Flesh and Stone

WHO calls avoidable maternal deaths ‘shameful’

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:36:00 -0700

The World Health Organization (WHO) today labeled as "shameful" the fact that 90 percent of maternal deaths in the Western Pacific Region could be avoided if a woman’s right to good health would be properly met.

WHO said that more than 100 women in the region die from pregnancy-related deaths each day and, unless drastic measures are taken, the number of tragedies of this kind will continue to rise. The WHO figures singled out Cambodia and the Lao People's Democratic Republic

"It is shameful that despite the Region's rapid economic growth, a large—and growing—number of women are still excluded from the fruits of this progress," said Dr. Shin Young-soo, WHO regional director for the Western Pacific, in a written statement. "Good health is a universal right, not a privilege. Taking on this issue will be at the top of our agenda in the Western Pacific."

Numerous obstacles, including societal discrimination and limited access to health services, combine to deprive women of this right. A further challenge is the low level of education provided to women on average despite the fact that improved education for women has been found to produce better health outcomes for themselves and the generations that follow.

Airport scammers

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:22:00 -0700

Plenty of people have misgivings about full body scanning technology. Some doubt its effectiveness in preventing terrorist attacks, others believe it’s an invasion of privacy, some think it will increase racial profiling and preliminary studies by physicists suggest the full body scanners, which employ non-ionizing submillimeter microwave radiation, may introduce serious health risks for travelers.

Despite a marked absence of thoughtful analysis of either the technology’s safety or effectiveness, full body scanners are coming to an airport near you. With 19 already in place, the Department of Homeland Security intends to have 300 scanners installed by the end of the year and President Obama’s budget request for nearly a billion more for 1,000 additional scanners is a slam dunk. No one in Congress wants to be accused of standing in the way of America’s security, particularly in an election year. (It matters not that they voted overwhelming against full body scanners just last year.)

Despite its $43 billion price tag, the DHS has yet to prove it’s a worthwhile investment and not just a heavy-footed elephant stamping out civil liberties.

The DHS was the brainchild of former president George (Junior) Bush. It was created during the chaos after 9/11 ostensibly to improve information sharing between America’s information gathering agencies. Among other promises, such as preserving civil liberties, the agency was to coordinate the flow of information between federal agencies and between local and federal law enforcement through “fusion centers.” It was to be an ombudsman of spook liaison-ship.

As became blaringly apparent in the days following the attempted detonation of an explosive aboard an international flight bound for Detroit last Christmas, the agency has failed to rise to its mission. An agent in a Washington, D.C. office quietly sat on the information that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a terror risk to the United States. The information had come from an extremely reliable source. Abdulmutallab’s own father had personally warned the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, about his son’s growing anti-American sentiment and his intent to do harm, and soon.

Perhaps if the agent had alerted someone in another agency, ideally someone like former FBI agent-turned-whistleblower Coleen Rowley, Abdulmutallab might have been tagged on the 1.3 million strong terrorist watch list, a good share of them added without any apparent rhyme or reason. If there was a reliable, meaningful no-fly list he would have been frisked, his background checked, and he would have been thoroughly inconvenienced and interrogated for hours like so many others on the list. Maybe an alert TSA would have prevented him from boarding the plane. Thwarting Abdulmutallab’s plan before he got on the plane could have given a touch of legitimacy to the watch list.

Instead, in a move that is starting to feel familiar, the government is throwing more money at the department that was created to prevent the sort of incompetence that it just displayed.

So -- like it or not -- full body scanners are here. They come as a quick-fix solution to show the government is responding to terror threats, but with many unresolved issues.

Privacy issue: It’s a virtual strip search

Apparently, the scans are more revealing than Janet Napolitano, the current Homeland Security chief, and Michael Chertoff, the first security czar who pushed for them, are letting on. The images are high resolution and crisp enough to reveal genitalia.

If you’re a vain person that travels a lot, you might want to start that diet and fitness program today because Transportation Security Administration staff are going to see you without your clothes on. On the other hand, if you look like you might have rolls of midriff fat, saggy breasts and small reproductive organs it might win you a pass-through wave by TSA staff. Not so fast if you’re a shapely woman or a buff-looking man.

Currently, U.S. citizens can opt-out of the scan and instead “receive an equal level of screening and undergo a pat-down procedure,” according to TSA’s website. What, exactly, is this alternative screening that’s on “an equal level” with being viewed without your clothes on?

