficked include sexual exploitation, forced labor, warfare, and organ removal.

Child prostitution can occur after a child is trafficked, or in a child’s home country, and it is defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) as “the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration.” The exact number of children who have been sexually exploited is difficult to quantify, but UNICEF puts the number at approximately two million.

Child Marriage

Another concern for vulnerable children, particularly young girls, is the risk of early marriage, which can include when a child is forced to marry before the age of 18, or when she is cohabiting, but not necessarily married, before that age. According to UNICEF, one in four women between the ages of 20-24 was married before she was 18. The highest rates are in South Asia, where UNICEF reports that nearly 50 percent of all women were married before the age of 18, and more than 15 percent were married before 15. This issue doesn’t just affect girls, however. Certain nations see a high rate of child marriage for boys as well–in the Central African Republic 28 percent of men ages 20-24 were married before 18. Madagascar, Laos, Honduras, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Nepal, and Comoros also all see rates of child marriage for young boys above ten percent.

Conclusion

The status of orphans across the world is caused by a daunting mix of many endemic issues–war, natural disasters, abandonment, poverty, disease, and social stigma, among many others. Given that even the definition of an “orphan” is difficult to pinpoint, it’s clear that no two orphaned children’s stories could ever be the same. That being said, one goal rings true for all those trying to help these vulnerable children–the ability to provide them with support, education, love, and protection.

Resources

Primary

WWO: Dr. Aronson’s Journals

WWO: Our Mission

UNICEF: Orphans

UNHCR: Statistical Yearbook 2013: Demographic and Location Data

UNHCR: Are Refugee Camps Good for Children? 

UNICEF: Factsheet: Child Soldiers

UNODC: Human Trafficking FAQs

UNODC: 2014 Global Report on Trafficking in Persons

UNICEF: Child Marriage

Additional

Huffington Post: Reunifying Ethiopian HIV Orphans with Extended Family

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

World Vision: War in Syria, Children, and the Refugee Crisis

Telegraph: Thousands of Syrian Children Left to Survive Alone, Says UN

RNW: Orphaned by Poverty, But Not Orphans

AVERT: Children Orphaned by HIV and AIDS

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post Defining Orphans: The World’s Most Vulnerable Children appeared first on Law Street.

E-cigarettes are one of America’s latest trends. Since entering the United States over the last ten years, they have taken the smoking community by storm. To many of us however, they are still somewhat of a mystery. Generally, we have a sense that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but how much less harmful exactly? With any new product, it is hard to foresee long-term health effects. But what do we know so far? Should e-cigarettes and their advertisements be regulated similarly to conventional cigarettes? Read on for a breakdown on what e-cigarettes are, the debates over them, and what regulation is being discussed.

What are electronic cigarettes?

E-cigarettes, also known as e-cigs and vaporizer cigarettes, are used as an alternate method to smoking tobacco via cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. They are battery operated and don’t involve smoke inhalation. The idea is that they bypass tobacco smoke, which can include more than 7,000 different harmful chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Some of the more well-known poisonous chemicals are cyanide, methanol, and ammonia. In addition, tobacco smoke includes tar, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide.

Many e-cigs are designed to look like cigarettes and create a similar experience for those who are smoking them. A Chinese pharmacist perfected them in 2003-2004 and they were quickly brought to the international market in 2005-2006. In the current, automatic versions, a user sucks on an end piece to activate a sensor that allows a heating element to vaporize a liquid solution held in the mouthpiece.

Components

E-cigarettes are generally reusable and come in three parts: the Mouthpiece, the Atomizer, and the Battery.

• Mouthpiece (Cartridge): The mouthpiece holds the liquid solution, also known as e-liquid and e-juice. This solution can contain different grades of nicotine and come in a variety of flavors. Some are meant to imitate established cigarette brands, while others are more exotic. The nicotine is most often dissolved in propylene glycol, a food additive. The FDA has labeled propylene glycol as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance.
• Atomizer: This is the heating element that allows for vaporization. It requires replacement every three to six months.
• Battery: The battery is the largest piece of the e-cigarette. It is usually lithium-ion and rechargeable. It catalyzes the heating element and often contains an LED light to showcase activation.

Nicotine 

This product eliminates the inhalation of tobacco smoke, however it is important to note that nicotine itself isn’t very healthy. Although it is not the element of cigarettes that causes cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General has linked nicotine to negative impacts on fetal and adolescent brain development, premature birth, and low birth weight. In rare cases, nicotine can even cause abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. It is also known to cause mouth irritation, mouth and throat pain, high blood pressure, and canker sores.

In 2014, a study found that “e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen.” This is under debate however due to the methods and nature of the study.

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

We already know that smoking tobacco is awful for your health. It is to blame for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., and accounts for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 70 percent in women. As a result of these health concerns, cigarettes and their advertisements are heavily controlled. To ascertain whether e-cigarettes should be similarly regulated, we need to understand established cigarette regulations. Here are some recent highlights.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, authorized the FDC to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. It requires prominent warning graphic labels for cigarettes and larger text warnings on smokeless tobacco products. It regulates describing tobacco products as “light, low, or mild.” Tobacco companies must yield research on health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco use. The FDA can conduct compliance check inspections of any establishment selling tobacco products and fine any establishments not adhering to set regulations. It also requires tobacco manufactures to receive an order or exemption from the FDA before it can introduce new tobacco products.

Other parts of the law are focused on preventing advertisements aimed at America’s youth. Cigarettes cannot be flavored. The packaging design and color must be muted. It prohibits tobacco brands from sponsoring “sporting, entertainment, or other cultural events.” It prohibits free samples of cigarettes. And lastly, it prohibits tobacco branding on non-tobacco products.

E-Cigarette Regulation

Currently, there aren’t any regulations concerning the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarettes. The only type of e-cigarettes subject to regulation are those designed for therapeutic purposes, as the FDA has authority to oversee those.

Only three states in the U.S. ban e-cigarettes in designated 100 percent smoke-free venues: Utah, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Only 15 states restrict the use of e-cigarettes in other venues. There are 162 local laws that restrict e-cigarettes in various venues, but those appear to be few and far between.

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

The question remains: should we be worried about e-cigarettes? That’s a debate that’s happening across the country. They do eliminate deadly smoke inhalation, the most detrimental part of smoking cigarettes. However, there are still concerning aspects of e-cigarettes that need to be taken into account.

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a 2014 study entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents.” The study was conducted out of a concern over the increasing use of unregulated e-cigarettes by today’s youth. The results came from a sample of U.S. middle and high school students who participated in the 2011 and 212 National Youth Tobacco Survey. It found:

Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.

In accordance, a 2013 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that:

Youth who had never smoked conventional cigarettes but who used e-cigarettes were almost twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes as those who had never used e-cigarettes.  Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they have intentions* to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 250,000 young adults who have never smoked a cigarette have tried an e-cigarette. That is a triple increase from 2011.

Targeting youth?

If these studies are indicative of reality, then it’s scary to think of how e-cigarette companies are targeting the youth demographic. According to a study published in Pediatrics, “electronic cigarette advertisements increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period.“ It found that 75 percent of youth exposure to e-cigarette ads happened through the medium of cable networks like AMC, Comedy Central, and VH1. E-cigarette ads appear on programs like “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother,” and “Survivor,” which were rated amid the 100 highest-rated youth programs in 2012-13.

Other tactics accused of being aimed at young adults include free giveaway samples at music and sporting events, candy flavors, and the glamorization of packaging. All of these actions have been banned for traditional cigarettes companies because of their appeal to the youth.

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

It’s difficult to determine. Studies indicate that they don’t necessarily help stop smoking.

JAMA Study Findings

As previously discussed, the 2014 study published by JAMA found that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit. Specifically with regard to quitting smoking, 88 (out of 949) smokers claimed to start using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. In the next year, 13.5 percent of those 88 quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Almost equal percentages of e-cigarette users and solely traditional smokers quit smoking traditional cigarettes within the year. The difference was so slight, it fell within the study’s margin of error.

There are also testimonials, easily found online, that share success stories of smokers that quit with the help of e-cigarettes. These findings and interviews are not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to be the norm.

Discussions for Future Regulation

The FDA has the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDA proposed the “deeming rule” on April 24, 2014 to extend tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. If approved, e-cigarettes would be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes. This includes federal prohibition on free sampling, federal warning label requirements, and age verification requirements for retailers. It is still uncertain when and to what extent the FDA will be empowered to regulate e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Studies looking into e-cigarette health concerns and their position as a gateway product for America’s youth are still new. The product only reached the U.S. in the last ten years and nothing is 100 percent conclusive. On one hand, smoking an e-cigarette is less harmful to your health than smoking a traditional cigarette. If a traditional smoker quits cigarettes and manages to only smoke e-cigarettes for the rest of his or her lifetime, that is a good thing. In the same respect, if a young adult who would have developed a smoking habit only ever uses e-cigarettes because of their availability, that is also a good thing. On the other hand, e-cigarettes aren’t necessarily safe for your health just because they are safer than cigarettes. And we could eventually find that they definitively promote cigarette smoking. The government and FDA can revisit the subject when there is more conclusive information available.

