The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

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 U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,” the “sugar daddy” said to the sugar scientist. In 1967, a top sugar industry group bankrolled research with the goal of debunking claims potentially disastrous for its industry: a sugary diet leads to an increased risk of heart disease.

Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, a researcher from the University of California, San Francisco is the lead author of a new study that analyzes the conflict of interest generated by the partnership. It was published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Monday. One of Glantz’s post-doc students dug up correspondences between the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) and its research bidders in archives in university libraries, including Harvard and the University of Illinois.

The correspondences–the bulk of which were between John Hickson, top executive at SRF, and D. Mark Hedsted, a sugar researcher–show close collaboration between a huge industry and those doing research on its behalf. Hedsted and a colleague were essentially contracted by Hickson to combat emerging research that claimed sugar increased the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

As the research vilifying the key element of his industry (sucrose) began trickling into the public discourse starting in 1962, Hickson grew concerned. In 1964, he proposed his firm “embark on a major program” to counter “negative attitudes toward sugar.” So in 1967, the SRF, now known as the Sugar Association, did just that. Project 226 was launched, paying Hedsted–who later became the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture–and his colleague $6,500, or nearly $50,000 in 2016 terms, to erase the stigmas attached to sugar.

Their findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967: there was no evidence linking sucrose to higher rates of CHD, but there was evidence that saturated fats lead to an increased risk. As research published in a prestigious journal often does, the Project 226 findings went on to shape federal guidelines for sugar and fat consumption for decades to come. Saturated fat was demonized while sugar was regarded as empty calories and a risk for tooth decay, but not heart disease.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, published an editorial to go along with Glantz’s study: “science is not supposed to work this way. The documents make this review seem more about public relations than science.”

In response to Glantz’s study, the Sugar Association acknowledged the need for greater transparency in research activities, but also said 60 years ago “transparency standards were not the norm they are today.” They added: “What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.”

It’s still a contentious issue today. At least one recent study shows that sugar, even if it’s not the sole determinant in heart disease, does lead to a higher risk. Saturated fats can also lead to an increased risk for heart disease.

But the inherent problem with the 1967 study wasn’t the science per se, but the conflict of interest that occurs when a vested interest group funds a study in order to back that interest. “Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies, and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development,” Glantz and his colleagues concluded.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Study Shows Sugar Industry Funded Influential Sugar Research in 60s appeared first on Law Street.

You just sunk every penny you have into opening a restaurant. After spending years perfecting every detail from menus to music, you forgot one major element: an advertising budget. How will you make sure people experience your culinary genius? Fueled by passion, you do something you know you probably shouldn’t. You write a glowing review of your restaurant on Yelp.

Is the review a lie just because it came from the owner? Not necessarily. Just because a biased party tells you something is good doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not; their recommendation just holds less value than one from a disinterested party.

But, bias fueled by passion and economic interest happens in medical research all the time. Like you and your restaurant review, medical study funders often promote the information best for their cause. They finesse study designs and findings to make results seem more favorable for their product or service. A manufacturer of a new blood pressure drug might play up one specific benefit of their product in a way that makes you believe the drug beats others overall. It’s not fraud or misconduct, it’s just spinning results in a positive way–something any human with a vested interest in an outcome tends to do. Furthermore, data from a study means nothing by itself to most people, so invested parties can play with it as much as they want to tell a good story.

In discussing the interpretation of statistics in Made to Stick, authors Chip and Dan Heath put it this way:

Ethically challenged people with lots of analytical smarts can, with enough contortions, make almost any case from a given set of statistics.

Keep reading for more on funding bias and what you can do about it.

How is scientific research funded?

When you read a juicy new bit of research about something that might kill you or change the world as we know it, the study’s funding probably escapes your interest. But any study you read, whether it’s about drugs, medical treatments, nutrition, or even sleep, costs money. Where does the money come from? It can come from government grants, nonprofits, independent companies, and even you. When you buy dish soap, some of that profit might go to funding a Procter & Gamble study on a new cleaning chemical. Some portion of your taxes might trickle down to a government grant and end up in a laboratory. And of course, if you donate to a charity, that money might fund studies supporting that cause.

