Do you notice anything odd about this photograph?
Click to enlarge.
"USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread)."A follow-up thought from my last post:
- Federal Oversight Of Food Safety: High-Risk Designation Can Bring Needed Attention To Fragmented System
"The U.S. Agriculture Department does not need additional authority to conduct meat recalls and would oppose any move to make the removal of such items from the market mandatory, the USDA's top meat safety official (Richard Raymond) told lawmakers on Wednesday."And...
"Raymond (USDA Undersecretary) said there are several factors USDA is investigating that could be responsible for the uptick in E. coli discoveries. ... Among them include the pathogen becoming resistant to drugs and changes in weather or diet that can lead to stress in the animal. He assured lawmakers it was not because companies are being careless or inspectors sloppy in their work."Is the USDA being influenced by industry interests? Or do they truly believe that distancing themselves from meat commerce is the best way to assure the safety of our meat supply?
- USDA Says Has Enough Legal Authority To Do Recalls
"State inspectors said Wednesday that they have found more boxes of potentially tainted meat on store shelves more than a month after a nationwide recall of Topps frozen hamburgers. ... Over the past few weeks1, 141 boxes of Topps burgers have been found at 12 stores."Someone made money from the sale of that recalled meat.
- Recalled Topps Meat Found In N.J. Stores
"What are the underlying economic and social changes causing this sudden concern? Import safety concerns represent the natural maturing process of a global market. They represent an early warning that we need to adapt our systems and thinking to accommodate a new set of challenges. The old ways do not protect us adequately from the new risks."He accepts comments on his blog :)
"When it comes to cancer, the medical data for these fortunate people are nothing short of amazing. Despite living to such extremely old ages compared to North Americans, their cancer rates are orders of magnitude better than those found in the West. Compared to someone in the United States, an Okinawan elder is:And this:* While prostate cancer is the most common cancer in males in North America and Europe, and the second leading cause of death from cancer among males in the modern industrialized world, it is extremely rare in Okinawa. When researchers in the Department of Urology at Ryukyus University conducted a study on prostate cancer in Okinawa, they found so few cases that they never bothered to publish the results. Most Okinawan men have never even heard of the disease.
- 85% less likely to die from breast cancer.
- 88% less likely to die from prostate cancer.*
- 70% less likely to die from ovarian cancer.
- 70% less likely to die from colon cancer."
"The extremely low rate of cancer among the elders in Okinawa cannot be explained by lack of chemicals or pollution, nor by shortened life spans. Three of Okinawa's rivers now rank among the five most polluted rivers in Japan."
________
Pharmaceutical and Medical Supply Companies
For pharmaceutical companies diabetes is big business. Avandia is one of a number of medications available to treat diabetes. It has been prescribed nearly 60 million times and generates $3 billion a year for its producer, GlaxoSmithKline. Recently published evidence that Avandia increases the risk of heart attack has spurred debate over the drug’s safety and the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs. Similarly, Pfizer’s diabetes drug Rezulin was pulled off the market because it was found to cause liver damage. Drug industry opposition to legislation that would reduce the cost of prescription drugs has meant that many people with diabetes have been unable to afford their medications. Similarly, medical supply companies profit by selling their products to the growing ranks of people with diabetes. “Controlling my condition isn’t that hard,’’ an 82 year old man with diabetes told The New York Times. “The hard parts are the things outside my control, like getting the test strips and the medicines’’.
Insurance Companies
A 2006 investigation by the New York Times points out that most insurance companies refuse to pay small fees for preventive care but do pay for major medical procedures. For example, seeing a podiatrist costs $150 and could prevent a $30,000 amputation. By limiting the diabetes related services they cover, insurance companies do their best not to attract patients with this and other chronic illnesses. By not paying for prevention, these companies are betting that patients with diabetes will have changed insurers by the time the costly complications kick in. Withholding preventive care saves the companies money and forces their competitors and taxpayers to pay for the long-term consequence of this practice.
Hospitals
Hospitals make money by providing expensive procedures that address diabetes complications but not from less expensive preventive services. By charging tens of thousand of dollars for amputations, dialysis, and coronary bypass surgery, hospitals generate income. According to the New York Times investigation of diabetes care in New York City, some local hospitals have opened and subsequently closed diabetes centers because they were so effective at reducing complications they also reduced hospital income.
Food and Beverage Companies
These businesses profit from selling the inexpensive, calorie dense and nutrient poor foods that contribute to growing rates of obesity and diabetes. By saturating our neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces with their products and advertisements, they promote and profit from the over consumption of their products. In addition, our national agricultural policies subsidize the production of key ingredients for their products such as high fructose corn syrup. This helps make their products the cheapest and sweetest calories on the market.
"If diabetes were mainly the result of individual decisions, some might argue that the inequitable burdens it imposes are unfortunate but “just desserts” for over eating, exercising too little and failing to seek appropriate health care. In our view, however, the current diabetes and obesity epidemics can best be explained by changes in the environment, not individual decisions. In fact, as shown in Figure 6, many in our society have profited by participating in the circumstances that contribute to diabetes. We call attention to those who have gained from the rise in diabetes not to point fingers but rather to fairly apportion responsibility for reversing the epidemic.You can read the rest of the report at:
To expect individuals to take the main responsibility for stopping diabetes is both ineffective – it doesn’t get at the roots of the problem – and unfair because it blames the victims."
"The obesity epidemic cannot be prevented by individual action alone and demands a societal approach."I lamented that government agencies in the US still frame America's weight problem as the creature of an individual's nefarious choices. "Eat less refined corn and soy products!" they say, as if our weight problem is our fault.
...
"The people of the UK are inexorably becoming heavier simply by living in the Britain of today. This process has been coined 'passive obesity'."
"Drewnowski finds it ironic that the Agriculture Department encourages people to eat vegetables like lettuce or carrots that are not subsidized, and therefore more expensive, while giving people an economic incentive through subsidies to buy foods it says they should eat sparingly."Maybe it's not incomprehensible. If the government blames obesity on us, they don't have to change their policies.
- Fat? Blame Congress, At Least Partly
"For the most part, our society has viewed diabetes as an individual problem, requiring people at risk to eat less, move more, and follow their doctors advice more consistently. In our view, this simplistic perspective ignores the major role that our social and physical environments play in shaping the choices individuals make."Made my day.