Resources

Primary

JAMA Pediatrics: Electronic Cigarette and Conventional Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adolescents

FDA: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: U.S. State and Local Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes

E-Cigarette Research: The Deception of Measuring Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosol

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

RTI International: E-Cigarette TV Ads Targeting Youth Increased 256 Percent in Past Two Years

Science News: E-Cigarettes Don’t Help Smokers Quit

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post E-Cigarettes: Should We Treat Them Like Traditional Cigarettes? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s long been a debate in this country over soft drinks. Health advocates see soft drinks as liquid fuel for our national obesity epidemic, but many freedom loving Americans don’t like being told what chemically engineered beverages they can or can’t pour into their bodies. Hell, we as a country can’t even decide what to call it. Is it pop, soda, or coke? The answer to that question depends on what part of the country you’re from. But don’t expect the battle over sugary soft drinks to fizz out anytime soon. There’s now a new battleground for that fight in California.

It’s been a long time coming. First, ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the size of sodas sold in NYC establishments to no more than 16 oz. Beverage buffs nipped that mandate in the bud, and it was declared unconstitutional in court. Next, in an effort to curb unhealthy diets while funding the city, 75 percent of Berkeley, California voters approved the country’s first soda tax last fall. That tax took effect at the beginning of the new year. It imposed a tax of one cent per ounce on distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened iced teas.

Now the California legislature is on the offensive. California Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning introduced a proposal Wednesday to put warning labels (similar to those already on alcohol and cigarettes) on any beverages containing added sweeteners with at least 75 calories per 12 ounces. According to the Huffington Post, the labels would read:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.

Tooth decay. Obesity. Diabetes. Yeah, seeing that every time I look at a can of coke might make me pick up a bottle of H2O instead. This isn’t the first time Monning has tried guilt his constituents into making healthier choices. Last year, his warning label bill narrowly passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Committee on Health after a strong lobbying effort from the soda industry. However, this time his bill may see fruition.

In a press release Monning states:

Given the rock solid scientific evidence showing the dangers of sugary beverages, the State of California has a responsibility to inform consumers about products proven to be harmful to the public’s health. This bill will give Californians the at-a-glance information they need to make more healthful choices every day.

Some opponents don’t see the necessity of the warning labels when ultimately the decision to drink or not drink is up to the individual. CalBev, the California arm of the American Beverage Association, said in a statement:

Putting government warning labels on more than 500 beverages will do nothing to change personal behaviors or teach people about healthy lifestyles. The last thing California needs is more warning labels.

Soda companies will likely try to block the bill once more rather than face any potential loss in sales, but stopping it yet again may prove harder with the added momentum garnered from Berkeley. I’m putting my bets on California adding these labels to sugary drinks eventually.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bill Aims to Put Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

As always, there was a ton of interesting news coming out of the legal world last week and Law Street is staying on top of it for you. Alexis Evans wrote all three top stories: number one covered the former Power Ranger who was arrested–though not charged–when his roommate was killed by machete; number two was the case of the San Francisco public defender whose arrest while defending her client was caught on tape and subsequently went viral; and number three is a look at the gray area in vitamin supplements–you might be surprised with the coverage. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Ex-Power Ranger Accused of Killing Roommate With Sword

Today in the category of super bizarre news that is sure to ruin your childhood, former Power Ranger Ricardo Medina Jr. has been arrested for killing his roommate with a samurai sword. According to a statement released by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,  Medina, 36, got into an argument that turned physical with his roommate Joshua Stutter, 36, at their Palmdale, CA home. Read the full article here.

#2 San Francisco Public Defender Arrested While Defending Client

Public defenders don’t always have the best reputation. TV shows sometimes portray them as being fresh out of law school, inexperienced, and not dedicated to their clients–essentially the type of person you don’t want defending you in any legal capacity. In reality, many are dedicated veterans of the courtroom, and Jami Tillotson is a prime example. In fact, the long-time public defender was arrested January 27, 2015 for sticking to her job–defending her client. The entire scene was caught on two cellphone videos recorded by other attorneys present. Read the full article here.

#3 Major Retailers Under Fire For Selling Pseudo Supplements

Supplements. They can come in the form of vitamins, minerals, herbs, or amino acids.  My “New Year, new me” brain tells me they’re good for me, but unless they come in cute, chewable gummy form, I’m just not interested. But for more than half of all Americans, taking some form of daily supplement is pretty routine. Do these tiny capsules actually contain what they say they do? The New York Attorney General’s office says no. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

We’re all told that a daily multivitamin supplement packs the same vitamin punch as a varied cornucopia of food. No preparation. Tons of nutrients. Zero calories. No wonder these little short cuts are so popular. Supplements are hard to resist when you’re told they might be the answer to all of your problems.

But are these concoctions too good to be true?

You’ll have to decide for yourself. Here’s what you need to know about vitamin supplements and their long-term effects to get started on your decision.

What are vitamins anyway?

Vitamins aren’t capsules; they’re organic compounds that we need to survive and function. We can’t make them in our bodies; we have to get them from outside sources like food or supplements. Despite what the vitamin aisle of your grocery store might lead you to believe, only 13 recognized vitamins exist.

This infographic from Compound Interest names the 13 vitamins, reveals their alternate names, and summarizes why our bodies need them.

What do they do in our bodies?

We don’t digest vitamins like food, we have to absorb them.

Vitamins A, D, E, and K dissolve in fat, so they need fat to be absorbed. The same stomach acid released to break down fat also breaks down the vitamins so you can absorb them. If a person doesn’t have enough fat in his diet or has digestive problems, he can’t absorb fat-soluble vitamins. On the other end of the spectrum, fat cells store these vitamins long term, and excesses can build up. For example, chronic high intakes of vitamin A can lead to hypervitaminosis A, and symptoms of dizziness, nausea, headaches, and skin irritation.

All of the B vitamins as well as vitamin C dissolve in water. These vitamins are easily absorbed in the bloodstream through water-based blood plasma–no stomach acids required. Unlike fat-soluble vitamins, you can’t store water-soluble ones. Excesses of these vitamins exit the body easily with urine. Since you have no storage system for these vitamins, you have to replenish them often.

How much do we need?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses Daily Value (DV) as the ultimate guide to how much of each vitamin we need. You’ll see DV on every nutrition label. Don’t worry, they don’t just make them up. They determine DVs using experimental human studies and observational data.

Long-Term Effects of Vitamin Supplements

Studies on the long term effects of multivitamins yield conflicting results, even when the studies focus on the same vitamin. How is that possible? The answer lies in the study’s construction. Conflicting results happen because:

1. The vitamin doses tested were different. A study found vitamin D protects against fractures using a 700-800 IU (international unit) daily dose. If they used a 400 IU dose of vitamin D instead, they might not have seen the same benefits.
2. The study timeframe was different. A study spanning ten years might find benefits that a study over two years missed. Diseases, for example, take a long time to develop. Therefore any benefits a vitamin provides in its prevention would also take a long time to determine.
3. The subjects had different lifestyles. Lifestyle habits, like exercise or smoking, affect disease outcomes and vitamin interactions. If the study fails to control for differing lifestyles, results conflict.
4. The disease or condition was tested at different stages. Vitamins produce results at different times of a disease or condition. Studies show folate supplements might protect against birth defects, but only if taken in the first few weeks of a pregnancy.
5. The results were measured differently. Researchers determine what outcome they’re studying before they begin. They will only pay attention to that outcome and might miss other benefits.

Keep these factors in mind as you read the conflicting good and bad news for vitamin supplements below. Also keep in mind that more studies need to be done on the long-term effects of vitamin supplements, especially as supplement use grows. Currently about half the people in the United States take vitamin supplements; that number may continue to rise.

The Good News For Vitamin Supplements

Most of the good news for vitamin supplements involves specific populations. Here are some groups found to benefit the most from vitamin supplements.

Coronary Heart Disease Patients

Studies have shown that supplements of vitamin E decrease incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of coronary heart disease.

Smokers

Male smokers given a supplement of alpha-tocopherol (a type of Vitamin E) had a 32 percent lower incidence of prostate cancer than those who took a placebo.

Older Adults

One study found supplements of vitamin D reduced bone fractures in older adults. People who took vitamin D had a 22 percent lower fracture rate in general, and a 33 percent lower fracture rate for vulnerable areas like hips, wrists, and vertebrae.

Diabetes Patients

Multivitamin use in people with diabetes might reduce the risk of minor infections. Based on the subjects’ logged reports, all people taking a multivitamin had a lower infection rate than those in the control group. The benefit increased in diabetes patients within the group. Only 17 percent of diabetes patients in the supplement group reported an infection, compared with 93 percent of diabetes patients taking placebos.

Breast Cancer Patients

Women diagnosed with breast cancer who took supplements of vitamins E and C, as well as multivitamins shortly after diagnosis had an 18 percent reduced mortality risk and 22 percent reduced recurrence risk. This study adjusted for multiple lifestyle factors to maintain consistency.

The Bad News For Vitamin Supplements

Suspicions about the long-term benefits of multivitamins have led to numerous studies over the years. Here are some highlights of the not-so-good studies on multivitamins.