Money Talks

Since money fuels science, science itself can be shackled by economic interests, and interests of any kind can lead to bias. Even without fabricating results, funders have tools they can use to sway study results.

In a paper titled “Tobacco industry manipulation of research,” Dr. Lisa A. Bero calls out some reasons why research findings might not be as concrete as they seem:

• Any study has a context that can be skewed by framing the study, defining the problem, and sculpting that language of study questions and results.
• Data doesn’t present itself. It’s up to the funders and researchers to deliver it to the world, and this delivery can be nuanced to serve a given purpose.

That covers underlying reasons why bias happens, but how does it happen? The World Health Organization analyzed thousands of books, articles, and other materials to see how bias can occur in drug studies and promotions. Its paper, “Drug Promotion – What We Know, What We Have Yet to Learn,” outlined several ways researchers can skew results:

• Publishing results in multiple journals and with multiple authors. Different researchers can write papers on the same exact study. The multiplication of evidence revealing the same findings makes the results look more credible and can lead to a general overestimation of the studied drug’s treatment power.
• Leaving out unfavorable conclusions. Industry-funded studies left out negative results more often than their nonprofit counterparts.
• Using retrospective design, which looks backward to prove a determined outcome. With a known outcome, it’s easier to manipulate study designs to show X might cause Y.
• Putting focus on some features and leaving out others. Industry-funded studies tend to focus on acute benefits of drugs and stray away from ranking the drug’s benefits overall.
• Publishing only favorable results. If a study doesn’t achieve the desired outcomes, the industry funder can simply choose not to publish it, like a lie of omission.

Now let’s look at some real-world examples. In practice, a common method of skewing public scientific opinion involves funding counter blows to combat damaging research.

Bias in Practice

So we know bias happens, we know how it happens in theory, and in the real world the skewing attempts get even scrappier. In these examples, the industries used their funding prowess to spin the science of others.

Sugar

This NPR article relays the story of Dr. Christin Kearns, a dentist who was shocked when a handout of government advice about diabetes didn’t mention sugar. Detecting the scent of industry involvement, she began digging for evidence of similar foul play in the dental community.

After months of research and scouring through internal beet and cane sugar documents dating back to the 1950s, Kearns found that the industry does in fact push policy, especially when it concerns potentially damaging research. When the sugar industry caught wind of dental professionals’ intentions to tackle sugar consumption, they launched a counterattack to help people combat tooth decay while eating as much sugar as they wanted. They looked into enzymes that busted up plaque and other ways to fight tooth decay.

Tobacco

No surprise here: the tobacco industry’s efforts to combat damaging research have been fodder for many public health case studies. Tobacco companies specialized in contending with the findings of detrimental studies. Their philosophy read something like this: The longer you argue, the longer it takes to make decisions. And the longer it takes to make decisions, the more time we have to continue business as usual before we’re hampered with new policies. The tobacco industry used this philosophy to fight regulations for decades.

The 1950s and 60s saw tobacco companies fighting claims that smoking was bad for you. After that, they gracefully transitioned to denying the harms of secondhand smoke.

Here’s a commercial for Camel cigarettes showing doctors smoking and enjoying cigarettes and even recommending the Camel brand. Their decision to use a doctor as the main character sends a strong message to the public: If smoking was so bad, would a doctor do it?

In the 1990s, tobacco companies moved to using PR campaigns focusing on “junk science” to criticize reports on the risks of tobacco smoke, even from the government.

In 1998, big tobacco and the United States reached an agreement about how tobacco could be marketed and advertised. This Master Settlement Agreement surfaced documents outlining tobacco’s science-fighting strategy that confirmed what many had already suspected. When it came to steering science dialogue, tobacco’s policy was to:

• Pay for, publish, and promote research supporting their goals; and ,
• Suppress and criticize research going against their goals.

