“Babies born just a few weeks early have a higher risk of poor health,” The Guardian reported today. According to the newspaper, new research has found that being born just a few weeks early can raise their risk of conditions such as asthma.
It is already known that babies born prematurely (before 37 weeks of pregnancy may have a higher risk of immediate or longer-term health problems, and the earlier a baby is born, the higher the risk. To examine the issue, researchers followed over 14,000 children born between 2000 and 2002, and assessed their health at the ages of three and five years old. Outcomes including growth, hospital admissions, use of medication, asthma and long-standing illnesses were looked at particularly in relation to whether the children were moderately premature (32-36 weeks of pregnancy or born at what the researchers called “early” full term (37-38 weeks . Babies born moderately prematurely or at early term were more likely to have been re-admitted to hospital in the first few months of life than babies born at 39-41 weeks. Babies born moderately prematurely also had a higher risk of asthma symptoms than full-term babies.
These findings are broadly in line with what is already known about the effects of prematurity, and do not change the UK’s current definition of full-term pregnancy as 37 weeks and over. However, the study does show how different degrees of prematurity may affect health. Further study of the issue would be valuable, to explore longer-term health outcomes that may be caused by prematurity and the factors that may influence the likelihood of these poor health outcomes.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Leicester and other UK institutions. It was funded by the Bupa Foundation and published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal.
The media generally covered this research in a balanced way.
What kind of research was this?
In the UK, the normal length of a pregnancy is classed as 37 weeks or above. It is already known that babies born prematurely (before 37 weeks may be at increased risk of immediate and longer-term health problems, and that the risks are higher the earlier a baby is born. However, the authors say that there has been minimal research into the longer-term health outcomes of infants specifically born moderately preterm (which this study defines as 32-36 weeks and at what the researchers termed as "early full term" (37-38 weeks .
To investigate this, the researchers used a cohort study. This is a good way to follow up and compare health outcomes in groups of people that have been exposed to different factors. In this case, the exposure was the number of weeks of pregnancy at which the babies were born. However, a cohort study that looks at a group’s health relies on the accuracy of reported health outcomes and diagnoses. For example, one condition this study looked at was asthma, and the researchers asked parents about whether their child had wheezing symptom or asthma. However, this does not necessarily equate to a medical diagnosis of asthma.
This type of study also needs to take into account potential factors that could be related to both risk of prematurity and risk of the health outcome ( confounding factors . For example, parental smoking is linked to an increase risk of prematurity, and also to an increased risk of asthma in the child.
What did the research involve?
This study involved participants of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS , a piece of research in which the subjects were gathered by random sampling of child benefit registers. It featured 18,818 infants born in the UK between 2000 and 2002. The number of weeks of pregnancy at birth was calculated from the mother’s report of her expected due date. Births were grouped into:
- very preterm (defined by the authors as 23-31 weeks
- moderate preterm (32-33 weeks
- late preterm (34-36 weeks
- early term (37-38 weeks
- full term (39-41 weeks
These are not the standard accepted definitions. For example, the charity BLISS, for “babies born too soon”, defines full-term pregnancy as 37 weeks or more, moderately premature as 35-37 weeks, very premature as 29-34 weeks, and extremely premature as birth before 29 weeks.
Child health outcomes were monitored over five years of follow-up. Outcomes assessed included:
- child height, weight and body mass index at three and five years
- parental reports of the number of hospital admissions (not related to accidents since birth or the previous interview, collected at nine months and at three and five years.
- parental reports of any longstanding illness or disability of more than three months’ duration and diagnosed by a health professional, collected at three and five years (a limiting longstanding illness was defined as one which limited activities that are normal for the child’s age group
- parental reports of wheezing within the previous 12 months, and parental reports of asthma collected at three and five years
- parental reports of the use of prescribed drugs, collected at five years
- parents’ ratings of child health, defined as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor, collected at five years
The researchers used statistical methods to look at the outcomes in groups born at different stages of pregnancy and compared them to (their definition of full-term babies. Analyses were adjusted to account for various potential confounding factors, principally numerous social and demographic factors. The researchers also estimated “population attributable fractions” (PAFs associated with preterm and early term birth. This is an estimate of the contribution that a particular risk factor has to a health outcome. PAF represents the reduction in the proportion of people in the population with a particular health problem that could be expected if the exposure to a risk factor were reduced to the ideal exposure. In this case, it would represent the proportion of children that would no longer have a particular health problem if all babies were born at full term rather than preterm.
What were the basic results?
After the researchers excluded participants in the MCS study with incomplete data on time in the womb at birth, they interviewed the parents of 14,273 children at 3 years of age and 14,056 at 5 years. They found certain sociodemographic factors, such as lower maternal educational status and maternal smoking, to be associated with prematurity, as is already known.
The researchers generally found a “dose response” effect of prematurity, meaning that the more premature a baby was, the higher the likelihood of general health problems, hospital admissions and longstanding illnesses. They calculated the odds of each outcome compared to children born at 39-41 weeks. The full details of these outcomes are as follows:
The odds for three or more hospital admissions by five years of age were:
- 6.0 times higher for children born at 23-31 weeks
- 3.0 times higher for children born at 32-33 weeks
- 1.9 times higher for children born at 34-36 weeks
- 1.4 times higher for children born at 37-38 weeks
The odds for any longstanding illness at five years of age were:
- 2.4 times higher for children born at 23-31 weeks
- 2.0 times higher for children born at 32-33 weeks
- 1.5 times higher for children born at 34-36 weeks
- 1.1 times higher for children born at 37-38 weeks
The odds for the child’s health being rated as only fair or poor by parents at five years of age were:
- 2.3 times higher for children born at 23-31 weeks
- 2.8 times higher for children born at 32-33 weeks
- 1.5 times higher for children born at 34-36 weeks
- 1.3 times higher for children born at 37-38 weeks
The odds for asthma and wheezing at five years of age were:
- 2.9 times higher for children born at 23-31 weeks
- 1.7 times higher for children born at 32-33 weeks
- 1.5 times higher for children born at 34-36 weeks
- 1.2 times higher for children born at 37-38 weeks
The greatest contribution to the burden of disease at three and five years was among children born at late/moderate preterm or early term. The calculated PAFs for being admitted to hospital at least three times between the ages of 9 months and 5 years were:
- 5.7% for children born at 32-36 weeks (i.e. you would expect a 5.7% reduction in the number of young children admitted three or more times if babies were born at full term rather than moderate preterm
- 7.2% for children born at 37-38 weeks (you would expect a 7.2% reduction in the number of young children being admitted if babies were born at full term rather than early term
- 3.8% for children born before 37 weeks (you would expect a 3.8% reduction in the number of young children being admitted if babies were born at full term rather than very preterm
Similarly, PAFs for longstanding illnesses were:
- 5.4% for early term births
- 5.4% for moderate or late preterm births
- 2.7% for very preterm births
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that “the health outcomes of moderate/late preterm and early term babies are worse than those of full term babies.” They say that it would be useful for further research to look into how much of the effect is due to prematurity itself, and how much is due to other factors such as maternal or foetal complications.
Conclusion
This valuable research examined childhood health outcomes in a large group of children born at different stages of pregnancy.
Important points to consider when interpreting this research include:
- The authors generally found that the likelihood of poorer health outcomes was higher with increasing prematurity (a dose response effect . This is in line with what is already known about the generally poor immediate and longer-term health outcomes among babies born increasingly prematurely.
- The greatest contribution to overall burden of disease at ages three and five years was calculated to be among children born at 32-36 weeks or at 37-38 weeks. Though a gestation of less than 32 weeks might be expected to have a greater influence on the burden of disease, it must be remembered that many more babies are born above 32 weeks of gestation than below it. Therefore, in the population as a whole, the greater number of babies born within the 32-38 week range would have a greater effect than the small number of babies born extremely early.
- The definitions that the authors used for the purposes of this study are not standard definitions. For example, the standard definition of full-term pregnancy is birth at 37 weeks or more, and it is not split into “early term” at 37-38 weeks and “full term” only at 39-41 weeks. Similarly, definitions of prematurity differ from those used by other UK health organisations.
- There is a possibility of inaccuracy as both age at birth and health outcomes were reported by parents, rather than assessed through medical records. For example, a parental report of wheezing or asthma does not necessarily constitute a confirmed medical diagnosis of asthma.