Bad News for Breast Cancer

Although a study above indicates that it might be good for people who have breast cancer to take vitamins, this study suggests that multivitamin use might actually increase the risk for breast cancer in the first place. In a study of Swedish women, researchers found that multivitamin use increased the risk of breast cancer. Folic acid surfaced as a possible risk factor. Results from epidemiological studies have not confirmed this association.

Vitamin Supplements Offer No Benefits to People With Balanced Diets 

A found sparse evidence that vitamin supplements benefit people with balanced diets. A systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also found that vitamin supplements failed to reduce cancer and cardiovascular disease risk in adults without nutritional deficiencies.

Vitamin Supplements Do Little For Memory

A long-term, randomized trial of cognitive function in men aged 65 years or older found zero differences in cognitive function between men taking a multivitamin and men taking a placebo. They used established tests to measure cognitive function and memory. Another study sought to test a connection with folic acid, B6, B12 and memory. Previous studies connected deficiencies in these vitamins with memory problems and confusion. They tested supplements on people with normal blood levels of the vitamins, and found no additional benefits after a three-year trial.

Vitamin Supplements Don’t Reduce Risk of Heart Attack

Researchers evaluated the benefits of a high dose multivitamin supplement in men and women with a history of heart attack. After nearly five years, the supplement group and the placebo group had the same number of cardiovascular events.

Why You Need to Do Your Own Research

Although vitamin supplements come in medicinal pill-like bottles, they aren’t regulated like drugs that are thought to be unsafe until proven otherwise. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), supplements are assumed safe until proven otherwise.

• Drugs: need to be proven safe. The FDA approves of any new drug entering the market. Manufacturers must show evidence of a drug’s safety and ability to treat a condition based on clinical trials. Once a drug makes it to the market, the FDA monitors it for doctor-reported side effects and possible problems.
• Supplements: need to be proven unsafe. Dietary supplements can be sold if they don’t contain any ingredients that pose a significant risk when used as directed. So if a vitamin supplement incorporates a food substance that’s generally recognized as safe, no worries. If manufacturers wanted to use a completely new substance, they do have to show that it’s safe, but they don’t have to perform any clinical trials. The FDA can’t stop a company from selling a supplement until someone proves that it causes harm. So don’t assume something is safe just because it’s on a shelf. Since supplements aren’t tracked as closely as drugs, their interactions, side effects, and other consequences aren’t as readily noticed.

Hidden Vitamins

We have a lot left to learn about vitamin supplements before we can tell if they’re the answer to all of our problems. We do know they’re not one-size fits all. People with certain deficiencies and conditions benefit more from supplements than healthy people with well-rounded diets.

We also know that taking excess vitamins could be harmful, especially if they’re the fat-soluble kind that your body stores. But controlling your added vitamin intake might not be as simple as controlling your supplements. Many foods, like breakfast cereals and snack bars, are fortified to contain vitamins and minerals. Pair those foods with a max-dose vitamin supplement and you could be on your way to getting too much of a good thing. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group reports that about half of American kids consume harmful amounts of vitamins because they’re added to foods.

So think twice before reaching for a second bowl of those addictive Cocoa Krispies, especially if you already took a vitamin supplement. Also, keep in mind that vitamins are good for you, but you still need to be careful and smart with all dietary choices.

Resources

Primary

American College of Physicians: Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements

Additional

Harvard School of Public Health: Supplement Studies: Sorting Out Confusion

Compound Interest: The Chemical Structures of Vitamins

Men’s Health Adviser: Do You really Need Those Vitamin Supplements? 

Mind, Mood & Memory: Straight Talk About Vitamin and Mineral Supplements For Memory

Nursing Standard: Women Being Treated For Breast Cancer Benefit From Vitamins

Trial: Over the Counter and Under the Radar

Nature Reviews Endocrinology: Vitamin Pills May Raise Cancer Risks

New Scientist: Pills Are Pointless

Web MD: Vitamins and Minerals: How Much Should You Take?

Scientific American: Fact or Fiction?: Vitamin Supplements Improve Your Health

Live Strong: Digestion of Vitamins and Minerals

Original Internist: To E or Not to E, That is the Question

Clinician Reviews: Who Will Benefit Most From Vitamin Supplementation?

Medical Daily: Vitamin D Benefits Are Enhanced if Meal Contains Fat; Absorbing More From Supplements

Gallup: Half of Americans Take Vitamins Regularly

American Cancer Society: FDA Regulation of Drugs Versus Dietary Supplements

Environmental Working Group: How Much is Too Much?

Environmental Magazine; Over-Fortified Processed Foods

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vitamin Supplements: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

Move over marijuana, there’s a new form of contraband in town.

Milk.

Not just any milk, but raw milk, which is simply milk that hasn’t been pasteurized or heated to a temperature that kills illness-causing bacteria. It’s illegal to sell raw milk directly to consumers in about half of the United States. It’s also illegal to distribute raw milk packaged for consumption across state lines. Still, raw milk advocates stand up for their right to consume it. For example, protesters from a private buying club, Grassfed on the Hill, milked a cow on the Capitol lawn back in 2011 to protest the Food and Drug Administration’s action against a Pennsylvania farmer accused of selling raw milk across state lines.

Raw milk proponents say pasteurization kills flavor, nutritional benefits, and beneficial bacteria in addition to killing the harmful bacteria that it’s supposed to eradicate. Opponents say there’s simply no proof that raw milk has any benefits that pasteurized milk can’t confer, and that drinking it isn’t worth the health risk as it contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Both sides stand firm, creating controversy around one of America’s most wholesome and common commodities.

If you haven’t heard anything about raw milk yet, chances are you will. Warnings from regulatory and public health agencies are increasing, raw milk crusaders are banding together, and politicians are jumping on board to take a stand. As early as 2012, Ron Paul was using the topic of raw milk to rally a Wisconsin crowd, as seen in the video below.

Here’s what you need to know about the raw milk debate before it escalates to a full scale food fight.

Why do we pasteurize milk in the first place?

To understand the raw milk controversy, you need some background on pasteurization and why we do it in the first place.

Before milk makes its way to a carton, it starts in a cow’s udders, which are basically saggy mammary glands. (Yuck.) Like other bodily fluids, the milk produced in these glands contains bacteria, both good and bad. Unlike many other farm foods, milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption. Since cooking kills pathogens, many people ended up drinking a cocktail of bacterial specimens before pasteurization was invented.  In the early 1800s, illnesses like tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever were often transmitted through milk because of the unclean dairy practices common at the time.

Luckily for the American dairy industry, the French love their wine. They love it so much that Emperor Napoleon III gave a scientist by the name of Louis Pasteur the noble task of stopping wine spoilage. Pasteur soon became famous for nuancing a process that would keep wine from spoiling without changing its flavor. It involved heating the liquid to the right temperature for the right amount of time to destroy spoilage bacteria. He called it pasteurization.

Pasteurization was applied to dairy in the late 1800s, and incidence of disease caused by milk decreased drastically. At first it was only used for dairy farmed in unsafe conditions, but soon it was leveraged to reduce risk of illness for nearly all dairies. From there, pasteurization grew to dominate the dairy industry.

What are the laws regarding raw milk?

Although individual states have always regulated their own dairy processing, the Standard Milk Ordinance, now called the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), was implemented in 1924 to help each state meet certain standardized quality recommendations to ensure public safety.

Raw milk didn’t become a truly legal issue until the 1980s when Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration that requested a ban on raw milk and raw milk products. The FDA had been trying to require that all products labeled “milk” be pasteurized since the 1970s, but met resistance and delays from the Department of Health and Human Services and certified raw milk producers. After hearing witness accounts and testimonies, the courts concluded that raw milk posed a serious threat to public health and should be banned from interstate sale.

It has been illegal to distribute raw milk from state to state ever since.

Since each state makes its own rules about the sale of raw milk, commerce within state borders gets a bit more complicated. Some states, like Florida and Virginia, prohibit all sales of raw milk. In Kentucky, you can only purchase raw goat milk straight from the farm. In New Hampshire, you can buy raw milk at a retail outlet, but it must adhere to uniform coliform standards. Things like cow-share agreements, where customers pay a fee for a percentage of cow’s milk, make things even more complicated. Alaska is an example of one state that allows “share” operations. Check out this chart for state-by-state raw milk regulations.

What Proponents Say About Raw Milk 

The supporters of raw milk tout benefits like taste and nutrition with religious fervor. Some even claim other benefits like decreased allergies and less acne.

The Taste Argument

People who’ve tasted raw milk and liked it keep going back for more. In this study of dairy producers who drink raw milk, 72 percent cite taste as their primary motive.

Raw milk lovers say it’s richer, sweeter, and more complex. Connoisseurs credit subtle flavors to a cow’s diet of natural greens. Many raw milk producers  “pasture” their cows, allowing them to eat greens as nature intended, as opposed to feeding them popular corn- and grain-based feeds.

Beyond drinking milk, raw milk cheese has a cult following, especially in France. Many of the country’s legendary cheeses are made with raw milk, which savants say imparts enticing characteristics unmatched in pasteurized varieties. In this 1998 New York Times article on the subject, cheese maker Bernard Antony said, ”Pasteurized cheese is not cheese; it’s like plastic.”