Tobacco’s efforts mark some of the first concerted and funded campaigns against science in history. Their efforts demonstrate the power of manipulating public opinion. Luckily, physician opinion is much harder to shape.

Does funding bias influence practice?

Good news: doctors know how to evaluate medical studies.

In a randomized study of physicians’ interpretations of funding disclosures published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found a majority of physicians were fully capable of evaluating research based on academic rigor and were not fooled by common manipulations. In fact, the knowledge that a study was funded by industry caused their evaluation of the study’s rigor and likelihood of prescribing the studied drug to decrease.

What You Can Do

We can’t ignore oodles of research just because it might be biased. Luckily, there are safeguards in place. Title VIII of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) made researchers start registering and submitting results to clinicaltrials.gov where you can check them out at any time. Individual journals also have publishing regulations protecting us from misleading science. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine publishes information on funding, protocols, and the funding organization’s involvement in the study with all of their articles.

But if you’re feeling less than trusting, you can develop your own methods of evaluating the research you read. When you see something new, check for other studies on the same subject to see if they coincide and take an extra careful look at the study’s design.

This graphic from Compound Interest ranks study methods on a descending scale. Keep this in mind when you’re evaluating research.

Even if it’s just something you see in a magazine, you can look up the original study to investigate the design for yourself and form your own opinion. We have access to more science than ever before. With that comes great power, but also great responsibility. Science can be biased but it’s still up to you whether or not to buy into the bias.

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Drug Promotion: What We Know, What We Have Yet to Learn

Additional

Washington Post: As Drug Industry’s Influence Over Research Grows, So Does the Potential For Bias

NPR: Documents Detail Sugar Industry Efforts to Direct Medical Research

Heath, Chip and Dan: Made to Stick

Plos Medicine: Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents

Journal of the American Medical Association: Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?

University of California Museum of Paleontology: Who Pays For Science?

Public Health Chronicles: Tobacco Industry Manipulation of Research

Scientific American: Can the Source of Funding For Medical Research Affect the Results?

New England Journal of Medicine: A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures

New England Journal of Medicine: The Proposed Rule For U.S. Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission

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 Trusting Scientific Research: Who Funds Our Opinions? 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.

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.

We’re all familiar with “A Christmas Carol” and the old miser named Ebenezer Scrooge who achieves enlightenment after a night of ghostly visits. But it turns out that Scrooge’s haunts might have been helped along by something he ate or drank.

Eating and drinking (especially the extreme forms practiced throughout the holiday season) can impact your body enough to cause memorable dreams, nightmares, and sometimes hallucinations.

Below, I’ll explore the mental effects of holiday food through the lens of Scrooge’s misadventures. What actions might explain Scrooge’s nocturnal visits from a troupe of formidable ghosts? What does it mean for you? Let’s find out…

He Could Have Eaten a Hallucinogenic Food

I’m not saying that old Ebenezer was purposefully tripping on magic mushrooms. Quite a few foods might have contributed to his visions, or even cause you to see some weird things after Christmas dinner.

Moldy Bread

Specifically, Moldy rye bread. Ergot or (Claviceps Purpurea) is a fungus common on grasses, cereal crops, and ryes. It’s also the source of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Scrooge’s cold, wet, pantry would have favored the growth of this fungus, which causes hallucinations when ingested.

Ergot has such extreme effects that researchers Linnda Caporael and Mary L. Matossian have linked it to the Salem Witch Trials. If it could have caused that hysteria, it could have caused Scrooge’s ghostly episode.

Nutmeg

Nutmeg becomes psychoactive when taken in large quantities. How much? More than the amount that usually dusts a mug of eggnog. It would take more than two tablespoons (two whole seeds) to produce any hallucinogenic effects. Nutmeg has mind altering properties because it contains myristicin, a chemical similar to amphetamine and mescaline.