Overall, the study found that the more premature a baby is, the greater the likelihood of health problems in childhood, and that some effect of prematurity may even be seen in pregnancies approaching full term. Further study in this area would be valuable, both to explore the wider range of longer-term health outcomes that may be caused by prematurity, and to look into associated factors (medical or sociodemographic, for example that may influence the likelihood of these outcomes.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Infancy health risk linked to early birth by research. BBC News, March 2 2012
Babies born a few weeks early 'suffer health risks'. The Guardian, March 2 2012
Links To Science
Boyle EM, Poulsen G, Field DJ et al. Effects of gestational age at birth on health outcomes at 3 and 5 years of age: population based cohort study. British Medical Journal 2012; 344
Press release: Population-based cohort study of the effects of gestational age at birth on health outcomes at three and five years of age. British Medical Journal, March 1 2012
press release. "Such lifestyles, of course, lead to high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk.” The team used data collected over 20 years from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Adults study (CARDIA , which began in 1985 and 1986 with several thousand 18- to 30-year-olds. They analyzed BMI, alcohol intake, tobacco use, diet and exercise from over 3,000 of the CARDIA participants to help define a low cardiovascular disease risk profile and healthy lifestyle factors. Nearly 44 percent of the participants that were 24-years-old had a low cardiovascular disease risk profile during the first year of the study. The researchers found that 20 years later, only 24.5 percent fell into the category of a low cardiovascular disease risk profile. They said 60 percent of those who maintained all five healthy lifestyles reached middle age with the low cardiovascular risk profile, compared with less than 5 percent who followed none of the healthy lifestyles. Lui said that if the next generation of young people started to live a healthy lifestyle, they will be gaining more than heart health. “Many studies suggest that people who have low cardiovascular risk in middle age will have a better quality of life, will live longer and will have lower Medicare costs in their older age,” he said. “There are a lot of benefits to maintaining a low-risk profile.” --- On the Net:
Could it be the "messenger" -- typically federal and state agencies and public health officials?
A clue to that possibility surfaced in
a recent study, "Motivation for Unpasteurized Milk Consumption in Michigan, 2011," by Paul Bartlett and Angela Renee Katafiasz, of Michigan State University, which appeared in a recent issue of "Food Protection Trends."
In an email to Food Safety News, Bartlett said that what surprised him the most about the results of the survey of raw-milk drinkers was that such a small percentage of them trusted public health officials regarding what food is safe to eat.
Only 4 (or 7.1 percent of the 56 raw-milk consumers who responded to the study's questionnaire agreed with a statement that "in general, they trusted recommendations made by state health officials about what foods are safe to eat." Another 10 (or 17.9 percent indicated they didn't agree with the statement, while another 41 (or 73.2 percent said they weren't sure.
"This lack of trust," says the study, "casts doubt on whether or not consumer education by local or state health departments would be effective in preventing milk-borne disease due to raw-milk consumption."
None of this surprises Mark McAfee, the outspoken co-owner of California-based
Organic Pastures, the nation's largest raw-milk producer. In an email to Food Safety News, McAfee said he has always thought that any area where raw milk is sold should have a huge ultra-red pink sign that says something like: "The FDA says raw milk is dangerous because it has not been processed."
"If that were the case," he said, "sales would skyrocket. No one trusts the Food and Drug Administration or its propaganda."
McAfee said the problem is that "state and federal agencies have cried wolf so many times against raw milk that now any cries that might be an honest attempt to warn of the rare incidence of illness is ignored as hatred against all things FDA."
FDA comes into the picture because the agency doesn't allow raw milk sold for human consumption to be transported across state lines.
That same skepticism about what public health officials and agencies have to say about raw milk kept surfacing in the recent Michigan study. When asked if raw milk should be regulated by the government to ensure quality standards, 27 (or 48.2 percent of the respondents disagreed, while only 9 (or 16.1 percent agreed. Another 17 (or 30.4 percent said they weren't sure.
Along those same lines, some of the raw milk consumers in the study said they generally believe that their producers maintain a higher standard of animal care and cleanliness than does the mainstream dairy industry.
The respondents also took issue with some of the survey's other statements, once again revealing sharp differences of opinion with official government views on the potential health hazards of drinking raw milk. For example, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "Drinking raw milk increases your risk of getting a foodborne disease," an average of 44 (or 78.6 percent disagreed. Only 6 respondents agreed with the statement, and another 5 (or 8.9 percent of the respondents said they weren't sure. In Februrary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a study showing that the rate of disease outbreaks linked to raw milk was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.
In 2010, Michigan had two
Campylobacter foodborne outbreaks associated with raw milk. And last year, 3 probable cases of
Q-fever were reported in people who participated in raw-milk cow-share arrangements, which according to the report, were presumably caused by drinking raw milk. Back in 1947, Michigan became the first state to require that all milk for sale be pasteurized. As such, the sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal in that state. However cow- and goat-share agreements in which people buy a share of a herd and are therefore considered owners of the milk from the herd are permitted through an informal agreement on the part of the state.
Profile of a raw-milk drinker
The Michigan study starts off by acknowledging that "it is largely unknown why some consumers prefer raw milk over pasteurized milk."
As such, one of the goals of the peer-reviewed study was to come up with a some sort of profile of raw-milk drinkers in Michigan and from there, to summarize their reasons for preferring raw milk to pasteurized milk.
The profile that emerged was a well-educated adult in his/her late 20s who typically lives in a rural area. Overall, the ages of the raw-milk drinkers, which included family members, ranged from less than one year to 75.
The profile, which, co-author Bartlett readily says is limited due to the small number of raw-milk drinkers surveyed, contrasts starkly with a profile of raw-milk drinkers in California that emerged in an earlier report, "
Profile of Raw Milk Consumers."
Authored primarily by scientists then at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the report analyzed responses to questions in the 1994 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey that asked respondents about whether they drank raw milk, the amount consumed, the reason for drinking raw milk, and where raw milk was most often obtained.
The researchers found that among the 3,999 survey respondents, 128 (about 3.2 percent reported drinking raw milk the previous year. These raw-milk consumers were more likely that those who didn't drink raw milk to be younger than 40, male, Hispanic and to have less than a high school education.
However, these survey results included any responder who had drunk raw milk in the previous year no matter how much or how little.
One of the conclusions of the California report was that additional research is needed to further refine the profile of raw milk drinkers and determine their risk of adverse effects from drinking raw milk.
The report also said that "Although the role of raw milk as a vehicle in disease transmission has been well-documented, information regarding the prevalence of raw-milk consumption in sparse."
Estimates of the percentage of milk drinkers who drink raw milk range from 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. population, although no one knows for sure since it's too difficult to track the information.
Organic Pastures McAfee was happy to share some information about his raw-milk customers, based on informal studies and polls conducted by the dairy. What surfaces is that 50 percent of the dairy's raw-milk customers are well-educated moms between 20 and 45 years old. The rest of the dairy's raw-milk customers are what McAfee describes as "being all over the place" and can be anyone: young, old, fat, skinny, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, healthy, sick, abandoned by doctors, not wanting to go to doctors, Eastern Bloc immigrants, left wingers, right wingers, no wingers, Tea Party members, and homeschoolers.
"It is everyone," he said.
Why raw milk?
Supporting local farms topped the list of the reasons the Michigan raw-milk survey respondents gave for preferring raw milk, with 48 (or 85.7 of them citing that as a reason. Next came taste, with 47 (or 83.9 percent giving that as a reason. "Holistic health benefits" were cited by 43 (or 76.8 percent of the respondents. Thirty-two respondents (or 57.1 percent said they don't feel processed milk is safe. A majority of the study's raw-milk drinkers shared their beliefs that raw milk was beneficial for relieving digestive problems, intestinal diseases and allergies. Some said they believe raw milk is beneficial for heart disease, neurologic disease, acne, and cancer. Others shared anecdotal claims that when they drink pasteurized milk, they experience symptoms of lactose intolerance, which they said doesn't happen when they drink unpasteurized milk. People with lactose intolerance have a hard time digesting lactose, which is a type of natural sugar found in milk and dairy products. The intolerance occurs when the small intestine doesn't make enough of the enzyme, lactase, which is needed to break down or digest lactose. Symptoms include gas, belly pain, and bloating.
However, a
study out of Stanford Medical School (financed by raw milk advocates not only raised questions about how widespread lactose intolerance really is, but found that raw milk did not confer any benefit over pasteurized milk in relieving symptoms of lactose intolerance. Health authorities say that no matter what benefits might be associated anecdotally with raw milk, the risk of contracting a foodborne disease such as E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or Listeria infection outweighs any of the unproven benefits. They point out that if harmful microorganisms from cow excrement contaminates the raw milk, those drinking it can come down with serious digestive problems, kidney failure, or even death.
In California, labels on raw-milk containers must say: "Raw (unpasteurized milk and raw milk dairy products may contain disease-causing micro-organisms. Persons at highest risk of disease from these organisms include newborns and infants; the elderly; pregnant women; those taking corticosteroids, antibiotics or antacids; and those having chronic illnesses or other conditions that weaken their immunity." The Michigan study also revealed that the average number of years the respondents have been drinking raw milk is 6.1 and that 92 percent of the milk the respondents' families drink is raw milk.
A commitment to purchasing raw milk can be seen in the average number of miles a respondent travels out of his or her way to buy raw milk: 24.2 miles. The average number of pickups of raw milk each month was 4.1.
The study
Questionnaires were sent out to raw-milk producers, 20 of whom agreed to participate in the study. The producers, in turn, were sent survey questions, which they forwarded on to their cow- or goat-share members. Of the 160 questionnaires sent out, 56 were returned.
While the study has been criticized for being self-selecting in that it only questioned people who drink raw milk and biased because it started out with the assumption that it's potentially harmful to your health to drink raw milk, co-author Bartlett told Food Safety News that it was done "for the cost of postage" as a project for a 3-credit course. And, yes, he definitely would have liked to have had a higher response rate and a larger study.
He also pointed out that the hypothesized health benefits of raw milk are difficult to study because it would be unethical to randomly assign people to drink raw milk and others to drink pasteurized milk. Besides which, such a study could not be done blindly because the study subjects would certainly know if they were drinking raw or pasteurized milk (although the Stanford study effectively masked the taste differences with an added flavoring.