The TSA says only 10 percent of travelers through the 19 U.S. airports that already have body scanners have bothered to find out. A testament to Americans’ acceptance of full body scanning, says the agency. Or maybe they were just feeling lonely.

That’s quite a choice.

Cub Scout Mikey Hicks, an 8-year-old on the passenger watch list, received his first TSA pat-down when he was 2 years old. The experience made him cry, his mother told the New York Times.

“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mikey’s mom told the Times. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”

Speaking of children, the United States might want to follow Britain in exempting children under 18 from the scans. Britain's 1978 Protection of Children Act makes it illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child. Child protection advocates think the scans will tempt pedophiles to distribute childrens' images to the child pornography market.

Yes, they are that revealing.

After airport staff at Heathrow airport printed out sexy body scans of Shah Rukh Kahn, the Bollywood star reportedly autographed some for the fun-loving fans.

“I'm always stopped by the security, because of the name,” Khan said during an appearance on British television.

“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You've got to see them. It makes you embarrassed - if you're not well endowed.” Such a braggart.

Whole body scanners can “record, store, and transmit digital strip search images of Americans,” according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) which received information from the DHS through Freedom of Information Act requests. In its technical specifications and vendor contracts, TSA specified that the scanning devices must have hard disk storage, USB access, and Ethernet connectivity. That’s curious since DHS has assured the public that it will not save, store, upload or transmit the scans.

“Computer processing partially obscures the image that is available to operators,” says the EPIC. “TSA states that the agency will delete the raw images, but there is no law or regulation that prevents the agency from saving the original, detailed images.”

Safety issues

While Britain and the Netherlands have already installed full body scanners, most European countries are waiting to dive in until there’s been more analysis of health and privacy concerns. The EU report is expected to be completed in April.

The safety concerns arise from the use of backscatter X-ray systems, one of two types of scanners used for screening passengers. These $100,000 machines, similar in size to a stand-up tanning booth, use "backscatter" technology, which bounces low-radiation X-rays off a traveler to produce high resolution images that makes clothing transparent.

The other type of body scanner uses millimeter wave technology. The TSA website explains that the “machine beams millimeter wave radio frequency (RF) energy in the advanced imaging spectrum over the body's surface at high speed from two antennas simultaneously as they rotate around the body."

No one pushing for widespread use of these machines expects that the low level radiation from the scanners will be harmful. But the result of repeated exposures to the technology has not been studied. Even at extremely low doses radiation accumulates in the body. How much is too much?

A study published this month in Physics Letters journal suggests that terahertz (full body) radiation exposure could interfere with gene expression and DNA replication.

Commenting on the paper, Physics arXiv blog wrote that “Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion....a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.”

Racial profiling

After the Christmas near-detonation the TSA labeled 14 countries as “state sponsors of terrorism” or “countries of interest.” People traveling from or passing through Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen will be subject to enhanced screening the TSA said. Enhanced screening may include full-body pat downs, thorough bag searches, and body scanners.

In addition, airport security workers are being given additional training in profiling. Travelers exhibiting “certain behaviors” or holding a suspicious appearing bag will be subject to intensified screening. Looking like they might belong to one of the “countries of interest” is also cause for enhanced screening.

Effectiveness questioned

Security experts and others knowledgeable about the capabilities of full body scanners have expressed doubts about the scanners’ effectiveness. Ben Wallace, a member of the British parliament who at one time worked for a defense contractor who made body scanners, said it was unlikely that a scanner would have revealed the explosive powder Abdulmutallab had hidden in his underwear.

We’ve been aware for years that drug mules have smuggled toxic amounts of narcotics drugs into the country by carrying them in body crevices and by swallowing drug-filled balloons. Why wouldn’t a suicide bomber transport explosives the same way? What do they have to lose? They’re suicide bombers.

Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence at Stratfor, a global security company, said terrorists will figure out a way to outmaneuver the technology. He told TIME magazine that use of full-body scanners will divert limited resources away from proven measures like training airport staff to “detect suspicious behaviors in would-be attackers before they board planes.”

Get back to the basics

The introduction of full body scanners is going to introduce a host of new problems: scans of children and adults being leaked on the Internet, diplomacy setbacks, humiliation, law suits over privacy infringement, loss of tourism dollars and possibly health effects down the road. It’s just more diversion from the stated goal of preventing acts of terrorism.

