Articles on Alternative Health & Fitness?

I guess it had to come up eventually.  Do you think taxing junk food solve the obesity crisis? This controversial idea has never been given a real-world tryout, but the combination of a budget busting fiscal crisis and a citizenry that keeps getting fatter is causing legislators and executives around the world to give a so-called “obesity tax” serious consideration. New York Governor David Paterson is the most serious of all, proposing in his 2009 state budget that an 18% sales tax be levied on non-diet soda and sugary juice drinks. Such a tax, he says, would raise $404 million in the fiscal year starting in April, and $539 million in the year after that—all to be earmarked for obesity-fighting public health programs.

If Paterson succeeds—and he’s already run into vociferous opposition from the soft drink industry—it would likely be the first such broad tax in the world. But the concept of a so-called obesity tax is slowly gaining support, floated by such disparate public figures as British Conservative Party leader David Cameron, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, French tax authorities, and politicians in regions of Canada, Australia, and Ireland.

Paterson’s proposal wouldn’t, in fact, be completely precedent-shattering. A recent study by the Institute for Health Research Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago found that at least 27 states impose taxes of 7% to 8% on junk food such as candy, soda, and baked good snacks, usually imposed when the products are sold through vending machines. Such levies are barely noticeable on food items that cost only a dollar or two.

15 Years of Debate

But with state budgets facing steep deficits in the wake of the recession, much larger taxes on soda and unhealthy foods could become more appealing, says Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. “I’ve been contacted by a number of state legislators recently,” he says. “I think it’s only a matter of time before it happens.”

Brownell isn’t the most objective observer, since he was one of the first to give prominence to the idea of an obesity tax, having floated the concept 15 years ago in a New York Times op-ed essay. His proposal has generated heavy debate in food policy circles ever since. Opponents say such a tax would disproportionately fall on the poor, punish thin people who merely happen to like soda and candy, and fail to address the many complex factors that contribute to obesity. The American Beverage Assn., which says it will aggressively fight Paterson’s proposal, calls the soda tax “a money grab that will raise taxes on middle class families and threaten thousands of jobs across New York State.”

Nevertheless, the thought of raising the price of unhealthy foods in order to discourage consumption has slowly gained currency on the strength of two developments: the documented success of a similar consumption tax on cigarettes and the alarming increase in obesity rates. In 1995 about 14% of U.S. adults were considered obese (defined as having a body-mass index—a calculation based on height and weight—of 30 or above). Today that number is over 30%.

Obesity Mortality Gaining On Tobacco

A full two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, as are 33% of children and adolescents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that obesity costs the nation over $90 billion in direct medical costs. And in April 2008, the Conference Board estimated that obese employees cost U.S. businesses $45 billion a year in medical expenditures and work lost.

Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, according to a report by a research charity Thursday, which called for a “serious rethink” of drug policy.

The Beckley Foundation, a charity which numbers senior experts and other academics among its advisors, said banning cannabis has no impact on supply and turns users into criminals.

“Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco,” says the report by the Foundation’s Global Cannabis Commission.

The government is pressing for cannabis to be re-classified in law as a Class B drug compared with its current, less serious, Class C classification.

Authorities are concerned notably by the growing prevalence of the potent “skunk” form of the drug. Around 80 percent of cannabis seizures are of this strain, said to be linked to mental health problems, official figures show.

The Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, claimed only two deaths worldwide have been attributed to cannabis, while alcohol and tobacco use together kill an estimated 150,000 people in Britain alone.

“Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment,” it said.
“It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the ever more potent forms of dope,” it added.

The decision to reclassify cannabis upwards into the more punitive Class B category — which includes amphetamines — is a U-turn for the Labour government.

Cannabis was downgraded from Class B when Tony Blair was prime minister, but Gordon Brown announced a review of its status soon after taking over in June last year.

An earlier review of the cannabis classification, at the time of the last 2005 general election, resulted in it remaining Class C.  I know I tended to get in more trouble when I was younger from drinking booze than smoking the odd joint.

This advertisment for a stop nail biting product is a mouth full!

There was an interesting survey done where doctores could talk about their pet-peeves as it relates to their patients.  Here are a couple that I found intereststing:

Your doctor generally knows more than a website. I have patients with whom I spend enormous amounts of time, explaining things and coming up with a treatment strategy. Then I get e-mails a few days later, saying they were looking at this website that says something completely different and wacky, and they want to do that. To which I want to say (but I don’t), “So why don’t you get the website to take over your care?”
–Family, MD

I know that Reader’s Digest recommends bringing in a complete list of all your symptoms, but every time you do, it only reinforces my desire to quit this profession.
–Family, MD

To me I think the above two statements probably mean the person should consider a new profession.

Now here are a couple I agree with:

One of the things that bug me is people who leave their cell phones on. I’m running on a very tight schedule, and I want to spend as much time with patients as I possibly can. Use that time to get the information and the process you need. Please don’t answer the cell.
–pain specialist, New York City

I wish patients would take more responsibility for their own health and stop relying on me to bail them out of their own problems.
–ER physician, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Mark off June 18th on your calendar if you want to get in on the bidding to have your dog cloned.  A Northern California biotech company has announced that it will clone dogs for the five highest bidders in a series of online auctions. Some ethicists condemned the offer, fearing it could make cloning more acceptable and lead to human clones.

Opening bids start at $100,000 for the service being offered by Mill Valley-based BioArts International. The cloning process is to be performed by a South Korean scientist who suffered international disgrace after being found to have faked research.  BioArts chief executive Lou Hawthorne formerly ran Genetic Savings & Clone, which offered to clone pet cats for $50,000 but folded in 2006 because few were willing to pay so much.

When Hawthrone was asked why dogs and not cats, he replied. “The average dog owner has a different relationship with his dog than the average cat owner,” Hawthorne said. “The level of intensity on the dog side just dwarfed what we saw on the cat side.”

To conduct the clonings, BioArts has partnered with a South Korean research team that recently created three clones of Hawthorne’s family dog, Missy, who died in 2002.  The team was led by Hwang Woo-suk, who scandalized the international scientific community in 2005 when his breakthrough human cloning research involving embryonic stem cells was found to have been faked.

Tests performed at the University of California, Davis’ Veterinary Genetics Laboratory found that DNA samples taken from Missy and the three other dogs appeared to belong to the same individual.  Hawthorne said that after spending 15 years with Missy, he is taking pleasure in seeing her mischievous streak coming out in her clones. They also like steamed broccoli just like she did, he said.  Some groups that monitor advances in genetic technology argue that the company’s project, called Best Friends Again, could serve as a gateway to more unsavory practices.

Critics also have lambasted the project for its association with Hwang. Earlier this month, a researcher close to Hwang told The Associated Press that the scientist, who went into seclusion after the deception was exposed, had established a pet-cloning company in Seoul.  Hawthorne said he was wary of working with Hwang at first but said the Korean scientist had assembled the best technology and talent available. All of Hwang’s results connected to dog cloning have been independently verified, Hawthorne said.

The Korean doctor sounds a bit quacky but I have a feeling that they will be able to sell these 5 auctions because there is not doubt that many folks love their dogs more than humans.