More information about raw milk can be found
here.
A couple of weeks ago I shared some thoughts on
what I've been doing to avoid getting sick this winter season. After posting this article I was having a conversation with my friend and go-to health guy, Dr. DiBacco, about verifying the health-related decisions I make in my life. I asked Dr.
Personal Best Training Center, offers up the necessary nutrients that will keep the hairs on your head there longer.
The battle with obesity has become one of the most urgent health issues in America today, as over one third of adults and 17 percent of children are now obese. But for Native Americans, this problem is even more dire.
American Indian (AI and Alaska Native (AN adults are 1.6 times more likely to be obese than Caucasians, according to the Department of Health and Human Services'
Office of Minority Health. Almost
33 percent of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives are obese, and over half of AI/AN women are overweight.
As a result, health consequences stemming from obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease, are also common among AI/AN people. Indeed, 16.1 percent of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives suffer from Type II diabetes, which has been closely linked to obesity. This is the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups, according to the
American Diabetes Association.
And diabetes has been identified as a precursor to cardiovascular disease. Heart disease and stroke are the number 1 causes of death among people with Type II diabetes.
In some tribes, diabetes rates are much higher. For example, 50 percent of people in the Pima Indian tribe of Arizona are diabetic.
Now a recent government
report has shown that this problem starts early for Native Americans. Obesity affects one half to one third to of AI/AN children, according to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS , a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report also notes that 20 percent of AI and ANs ages 2 to 4 who are enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC supplemental nutrition program are obese.
By the time these children reach pre-teen and teen years, many are already developing Type II diabetes, traditionally called "Adult onset diabetes" because it develops over time, usually from high body fat. Now 1.74 in 1,000 American Indian children ages 10-19 have Type II diabetes, compared with a rate of .19 in 1,000 among White children, 1.05 among Black children, and .48 among Hispanic children.
What's behind these alarming statistics? Why are Native Americans affected by obesity and its consequences at higher rates than the average U.S. population and than other ethnic minorities?
Poverty: A Leading Contributor
Access to nutritious foods is more difficult for anyone living in poverty, but this barrier to a healthy lifestyle is magnified among American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In 2010, more than 24 percent of AI/AN households were below the federal poverty line, compared to 15 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.
Limited funds mean limited access to nutritious foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables or whole grain carbohydrates, which are often more expensive than commodity goods like flour or shortening.
"The bottom line is poverty," confirms Kahti DeWilde, licensed nutritionist and director of the WIC program for the S'Klallam tribe in Port Gamble, WA. "It's lacking the funds to be able to spend money on appropriate foods."
Even getting to the grocery store can be a challenge for people without cars. A high percentage of Native American communities are located in "food deserts," defined as a low-income area where the nearest supermarket is over a mile away, making obtaining fresh foods that much more difficult.
"When you live in poverty and you don't have the money or the transportation, you just stay on the reservation and get what you get and that's that," DeWilde says, explaining the situation at Port Gamble.
Since the nearest grocery store here is over two miles away from most tribal members, many do their shopping at the local gas station's convenience store, whose fresh produce offerings are next to nonexistent. When Food Safety News visited the store, fresh options there included a basket of lemons, some Dole processed fruit containers and a handful of sandwiches. A tribal member says the establishment used to keep a supply of fresh fruits and vegetables, available upon request, but that those goods are no longer available consistently.
The source - who wished to remain anonymous - says that demand for fresh produce is still there and that people often go to the store looking for the occasional head of lettuce or potatoes to round out a potato salad.
And customers would pay for the fruits and vegetables if they were available, notes the source.
"People would buy it. It's cheap. It's the same price as you pay for those Dole containers in there."
The store's deli manager declined to comment.
A final factor in limiting Native Americans' access to healthy foods is that AI/AN households are bigger than the average U.S. household, meaning that breadwinners have more mouths to feed.
"If you're going to the store and you have no food, you're not buying endive, you're buying for your children the thing that's going to feed as many children as possible and make them feel full," says Suzan Harjo, a member of the Cheyenne and Muscogee tribes and President of the Morning Star Institute - a national Native American rights organization.
The Root of the Issue
But the problem of poor nutrition in Native American communities extends back far beyond the immediate obstacle of poverty.
The traditional Native American diet was one that modern-day nutritionists would consider a gold standard - full of lean meats, protein, fruits and vegetables and low in fat, refined sugars and sodium.
Native people hunted, fished and gathered their food from the land.
But then in 1830s and 1840s, under the Indian Removal Act, Native American tribes signed treaties with the U.S. government that relegated them to reservations. This relocation also removed Native people from their usual food sources and the active lifestyle that hunting and gathering required.
By 1890 the government decreed that Native Americans were not allowed to leave their lands to fish, hunt or gather in their usual territories. Instead, they were given government rations of commodities such as flour, lard and sugar.
"Those original commodities were not healthy for the people," explains Fran Miller, Community Nutritionist for the Suquamish Tribe on Puget Sound in Washington State. "They moved to a lot of highly processed foods really quickly. At the same time, they lost that physically active lifestyle that was practiced because they had to be active to hunt and gather and fish. That's why we've seen a rapid increase in obesity and diabetes within the last 150 years or so."
These cheaper, nutritionally empty foods became the new "traditional" for American Indians as they developed a taste for the only foods available to them.
Harjo says she recalls her grandmother eating a lard sandwich.
"People now have a preference for processed foods, high sugar, white flour," she notes. "All of those things that are terrible for you, terrible for all of us, are killing Indians."
The nutritionally devoid "frybread" - made from a deep-fried mixture of flour and lard and eaten with butter, jam or meat and cheese - is the quintessential example of a food derived from government rations, now considered to be a "typical" American Indian food.
"We call frybread a cultural food because it's not traditional," explains Miller. "It was born out of necessity. People got these food packages and they were hungry and they had to figure out what to do with the rations they'd been given."
Frybread is not something Harjo sees Native Americans giving up any time soon. It has become a comfort food.
In an American Indian family where the mother is alcoholic or addicted to drugs - conditions that occur at a higher rate among AI/ANs than among the average population - Harjo says sometimes making frybread is one simple thing she can do for her family. The food becomes associated with happiness.
"A mom who's trying to do a good thing for the children will occasionally make a bunch of frybread and that'll be a good memory," says Harjo. "So a lot of people have a real emotional attachment to frybread because it represented good times."
DeWilde says that instead of trying to get people to eliminate frybread from their diet, she suggests only eating it occasionally, spread out between healthier meals.
Agrees Miller, "People like frybread. It tastes good and it's okay to eat for special occasions, but we make the distinction that it's not something that's part of the normal everyday diet."
----
The second part of this series: "What's Being Done," will be featured by Food Safety News tomorrow, Tuesday March 6.
Graph courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Photo #1 taken by Gretchen Goetz.
Adding a fitness regimen for your everyday activities is important to stay healthy but avoiding traditional cigarette will be much healthier than you ever think it will. It rid of your efforts simply because it weakens your defense mechanisms that’s why you seem to be always breathless. In order for you to be back in your same old, healthy self, you have to shift to using
electronic cigarette coupon codes because it’s secure and won’t drain your energy but even give you health advantages.
Part 2 of 3.
as the state religion of Iran in 1501
In 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama gave a speech on
religion in the public square. Obama said:
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.I consider it one of Obama's worst speeches ever. On the substance, it is nonsense—accepting of Republican nostrums on "what Democrats think," and then proposing ridiculous ideas for "religion in the public square." As a question of politics, it was a failure as its intent was to inoculate Obama from attack on "lack of faith" grounds from the "Religious Right." Kenyan socialist muslim anyone? But if that speech was the end of it, well, politics is what it is. But it has not ended there.
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that—regardless of our personal beliefs—constitutional principles tie our hands.
At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
E.J. Dionne, joining the most radical elements of the "Religious" Right, has led the "progressive" Catholic attack on the principle of separation of church and state. Dionne points to Obama's 2006 speech as the beacon to follow on this issue, rejecting in essence the famous formulations of
JFK's 1960 speech on the issue.
The
encroachment of religion on our secular government proceeds at an alarming pace.
Last Thursday, the United States Senate narrowly rejected, by a 51-48 vote, passage of
the Blunt Amendment, also known as the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act." The amendment would:
Amend[] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan or the purchaser or beneficiary (in the case of individual coverage without penalty. [...] Declares that nothing in PPACA shall be construed to authorize a health plan to require a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Prohibits a health plan from being considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services or to fulfill any other requirement under PPACA because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider.To its, credit the Obama administration
Prohibits an American Health Benefit Exchange (a state health insurance exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing PPACA from discriminating against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of an unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services.
opposed the Blunt Amendment:
A proposal being considered in the Senate this week would allow employers that have no religious affiliation to exclude coverage of any health service, no matter how important, in the health plan they offer to their workers. This proposal isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong.No word on what E.J. Dionne thinks. However, the Obama administration could be accused of betraying the 2006 words of Sen. Obama by "try[ing] to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs—constitutional principles tie our hands." After all, if you provide "accommodations" to religiously affiliated institutions regarding their conduct in the secular world, why not to religious persons as well?