We’ll never be successful at preventing terrorist attacks until the government puts an end to the spook turf wars. It could be that there are just too many government agencies (and contractors) focused on high tech surveillance to be effective.

If specialized information gatherers won’t analyze and share the information that comes from foreign embassies with the law enforcement official across the street, what is their value?

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, stated it quite well: “Our limited security resources should be invested where they will do the most good and have the best chance of thwarting attacks, and that means developing competent intelligence and law enforcement agencies that will stop terrorists before they get to the airport.”

Global wind power sees large increases in investment

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:53:00 -0700

China and the United States are currently heading a worldwide upsurge in the installation of wind power capacity to the surprise of some analysts. The global wind power market generated $63 billion in 2009 and employed over half a million people, according to figures issued by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). The report indicates that the sector is set to repeat its 2009 performance.

Steve Sawyer, the GWEC’s secretary general, offers an upbeat prediction. "The continued rapid growth of wind power despite the financial crisis and economic downturn is testament to the inherent attractiveness of the technology, which is clean, reliable and quick to install. Wind power has become the power technology of choice for a growing number of countries around the world," he said.

China led the pack last year in terms of installations by country, with 13 gigawatts (GW) of wind energy being put on line, thus almost doubling its capacity to 25.1 GW. This puts China in second place in the overall capacity stakes – just in front of Germany – but the United States remains top of the table with 22 percent of all wind power in the world being installed there and an increase in capacity of 40 percent in 2009. The total of installations by all countries represents a substantial 31 percent increase over the year, and world total capacity is now estimated to be just under 158 GW.

These are surprising figures in the triple-context of the world financial crisis, the fact that it is relatively investment-greedy per megawatt, and the meager results of the Copenhagen conference which hardly inspired investment confidence in the immediate future of alternative energy sources.

The figures are explained by national (as opposed to international) energy policies according to Sawyer, who said: "...wind energy continued to grow due to national energy policy in our main markets and also because many governments in prioritised renewable energy development in their economic recovery plans."

Asia, with recent investment in India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, is the largest regional investor, followed by North America and Europe.

Europe installed 10.5 GW of wind power capacity in 2009, with Spain’s total of 2.5 GW leading the way. France had a relatively bad 2009 due to an upsurge in court cases brought by opponents of wind power who claim that it results in aesthetic damage to the environment. This phenomenon has led to uncertainly concerning wind power’s future development there and the government is considering aesthetic damage legislation which wind power proponents say will act as a brake on wind power investment.

But the best performance was to be found in the USA, despite dire predictions by analysts in early 2009 who expected investments to fall by up to 50 percent. However, the U.S. Recovery Act, which encourages wind energy development, actually led to an increase of 39 percent of the country’s capacity to a grid-linked total of 35GW.

Sawyer is highly optimistic for the future. "Wind energy is already making a significant contribution to saving CO2 emissions," he concludes. "The 158 GW of global wind capacity in place at the end of 2009 will produce 340 TWh (terawatt-hour) of clean electricity and save 204 million tons of CO2 every year. As we see in Europe and the US, wind power is now often the most attractive option for new power generation, both in economic and environmental terms, and for improved supply security."

Bush loyalists still touting, getting away with torture

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:25:00 -0700

Although the practice is roundly rejected by the international community and was banned by President Barack Obama the day he took office, some just won’t stop defending torture.

Marc Thiessen, speech writer to former president George W. Bush and author of “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe & How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack,” was invited on CNN to debate torture with Philippe Sands, a University College London professor and barrister who regularly litigates cases before international courts.

Thiessen said policies allowing torture, including water boarding, were “… the most successful and important intelligence programs in the history of the CIA.”

Thiessen is among a group of radicalized ideologues, including a Supreme Court justice, who have defended or are actively campaigning to revive the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program. The Bush administration unsuccessfully sought -- through semantic tricks -- to legitimize torture, even though it was specifically outlawed by the UN Convention Against Torture, as well as the U.S. Constitution which, by the way, borrowed the exact words that forbid “cruel and unusual punishment” from the 1300-year-old English Bill of Rights.

Law-schmaw, say the torture radicals. During his interview, Thiessen criticized reporter Christiane Amanpour for comparing U.S. waterboarding with Khmer Rouge water torture. “You’re one of the people who have spread these mistruths,” he said.

Amanpour responded: “That’s called spreading the truth.”

So why is this debate still going on?