The Health Argument

In addition to being a holy grail of nuanced flavors, many raw milk advocates flock to raw milk because of its purported health benefits. They believe pasteurization kills beneficial enzymes and good bacteria. They also say raw milk can help quell body pains, reduce allergies, cure lactose intolerance, and more as evidenced from this Realmilk.com testimonials page.

Supporting studies for the claims are patchy. This study does suggest there might be an association with consumption of farm milk and asthma and allergies, but not enough to be conclusive. A Standford University School of Medicine study found that raw milk does not reduce lactose intolerance, in direct conflict with some testimonials and surveys. Why the clash between testimony and science? More research is needed to find out.

The Liberty Argument

Back in 2011, FDA officials raided Rawesome Foods and arrested its owner, James Stewart, and other raw milk suppliers for selling raw milk directly to customers. Apparently, Stewart had failed to show up for previous court appearances to face charges of shady fundraising, among other things. Even so, the arrest struck a cord with raw milk advocates who showed up to Stewart’s hearing wearing “raw milk heals” t-shirts.

They didn’t care if Stewart’s actions were illegal, they cared that he was fighting for their rights to consume raw milk. They believe that it should be individuals, not the government, who dictate what consumers put in their bodies.

What Opponents Say About Raw Milk  

Opponents, most specifically regulatory officials, argue that consuming raw milk and dairy products pose a serious threat to health, a threat that exceeds any potential benefits. And why take an unnecessary risk?

Watch the emotional video below that plays to the fear of what can come from taking unnecessary risks.

They also say that there aren’t any benefits of raw milk that you can’t get from pasteurized milk. These quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Raw Milk Questions and Answers page address some common raw milk proponent beliefs:

Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk — pasteurized milk is rich in proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrients. Heat slightly affects a few of the vitamins found in milk– thiamine, vitamin B12, and vitamin C– but milk is only a minor source of these vitamins.

While it’s true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health.

There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria. The process of pasteurization of milk has never been found to be the cause of chronic diseases, allergies, or developmental or behavioral problems.

Why do they say raw milk is such a threat to health?

Unlike many other farm foods (e.g. milk and eggs), milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption, so there isn’t a step to kill illness-causing bacteria. Milk’s low acid content and high protein levels make it easier for pathogens to grow.

Even if milk comes out of the cow without bacteria, it can become contaminated easily during the farming process. Dairy farms breed pathogens naturally, even when they take necessary precautions. Pathogens can be transferred on multiple occasions on the farm:

• The milk might accidentally come in contact with cow feces
• The cow might have an udder infection (mastitis)
• The cow might have an undetected illness
• Bacteria on the cow’s skin might get into the milk
• Dirt from the barns and processing equipment might get on the milk
• Animal pests living in barns, like rats and insects, might contaminate the milk
• Humans with soiled hands or clothing might contaminate the milk

For these reasons and more, officials cite that pasteurization is the only way to make sure the pathogens in milk won’t pose a threat to human health. They say even farmers who follow hygienic practices and test their raw milk cannot guarantee safety.

Supporting Data

According to the CDC, outbreaks caused by raw milk  have increased from 30 in 2007-2009 to 51 in 2010-2012. The outbreaks are most commonly caused by Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella and include symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, muscle aches, and fever. Relative to the amount of raw milk that is consumed, the risk of an outbreak from raw milk is 150 times greater than the risk of an outbreak from pasteurized milk.

Shouldn’t science stop this debate?

Advocates from both sides point to studies, surveys, testimonials, and data to prove their points, but still each side clings to their beliefs with evangelical conviction. In a literature review requested by the Maryland House of Delegates’ Health and Government Operations Committee, the authors point to a need for both raw milk advocates and regulatory agencies to be open to discussion and compromise. Surely both sides of this contentious debate can find some common ground in the future.

Will raw milk become a substance relegated to the black market? Will federal lawmakers cave and loosen boundaries on interstate trade? Only time will tell, but 2015 promises to be an interesting year for those on both sides of the aisle in the raw milk debate.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Raw Milk Questions and Answers

Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz: Milk Pasteurisation and Safety: A Brief History and Update

CDC: Increased Outbreaks Associated with Nonpasteurized Milk, United States, 2007–2012

NIH: Food Safety Hazards Associated With Consumption of Raw Milk.

NIH: A Survey of Foodborne Pathogens in Bulk Tank Milk and Raw Milk Consumption Among Farm Families in Pennsylvania.

CDC: Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk

U.S. District Court: Public Citizen v Heckler

Additional

New Yorker: Raw Deal

Chris Kresser: Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk

How Stuff Works: How Pasteurization Works

Raw Milk Facts: State by State Raw Milk Legislation

USDA: How Do Cows Make Milk?

The New York Times: How We Poison Our Children

NPR: Unlocking France’s Secrets to Safer Raw Milk Cheese

The New York Times: The French Resist Again: This Time, Over Cheese

Marler Clark: A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal With Raw Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

This summer, fellow Law Streeter Brittany Alzfan wrote about the National Gay Blood Drive, which was the second event of its kind and served as an attempt to draw awareness to the fact that gay men are prevented from donating blood by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA recently acted to change those restrictions, but activists worry that the change doesn’t really do much to alleviate the discrimination against gay men who want to donate blood.

The new policy allows gay men to donate blood, but only if they haven’t had sex with another man in the last 12 months. So essentially, only celibate gay men are allowed to donate–for the vast majority of adults, this changes nothing. It does the exact same thing as the lifetime ban–prevents gay men from donating–but without saying so in the same words. The FDA is basically pretending to change its policy and hoping no one notices that it’s still essentially the same discriminatory policy.

There really are numerous problems with the FDA’s policy. First of all, it reflects outdated science. Donated blood is tested for HIV regardless of who donates it. That’s smart, pragmatic science, given that HIV can be transmitted through any sort of sexual activity, regardless of the participants’ genders or sexual identities. It can also be transmitted through needle-sharing, or other manners that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. As Scott Schoettes of Lambda Legal explains:

Within 45 days of exposure, currently required blood donation testing detects all known serious blood-borne pathogens, including HIV.  Therefore, a deferral of more than two months—for anyone—is not necessary and does not noticeably enhance the safety of the blood supply.

Given that HIV tests are pretty quick and reliable–some tests can detect HIV as early as nine days after infection–this 12 month timeline seems arbitrary at best.

Moreover, the ban is insulting. When donating blood, participants are required to be honest about their medical and personal issues. Questions asked at donation locations include inquiries about travel history, whether or not the donors have gotten tattoos, and about HIV, AIDS, Malaria, and a whole host of other diseases. These are questions for everyone–regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. So why does the FDA believe that absolutely everyone who goes in to give blood can be trusted except for gay men? There’s only one word for that: demeaning.

Finally, the FDA ban–even the new, almost equally bad ban–might be dangerous on a larger scale. By not allowing gay men to donate, the agency is turning away potentially life-saving donations. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that if the ban were lifted, donations would increase dramatically. As the institute put it:

If the current MSM [men who have had sex with men] ban were completely lifted, we estimate that an additional 360,600 men would likely donate 615,300 additional pints of blood each year.

Instead of a ban, activists argue that the United States should adopt a model like the one that Italy and Spain have. Those two countries screen each person as an individual based on his or her personal risk factors. Since instituting that policy change, there has been no evidence of blood supply contamination.

It does make sense that the FDA would want to keep any HIV-infected blood samples from getting into the donation supply; however, broad discrimination based on nonsensical science and old prejudices is most certainly not the way to do so.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FDA’s New Blood Donation Policy Still Discriminates Against Gay Men appeared first on Law Street.

People starving or going hungry seems like something out of the past in the United States. After all, aren’t we always telling ourselves how we are the wealthiest and greatest nation on the planet? Although those are certainly debatable points, we are definitely one of the fattest at least, right? Well while the United States is home to immense wealth, happiness, and large waist lines, hunger is still a very real problem here. In fact, one in six people in this country faces hunger every day. That number increases to one in five for children, one in three if the child is black or Latino. The point is that even in the United States, the lone remaining superpower, hunger is still a major issue. Furthermore, if it is a problem here then it is likely a problem everywhere. The question then, is how to solve the crisis? How do we make it, to quote Gone From the Wind, so that, we “never go hungry again?”

Why is there a food shortage?

Production

In looking for the culprit for hunger, naturally it seems wise to look for the root of the problem. However, while it may seem like a no-brainer that hunger is caused by a shortage of food or lack of production, this is actually false. In fact today we already produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet and the amount of food being produced each year actually outpaces population growth as well. Although it is as of yet unclear whether production can keep up with growth indefinitely, right now the amount of food is not the major issue concerning hunger. If the amount of food isn’t the issue, then what is it?

Cost

The answer to that question is several-fold. First as always, cost plays a major role. After all nothing in life is free, especially not lunch. Truthfully though it is not so much a matter of cost as it is a matter of poverty. In fact when it comes to hunger, poverty is inextricably intertwined. Poverty is akin to a disease that weakens the immune system and cost is what is then allowed to spread. While there is clearly enough food to feed the world’s population, it is not equally and appropriately distributed because many groups throughout the world simply cannot afford it.