The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss. We encourage the Senate to reject this cynical attempt to roll back decades of progress in women’s health.
The failure was in not championing the separation of church and state as a principle designed to insure free exercise of religion and protect the secular government from the encroachment of religion. This approach protects religion and the state. It is a principle worth fighting for and being proud of the fight. Instead, the Obama administration is now down the path of a convoluted morass of deciding when, and when not to, accommodate religion in our secular government. The line should be easy to find.
(Continue reading below the fold
I recently started splitting my time between New York City and Los Angeles and I’m loving it. Being on both coasts gives me the opportunity to experience more food and nutrition trends, healthy new products and restaurants, farmer’s markets, and culinary movements.
During an appearance on Sunday on Chris Wallace's
Fox News Sunday
, Rick Santorum
again defended his "moral objection" to contraception:
WALLACE: You say that you believe that birth control is wrong. [...] Senator, the Centers for Disease Control say that 99 percent of the women in this country, between the ages of 15 and 44 who had sexual activity -- and this includes Catholic women, they say that 99 percent of them at some point in their lives have used artificial birth control.Uh huh. So Rick Santorum demands that our national health care policies adhere to the views of his church and his "personal health belief"—whatever the hell
Are you saying that all of those women have done something wrong?
SANTORUM: I'm reflecting the views of the church that I believe in. And we used to be tolerant of those beliefs. I guess, now, when you have beliefs that are consistent with the church, somehow or another, you are out of the mainstream. And that to me is a pretty sad situation when you can't have personal health belief.
But that's not what the issue is about. The issue is about whether the government can force you to do things that are against your conscience. And that's what we've been talking about on the road. We haven't been talking about my own moral beliefs. We've been talking about what the government can do in forcing people to change or violate those beliefs.
that's
supposed to mean, since most people would agree that actual medicine trumps "personal health beliefs"—but it's not about
his
"moral beliefs." No, it's just about reflecting the views of his church. Because that's how Rick Santorum believes laws should made in this country.
Not unlike his fellow Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who wrote a bill to restrict women's health care
a day after hearing his priest in church rail against women's health.
Santorum is right about one thing, though. When
most Americans have a favorable view of birth control, and almost all American women, including Catholic women, have at some point in their lives used birth control, his
absolute opposition to contraception, even for married couples, and his insistence that his church's views should dictate our health care policies, is
definitely
out of the mainstream.
Cases of the deadly Schmallenberg virus sweeping across Europe have loomed large in the media in recent weeks. The virus, reported to be “killing thousands of lambs”, has spawned alarming headlines.
These reports are of significant interest to farmers, who are likely to be concerned about their animals’ welfare and potential financial loss, following major incidents of livestock diseases such as foot and mouth, BSE and bluetongue.
Any possible link with human health could be of public concern. However, the fact that Schmallenberg virus is almost certainly confined to livestock has been quite widely reported.
Why is Schmallenberg virus in the news?
Schmallenberg virus causes transient fever, diarrhoea and reduced milk yield in adult animals. It has also caused stillbirths and foetal abnormalities in lambs, cows and goats. Because the virus has only just been identified, the long-term consequences for infected animals are not yet known.
The virus was first detected in Germany in August 2011 and has since spread through Europe, reaching the UK in late 2011. The full extent of Schmallenberg virus spread is currently unknown. However, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra , 83 farms (78 sheep farms, five cattle farms in 14 English counties are now confirmed to have animals that tested positive for the virus (to February 27 .
Insects such as midges or mosquitoes are the most likely carriers of the disease, according to the Health Protection Agency. Agriculture and health officials in the UK and other European countries are monitoring the disease to see how it spreads. Defra has said that further spread of the virus to new farms will depend on the seasonal temperature and how many midges migrate as a result.
Is it a risk to human health?
As yet, no human cases of Schmallenberg virus have been detected in any country, and the most closely related viruses only cause animal disease. Early assessments of the virus suggest that it is unlikely that it can spread to humans.
German researchers have looked at the virus’ DNA and found it lacking genetic sequences that would make it a threat to people. However, human implications cannot be ruled out completely until there is a better understanding of the virus.
Because this risk cannot be ruled out, pregnant women are advised to avoid close contact with animals that are giving birth, as there is a theoretical risk of infection from sheep, goats and cattle that could harm a woman’s own health and that of her unborn child.
Very few pregnant women are likely to come into contact with an infected animal. However, any pregnant woman is advised to seek medical advice if she's concerned that she could have been infected by farm livestock.
Can I still eat lamb?
The Food Standards Agency has said that on current evidence there is little health risk for consumers from meat. No illness has been reported to date in humans exposed to animals infected with Schmallenberg virus.
The agency advises people to follow normal food hygiene precautions when handling, preparing and cooking all foods, to reduce the risk of food-poisoning.
What’s being done to stop it spreading further?
There is currently no vaccine or treatment for the Schmallenberg virus. However, countries affected by it are monitoring the situation and considering the impact it might have on farms. Researchers are trying to understand how the virus spreads and how it can be treated.
The animal and human health authorities in the UK, other countries and at EU level are collaborating to ensure any changes in the disease are detected quickly. Farmers have been told to report signs of congenital deformities in newborn lambs to their vets. This will help to aggregate information and inform governments and the EU of any ongoing impact.
Some researchers are exploring how the Schmallenberg virus is transmitted and are developing a test to improve detection. If such a test is successfully developed, far larger numbers of infected animals could be found in British farms.
Links To The Headlines
Schmallenberg virus cases reach 83. The Daily Telegraph, March 2 2012
Birth defect disease kills thousands. The Sun, March 2 2012
Killer sheep virus 'may last for a year': Deadly disease spreading at alarming rate, experts warn. Daily Mail, March 2 2012
Schmallenberg virus: Climate 'raising UK disease risk'. BBC News, March 1 2012
Farmers on alert for Schmallenberg virus. BBC News, February 27 2012
A provocative new book argues that the late 19th-century 'scramble for Africa' may created the ideal conditions for the spread of HIV
Deep in the forests of south-eastern Cameroon, circa the year 1900, a chimpanzee fell to the hunter's gun. It was one more hunk of African bushmeat. It was also carrying a virus that would enter the hunter's bloodstream and mutate into HIV.
Before this, such outbreaks would have remained localised, argues a provocative new book. But by then the "scramble for Africa" was under way and thousands of porters were crossing through the area. So it was, the authors claim, that
colonisation by the European powers a century ago is responsible for unleashing HIV on the world.
Piecing together new and established research, Craig Timberg and Daniel Halperin, authors of
Tinderbox: How the West Sparked the Aids Epidemic and How the World Can Finally Overcome It, argue that once the virus made the jump from chimp to human, a single infected person could have carried it down the Congo river into what is now Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Founded by the Belgians –
a particularly brutal colonial regime – as Leopoldville in 1881, Kinshasa became the biggest city in central Africa, making it relatively easy for disease to spread through trade routes. It was "ground zero" in the explosion of HIV.
Timberg and Halperin write: "To fulfill its grim destiny, HIV needed a kind of place never before seen in central Africa but one that now was rising in the heart of the region: a big, thriving, hectic place jammed with people and energy, where old rules were cast aside amid the tumult of new commerce.
"It needed Kinshasa. It was here, hundreds of miles downriver from Cameroon, that HIV began to grow beyond a mere outbreak. It was here that Aids grew into an epidemic."
In an excerpt published in the Washington Post last week, the authors conclude: "Without 'the scramble for Africa', it's hard to see how HIV could have made it out of southeastern Cameroon to eventually kill tens of millions of people. Even a delay might have caused the killer strain of HIV to die a lonely death deep in the forest."
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
writes of how the Fed shrugged off warnings and let banks pay shareholders billions, leaving the financial system, and the rest of the economy, vulnerable to as big a mess as the last crisis put us into. Who covers the banks' liabilities? That would be the taxpayers.
In March 2011, the Federal Reserve green-lighted most of the top 19 financial institutions to deliver tens of billions of dollars to shareholders, including many of their own top executives. The 19 paid out $33 billion in the first nine months of 2011 in dividends and stock buy-backs.
The Fed allowed the largest financial firms to pay out $33 billion to shareholders last year, money they won't have to cushion themselves if a new crisis hits.
That $33 billion is money that the banks don’t have to cushion themselves — and the broader financial system — should the euro crisis cause a new recession, tensions with Iran flare into war and disrupt the oil supply, or another crisis emerge.
This is the first in-depth account of the Fed’s momentous decision and the fractious battles that led to it. It is based on dozens of interviews, most with people who spoke on condition of anonymity, and on documents, some of which have never been made public. By examining the decision, this account also sheds light on the inner workings of one of the most powerful but secretive economic institutions in the world.
The Federal Reserve contends it assessed the health of the banks rigorously and made the right decisions. The central bank says the primary purpose of the stress test was to assess the banks’ ability to plan for their capital needs. The Fed allowed only the healthiest banks to return capital — and they are still not paying anything like the proportion of profits that they distributed in the boom years. And it says the stress test covered only one year. Regulators say they can revisit their decisions if the economic picture turns bleaker.