Would Scrooge consume enough nutmeg to trip? In his day, men were sometimes known to carry around their own nutmeg graters in case an appropriate beverage presented itself. Nutmeg was used for headaches, and turkeys were even stuffed with it. While it’s unlikely that he was judiciously grinding copious amounts of nutmeg into his eggnog, it’s almost certainly something he could access. You shouldn’t worry though, unless you’re really planning on overindulging in nutmeg this holiday season.

Fish

Hallucinatory fish poisoning, or ichthyoallyeinotoxism, is a rare type of food poisoning that causes central nervous system disturbances, especially hallucinations and nightmares. Ciguatera poisoning is the most well-known type of hallucinatory fish poisoning. Fish become contaminated with ciguatoxins when they eat the toxin-producing seaplant, dinoflagellates. They can also become contaminated by eating another fish with ciguatoxins in its system.

Eating exotic fish usually causes hallucinatory fish poisoning, so it’s unlikely that London-dwelling Scrooge would have this to blame for his visit by ghosts.

What this means for your holiday: If you’re hoping to avoid holiday hallucinations, steer clear of strange new fish, don’t overdose on the nutmeg, and check your bread twice for suspicious mold spores.

He Could Have Been Over-Caffeinated

If Scrooge was in fact such a “tight-fisted hand at the grindstone”, maybe he owed his disciplined work ethic to profuse amounts of caffeine. And too much caffeine could lead to hallucinations, says this Durham University Study.

The researchers found that heavy caffeine users–those who drink the amount in seven cups of coffee or more a day–were more likely to have hallucinations or hear voices than low caffeine users.

Why does this happen? It might be stress, which caffeine tends to heighten, even physiologically. A stressed body releases the hormone cortisol, and a stressed and caffeinated body releases even more. The researchers believe the extra release of cortisol might be where the hallucinations come in, but they need to do more research to tell for certain.

What it means for your holiday: If you’re sleep deprived over the holidays, go ahead and have more caffeine, but draw the line at seven cups.

He Could Have Eaten Some Cheese

Could cheese cause vivid dreams? A study by the British Cheese Board suggests there might be some truth to this–if Scrooge had nodded off and dreamt of Marley, that is. The study found that consuming different types of cheese could encourage different types of dreams. Listen to this NPR spot to find out more.

Other scientific studies investigating a cheese-dream connection are limited. But preliminary results of a study on vitamin B-6, of which cheese is an excellent source, produced some compelling information. The results showed that people taking higher doses of vitamin B-6 reported higher dream salience; their dreams were more vivid, emotional, colorful, or just plain bizarre.

What it means for your holiday: If you want to have vivid dreams, taking a tour through the old holiday cheese plate might not be a bad idea.

He Might Have Just Eaten Too Much and Nodded Off

Scrooge lived alone. He also was trying to save money by keeping his house sparsely lit. Darkness + quiet = a perfect recipe for nodding off in the easy chair. Scrooge could have drifted off to sleep as soon as the stimulation provided by his sparse dinner had ended. Eating just before bed might be the perfect recipe for weird dreams, including those featuring the return of a deceased former boss.

Food has been shown to affect the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain that control time spent in rapid eye movement, or REM, sleep. You are most likely to dream in REM sleep.

For example, the chemical tyramine-a (found in dairy, meat, poultry and fish) increases brain levels of noradrenaline, also called norepinephrine. Noradrenaline produces the body’s response to fear and is sometimes even referred to as the “fight or flight” chemical. If your noradrenaline levels peak and you have a nightmare, your heart rate increases and your muscles tense up in response. Your heightened response to the visions in your nightmares would make them more memorable upon waking. Noradrenaline also makes blood pressure rise which could make dreams more nightmarish.

Other experts suggest a less complex explanation for vivid dreams following a late night binge. With an uncomfortably full stomach, you tend to toss and turn more, waking yourself up and interrupting your dreams. Dream interruptions often lead to heightened memories of the dream and the general sense that you’ve had more dreams than usual.

What it means for your holiday: If you tend to have nightmares, you might want to steer clear of the fridge on your way to bed. Those holiday leftovers could wreak havoc on your dreams.