Along this same vein is the cost of production. While this is certainly less of a problem in the United States with its advanced transportation structure the simple act of harvesting food and transporting it to a market for sale can price out needy people in other regions of the globe.

As a result this can lead to hunger. It can also cause malnutrition, as those unable to afford healthy–or any–food turn to cheaper and less nutritious substitutes. This can further serve as a catch 22 of sorts, as the inferior food makes a person weaker and less healthy and thus less able to find an occupation that could provide nutritious food that would then lead to better health.

Waste

Another major problem is the amount of food wasted. According to the World Food Program, every year one-third of the food that is produced is never consumed and is instead wasted. In addition along with the wasted food are all the wasted resources such as fertilizers and water that go into food production. Thus while enough food is produced to feed seven billion people, it is unlikely there is enough to feed those same seven billion and throw away another third.  The video below provides a more detailed breakdown on yearly waste.

Regional Instability

While waste may be a less apparent reason for hunger, perhaps the most obvious is conflict. Indeed in areas of prolonged and expansive war, hunger is a very serious problem. Not only does the physical destruction from battle destroy valuable farmland, the conflict also forces people off their lands and often into other areas that are already struggling to feed their own people. A real-time example of this is what is currently going on in Syria. With refugees trying to flee the conflict, the means to adequately feed the ever-growing displaced population are fewer and fewer to come by.

Climate Change

Along with cost, waste, and conflict is another growing concern related to hunger–the impact of climate change. According to Worldwatch Institute, climate change could affect many of the agricultural areas that can least afford it such as South and Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. While it may improve the conditions for other needy areas such as East Asia and Latin America, this still greatly increases the chances of malnutrition for the world’s poor. Furthermore it also puts the question of adequate production further into doubt. According to the study, by 2050 there will actually be less food being produced than in 2000. This is especially concerning in that the population by 2050 is expected to grow from approximately seven billion today to nine billion then.  The video below details the dangers of climate change on food production.

Ways to Fix the Problem

Although hunger is an age-old problem and new challenges are rising that exacerbate it, there is still room for hope. That hope comes in the forms of a number of programs aimed at addressing the root causes of hunger and its resulting side effects.

At the grassroots level are programs such as the one initiated by the organization Stop Hunger Now. The approach of this organization is two-fold: first is the actual feeding of hungry children around the world via healthy food packets that are high in nutrition and can improve development, and second are programs aimed at combating poverty, one of the major causes of hunger globally. This includes teaching skills to break the cycle of poverty and educating people on better health practices, which reduces the risk of malnutrition.

Along with private programs are government efforts. In the immediate are programs that address hunger directly, such as those that assist in buying food like SNAP, also commonly known as food stamps. In 2013, one in five households was on food stamps–an all-time high. To help feed all these people the government spent approximately $80 billion in 2013.

There are also government efforts on the global scale as well. One such program conducted by the United States is known as Feed the Future. How this program works is first the federal government selects a number of countries. The next step is the planning phase where the government then tailors programs for each country. Once the planning step is completed, a large investment is made aimed at empowering women, growing high-yield and diverse crops, creating an adequate infrastructure for moving the product once is has grown, and above all else providing an occupation that can help lift people out of poverty.  The video below explains the Feed the Future program in greater detail.

These programs and countless other similar programs are providing a means both to fight hunger at the present and the overall issues underlying it specifically poverty.

Conclusion

In 2000 the United Nations released a set of eight goals it wished to achieve by 2015 known as the Millennial Goals. Number one on the list, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This goal was very ambitious, even bordering on unrealistic. Thus by next year hunger and extreme poverty are not likely to be completely done away with.

Nonetheless, the rates of both are greatly reduced. Extreme poverty for example has been cut in half, which as has been alluded to, is essential to ending hunger. Reducing hunger directly has also met with great success, in 2012 and 2013 for instance, 173 million fewer people faced continuous hunger compared with 1990 to 1992. The number of children whose growth has been stunted by poor nutrition has also decreased markedly as well from 40 percent to 25 percent today.

Indeed significant gains have been made in the fight against hunger. While there is still no panacea to end it, all these steps and programs have made more than a dent. Continued efforts to address the main causes will only go further in reducing it; however, to ever completely eradicate it, seismic shifts need to be made in ending problems like inequality, war, and waste. Hunger therefore is not likely to ever be eradicated overnight, instead it will take a continued effort, one hungry mouth at a time.

Resources

Primary 

World Food Program: What Causes Hunger?

United Nations Development Program: Millennial Development Goals

Additional

Do Something: 11 Facts About Hunger in the United States

Freedom from Hunger: World Hunger Facts

Worldwatch Institute: Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger 

Guardian: World Food Day: 10 Myths About Hunger

CBS News; War and Hunger

Stop Hunger Now: Mission and History

CNS News: Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

Feed the Future: Approach

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hunger: An Intractable Problem With a Myriad of Causes appeared first on Law Street.

This question might conjure chilling images of flavorless fixed rations, compulsory exercise regimes, and the foreboding scales of a totalitarian weight monitoring mechanism.

Take a deep breath. Mandatory weigh-ins have no place in your near future. However, the government already influences your weight in indirect ways using methods more subtle than scales. It’s not because they’re nosy or superficial, it’s because weight, specifically being overweight, is a burgeoning public health plight in the United States.

What’s the big problem with obesity?

In the not-too-distant past, being overweight was a harmless stigma — a matter of aesthetics and not health. Today we know that obesity comes along with a load of serious health complications like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes, and some types of cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 112,000 deaths a year are associated with obesity. Related medical expenses burden the United States with more than $100 billion annually. Ouch.

What’s even scarier? Obesity prevalence is overwhelming the United States population. According to the CDC, more than one third of American adults are obese. That’s more than double the rate of the last decade.

Before you brush it off as an unfortunate fact of life, here’s some visual perspective from the CDC on this explosive growth:

Obesity prevalence in 1990. The darkest blue represents a rate of 10%-14% population obesity.

Obesity prevalence in 2009. Note all of the completely new colors. Obesity rates of all states have surpassed those seen in 1990.

Previous efforts to confront obesity have focused on individual interventions like nutrition education. The climbing rate of obesity despite these efforts revealed some missing pieces in the strategy. Experts realized obesity wasn’t just a matter of willpower. Recognizing the multi-faceted approach needed to combat obesity, officials fixed their attention on underlying causes that escape an individual’s control.

How is obesity out of individual control?

Obesity isn’t just about individual choices, it’s about individual options. The fight against obesity is futile for those without the right options. For example, poor access to supermarkets because of zoning complications may make smart food choices a hopeless pursuit. A simple jog isn’t an option for those with nowhere to do it safely.

Furthermore, we have a hard time helping ourselves. One study found that concern over weight isn’t a sufficient catalyst for behavioral change. Concerned people who lack access to healthy foods are stripped of the power for change. The pervasiveness of fast food establishments peddling calorie-dense foods present an invincible double threat.

Government regulations can interfere when individual resolve falls short. Large-scale policies to create healthier communities could help those who can’t help themselves.

What can the government do?

The Standard Toolkit

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution bestows the federal government with the right to regulate state commerce. This translates practically to weight-related regulations like food labeling mandates and subsidies on foods. On a more local level, the Constitution grants states the power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of their populations. This broad power translates to a variety of possible actions.

Here are some examples of perfectly legal government actions that affect what we eat and consequently what we weigh:

Taxes and Subsidies

Some cities and states already have taxes on sugary drinks. Opinions are split on extending taxes on junk food. James Carville thinks it might be a good idea to tax “Twinkies more than apples.”

The government subsidizes certain crops, often increasing their prevalence in our diets. Corn is a popular example of the power of subsidies. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, one researcher likens Americans to corn chips with legs.

Bans: New York City made history when it took measures to strike trans-fats from restaurant menus.  After the rule survived backlash, other states and cities followed suit. In the next few years, the FDA will undertake a national trans-fat phase out.

Labeling: New York City again led the way by requiring restaurants to disclose nutrition information on their menus. The federally-mandated nutrition label is probably the best known example of enforced food labeling.

Zoning and Land Planning: In some areas, large supermarkets and farmers markets are zoned out, making healthy food hard to come by. Developing parks and sidewalks is a proven way to get people moving without the conscious choice to exercise more.

Transportation: Some studies have shown that people who use public transportation weigh less than those who commute in cars. Unfortunately, more money is invested in highways than in public transportation.

Health Care and Benefits: Tennessee and West Virginia have reimbursement programs for Weight Watchers and 42 states provide gastric bypass surgery for the morbidly obese.

Alternative Approaches

Not all approaches that aim to reduce obesity target diet and exercise. Some of them appear unrelated to obesity at first glance. For example, a breastfeeding facility law requires employers to provide proper accommodations to encourage breastfeeding. While the law helps new mothers in many ways, it’s also a CDC priority strategy to prevent obesity as breastfeeding has been tied to reduced early childhood obesity.

Numerous policies and campaigns aspire to shrink obesity rates. They focus on a broad range of factors from diet specifically to overall health and wellness. CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity database lists state-by-state activities if you want to get an idea of what’s in place.

What are lawmakers suggesting?