Most important, Fed officials argue that the biggest financial institutions still added $52 billion in capital to their balance sheets in 2011 despite raising dividends or buying back stock. The top 19 financial firms had a 10.1 percent capital ratio by the end of the third quarter of 2011, using the measure that regulators primarily look at, nearly double what they had in the first quarter of 2009.
But a wide range of current and former Federal Reserve officials, other banking regulators and experts either criticized the decision to allow dividend payments and stock buy-backs then, or consider it a mistake now. [...]
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2011:
If Newt Gingrich wasn't already having an awful week, the latest Daily Kos/PPP poll offers even more bad news for him: Of the major GOP contenders for the presidency, Newt is by far the least-liked candidate among Democrats. Yes, that's right: Dems profess to like Newt even less than Sarah Palin.
By now, you are probably quite familiar with Newt's recent travails. To recap briefly, on Tuesday morning, a senior aide informed the media that Newt would soon announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Later that same day, a different adviser contradicted the first, saying no, there was no such committee in the works - not exactly the picture of a well-run campaign. Then on Thursday, Newt himself made a big speech, in which he had a chance to set things aright. So what did he do? He unveiled... a website, and one with a weird name, too (that's already been spoofed . That's it. A website.
Cause and effect means when you elect a former Fox News host as your governor, you're on your own when tornadoes hit.—
@cdashiell via web
High Impact Posts are
here. Top Comments are
here. Overnight News Digest is
here.
Did you know that March is National Nutrition Month? That's the yearly initiative created by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to help Americans eat a more healthful, nutritious, and balanced diet. Despite our best efforts to make more healthful food choices, being bombarded with tempting food ads and having far too many choices at supermarkets and restaurants makes it a struggle for many of us--at least some of the time--to make the most mindful food-related decisions.
And even though most of us know we should be eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low-fat dairy and lean protein foods, and fewer sweets and treats, we often have trouble putting
knowledge into practice
. The good news is it doesn't have to be so hard! Here's a week-by-week guide to help you get your plate in shape this month and beyond.
Week 1: Get the Facts. Lean more about National Nutrition Month by checking out the great resources available on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
web site.You can also check out
choosemyplate.org to learn about the five healthy food categories. See how you eat compared to
MyPlate
recommendations and learn what and how much to aim for each day from the different food categories.
Week 2: Tackle Your Toughest Meal. Take steps to improve one meal that gives you the most trouble, or that you tend to skip or skimp on. Choose foods from at least three of the food categories in their lowest sugar, lowest fat form. For example, if breakfast is a challenge, start small by having 1 cup of whole grain/high fiber cereal topped with 1/2 cup sliced strawberries and 1 cup nonfat milk.
Week 3: Snack Smart. Take a look at what and how much you typically eat at snack time, and try to identify what food groups those items come from. If you find your snacks are high in fat and or sugar (eg cookies, chips, candy, crackers , try to have something healthful that comes from a food group such as a piece of fruit (FRUIT group , 1-2 tablespoons of your favorite nuts (PROTEIN group , or a nonfat yogurt (DAIRY group before you reach for the sweet or fatty treat. If you still want the cookie, have it--but you'll likely find you filled up a little with that healthier food first and won't need to have as much of the treat to feel satisfied!
Week 4: Think While You Drink. Liquid calories really add up! Try to drink plenty of water or seltzer, as well as nonfat milk (1-2 cups per day and 100 percent fruit juice (if you choose juice, aim for no more than 1/2 cup to 1 cup a day so that you leave room in the diet for fiber-rich whole fruit . You can also include coffee and tea (preferably unsweetened to round out your beverage intake. If you choose sweetened beverages of any kind, or an alcoholic beverage (that also counts as extra calories--beer, wine and distilled spirits do not come from any food group, right? , be sure to count the extra calories they contain and try to limit them to no more than about 100 calories each day. That's one glass of wine, one bottle of light beer, and slightly less than a 12 ounce can of soda.
Nutritionist Elisa Zied, MS, RD, CDN is a former spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and author of the new book “Nutrition At Your Fingertips," as well as "Feed Your Family Right” and “So What Can I Eat?” She is a registered dietitian and certified nutritionist who has counseled families and individuals on managing their weight and various health conditions, from diabetes to high cholesterol. She has appeared on CBS’s The Early Show, The Today Show, and on dozens of other national and local programs on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Food Network, Lifetime, and NY1. For more on Elisa's work, go to www.elisazied.com.
Read more: http://galtime.com/profile/8/41/elisa-zied-ms-rd-cdn#ixzz1o4KfWBa0
BOSTON — We're at the halfway point of the
2012 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. After a jam-packed Day 1 schedule, most panelists and attendees scattered around the Hub in search of dinner, drinks and discussion of
Descartes' Rule of Signs (probably .
Your Man, however, retreated to a neutral corner to think over what he'd just seen, try to put some rhyme to all that cold, hard reason, and nail down not only what piqued his interest from the first batch of sessions, but what he'd be looking forward to come the morning. (Besides a
sweet
continental breakfast, of course.
Here's what I came up with. If you want to follow along with me for Day 2 of the conference, check out Ball Don't Lie's official Twitter account,
@YahooBDL, and let me know what you're thinking.
THREE THOUGHTS FROM FRIDAY
1. Adam Silver has a personality, which is important. Like many NBA fans, my introduction to Adam Silver came in 2006, when it was reported that
he would replace Russ Granik as the NBA's deputy commissioner and, in one of pro ball's greatest dumb little traditions, announcer of the selections in the second round of the annual NBA draft. And, like many NBA fans, my first extended exposure to Silver came during the league's fraught collective bargaining negotiations with the National Basketball Players Association and the resultant 161-day NBA lockout.
Day in and day out, Silver appeared alongside Commissioner David Stern to play ... well, I guess you can't really say "bad cop to Stern's good cop," so let's call it "worse cop to Stern's bad cop" in responding to union characterizations of the negotiations. When it came to the hard-line, fine-print details of what the owners would accept, Silver was often the one making the proclamations in a firm, resolved tone. (You may know it as the "I am the principal who is about to call your parents if you don't admit you threw the cherry bomb in the toilet, but actually I am going to call them anyway, I just want to hear you admit it" tone.
Add all that up, and coming into Friday morning, my understanding of Adam Silver was that he was a smart, scary, cold and relatively nondescript force that seems poised to
take over the NBA sooner rather than later. So it was a pleasant surprise that he was, as friend
Beckley Mason of ESPN.com noted, "easily the most dynamic panelist" in the all-but-analytics-free (we'll get to that conference-opening talk on the evolution of sports leagues.
Joined on the panel by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, uber-agent Scott Boras, MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfred and New York Giants Chairman Steve Tisch, Silver seemed at once authoritative and at ease in discussing the changing nature of leagues and league management. Touting the NBA's global focus, he casually mentioned that China is now the NBA's No. 2 market, behind only the United States, and that business there is going pretty well: "I
think
we just surpassed soccer as the No. 1 sport in the country."
Y'know, just the most populous nation in the world, with an
estimated number of people playing basketball that's just a shade less than
the entire U.S. population, and we're the top thing there. NBD, you guys.
Asked about who carries weight in contemporary labor negotiations, Silver got on the right side of the audience by playing to its interests. He referenced the critical role in the lockout's resolution played by analytical minds like Kevin Murphy, the
players union's top economist, and noted the shift from lawyers to businesspeople at the negotiating table.
"The analytical people are more important than the lawyers themselves," Silver said.
In the case of the last round of NBA labor negotiations, their importance skyrocketed because of the widely publicized difference in opinion on the
actual
economic health of the league, which the NBA said was dire and the union said was probably quite a bit better than that. Bridging the knowledge gap wasn't easy, quick or painless, but to Silver's mind, having expert number-crunchers involved alongside the negotiators helped.
"I don't remember a time when analytics were so front and center in [a negotiation like this], with often competing models, frankly," Silver said.
In addition to playing to the crowd, Silver also cracked a couple of jokes. (OK, maybe not "jokes," but what passes for jokes at Sloan.
Asked whether or not small-market teams like the Charlotte Bobcats can reasonably compete, both economically and on the court, Silver first promoted the deal the league just struck ("Part of it is the new CBA — we designed a system where we feel that well-managed teams have the opportunity to make at least some amount of money and at least be competitive" and then turned his attention to Bobcats owner (and now
home-seller Michael Jordan.
"I think there's no question that Michael is struggling a little bit in Charlotte," Silver said. "... He assures he is working as hard as he ever has in his life and is playing less golf."
Silver also took a gentle swipe at Bettman, who managed to veer briefly from his "the state of the NHL is strong" talking points to reminisce about working at the NBA in the early 1980s, when the NBA Finals were still being broadcast on tape delay.
"But Gary, you negotiated that deal," Silver interjected, eliciting laughs from the audience.
While the last few years haven't been the kindest to Stern's reputation as the greatest commissioner in American professional sport — and, in fact, the lockout may have done irreparable harm to that legacy — Stern has been widely beloved (or at least respected by NBA fans due in large part to his persona. He is wry; he is withering; he is funny. Sure, he's fashioned himself into an emperor, but he's always been an entertaining one. Whenever he decides to abdicate his throne, the league will have lost a star. In a league of stars, where personality goes such a long way and the cults thereof matter so much, that absence will be felt.