He Might Have Had Too Much “Holiday Spirit”

It was hardly uncommon for gentlemen in those days to have a “nightcap” (stiff drink) before bed. They thought it might keep them warm throughout their nights like the actual nightcaps they wore on their heads. Scrooge wanted to save money on coal for heating, so he might have indulged in this nightly ritual. Little did he know that drinking so close to bedtime can lead to disturbed sleep and nightmares.

Alcohol interferes with REM sleep and leads to frequent sleep interruptions, just like overeating. So again, you can remember your dreams more vividly. Also drinking alcohol suppresses REM sleep and your brain tries to make up for lost time later on. So, in the morning, your brain might try to cram in some REM sleep and your dreams might become more bizarre and frightening as result.

What it means for your holiday: Craving a holiday night cap? Just drink it at least three hours before bedtime or prepare for some nightmares.

He Might Have Had an Alcohol Problem

Without any concerned family or friends to stage an intervention, Scrooge could have been a closet alcoholic. In rare cases, chronic alcohol abuse could lead to psychosis, the state of losing contact with reality.

Alcohol is a neurotoxin that can have many damaging effects on the brain. It can even induce alcohol related psychosis. Psychosis has been observed:

• during heavy intoxication
• as a symptom of alcohol withdrawal
• in disorders resulting from years of alcohol dependency

Long time alcoholics might be thiamine (B1) deficient which could lead to Korsakoff syndrome, a brain disorder associated with hallucinations, loss of memory, and confabulation.

What it means for your holiday: Even if you’ve had one too many eggnogs, you probably won’t start having visions. Alcohol induced psychosis is a concern for chronic alcohol abusers.

He Could Have One of These Conditions

Aside from one-off actions that might lead strange visions, some seemingly commonplace medical conditions cause hallucinations. Many of them could result from dietary choices like, gastroenteritis, gastritis, peptic ulcers, vitamin B12 deficiency, and low blood sugar. Scrooge could have suffered from any of these, and been none the wiser.

What it means for your holiday: Having a blood sugar crash after a unwise cookie binge? It might be the reason you’re hearing friendly voices telling you to eat even more…

A Hallucination Sidenote  

Don’t get too scared. Food-induced hallucinations like these occur rarely. But experiencing a hallucination doesn’t automatically diagnose you with mental illness.

This video explains how anyone can hallucinate:

Pass the Sugar Plums, Please

So there could be an easy explanation for what happened to Ebenezer Scrooge. The ghosts he saw might have been encouraged by beef, gravy, or an underdone potato. Now that you know what you know about the possible effects of holiday eating, you can prepare accordingly.

The hallucinations are pretty rare so you probably don’t need to worry about that. The worst your holiday eating and drinking will probably do is cause nightmares and disturbed sleep. Luckily, it’s not totally out of your control. This blogger has some advice to ensure your dreams are full of sugar plums and not sinister spirits:

• Eat dinner about 4 hours before bed.
• Stop drinking (everything) 90 minutes before bed.
• If you do have late night snacks, keep them high in carbohydrates and medium to low on the protein. A slice of whole wheat toast topped with peanut butter or cheese is an excellent choice.
• Steer clear of anything too acidic, like pasta with red sauce, that might lead to acid reflux.

Sweet dreams and happy holidays!

Resources

Primary

Durham University: High Caffeine Intake Linked to Hallucination Proneness

Med Scape: Alcohol-Related Psychosis

Centre Antipoison: Hallucinatory Fish Poisoning (ichthyoallyeinotoxism): Two Case Reports From the Western Mediterranean and Literature Review

NIH: Effects of Pyridoxine on Dreaming: a Preliminary Study

Additional

Bon Appetit: Foods That Make You Hallucinate

New Scientist: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Psychology Today: Psychoactive Spices – Bon Appetite!

NPR: Study: Eating Cheese Can Alter Your Dreams

Live Strong: Do B Vitamins Give People Vivid Dreams?

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 Holiday Hallucinations: Can You Really Have Visions of Sugar Plums? 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.