What does the future hold for the fight against obesity? Check out these examples of what policymakers have been cooking up:

Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America (HELP) Act: Proposes a multi-pronged intervention strategy to enhance overall wellness of the American people. Children would enjoy enhanced nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and in childcare settings. Adults would benefit from workplace wellness programs. Everyone would benefit from proposed attacks on both salt and tobacco.

FIT Kids Act: Would fund grants for physical education programs that are based on scientific research. States would be required to analyze and identify specific student needs and develop their programs accordingly. The act would also require states to develop indicators of progress.

Reduce Obesity Act of 2013:  Suggests an amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act that would require the Medicare and You handbook to include information on behavioral therapy for obesity. It would allow physicians and other experts on Diabetes prevention to provide behavioral therapy outside of the primary care setting.

Stop Childhood Obesity Act of 2014: Seeks to deny financial benefits for companies to advertise and market certain food products to children. Tax deductions granted under the Internal Revenue Code would be barred for advertising to children that promotes consuming foods of poor nutritional quality. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Institute of Medicine would determine what constitutes foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beyond regulations and policies…

Some suggest that legal approaches may fill in the gaps left after regulations. The paper Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity presents techniques that leverage law to  tackle obesity:

Regulating conduct: The Massachusetts decision to ban self-service displays of tobacco was upheld in the case of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly. Perhaps courts would uphold similar decisions to remove processed foods from checkout aisles.

Ingredient caps: The government can limit the alcohol content of beer. They might do something similar with sugar if it’s proven to be harmful and addictive.

Limits on food marketing: Advertising messages are protected under First Amendment rights. As early as 1978, the FTC attempted a rule to limit advertising of sugary products to children. The rule was struck down after massive industry opposition. Many hope to revisit similar rules as obesity-related health consequences surface.

Compelling industry speech: A near opposite to limiting advertising would be to compel industry speech and require companies to disclose information that might affect consumption. The United Kingdom’s traffic light system provides an extreme example.

Increasing government speech: Government speech could be leveraged to counteract the prevalence of advertising messages by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods. The “5 a Day” fruit and vegetable campaign in the United States is one such example.

Purchase limits: The Supreme Court has allowed individual purchase limits on items like prescription drugs. Perhaps a limit on the amount of sugary beverages a minor can purchase could also be enacted.

Penalties for causing addiction: The government has a right to restrict sales of certain products to minors that it finds harmful or addictive — like alcohol and cigarettes. Some studies have suggested certain food additives are addictive. Companies could be vulnerable to litigation if they have been knowingly manipulating ingredients to encourage overconsumption.

Nuisance law: Pollution is considered a public nuisance. Likewise, the creation of obesogenic foods proven to be harmful to health could be deemed a public nuisance, punishable by fines or criminal sentences.

Performance-based regulation: Performance-based regulations would put responsibility in the hands of industry. A company might be given a measurable goal related to reducing obesity rates. Businesses that fail to meet assigned outcome goals would be financially penalized.

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest, the obesity issue has been confounding us for years. Explosions of diet fads that vilify certain ingredients don’t help matters. Fat? Sugar? Gluten? Carbs? Most people just don’t know what to eat even though they’re being showered with ample advice.

Obesity lacks a simple cause, making it a convoluted case to crack. An array of dimensions in behavior, lifestyle, and environment contribute to it. Policy makers have their work cut out for them in innovating a range of initiatives that might control it. Consumers have their work cut out for them in sorting through all of the advice thrust at them to make sound decisions. Neither can stand alone. Consumers need all the help they can get from carefully designed government regulations that don’t infringe on privacy.

Should the government do more to help the population control their weight? Should they do less? Comment to tell us what you think.

Resources

Primary

CDC: State Legislative and Regulatory Action to Prevent Obesity and Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity

Yale University: Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity

Additional

Millbank Quarterly: Public Health Law and the Prevention and Control of Obesity

Yale University: Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

CDC: Adult Obesity Facts

CDC: Overweight and Obesity Policy Resources

George Washington University: Review of Obesity Related Legislation & Federal Programs

Washington Post: U.S. Sugar Subsidies Need to be Rolled Back

The New York Times: Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated

Coalition for Sugar Reform: Reform Legislation

Intelligence Squared: Obesity is the Government’s Business

NIH: Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake

SAGE: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change

Georgetown University Law Center: Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Government Regulates Obesity appeared first on Law Street.

For the average American public high school student, school starts around 8:00am. When you factor in the fact that bus and/or driving transportation is required, the day can start much earlier for most students. Many people have argued that school should start later for growing adolescents. Read on to learn about the laws surrounding our educational start times, the debate about changing the times, and what factors are taken into account when planning a school’s first bell.

Why does school start so early?

There’s not actually a very good answer to this question. It’s partly tradition — school has always started early, possibly as a way to “train” students for the real world. There’s also the desire to make time for extracurriculars. A packed resume becomes more desirable for college applicants, so schools want to leave plenty of time in the afternoon for students to engage in sports, clubs, part-time jobs, and other activities. With regard to sports and other outdoor activities, schools want to leave enough time for students to be able to be outside before it gets too dark. There’s also the transportation argument — often school districts stagger when local levels of schools start so they don’t need to send out buses for elementary, middle, and high school students at the same time.

What would be the benefits to changing the start times?

Less Tardiness, More Participation 

It is no secret that during their first period of the day, high school students are often still mentally asleep, which creates problems involving both class participation and school tardiness. The University of Minnesota conducted a study when the Minneapolis Public School System changed the starting time of seven high schools from 7:15am to 8:40am. The study found that students benefited academically from gaining additional hours of sleep each week. Advocates of later morning bells argue that this shift would enable students and teachers to make more of the school day.

Preventing Accidents

Additionally, many high school juniors and seniors who drive to high school in the morning are often “driving drowsy” and the decreased alertness caused by driving this early in the morning is often a factor in many adolescent automobile accidents. “Driving drowsy” is incredibly dangerous:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year. This results in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, since currently it is difficult to attribute crashes to sleepiness.

Additionally, according to the National Sleep Foundation, adults between 18-29 are more likely to get into accidents from driving drowsy. While there doesn’t appear to be statistics available for 16 and 17-year-old drivers, it’s safe to assume they’d be consistent with or worse than that of their slightly older counterparts. Allowing students to get more adequate nights of sleep would help prevent potentially dangerous accidents.

Helping Teenagers to Grow

One of the most convincing arguments for why we might want to change the start times at the high school level is that they don’t work with the specific circadian rhythms of teenagers. According to doctors, when adolescents hit puberty, their bodies release melatonin later into the night than adults. This makes it very difficult for them to fall asleep, even if they go to bed early, and therefore harder to wake up first thing in the morning. In addition, teenagers need more sleep than adults, given that they are usually still growing. It’s estimated that a teenager needs about nine-and-a-half hours of sleep on any given night.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently started advocating for a school day that starts at 8:30am or later. The doctors explain that sleep deprivation can have very negative ramifications on students’ health. It’s unsurprisingly much harder to concentrate on school work and tests when you’re running on less sleep than your body needs to operate. But there are also lesser known consequences: lack of sleep among teenagers hasbeen linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and obesity.

What are the arguments against changing school start times?

Opponents acknowledge that current school schedules are out of sync with teenagers’ natural sleep cycles; however, many parents and administrators argue that these changes would bring about a number of problems, and therefore would not be worth the questionable academic benefits to their students.

As more students each year apply to colleges, extracurricular activities and sports have become vital in rounding out a student’s resume; however, if school starts and ends later, students will have less time for these extracurricular activities. Additionally, many students either have to watch younger siblings after school while their parents work or have after-school jobs themselves, both of which would become problematic if these students were to get out of school later. Busing would become a major problem, as well. Administrators have stated that it would be impossible to bus high school, middle school, and elementary students all at the same time, and they are unwilling to have elementary school children walking to school or waiting for the bus at 6:45 in the morning.

High school students driving to school later would often end up getting caught right in the middle of morning rush hour traffic, negating the decrease in the risk of accidents due to drowsy driving. Lastly, there are many who feel that if school were to start later, students would simply use that as an excuse to go to bed late. Oponents instead argue that it is the parent’s jobs to strictly enforce curfews to ensure that their children get adequate sleep in preparation of their early schedules, and that students need to learn to get up early before entering the real world.

What else can be done to help students get more sleep?

While it seems like schools are starting to consider later start times, and more and more doctors are advocating for these changes, we probably won’t be seeing changes anytime soon. There are a lot of logistical, financial, and policy issues that need to be untangled before schools shift start times dramatically. In the mean time, doctors recommend that students attempt to get the appropriate amount of sleep whenever possible, and that their parents help as much as they can.

One big recommendation deals with the increasingly common use of electronics before bed time. As Children’s Hospital pediatrician Mary Palmer points out:

As society has moved along, now we have things that keep us awake after the sun goes down. You have to have a time to process and decompress and if you’re still multitasking, which most of our electronics have us doing. I mean, we’re going from email to Twitter and there’s just so many inputs, so you have to have less distractors.