At some point, Adam Silver is going to take the reins of the NBA from David Stern. He's not going to be
that
wry,
that
withering or
that
funny. He won't be the kind of star that Stern is. But on Friday, he showed that he can walk into a room to talk about something as dry as labor negotiations, set up on stage and show he's a person, actual and whole, rather than just a pointy-headed lawyer/business type. That matters.
(And if you doubted whether Silver's learned anything from working for Stern for the past six years, friend of BDL Zach Lowe notes at
Sports Illustrated's The Point Forward blog that less than four months after striking a compromise on the collective bargaining agreement to end the 2011 lockout, Silver and the owners are already making noise about taking advantage of the opt-out clause available to them after the sixth year in that 10-year pact. The lesson: You're never done negotiating.
2. Optical data tracking is still super sweet, and spatial and visual analytics could be the next big thing. Of all the analytics tools on display at last year's Sloan conference, perhaps the one with the most potential for massive dividends in the basketball world was
STATS LLC's SportVU system. SportVU positions six special video cameras above the basketball court at different angles that capture, record and store all
kinds
of information on what's happening on the floor — the movements of all 10 players, the referee and the ball, who's running where, how much they're running, the height of the ball at different times and places, the flight path of passes, individual dribbles and about a million other things. It collects all this information, or
optical tracking data, and then spits out reams and reams of stuff that look kind of like
The Matrix. One of the big takeaways from last year's conference was that there's gold in them thar lines of code, if only you could figure out what kind of questions you should ask to extract it.
One of the two finalists for top honors in the research paper track of this year's Sloan conference, "Deconstructing the Rebound with Optical Tracking Data," uses SportVU data to track the height of the basketball after a missed shot. It traces the ball's descent it as it comes off the rim and goes down below 10, nine and eight feet off the deck to find out what happens to it, who's grabbing it, where they're grabbing it and what that can tell us about offensive rebounding.
University of Southern California researchers Rajiv Maheswaran (who presented the paper , Yu-Han Chang, Aaron Henehan and Samantha Danesis looked at about 11,000 field goal tries in an attempt to, as they wrote, "move beyond the outcome of who got the rebound." Instead, they wanted to learn deeper-dive stuff like how shot location impacted offensive rebounding rates, how likely a shot is to generate an offensive rebound and where players should position themselves to have the best chance of snagging offensive boards. Turns out that a shot from beyond the arc has the same likelihood of becoming an offensive rebound as one taken from just seven feet away, and
both
of them have a better chance of getting grabbed by a teammate than one taken from 11 feet, so if you fancy yourself a midrange shooter, you better be pretty damn good at it. (Or, y'know, take a few steps back and hoist a triple.
One of the conclusions drawn by Maheswaran and his colleagues — that by emphasizing shot selection and firing away from areas where you stand the greatest chance of getting the carom, teams can grab a higher percentage of available offensive rebounds and potentially improve their effective field goal percentages, thereby getting a leg up in two of Dean Oliver's
Four Factors — dovetails well with the project undertaken by the other finalist in the research paper track, Michigan State University associate geography professor Kirk Goldsberry.
The project, dubbed "CourtVision," aims to combine the practice of spatial analysis (look at how a given entity appears and acts in a given space, study clusters of activity, patterns, correlations, etc. with the use of visual analytics (creating visual tools we can use to interact with a bunch of information, browse through complex sets of data, ask questions, etc. to learn a whole bunch of stuff about what NBA players do — well or poorly, frequently or infrequently — from a ton of different spots on the basketball court.
As a case study and proof of concept, Goldsberry decided to try to use CourtVision to find an empirical answer to an often-debated question: Who is the best shooter in the NBA? He started by mapping out the "scoring area" — the 1,300-square-foot region on the court where 98 percent of NBA field-goal attempts occur. Then, he plotted out about 700,000 shots taken in every game from 2006 through 2011 — who took them, where they took them and what the outcomes of the shots were. Then he started making maps.
Goldsberry offers a new statistic for measuring a shooter's aptitude — "Shooting Range," a metric of how effective a player is at producing points from the greatest number of different spots on the court. A player's "range percentage" (Range% measures the percentage of spots in that 1,300-square-foot scoring area from which a player will produce at least one point per shot attempted. The league leaders in Range% over the last five years mostly pass the laugh test — in order: Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Rashard Lewis, Joe Johnson, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Rudy Gay and Danny Granger.
When Goldsberry starts breaking down the maps, you start to see the value in understanding the unique spatial footprints and tendencies of every player, lineup and team in the league. You see just how fantastic Dirk is from the right baseline, an area in which none of the other top shooters even perform well. You see that Nash is a killer on wing three-pointers, but struggles in that right baseline spot that Dirk loves. You see that even deadeye Ray Allen has something akin to a three-point weakness — he's not
so
great from the left wing.
"Some players are good from some areas; some players are better from other areas," Goldsberry said. "We wanted to reveal those special spatial signatures."
The cool thing is, these specific deployments are just the tip of the iceberg. If the USC team can use SportVU for offensive rebounding data and Goldsberry can use CourtVision to identify the best and worst shooters, then why can't they use their systems to learn more about creating turnovers, or where most fouls happen, or, as Goldsberry noted, how to game plan?
"If I have Steve Nash's shot chart [and] if I have the Magic's defensive chart, then maybe I can figure out what kind of sets should be run to exploit their holes," he said.
The things Goldsberry, the USC team and others are looking at — finding ways to measure and visualize stuff that we might think or believe, but not know for sure — can not only help teams make better decisions; they can open the door to a whole new way of seeing the game. All we have to do is stop seeing The Matrix.
(For more on this emerging vein of analysis, head back over to
The Point Forward for Lowe's brief but jam-packed breakdown of both papers.
3. The conference just keeps getting bigger and bigger, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. This is less a basketball point than a more general observation, and it's a mouthful, so bear with me.
As I
mentioned Friday, the 2012 edition of Sloan has more than 2,200 attendees, which conference organizers happily tout as a 50 percent increase in enrollment over last year's model and 13 times more people than the 175 who checked out the inaugural conference in 2007. The conference's "facts and figures" sheet offers a litany of exciting numbers (natch detailing its growth — more than 700 students attending this year from more than 170 different academic institutions, 73 professional sports teams represented from six different pro sports leagues, eight discrete sports covered, nearly 200 combined submissions for the research paper and
Evolution of Sport presentation tracks, and on and on.
Everything about Sloan seems to be gearing toward playing to larger audiences, from its ESPN-headlined roster of sponsors to its progressively nattier digs — last year's conference was held at the larger but more remote Boston Convention & Exhibition Center in South Boston; this year, we're at the much more centrally located Hynes Convention Center, right in the heart of Boston's Back Bay, simplifying travel and accommodations for heavy-hitting panelists and light-hitting bloggers alike. The bigger-better-faster-more thrust even extends to the quality of attendee swag bags; this year's is some
handy ruggedized business that I'm pretty sure simultaneously keeps roasts piping hot and frozen margaritas nice and cool, even in the midst of a street fight.
Presentations in the giant main ballroom take place on and in front of a
massive, glowing pink heart of a stage and dais. Klieg lights bathed the main drag of the convention floor as production workers prepared to film an episode of ESPN's stat-focused "Numbers Never* Lie" right in the middle of the hallway. For the second straight year, one of the most popular panelists at the show is Toronto Maple Leafs President and GM Brian Burke, who
doesn't seem all
that
interested in analytics, but cuts an irascible figure on stage and curses on occasion, which is entertaining. (The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, of ESPN color commentator and former NBA head coach Jeff Van Gundy, who eagerly stepped into a similar comic relief role during Friday's basketball analytics presentation. There is a game room where you can see the
Boston Bruins' mascot play air hockey.
Meanwhile, down a long hallway — in what's been branded the "NEXT Area," separated from the main ballroom and other primary panel spaces by a crush of humanity, an entire trade show, the TV setup and, as Jack Dickey
wrote at Deadspin last year, throngs of "white guys in suits" itching for an elevator-pitch window of face time with one of the myriad front-office types in attendance — are the tiny-by-comparison rooms where the research paper presentations and Evolution of Sport talks take place. Where the lion's share of the actual, y'know, analytics discussion happens. Where the new theories and embryonic innovations are being shared, batted around and refined.
As writers like
Jonathan Givony of DraftExpress suggested Friday,
that's
where the groundwork is being laid for the next crop of ideas that will help shape and enhance our understanding the way that, say, on-base percentage and Player Efficiency Rating have over the past two decades — where the stuff that could soon help us become way more knowledgeable fans than we are today is percolating. And it's shoved down the hall, out of the way, in the far corner of the convention center, behind the room with the air hockey table.
There are all sorts of devil's-advocate angles to this, of course. Logistics is a big one; more people want to see stuff like Bill Simmons going 12 rounds with Mark Cuban, so that gets the big room, and putting all the paper presentations together makes it easier for people who just want to see those to do so with ease. Also, I'd bet your paycheck that the folks giving the talks don't mind the lower relative profile, because the People Who Matter in front offices definitely know about the most interesting research being presented, and that's all that really counts.
Plus, it's not like the increased focus on the wider-net content has necessarily come at the expense of the nitty-gritty stuff; you may have to hunt a bit, but you can still find and attend those talks, and (in the ones I attended Friday it looked like plenty of people were interested in staying on that track. If a conference this targeted in its focus can expand its scope a bit and still make good on its core mission, then why not steer more toward "something for everyone"?