No one from the Bush administration has thus far been held accountable for torturing people. In fact, just last week the Dept. of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility cleared Bush administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, authors of the “torture memos,” of professional misconduct allegations, according to Newsweek.

View Amanpour’s segment “Debating torture.”

HHS and DOJ expand health care fraud ‘strike force’

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:44:00 -0700

U.S. health care fraud occurs so often and is so widespread that 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes toward paying for fraudulent claims, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. At least 3 percent of all U.S. health care spending, representing $68 billion, is lost to health care fraud. The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association says what the U.S. spends on fraudulent claims each year exceeds most countries’ GDP.

Perpetrators of health care fraud are “criminals” who must be stopped, said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, is hosting a fraud prevention summit today in Washington, D.C.

Closing plenary remarks can be watched via webcast from 3 to 4 p.m. ET at StopMedicareFraud.gov.

Sebelius and Holder picked up the fraud prevention mantle in May 2009 by creating “Strike Force Teams” to investigate and prosecute fraud cases. HHS claims that more than 500 individuals and organizations have been indicted for bilking the federal Medicare program out of $1 billion since the effort began. Fraud prevention efforts are currently underway in Miami and Tampa, Fla., Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Brooklyn, N.Y. and Baton Rouge, La.

“Health care fraud isn’t just a government problem. Criminals don’t discriminate and they are stealing from Medicare, Medicaid and private companies at an unacceptable rate,” said Sebelius. “We have a shared interest in stopping these crimes and today’s summit brought us together to discuss how we can all work together to fight fraud.”

Sebelius said President Obama’s FY 2011 budget being unveiled next week will include support for anti-fraud efforts that could save billions over the next 10 years. “He will call for increased investments in programs that have a proven record of preventing fraud, reducing payment errors and returning funds to the Trust Funds,” she said.

Workgroups are focusing on use of technology to prevent and detect health care fraud and improper payments, the role of states in preventing health care fraud, fraud prevention policies, law enforcement strategies, and health care fraud analysis and reporting.

“Health care fraud affects all Americans and demands a coordinated, national response,” said Holder.

Results of the summit will be made available to the public, according to HHS.

For more:

Health care fraud: an overview – Cornell University Law School

The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA)

Epic releases EMR app for iPhone

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:03:00 -0700

As is its custom, Epic Systems this month quietly released a long-awaited iPhone app for secure, mobile access to electronic medical records. Called Haiku, the app is a free download on iTunes for registered users of Epic's Summer 2009 EMR release, but users also must work for an organization that licenses Haiku.

Epic, a privately held company that shuns the spotlight and doesn't issue press releases, released the app Jan. 8, but news of Haiku's availability didn't break until a couple of weeks ago. It was reported several months ago that Epic was testing an iPhone app at Stanford Hospital & Clinics, but neither Epic nor Apple--another company known for its secrecy--would comment.

Epic is just the second major EMR vendor known to have produced an iPhone app, after Allscripts-Misys Healthcare solutions, though there are more than 1,800 health and medical pieces of software at the Apple App Store. The majority of apps are consumer-oriented, including many standalone personal health records.

For more:
- read this Healthcare IT News story
- view this product description and view screenshots at the App Shopper web site

Family practice physicians discuss the uproar over H1N1 vaccinations in France

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:34:00 -0700

Less than one month ago, French public opinion was overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of vaccination, with over 80 percent saying they would not, or most likely would not, get vaccinated and that the authorities were fear-mongering.

Today, however, vaccination centers are massively overburdened; there have been instances of public disorder among people waiting to be vaccinated, and some are complaining that the government has not done enough to facilitate vaccination.

Rudolph Chastel, Vincent Deslous-Paoli and Olivier Giraudon are general practitioners in Lyon, France. They, like general practitioners in many countries, are part of the national network of physicians known as “family doctors” or “local doctors.” They are also generally the first to see patients who come down with the flu.

We discussed various aspects of the H1N1 issue. Below are extracts from that conversation.

MC: We haven’t seen many articles about the role of GPs during the pandemic. The press has been full of H1N1 news, including coverage of government activity and the vaccination centers. Why have family doctors been so noticeably absent from the debate?

Because no one asked us our opinion until very recently, it’s as simple as that. France is a highly centralized country which is run by the elite. We are very angry that we have been ignored until now. We have not even been authorized to diagnose people as having H1N1. Only hospitals have been authorized to do that. The result is that hospital staff can’t cope efficiently with test demands.

It’s as if we are a sort of last resort in the eyes of the government. Now that they have messed up their campaign and that people are clamouring to get vaccinated they are frantically asking us to help cobble together some kind of adequate response to the situation.

We weren’t even authorized to get vaccinated along with the rest of health care personnel until very recently.

MC: Are you vaccinated now?

Dr. Chastel: Yes, but I was lucky and just happened to go to get vaccinated on a day when there weren’t many people around, or maybe because the person controlling candidates was not too fussy about authorizations.

Dr. Giraudon: I got vaccinated, too, but I had a hard time with the administrative side of it. People didn’t seem sure of whether or not we were allowed to get vaccinated.

Dr. Deslous-Paoli: I still haven’t been vaccinated. They refused to let me in, saying that I was not a priority. Phone calls I have made to try and sort things out have led to an impasse and it is evident that there is a lot of confusion at the administrative level. Many other doctors have still not managed to get vaccinated.

MC: What has the government asked you to do now that they have mobilized you? Are you happy with those arrangements? People are saying that you are only going to vaccinate people because you will be paid more to do so.

Yes, we are aware of those rumours but in fact the opposite is true. As things stand, everyone is in a lose-lose situation.

We have been asked to vaccinate people in the centers, but doing so would mean that we would have to close down our practices. The effect of that would be that not only would we lose the revenue from our regular patients but, more importantly, they would not be able to obtain consultations during that time.

In fact, we would vaccinate people for free on our premises during consultations, but the government will not allow us to carry stocks of vaccine.

It’s a lamentable mix-up, we have the feeling that we are being used as a stop-gap, and some doctors are even saying that they will not go and vaccinate in the centers under those circumstances, even if requisitioned to do so.

MC: OK, let’s backtrack three weeks, to the time when the vast majority of the public was anti-vaccine. How and why did that situation arise?

First of all, you have to understand that the French are automatically “anti” anything that any government proposes and they are very often suspicious of government motives. For example, there was a lot of talk about profit-based wheeling and dealing between the authorities and the pharmaceutical companies. In fact, the French are anti-state in a way, which is paradoxical given that at the same time the people always expect the state to deal with their problems, thus dispensing them from having to find their own solutions.

The press was also to blame. Every day brought its lot of scare-mongering articles, most of which were not based on any scientific elements. But as long as it “sells paper” as you say, it’s OK in their view.

And, as has been the case for doctors, there was a lack of clarity in government efforts to inform the population of the risks of a pandemic. That gave rise to many unfounded rumours concerning the safety aspects of the vaccine. Mind you, the press didn’t do much to dispel the lack of clarity by using an objective approach, as it should have done.

MC: And now, just three weeks later, here we are with people and the press complaining bitterly of government inefficiency concerning the organization of vaccination facilities, which have been flooded out with long lines of worried people. In other words, the public has changed its views in the blink of an eye. How would you explain that?

First of all, it is incontestable that the sudden increase –- a two-fold hike in both deaths and infections –- has had an effect. But, again, the press has latched onto it and now it’s all about how bad and serious things are getting. The sudden surge in Paris and the highly publicized fact that more young people are dying than was initially predicted has undoubtedly brought many sceptical younger people, including those of school age, back down to earth.

And although it could be argued that the public’s previous perception was that the government was doing too much and scaring people -- the government has not, in effect, done enough. We doctors are a good example of that. We are only now being asked to contribute to the vaccination effort in what have become chaotic circumstances.

All of that may seem difficult to understand to Anglo-Saxons, but the French are “Gauls” – that is to say fiercely independent in thought and action.

MC: How do you think the pandemic will develop? Is the worst behind us?

No, it most certainly is not. We doctors have varying opinions on how things will develop, but a consensual opinion says that things are going to get worse, or maybe much worse, and that a quick build-up to the climax of this pandemic will begin somewhere between Christmas and the middle of January, due to the increased geographical mobility of people during that time.

MC: Finally, do you consider that the H1N1 pandemic and the highly varying reactions to it will teach us any lessons for the future?

Absolutely not. As stated earlier, the French are suspicious of government and, concerning health care in particular, many people have not forgotten past scandals such as those involving the tragic thalidomide vaccination campaign and the scandal of HIV-tainted blood transfusions.

Thank you all very much for taking the time to talk to us.

Many opinions on the best way to prevent E. coli infection from beef

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:26:00 -0700

There are many opinions about what is the best way to protect consumers from E.coli infections that can leave them sick with diarrhea and abdominal cramps, or in some cases kill them.

A growing number of ground beef recalls as well as mass infections and several deaths from E.coli O157:H7 have focused national attention on the problem.

The solutions range from changing the way cattle are raised and slaughtered to more frequent testing and safer consumer handling to irradiating raw meat and vaccinating cattle against E.coli.

Experts with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) believe there may be as many as 70,000 infections with E.coli O157:H7, the strain that tends to make people ill, each year in the United States. Many cases are not reported because people who become ill may not seek treatment. About 10 percent of those with these types of infections develop life-threatening diseases, according to the CDC.

Better training of meat processors

Joellen Fiertag and Jeff Bender, food safety experts at the University of Minnesota, said recently that better training for meat processing workers, including improved methods of washing carcasses and washing hands when handling meat, and better pasteurization techniques could help lower the incidence of E.coli infections.

Most contamination of meat occurs at the slaughterhouse when feces comes into contact with the meat, said Fiertag and Bender.

Grass-fed versus grain-fed

Many consumer food safety experts advise that grass-fed livestock that feed on open pasture instead of grains are healthier than animals raised in confinement in feedlots, the conventional way most beef cattle are raised today.

Grass-fed beef are believed to be healthier than corn-fed cattle because corn is not a natural diet for cows. Feeding cattle corn also requires they be given antibiotics to keep them healthy. Antibiotics, in turn, make the animals less resistant to viruses and bacteria, including E.coli O157:H7.

Researchers at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, found that even switching cattle from a diet of grains to hay for five days prior to slaughter significantly reduced the presence of E. coli in the cow’s meat.

More testing

An Idaho company has developed a rapid test that it says can identify the presence of E.coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef and uncooked spinach food samples within one hour.

“This new test from Idaho Technology provides easy, accurate and timely pathogen identification to enhance food companies’ productivity,” said David Nielsen, the company’s vice president of product development.

The USDA has also announced that it will start more rigorous testing for E. coli in ground beef among the largest meat processors. The agency will also make results of the tests available online every three months so that people can view whether efforts to reduce E.coli contamination are effective.

More legislation

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has introduced legislation requiring regular testing of beef before and after it is processed. She believes Congress needs to take action to fill in the gaps in testing that allow infected meat into the food supply. Her proposed legislation, the E. Coli Eradication Act, which has been tabled in the Senate, would include penalties for companies that fail to implement testing mechanisms at their facilities, said Gillibrand in a statement. "The E. coli Eradication Act is an important step towards ensuring that the food going straight to kitchens, school cafeterias and restaurants is property tested and safe," Gillibrand said.

However, the meat industry generally opposes more testing. “If we could eliminate E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef by passing a bill in Congress, we would have insisted that such legislation be enacted years ago,” said American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle. “Unfortunately, it’s not that easy.”

The American Meat Institute says the legislation would “duplicate the millions of tests currently being conducted by the meat industry.” It suggests that instead of more tests, the emphasis should be placed on educating consumers on proper handling and cooking of meat.

Irradiated meat

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irradiation as a way to kill E.coli in meat more than 10 years ago, consumers have not accepted the process as safe.

Many are concerned that irradiation changes the chemical make-up of the meet and want more tests to determine the safety of irradiated meat.

Vaccine for cattle

For years researchers in Canada and the United States have been working on developing vaccines that would eliminate E.coli in cattle. Epitopix, LLC, of Willmar, Minn., was the first to receive conditional approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its cattle vaccine earlier this year. When tested on cattle, the vaccine reduces the amount of E.coli in the animals’ manure by 60 to 90 percent, depending on the vaccine being tested.

Consumer education

The American Meat Institute, federal agencies and medical societies all offer advice to consumers on their web sites on ways to reduce their risk of getting an infection from contaminated meat. The CDC advises that people cook ground beef or ground beef patties to 160 degrees F. and use a food thermometer to ensure the food reaches the correct temperature.

Meat should be stored in the refrigerator at 40 degrees F. to prevent the growth of bacteria, according to the USDA. Raw meat should not come into contact with other foods or countertops where it could spread bacteria, and meat should always be eaten before the expiration date, says the USDA.

Considering all that is known, there is no shortage of solutions to the problems in meat production. There is however, a gap in the ability to put together a comprehensive strategy for addressing food safety.

Sources:

http://health.state.mn.us

http://gillibrand.senate.gov

http://www.cdc.gov

http://www.sciencemag.org

http://www.idahotech.com

Water management: How the French do it

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:29:00 -0700

Olivier Fontaine coordinates study data for the technical data unit of the Rhône-Mediterranean-Corsica branch of the ‘Agence de l’eau’ (Water Agency), the French body that oversees the use and conditions of all water resources in France. The branch headquarters are in Lyon.

Fontaine has a privileged overview of just how polluted French water is, who is responsible for that pollution, what kinds of pollution are to be found in the water and methods of combating pollution.

Surrounded by piles of files and documents, Fontaine described the role of his agency from his office overlooking the Rhône River.

When and why was the agency created and how does it function?

Many people will be surprised to learn that it was created as far back as 1964, and the principle of “the polluter pays” was adopted as the Modus Operandi. People think nowadays that polluter/payer is a new idea which just applies to industry and agriculture. But we all pollute, and the private use of water is a non-negligeable source of pollution as well, just like the others.

Everyone pays for water of course, but we have developed a policy of compensating industries which work to clean up their act, and the same goes for city administrations and agricultural concerns. We do not receive government funding, although we are a government agency. Our funding comes mainly from fees collected from water bills.

In organizational terms, the national territory is carved up into six zones, each of which has its own agency which controls activity within its boundaries and liaises with other agencies on common issues like, for example, rivers which cross two or more zones.

What is the legal framework within which you work, and who sets your objectives and operational priorities?

We began as a localized entity, but over the years the European Union has become a major motor of efforts to clean up water supplies across the continent. Our agency, like those in all countries, is held to a pan-European directive which came into effect in 2000. The directive obliges us to ensure that all water sources are satisfactorily clean by 2015, although some severely polluted zones, like Brittany in France, have time-limit derogations according to the seriousness of the problems encountered. We consider that this initiative has had a positive focusing and galvanizing effect on our work.

And the EU is very serious about the directive. They have the right to hand down extremely heavy penalties to abusive polluters and they use that right quite often. Fines can, and do, reach many millions of euros.

Could you describe the agency’s day-to-day operations?

The keyword here is sampling. France is dotted with thousands of control points along rivers, lakeshores and in underground sources. The zone we are in, for example, carries out over 1.5 million analyses each year.

We analyze the quantity of organic matter, azote-based compounds, nitrates, phosphore, sediment content, pesticides, organic pollutants and hydrocarbons, to name a few. We also analyze the quantity and quality of fauna and flora in the zone, including fish and other water-based creatures, and plant life.

In instances where we discover anomalies, we track down the cause and try to find solutions to the problem, using the compensation methods I mentioned earlier, if possible. We also advise on practical solutions to the pollution source, such as the use of raised banks of land to limit pesticide run-off into water sources. There is still a lot of pesticide use in agriculture.

Which are the principal sources of pollution?

Agriculture and industry, without a doubt. But private individuals also create potential problems, and that’s why all population centers near water sources are obliged to install latest-generation epurators and filters to stop urban pollution from being re-injected into water sources.

Nitrates are a big offender, although they are most dangerous when they run into the Atlantic or Mediterranean, where they are a major factor in the wildfire spread of algae which can become toxic, as has happened in Brittany.

Are you working on the effects that any change in the world climate may have had, or may have in the future?

Yes, we are currently evaluating possible effects of climate change on water resources, but in strict terms of pollution there is no cause for alarm at this point. The only potential risk at this time has less to do with pollution but with the nuclear industry. French nuclear power plants rely on cold water to cool down their reactors, so any augmentation in temperature could lead to a situation in which cooling reactors becomes difficult.

So the big question is, are water supplies heavily polluted and what are the main risks for the future?

Surprisingly, things are not as bad as the general public seems to think. The constant surveillance and tracking of pollution and polluters has had an incontestably positive effect. Nothing is perfect but, apart from some heavily industrialised areas, the water in France is acceptably clean. But we do have to keep up the pressure for things to remain that way and, where possible, improve things further.

Pesticides and nitrates remain a problem in France, which is a major agricultural producer, with nitrates having reached underground water supplies in large quantities.

One possible future pollution source which is being considered as potentially serious is the introduction into water of medical drugs residue. The most prominent risk here is oestrogen, which comes from the various types of contraceptive pill. Oestrogen is known, for example, to lead to figh changing their sexual gender. We are keeping a close eye on this problem.

As I said though, I am globally optimistic that we have things under control.

Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.

Interview conducted, condensed and translated by Michael Cosgrove.

“It’s all so different to studying in France”

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:43:00 -0700

The following is an authorized translation of an article appearing in Le Figaro. The original version is available here.

Internet members of Le Figaro recount their foreign student experiences acquired via the student exchange programme Erasmus (European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), and compare the French university system to those of other countries.

The Erasmus exchange programme has recently suffered a drop in numbers and although there is general agreement on the personal enrichment which the programme can bring, some seem less enthusiastic concerning the quality of the teaching they received.

“On a human level Erasmus is beneficial, but on the academic level students lose a little ground. The subjects taught are often out of our context and professors are over-indulgent towards “tourist students” admits cedric73 who, upon his return to France, fears that he may have to re-do his university year to get back up to scratch.

In Alma mater’s view on the other hand, “Each individual is in charge of his own destiny as an Erasmus student, and the benefit you get out of it depends above all on your motivation. I left in 1992 for a year of law studies in Great Britain and I can confirm that we got through a lot of work and that I sat my exams in the same conditions and on the same programme content as the ‘local’ students.”

Same thing for Mozzer, who passed all his exams with mentions. “It’s completely baffling. I wasn’t accepted for a DEA (a French university further study option) when I got back to France. I came up against prejudiced attitudes and French professors suggested that I redo a master in France. Today though I’m doing better than many of my friends who stayed in France at that time. I tell myself that my efforts finally paid off.”

A university system which embodies the opposite of “Franco-French” customs.

Like Duje for example, who explains that he “..discovered other ways of doing things and was liberated from deeply ingrained Franco-French habits,” some people agree that they found an education system which was totally new to French students.

That is why it is important to acclimatise oneself to the renowned ‘culture shock’ in order to optimise one’s chances of succeeding and gaining a maximum of benefit from the experience. “Life on a campus of 19,000 students, like those they have in America, is really something to experience. It’s all so different to studying in France. We have a lot to learn from the American university system” says Mexica8494, who also spent a term in Mexico during her studies at a business school.

She adds: “What I like about that type of campus is the diversity of options available. Even though you may be doing very specific studies you can adapt your work by using tailor-made modules. So each student can have a different profile within a general standard area of study.”

Fab UK even goes so far as regretting that she didn’t do all her university studies abroad. “If I’d known earlier about the quality of teaching in England or the United States I would have taken out a long-term loan of €30,000 ($44,000) to be able to go and do my studies over there!”

Dk302-50-0000001 got back to France with a shock: “I began a DESS (a specialist studies diploma) where we were asked, just like at school, to sign a presence sheet. We spent our days copying board lessons which are already very well presented in books! I had the impression that I was in reverse gear” she remembers.

She says that she was able to study “In a different way and with a lot of confidence” and that she appreciated “The proximity of professors, most of whom are professionals doing a real job, which is the opposite of our ‘conference masters!’ I often availed myself of their knowledge during revision because they gave us their mobile phone numbers, that which would be unthinkable here in France.”

A theme echoed by Mexica8494. “Students are much closer to succeeding because they work in a structured framework.” She says that the system even extends to the social sphere. “Numerous student associations participate in day-to-day university life. There are always stands set up which promote those associations: Miss Campus, food and restaurant-linked, sport etcetera.”

“Burn your books!”

For Michael – alias L’anglais on Le Figaro – who teaches English in a business school in Lyon, “It’s time that the intelligentsia stopped being content with no more than historical facts and that they started realising that the world is changing and it won’t wait for France. Universities represent the future of a country and of oneself, and not a method for learning the past just to be able to pat yourself on the back afterwards.” He deplores that French students are less well prepared for the world of work whereas “Anglo-Saxons consider applied research to be much more important than theoretical research alone. They want to earn money with their knowledge and their work in university, and as a result are often picked up by businesses and companies.”

Convinced by the Anglo-Saxon university system, Michael outlines an exmple of the proactive methods which in his opinion make all the difference. “In literature, Anglo-Saxons are all but invited to burn their books, because the idea isn’t to imitate past greats like Zola or Maupassant, but to create new styles and methods of expression. In their minds, culture should be invented now, today. It’s not about going to Mass in honour of past literary culture.”

(Avec l’aimable autorisation du Figaro – With the kind permission of Le Figaro)