While adolescents’ Circadian rhythms may be different than those of adults, it’s still important to listen to advice like Palmer’s. Steps can be taken that make it easier for students to fall asleep at times that will give them the appropriate amount of shut-eye before school starts in the morning. While many schools are still working their way through instituting later start times for high school students, this advice is especially valuable.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. House of Representatives:  H. Con. Res. 176 ZZZ’s to A’s Resolution

Fairfax County School Board: Goal to Start High Schools After 8:00AM

Additional

KUOW.org: Sleep-Deprived Teenagers? Starting School Later Could Help Them Catch Up

Today: Teen Sleep Zombies: Should High Schools Have Later Start Times?

Smithsonian: School Really Should Start Later

National Sleep Foundation: School Start Time and Sleep

Start School Later: What’s the Big Deal?

Bethesda Magazine: Not Everyone Thinks MCPS High Schools Should Start Later

The New York Times: Are You Up Yet?

WFSU: Proposal to Push Back High School Start Times Raised School Districts’ Ire

Washington Post: Spend Millions to Let Teens Sleep Later?

mLive: Why Do High School Kids Go to School So Early? Because That’s the Way it’s Always Been

Week: Should High School Start Later?

ABC WFTS: More Debate On if High School Students Should Start Classes Later

Huffington Post: Should a School Change Start Time For Sleep? Later School Times Improve Student Performance: Study

Associated Press: Starting High School Later May Help Sleepy Teens

CBS: Stop Starting School So Early Doctors Say

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Start Times: Do More ZZZs Equal More A’s? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever wonder how your city compares to the rest of the world? Well lucky for you there’s a scientific system that will show how your city measures across the globe. The most up-to-date system of international quota and best way to compare cities is the ISO 37120, which works to measure the quality of food, environment, health care, business, government standards, and overall quality of life through a measurement of carefully calculated standards. Here is everything you need to know about ISO 37120, the world’s largest developer of voluntary international standards.

What is ISO?

History of ISO

In 1946, 25 countries came together to devise a tool that could track, benchmark, and improve city services and living conditions. Their goal was to improve the quality of cities by “[creating] strategic tools that reduce costs by minimizing waste and errors, and increasing productivity…help companies to access new markets, level the playing field for developing countries and facilitate free and fair global trade.” After a year of collaboration, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) officially emerged and began recruiting more countries to participate in its global effort.

Click here to read the ISO’s full story.

How does ISO work?

The ISO is a non-governmental organization that is financed through the sale of electronic standards to members. It works to create a system of measurements geared toward a city’s performance in different areas of operation and production. ISO conducts an analysis of economics, business, and other fundamental principles of a functional municipality, then creates “requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics, that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose.” ISO then devises several implementation methods for almost guaranteed success and prosperity in a  city’s various industries, such as business, government, food, environment, and energy.

The ISO system is uniform and consistent in its measurements in order to conduct a fair analysis of each city’s quality, and can accurately enact or recommend a specific policy for areas in which certain cities may lack. The system adheres to a specific assessment to assure that the test remains completely objective and results in an accurate measurement. There are six statutes that the ISO agrees to maintain at an international level: transparency; openness; impartiality and consensus; relevance and effectiveness; coherence; and country interests. This allows for a scientific and fair system of evaluation.

Click here to read the ISO in Brief.

Click here to see a visual representation of ISO.

Members of ISO

ISO is funded through the sale of subscriptions to members worldwide. There are 163 member countries, each with one representative who attends conferences and meetings to discuss standards and strategies for implementation. Member countries are separate from their measured cites in that a member country does not designate each city to participate. Cities make the decision to participate independently of their federal governments, and often include the feedback of businesses and local governments, and they are assessed individually, separate from their countries. The role of the country members is to decipher the needs of their cities and create policy to improve overall quality of life.

Benefits of the ISO System 

Cities that participate in ISO 37120 will benefit in the following ways:

• More effective governance and delivery of services
• International benchmarks and targets
• Local benchmarking and planning
• Informed decision making for policy makers and city managers
• Learning across cities
• Leverage for funding and recognition in international entities
• Leverage for funding by cities with senior levels of government
• Framework for sustainability planning
• Transparency and open data for investment attractiveness
• Comparable data for city decision making, insight and global benchmarking

The benefits of being a part of the ISO standard are clear in that cities receive expert advice, regulations, and guidelines; productivity will inevitably increase, and the overall quality of life improves for the city’s residents. Business, government, and society can all prosper when put up against international standards and given a sense of stability and regularity.

Is this system a requirement for cities?

Cities are not legally required to register for ISO 37120, yet they may receive pressure from several different sources to do so. According to former World Bank official Dan Hoornweg, “It’s a potential game changer for world cities and everyone who works for cities, for journalists evaluating city performance, for the World Bank in determining grants and more.” With cities openly sharing information on services, this will create more competition and encourage cities to raise the bar on the services that they provide. Cities want to keep up with this international rat race.

 ISO Technology and Graphic Standards

One way that ISO profits and upholds its mission is by selling its electronically documented standards to cities. A catalog of 19,500 international standards are available for purchase on the ISO website.

ISO is largely based in an online platform. This allows countries to collaborate internationally and to ease technical communications. This focus on technological development also made ISO services more readily available to the less developed countries. In 2013, El Salvador, Uganda, and Rwanda all became members of the ISO online community.  Also in 2013, ISO created online stores; now 19 countries can sell ISO products (graphic decals, standards, and country codes).

Cities that participate in the ISO system have the option to buy graphic decals in virtual or physical form to illustrate how to operate a product or signify its validity based on the ISO system’s standard and seal of approval.

How does ISO 37120 benefit developing countries?

Using the ISO 37120 can have a positive impact on developing nations. This standard gives those countries a model of what standards to strive for. According to ISO: Action Plan for Developing Countries, there are several areas that the ISO would like to work on, including: agriculture, construction, mechanical engineering, manufacturing, distribution, transport, medical devices, information and communication technologies, the environment, energy, quality management, conformity assessment, and services. Working on  issues in developing nations creates a global community in which they receive collaborative support to create a more prosperous and functional community.

One way that ISO works to  encourage development in third world countries is to hold a contest every two years. The German Institute for Standardization, a member of ISO, is  hosting the contest this year for young professionals in developing countries. This year the theme is: ‘Sustainable energy future: How can standards help meet the challenge?’ The winner will receive a trip with paid expenses to the German Institute for Standardization, where they will receive professional training on business and management. Efforts such as this target the youth in less-developed nations, and stimulate thoughts and instills drive in the future of these nations.

Click here to read the ISO Action Plan for Developing Countries

Standards of Evaluation

Click here to see a full list of ISO 37120 indicators.

Health

A city’s overall quality of health is generally measured by the following indicators: A citizen’s average life expectancy; the mortality rate of children who are under the age of five years old; the number of doctors and hospital beds per 100,000 population; the number of people who live in poor conditions or slums (this is also a measure for economic standing ); and the amount of solid waste, both produced and recycled.

• Emergency services and fatalities: How a city responds to emergencies also factors into a city’s quality. The number of firefighters, fire-related deaths, and deaths from natural disasters per every 100,000 population measures the quality of emergency response systems and effectiveness for unpredictable  occurrences. The ISO also measures the number of police per 100,000 people, as well as the number of homicides.
• Issues at the forefront in Health: ISO has made some helpful advancements in health within the past year. In cancer research, an advancement in digital technology was made to help in identifying breast cancer. A mammogram is an x-ray of the breasts that detects abnormal or cancerous cells. The ISO system has successfully made it possible for digital images to be transmitted clearly from facility to facility. Kevin O’Donnell, a technological expert at ISO, said: “Thanks to the standard, images can be read on any equipment. The DICOM format allows these images to be uploaded and reviewed wherever they are taken.  Being able to compare current images to prior images to get a sense of changes and progression, or lack thereof, is vital for radiologists and oncologists.”

Click here to view more ISO issues ISO.

Improving Standards

To improve health standards ISO mainly focuses on upgrading the level of care by implementing new technologies and developing a more efficient and effective system in handling general health and medical crises.

Food Standards

The ISO food standards are constantly being improved. Food regulations include transportation, storage, and production. Academic, research, government, and food industry organizations all participate in this quest to meet and keep health requirements up-to-date.

There are specific sets of standards that apply to organizations, caterers, farmers, and manufacturers. ISO would like to certify as many food institutions as possible in order to eliminate health hazards in the food industry, such as salmonella and listeria.

ISO in the Alcohol Industry

An example of the food trade regulating itself would be the alcohol industry. A large beer company, headquartered in St. Petersburg, Russia uses ISO to improve its business and increase revenue. By adhering to strict principles and standards of making the alcohol, companies can become more productive and prosperous in their sales and relationships with consumers. ISO standards including “procurement, production, distribution, and after sales service” contributed to the rebirth of this once failing company.

To view how this beer company saved itself from bankruptcy view the video below.

Environment

The benefits of having the environment monitored and regulated include a reduction in the cost of waste management services and products, lower distribution prices, and the improvement of a city’s image.
The general quality of  the environment is measured by two basic standards:

1. Fine particulate and particulate matter concentration and the amount of green house emissions. The amount of open green area is also a feature of measurement in the ISO 37120 system.
2. By monitoring these environmental factors, ISO and cities can work to cut down on air pollution and environmental damage through the increase in energy efficiency and the promotion and development of renewable energy technologies.

Energy

One goal of ISO 37120 is to better conserve energy. This requires a city to first measure and become aware of  its expenditure and the source. Then a feature of ISO, ISO 50001, works to create an energy management system to more efficiently use energy.

To judge the standard of energy in each city ISO uses a few mandatory standards:

• The amount of residential electrical usage
• The percentage of the population that uses an electrical service
• The amount of energy that public venues consume per year
• The amount of energy that is derived from alternative or renewable resources

Transportation

ISO 37120 measures both public and private transportation, as well as the passengers of personal automobiles per the standard 100,000 measurement. These statistics assist ISO in measuring environmental factors in which transportation contributes to the output of environmentally detrimental fumes.

ISO also adheres to a system in which it measures the safety, test methods, engineering, and performance in vehicles.

Water (Sanitation and Waste)

ISO 37120 measures the amount and level of treatment that the city’s water will go through before consumption. It also measures the improvement of sanitary services, the amount of people with potable water service, and the amount of water that is consumed.

One way that ISO is working to make water management efficient is by assessing the “water footprint,” and the cycles and impacts of water usage in cities. This initiative examines a specific environmental factor that works to maximize the usage of a city’s resources and minimize its negative effects on the environment.

ISO is constantly working on ways to improve environmental protection plans, especially with the growing fear of global warming. Right now, ISO is working to “go green,” by trying to cut down on pollution and carbon emissions produced by cities.

Business and Government

Economy

A standard of evaluation for cities participating in the ISO will be judged based on three standards of monetary importance: The city’s unemployment rate, the number of people living in poverty, and the value of the properties. Also, the financial worth of the city is measured by the percentage of debt to the overall revenue.

Government

Two main factors are used to measure the quality of a municipality’s government: The number of eligible voters in the last election, and the number of women who are elected at the city level.

These variables work to measure the level of participation of the city in local legislation. This is especially important to developing countries where governmental participation in vital to the expansion and evolution of an under-developed country.

Education

Education standards are judged by the following criteria: “Primary education student/teacher ratio, percentage of female school-aged population enrolled in school, percentage of students completing primary education, [and] percentage of students completing secondary education.” Once again this statistic is particularly relevant in developing countries, in that education is a primary tool which advances a community intellectually and economically.

Technology

ISO 37120 also measures the number of internet and cell phone connections per the standard 100,000 persons. This measures how technologically advanced a city is, and the level of industrialization they have reached in comparison to the rest of the world.

Issues at the Forefront in Business

An issue that has infected not only consumers but also governments and businesses is the issue of counterfeit drugs and products in circulation. According to the ISO, “Counterfeit products exist in virtually every area – food, drinks, clothes, shoes, pharmaceuticals, electronics, auto parts, toys, currency, tickets for transport systems and concerts, alcohol, cigarettes, toiletries, building materials and much, much more.” When consumers buy counterfeit products they are keeping money from the government and increasing taxes for taxpayers. Also, “financial turmoil for businesses such as low turnover, stolen know-how, lost jobs, wrongful lawsuits caused by counterfeited products and price hikes.”

Ultimately this underground market is devastating the economy. How will ISO combat this detrimental circulation of illegal goods? First off, the organization plans to enact legislation that would enforce regulations across industries to eliminate the illegitimate vendors that are illegally benefiting from a market which that have no rights to. Also, pre-market and market surveillance can help to identify illegal goods before or after they are available to the public; then further action to remove the product and possible legal action would be taken to discourage future frauds. Taking action on an international level is also part of the ISO plan.

City Growth and ISO

A megacity is defined as a growing city with a population of 10 million or more people. Check out this global breakdown of the world’s megacities.

Conclusion

As cities consistently grow throughout the world, they also run into more issues with the massive influx of people. Although the economy can reap benefits, pollution, politics, and  environment become targets of mankind, and the overall quality of life begins to suffer. With the future of developing cities at stake, the ISO can step in to benchmark and ultimately regulate the standards of living on an international scale. The ISO works to oversee and create a plan to manage cities that experience development at a quick and potentially unmanageable rate.

 Resources

Primary

ISO: About

ISO: 10 Good Things for SMEs

ISO: ISO Standards in Action

ISO: We are ISO. 

Additional

Citiscope: Here are the 46 performance measures the world’s cities will be judged by 

GovTech: Finally, Clear Performance Data for Comparing the World’s Cities

University of Toronto: Global Cities Gather in Toronto for Summit and to Launch the World Council on City Data 

Smart Cities: Stakeholder Platform 

CNBC: Megacities’ Explosive Growth Poses Epic Challenges

Global City Indicators Facility: Pilot Cities

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Does Your City Measure Up Across the Globe? appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s work backwards: there is a nuclear power plant in upstate New York called Indian Point, and it needs to be shut down.

Nuclear reactors are notorious for their cooling systems; the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima meltdowns all occurred because of cooling system failures. Located in Buchanan in Westchester County, the Indian Point nuclear plant sits at the edge of the Hudson River. It draws in two billion gallons of river water every day in order to cool its reactors, discharging it back into the river eight degrees warmer. This has catastrophic consequences for the fish, eggs, larvae, and other aquatic life there. In fact, more than a billion of them die every year, said Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to protecting the Hudson River and its tributaries (read more about this important organization here).

In a process called entrainment, fish and river life are sucked into the cooling intakes and annihilated. For decades conservationists have advocated for a closed cooling system, which has not come to fruition because it would require a financial investment that Entergy, the plant operator, is not willing to make. Rather, the company has proposed installing screens at the mouths of the intakes. Researchers have revealed that this is a far cry from a solution, not doing enough to protect the river’s biodiversity. In addition, it does not address the warm water discharge.

The Indian Point Reactor, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The quality of the reactor itself and its operation therein are sorely lacking as well. Security guards consistently fail mock attack tests, there is no viable evacuation plan for the surrounding region, and the reactor is deteriorating with age. The Indian Point closure debate is particularly hot right now because the site’s 40-year license is about to expire and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting them a 20-year renewal. The reactor provides a substantial percentage of the power used by New York City and the surrounding area; instead of shutting it down, why not repair and renovate?

In addition to closed cycling cooling, there are things that can be done in order to make Indian Point a bit safer, including fire safety measures and dry cask storage. These actions are insufficient; they do not change the underlying threats due to the reactor’s age, such as embrittlement, corrosion, and metal fatigue. Considering these problems are irreparable, why not tear it down and build a new reactor? Forty years ago, population geographies were different. Indian Point’s location is undesirable, due to its proximity to communities. Furthermore, several fault lines run through the area.

Unenforced “Keep Out” buoys, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Nuclear energy is an efficient and clean means of powering our world. A controversial and provocative documentary called Pandora’s Promise (2013) makes a case for its desirability. Watch the trailer here:

One pound of uranium, the size of a person’s finger, yields as much energy as 5,000 barrels of oil. Nuclear energy does not pollute the air the way fossil fuels do. The amount of nuclear waste is overestimated: all the United States’ spent fuel rods would occupy a space no larger than a football field. Proposed “fourth generation reactors” are even more efficient and can recycle waste into another round of energy productivity. Renewables may be best for the long term sustainability of civilization, but right now, considering we continue to expand our energy demands, we need something realistic and nuclear is the way to go. These are some of the arguments the documentary presents, many of which are reasonable and worthy of consideration.

According to Gallay, Riverkeeper does not have a stance on nuclear power in general, but renewable energy and energy efficiency are two separate but interrelated things. We cannot argue that our needs for energy are increasing so drastically, while we waste 30 percent of the power we use. We can make many lifestyle changes so as to limit the growth of our demands. The idea of fourth generation nuclear plants is a fruitless quest for a Holy Grail. Rather, we should utilize the options we already have in hand. Declarations that carbon emissions in New York State would skyrocket if Indian Point were to close can be neutralized by a more wholehearted embrace of renewable energy systems. The economic infrastructure for them is more firmly established than ever, and market penetration is at an all time high. Furthermore, the sources of 650 of 2,000 potential megawatts are already in place and good to go.

These statistics are specifically in reference to New York State, but the conceptual framework is just as applicable to the United States at large and its national energy policy. Nuclear power has many advantages over fossil fuels, but it is not the ultimate answer. There are some notable outliers, such as France. Gabrielle Hecht’s The Radiance of France brilliantly chronicles the country’s national embrace of nuclear energy in the second half of the 20th century and the cultural values therein, as a means of assuaging the damage done by two world wars and as an attempt to reclaim its status as a member of the top of the geopolitical order. When the 21st century arrived, France had achieved energy independence and was even exporting its surplus to other countries. The general health of the environment and air there is notable; however, at the start of its program in the late 1940s, wind and solar power were barely in the conversation, and the state of technology did not allow for the viability of options such as geothermal energy. Just because France found success with its nuclear embrace half a century ago does not mean that the United States should pursue the same course now. We are fortunate enough to have at our fingertips a wider array of more preferable options.

It is time to make some substantial decisions regarding national energy policy and the directions in which we want to go. The Indian Point debate is a good starting point, and shutting it down would provide a great opportunity to set ourselves on a more renewable, and environmentally and socially responsible course.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Fedele via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Shut Down New York’s Indian Point Nuclear Plant appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.