To my mind, though, the chief devil's advocate argument is that without the infusion of the more broad-based/all-but-analytics-free discussions, higher-profile names, ramped-up production values and all the rest, there wouldn't be the level of interest, ticket sales, sponsorships and partnerships that make putting on this kind of show possible. Ditto for funding the $7,500 grand prize and $2,500 runner-up prize that go to the writers of the top two research papers.
Without this kind of show, where can that next wave of innovation actually break? If you want people to find religion, you could do worse than to start by getting them to church. But does it have to be, like, a megachurch?
THREE THINGS I'M EXCITED FOR SATURDAY
1. Adam Gold's "How to Cure Tanking" presentation in the Evolution of Sport track. Is unweighting the NBA draft lottery really the answer? Are other ideas worth considering? I will be there representing all fans of the Charlotte Bobcats.
2. The 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EOS session. "Quantifying the Force of a Monster Dunk" and "Redefining the Positions in Basketball"? Yes, please.
3. Seeing how many members of Grantland I can get to autograph the free copy of "Grantland Quarterly" that came in my swag bag. I'm going to guess it will be "most, but not all." Wish me luck, gang!
?The Kit’s Organic snack bars are as simple as they are delicious, touting? just four to six ingredients and scrumptious flavors: Cashew, Peanut Butter,? Chocolate Almond Coconut, and Berry Almond.
Prospective students interested in attending Gloucester County College will have the opportunity to gain more information about its academic, athletic and cultural programs during the 2012 open house Thursday from 5 to 8 p.m. in the College Center.
Gloucester County College Center
DEPTFORD TWP. — Prospective students interested in attending Gloucester County College will have the opportunity to gain more information about its academic, athletic and cultural programs during the
2012 open house Thursday from 5 to 8 p.m. in the College Center.
This informational event brings students together with faculty members, admissions personnel, activity representatives, coaches and current athletes to provide advice on how to make preparing for college a positive experience.
Those who attend will learn about the new
dual advantage enrollment partnerships between GCC and
area universities and may discuss transfer options with representatives from various
four-year institutions.
Visitors can explore the college’s seven academic divisions that comprise its 70 degree programs and certification offerings — Allied Health and Nursing; Business Studies; Health, Physical Education and Recreation; Liberal Arts; Law and Justice; Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics and Continuing Education.
In addition, multiple information sessions are scheduled. They include “Career and Academic Planning Center — A Bridge to Your Future,” “NJSTARS,” “Inspire, Motivate and Support: The EOF Experience at GCC,” and both Thomas Jefferson University’s “Pathways to Pharmacy” and “Bridges to Bioscience Technologies.”
Representatives from financial aid and admissions departments will be on hand to answer questions and guide students through the application process. Campus tours and technology-based classroom demonstrations will give individuals a glimpse of GCC’s facilities.
Members of the athletic department will also be available during the open house. GCC has received honors as the best overall two-year college athletic program in New Jersey and is a two-time winner of the CAANJ Cup. The college fields 13 teams responsible for the more than 20 NJCAA National Team Championships, 50 NJCAA National Individual Champion and 275 All-American Athlete honors.
For more information, call 856-415-2232 or visit
www.gccnj.edu. No registration is required.
Contact Jessica Driscoll at 856-686-3682 or
jdriscoll@sjnewsco.com.
Monday, March 5 Deptford Township Council, regular meeting, 7 p.m. Franklin Township Environmental Commission, 7:30 p.m. Gloucester County Special Services School District, noon; and Gloucester County Vocational-Technical School District, 12:15 p.m., special meeting to adopt the annual budget for each of the two school districts. Meeting in GCIT Board Conference Room. Portions may be closed to the public. Greenwich...
Monday, March 5
Deptford Township Council, regular meeting, 7 p.m.
Franklin Township Environmental Commission, 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester County Special Services School District, noon; and Gloucester County Vocational-Technical School District, 12:15 p.m., special meeting to adopt the annual budget for each of the two school districts. Meeting in GCIT Board Conference Room. Portions may be closed to the public.
Greenwich Township Board of Education, work session at 7 p.m., Broad Street School auditorium.
Greenwich Township Planning/Zoning Board, 7:30 p.m.
Harrison Township Committee, work session, 7:30 p.m.
Harrison Township Fire District No. 1, special meeting at 7:30 p.m. to discuss appointment of a solicitor, replacement of business administrator and the EMS in Harrison.
Kingsway Regional Board of Education, special meeting at 7 p.m. to discuss the budget and any other items that may come before the board. Action may be taken.
Mantua Township Board of Education, 7 p.m.
Mantua Township Committee, 7:30 p.m.
Monroe Township Municipal Alliance, 7 p.m.
Paulsboro Land Use Board, 7 p.m.
South Harrison Township Board of Education, special meeting at 6 p.m. to approve to submit the preliminary budget to the executive county superintendent. Action may be taken.
South Harrison Township Recreation Commission, 7 p.m.
Swedesboro Council, 7 p.m.
West Deptford Township Planning Board work committee, 3 p.m.
Westville Land Use Board, 7:30 p.m.
Woolwich Township Committee, work session, 7 p.m.
Tuesday, March 6
Deptford Township Board of Education, rescheduled regular meeting at 7 p.m.
Deptford Township Zoning Board, 7 p.m.
Franklin Township Zoning Board, 7 p.m.
Glassboro Planning Board, 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester County Planning Board’s Special Land Development Review and Approval Committee, 9 a.m.
Logan Township Council, work session, 7 p.m.
Mantua Township Board of Health, 7 p.m.
Newfield Recreation Commission, 7 p.m.
Paulsboro Council, regular meeting, 7 p.m.
Pitman Board of Education, strategic planning meeting from 7 to 8:30 p.m. in the high school cafeteria to discuss district goals and initiatives for the next five years.Washington Township Planning Board, development review committee at 5 p.m.; regular at 7 p.m.
Wednesday, March 7
Board of School Estimate of the Board of Education of the Special Services School District and the Vocational School District of the County of Gloucester, special meeting at 7 p.m. in the ceremonial courtroom of the county courthouse, 1 N. Broad St., Woodbury, to discuss funding for the existing cleaning and coating program at Bankbridge Elementary.
Delsea Regional Board of Education, regular meeting, 7:30 p.m.
Deptford Township Planning Board, regular meeting, 7 p.m.
Gateway Regional Board of Education, executive session to discuss student matter at 6 p.m.; regular meeting at 7 p.m.
Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester County College, board of trustees, work session, 6:15 p.m.; regular meeting, 7 p.m.
Harrison Township Environmental Commission, 7:30 p.m.
Logan Township Board of Education, rescheduled work session at 7 p.m.
Logan Township Environmental Commission, 7 p.m.
Monroe Township Council, ordinance committee, 7 p.m.
Washington Township Planning Board development review committee at 5 p.m. regular meeting at 7 p.m.
Wenonah Public Library Board of Trustees, 7 p.m.
Westville Environmental Commission, 7 p.m.
Thursday, March 8
Clayton Council, regular meeting, 7:30 p.m.
Elk Township Board of Education, 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester County Agriculture Development Board, 7:30 p.m.
Gloucester County Local Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee, 6 p.m.
Harrison Township Historic Preservation Committee, 7 p.m.
Logan Township Planning Board, 6:30 p.m.
Monroe Township Planning Board, 7 p.m.
Newfield Council, 7 p.m.
Wenonah Council, regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. will include an open public discussion regarding a funding application to the NJDEP Green Acres Program for the potential purchase and subsequent preservation of a portion of the Maple Ridge Golf Course.
West Deptford Township Committee, work session, 7 p.m.
Saturday, March 10
Gateway Regional Board of Education, budget work session at 9 a.m.
Q: Should I really try to eat
organic foods? How much better are they for you than non-organic foods?
A: The question of eating food that is organic vs. regular is very common. The piece that confuses people the most is that there is no clear-cut answer. This is compounded by the fact that "organic" is now becoming big business, making it harder to determine scientific fact from sales pitch.
WASHINGTON (AP -- Radio host Rush Limbaugh said his apology to the Georgetown law student he called a "slut" was sincere but also joked that he, too, got a busy signal Monday when he called the show to join the growing roster of advertisers abandoning it.
The student, Sandra Fluke, said Limbaugh's apology did nothing to change the corrosive tone of the debate over health care coverage and that Americans have to decide whether they want to support companies that continue to advertise on his program. AOL and Tax Resolution Services Co. on Monday became the eighth and ninth advertisers to leave Limbaugh's three-hour show as he sought to stem the exodus of advertisers and fellow conservatives declined to offer him support.
"I should not have used the language I did, and it was wrong," a rarely contrite Limbaugh told listeners.
Fluke, who testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her Jesuit college's health plan to cover her birth control, said she had not heard from Limbaugh directly but signaled she had little interest in speaking with him. She said his criticism of her beliefs was an attack on women's health.
"It is an attempt to silence me," Fluke told ABC's "The View."
Fluke had been invited to testify to a House committee about her school's health care plan, which does not include contraception. Republican lawmakers barred her from testifying during that hearing, but Democrats invited her back and she spoke to the Democratic lawmakers at an unofficial session.
The issue has been much debated in the presidential race, with Republican candidates particularly criticizing President Barack Obama's requirements on such employers as Catholic hospitals. Democrats — and many Republican leaders, too — have suggested the issue could energize women to vote for Obama and other Democrats in November.
Sen. John McCain, the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, told CBS News on Monday that Limbaugh's statements were unacceptable "in every way" and "should be condemned" by people across the political spectrum. Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich said it is "silly" to suggest that Limbaugh speaks for the party.
Limbaugh, even as he retreated from his earlier characterization of Fluke as a "slut" and "prostitute," insisted the 30-year-old was trying to "force a religious institution to abandon its principles to meet hers."
"Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for," he said of his initial comments that roiled his critics. "They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make."
Even so, eight companies now have stopped advertising on Limbaugh's program on Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. The parent company is supporting Limbaugh, whose on-air contract with Premiere runs through 2016.
AOL said Monday that Limbaugh's messages "are not in line with our values."
ProFlowers, mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and the online legal document services company LegalZoom also left Limbaugh's roster of advertisers.
Limbaugh sought to find some humor in the situation.
"I called myself to cancel my advertising. I got a busy signal," he deadpanned at the start of Monday's program.
Yet, he appeared defiant and suggested he'd have little trouble finding new sponsors.
"I reject millions of dollars of advertisers a year much to the chagrin of my hard-working sales staff," Limbaugh said.
The tumult began last week when Limbaugh discounted Fluke's appearance on Capitol Hill.
He said last Wednesday: "What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
He dug in a day later, refusing to give ground.
"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."
On Friday, still defiant even after Democrats beat back Republican challenges to the new health care requirement, Limbaugh scoffed at the Democrats' talk of a conservative "war on women."
Obama, aware of the political advantages of branding all conservatives as supporters of Limbaugh's views, telephoned Fluke from the Oval Office on Friday to offer his support.
A day later, Limbaugh apologized to Fluke.
Yet even on Monday, Limbaugh didn't back away from his criticism of Fluke's appearance on Capitol Hill. He questioned why she was invited testify.
"She doesn't have any expertise," Limbaugh said during the second hour of his radio show.
Government of Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Bahir Dar, March 4, 2012 (Bahir Dar - Health Bureau of Amhara State said it has provided Reproductive Health (RH service for over 1.6 million mothers during the first six months of this Ethiopian budget year.
Bureau Public relation head, Getachew Teruneh told ENA on Saturday that bureau is working to raise the number of mothers to 3.5 million this year.
He said bureau has been undertaking various activities to minimize maternal death by providing various reproductive health services.
One of the beneficiaries of Bahirdar Health Center, Muluwa kebede on her part said she service helped her to manage child spacing.
Another beneficiary of the center, a young girl Hiwot Yenesew on her part said the service she is receiving helped her to lead a decent life.
---END---
On February 29, a federal district court judge issued an
Order requiring that Cardinal Health, Inc. comply with an Immediate Suspension Order ("ISO" issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA" . The court previously granted a temporary restraining order delaying Cardinal's compliance with the ISO, pending a decision on a preliminary injunction requested by Cardinal. However, the Court denied this preliminary injunction in its Order. Cardinal
appealed this decision on the same day as the court's Order.
Partially at issue in this dispute is the question of who is responsible for stopping diversion, a form of illegal sales of controlled drug substances. Diversion is distributing controlled drug substances to an entity without a valid DEA registration. In this case, diversion of the prescription pain killer oxycodone allegedly took place at pharmacies supplied by Cardinal's Lakeland, Florida distribution facility. Cardinal states that it has a system in place to stop diversion and that it is ready and willing to suspend shipments to any pharmacy that the DEA identifies as likely to be engaged in diversion. The DEA, however, states that the Lakeland facility has a continuing, affirmative obligation to police its retail customers to ensure that the controlled drug substances it provides are not being unlawfully diverted--and the Lakeland facility fell short of its legal and contractual obligations.
According to a
Complaint filed by Cardinal, the ISO requires the Lakeland facility to immediately halt shipments of all controlled drug substances to about 2,700 pharmacies, hospitals, and other customers to prevent alleged imminent danger to the public health or safety. Notably, only Cardinal's Lakeland facility is subject to the ISO. The DEA, however, does not allege that Cardinal itself distributed controlled drug substances to any entity not permitted to purchase them. Instead, the ISO was issued because four pharmacies that were supplied by the Lakeland facility have allegedly distributed oxycodone for illegitimate uses.
Hair color trends come and go! Last year, chunky highlights, funky colors (think hot pink and electric blue , and even gray strands were popular. This year, softer, more subtle shades are "in." Here's a guide to what's in vogue for 2012:
Small highlights closer to your natural color are a hot trend this year. Celebrities like Nicole Richie who have a honey-gold base are opting for golden highlights for a more sophisticated look. The key is to go for highlights just two shades lighter than your natural color. Ask your stylist to give you small thin strands throughout your hair to achieve the look.
Andrew Evans/PR Photos
Copper reds are "red hot" right now. Avoid purple or blue based reds for a more modern look. A warm red is more natural looking and flatters almost every skin tone. Your stylist can formulate a color that works the best for your skin type.
Related:
Why Does My Hair Color Fade!?
If you want warmth, but aren't crazy about red, consider warm browns. These hues have a red undertone that are more subtle than an all-over red color.
Red is infamous for fading quickly, so be sure to stay on top of your touch ups, and ask your stylist to add a gloss to your hair to keep your color vibrant.
Ombre color is still going strong, but with a more natural twist. Instead of an obvious line of demarcation, try a gradual change of color from root to tip. You can go from dark to light, or vice versa. The key is to keep the color graduation subtle.
Charles Norfleet/PR Photos
Other hair trends for 2012 include beachy waves and big blow outs. Headbands and braids are also popular. You can even combine these two trends and wear a braided headband made of your own hair, or purchase one already plaited. Have fun, and don't be agraid to try new things!
More from GalTime:
5 Tips to Keeping Your Hair Color Looking Salon Fresh
Blow Dry Bars "Heat Up" the Style Scene
Secrets to Having the Perfect Ponytail
Foods that Make You Look Older/Younger
Anastasia is a salon hair stylist in Oklahoma City. Her web site is
www.StyleByAnastasia.com or find
Style By Anastasia on Facebook. Out of town appointments are welcome.
NARMS, which is coordinated between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and some state laboratories, is meant to serve as a "reference point identifying and analyzing trends in antimicrobial resistance among these organisms."
From January to December 2010, samples of retail chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef, and pork chops were collected and tested for Salmonella. Poultry samples were also cultured for Campylobacter. Some labs also pulled samples of meat and poultry to test for E. coli and Enterococcus.
In all, NARMS collected 5,280 samples from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.
Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium, Saintpaul, and Heidelberg accounted for 44.5 percent of retail meat isolates. The prevalence of Salmonella Heidelberg -- which was the subject of a
massive ground turkey recall and multistate foodborne illness outbreak over the summer -- among all retail meat continued to decrease, according to the report, from 22.8 to 9 percent from 2002 through 2010.
The report highlighted a number of findings that may reinforce what many public health advocates have been arguing for years: that antibiotic use in agriculture is contributing to drug resistance in bacteria. The NARMS report pointed out that third-generation cephalosporin resistance rose in chicken breasts (10 to 34.5 percent and ground turkey (8.1 to 16.3 percent isolates from 2002 to 2010.
This trend was a key factor in the FDA's recent
decision to limit the off-label uses of cephalosporin in food animals.
"It is likely that the extralabel use of cephalosporins in certain food-producing animal species is contributing to the emergence of cephalosporin-resistant zoonotic foodborne bacteria," reads the FDA rule. "Resistance to certain cephalosporins is of particular public health concern in light of the evidence of cross-resistance among drugs in the cephalosporin class."
NARMS also found that 43.3 percent of chicken breast isolates were resistant to three or more antimicrobial classes in 2010 compared to 33.7 percent in ground turkey. More than 29 percent of chicken breast isolates showed resistance to 5 or more classes in 2010. Salmonella Albert was isolated from ground turkey for the first time since 2002 and was resistant to all 8 classes of antimicrobials tested.
Salmonella isolates susceptible to all antimicrobials decreased in pork chops (50 to 35 percent from 2009 to 2010 and multidrug resistance among Salmonella increased among chicken breasts (29 to 35.7 percent and ground turkey (22.3 to 30.7 percent .
NARMs also noted that E. coli -- which is only harmful in certain cases, but can serve as a marker for the level of contamination -- is common in all retail meat products tested in NARMS.
Of 1,840 retail meats tested in 2010 for E. coli, 64 percent were culture-positive for E. coli, with pork chops having the lowest prevalence (39.8 percent and ground turkey with the highest (80.2 percent .
Gail Hansen, senior officer for the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, said the report further backed up the importance of limiting antibiotic usage in agriculture, a move that Pew and a wide range of public health groups have been pushing for years.
"It really does reinforce what decades of research has been telling us about antibiotic resistance," said Hansen, a veterinarian. She noted that NARMS data helped FDA's decision to limit cephalasporins: "I was stuck by how much this [resistance] has gone up."
The full NARMS report is available
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment