Tag Archives: professor

Genetic testing guidelines under fire

If you underwent a genetic test for a heart condition, but the test also revealed that you have a high risk of colon cancer, would you want to know? A respected scientific society says your doctor should tell you, but the group is receiving criticism for its recommendation that “incidental findings” of genetic tests be shared with patients. Incidental findings are unexpected results, unrelated to the reason for testing. What to do with these findings has been a controversial issue for adults undergoing genetic testing, as well as children. In March, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) released guidelines saying that when patients receive genetic testing for any medical reason, they should be screened for mutations in an additional 57 genes, including mutations that strongly increase the risk of breast, ovarian and colon cancer. The ACMG argues that doctors have an obligation to look for and report these mutations because there are ways that people can act to reduce their of developing a medical disorder. However, some researchers and bioethicists say the new recommendations go too far, and take away patients' rights to refuse medical information they do not wish to know. Informed consent A crucial part of genetic testing ethics is ensuring that patients understand what a test might find, and what those findings could mean for future treatment. Under the new recommendations, a patient who consents to any genetic test is consenting to be screened for mutations in an additional 57 genes. Some bioethicists take issue with this approach, because patients may not wish to know their results for all of these genes. A positive result for any one of these mutations may increase patients' anxiety, or cause them to live their life differently, said Susan Wolf, a professor of law, medicine and public policy at the University of Minnesota. Under the new guidelines, “unless they are willing to have this extra analysis done, the only option is to walk away from the sequencings altogether,” Wolf said. “It's all or nothing.” Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University School of Medicine's Division of Medical Ethics, agreed that patients should have an opportunity to refuse. “People do not have any obligations to accept any findings that they hadnt been expecting,” Caplan said. And even calling such findings “incidental” is a misnomer, Wolf said, because under the new guidelines, researchers have to actively test for these gene mutations. What about kids? Earlier this year, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AMCG advised that children not be screened for genetic conditions that occur in adulthood (such as breast cancer), unless some action in childhood can lower the risk of disease or death. Children should wait until they are at least 18 years old to decide if they want to know their risk, the guidelines say. But under the new recommendations, children should be informed about any findings from the extra screening, including those that relate to adult disorders. Supporters of the new recommendations say that they are not at odds with earlier guidelines. Dr. Robert Green, of Harvard Medical School, and colleagues, wrote in the May 16 issue of the journal Science that if doctors are screening a child for a genetic disease that occurs in adulthood, the child would presumably have a family history of the disease. With incidental findings, no other family members, including the child, would be known to be at risk. So reporting an incidental finding could alert the child, as well as other family members including adults, to their risk of a certain condition, Green said. But others disagree, saying the new recommendations contradict earlier guidelines, and are not in children's best interest. “You've deprived the child of their own choice later as an adult,” Wolf said. Practical issues The guidelines also say that patients should be counseled about the implications of genetic testing before the test is ordered. But some argue that discussing all 57 genes would be demanding. “That is going to be a rather time consuming process,” said Dr. Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. Wolf and others are calling on the AMCG to reconsider the new guidelines. The AMCG says that the guidelines will be reviewed yearly and updated in light of new evidence. But in the meantime, doctors are in a bind about what to do when screening patients. “It really creates a big dilemma because, when an organization like the AMCG makes a recommendation, it's seen as establishing a standard of care,” Ostrer said. If doctors don't follow the guidelines, patients could sue for malpractice if it turns out they are a carrier of a mutation that the additional screening would have caught, Ostrer said. Ostrer said he would like to see more evidence about how patients respond to being told about incidental findings. Studies looking at this question are being carried out now, he said. Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/genetic-testing-guidelines-under-fire/

Consumer group flags high SPF ratings on sunscreen as misleading

WASHINGTON – & Sunbathers headed to the beach this summer will find new sunscreen labels on store shelves that are designed to make the products more effective and easier to use. But despite those long-awaited changes, many sunscreens continue to carry SPF ratings that some experts consider misleading and potentially dangerous, according to a consumer watchdog group. A survey of 1,400 sunscreen products by the Environmental Working Group finds that most products meet new federal requirements put in place last December. The rules from the Food and Drug Administration ban terms like “waterproof,” which regulators consider misleading, and require that sunscreens filter out both ultraviolet A and B rays. Previously some products only blocked UVB rays, which cause most sunburn, while providing little protection against UVA rays that pose the greatest risk of skin cancer and wrinkles. Despite that broader protection, one in seven products reviewed by the watchdog group boasted sun protection factor, or SPF, ratings above 50, which have long been viewed with skepticism by experts. In part, that's because SPF numbers like 100 or 150 can give users a false sense of security, leading them to stay in the sun long after the lotion has stopped protecting their skin. Many consumers assume that SPF 100 is twice as effective as SPF 50, but dermatologists say the difference between the two is actually negligible. Where an SPF 50 product might protect against 97 percent of sunburn-causing rays, an SPF 100 product might block 98.5 percent of those rays. “The high SPF numbers are just a gimmick,” says Marianne Berwick, professor of epidemiology at the University of New Mexico. “Most people really don't need more than an SPF 30 and they should reapply it every couple of hours.” Berwick says sunscreen should be used in combination with hats, clothing and shade, which provide better protection against ultraviolet radiation. Some dermatologists say there may be some rationale for using higher SPF sunscreens, since users often don't apply enough of the lotion to get its full effect. “The challenge is that beyond 50 the increase in UV protection is relatively small,” says Dr. Henry Lim, chair of dermatology at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. The SPF number indicates the amount of sun exposure needed to cause sunburn on sunscreen-protected skin compared with unprotected skin. For example, a SPF rating of 30 means it would take the person 30 times longer to burn wearing sunscreen than with exposed skin. There is a popular misconception that the SPF figure relates to a certain number of hours spent in the sun. However this is incorrect, since the level of exposure varies by geography, time of day and skin complexion. The FDA itself said in 2011 that “labeling a product with a specific SPF value higher than 50 would be misleading to the consumer.” At the time the agency proposed capping all SPF values at 50 because “there is not sufficient data to show that products with SPF values higher than 50 provide greater protection for users.” But regulators have faced pushback from companies, including Johnson & Johnson, which argue that higher SPF products provide measurable benefits. As a result, the FDA says it is still reviewing studies and comments submitted by outside parties, and there is no deadline for the agency to finalize an SPF cap. It took the agency decades to put in place last year's sunscreen changes. FDA first announced its intent to draft sunscreen rules in 1978 and published them in 1999. The agency then delayed finalizing the regulations for years until it could address concerns from both industry and consumers. The FDA is also reviewing the safety of effectiveness of spray-on products, which use different formulations from other sun-protection solutions. Among other concerns, the agency is looking at whether the sprays can be harmful when inhaled. The survey by the Environmental Working Group found that one in four sunscreens sold in the U.S. is a spray product. “People like the sprays because they are quick to put on and cover a lot of area,” said Dr. Darrell Rigel, a dermatologist in New York.  ”The downside is that you usually have to apply two coats.” More than 76,000 men and women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with melanoma this year and 9,480 are expected to die from the aggressive form of skin cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. The disease, which is often linked to ultraviolet exposure, is usually curable when detected early.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/consumer-group-flags-high-spf-ratings-on-sunscreenas-misleading/

Victims claim Marines failed to safeguard water supply

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. – & A simple test could have alerted officials that the drinking water at Camp Lejeune was contaminated, long before authorities determined that as many as a million Marines and their families were exposed to a witch's brew of cancer-causing chemicals. But no one responsible for the lab at the base can recall that the procedure -- mandated by the Navy -- was ever conducted. The U.S. Marine Corps maintains that the carbon chloroform extract (CCE) test would not have uncovered the carcinogens that fouled the southeastern North Carolina base's water system from at least the mid-1950s until wells were capped in the mid-1980s. But experts say even this “relatively primitive” test -- required by Navy health directives as early as 1963 -- would have told officials that something was terribly wrong beneath Lejeune's sandy soil. A just-released study from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry cited a February 1985 level for trichloroethylene of 18,900 parts per billion in one Lejeune drinking water well -- nearly 4,000 times today's maximum allowed limit of 5 ppb. Given those kinds of numbers, environmental engineer Marco Kaltofen said even a testing method as inadequate as CCE should have raised some red flags with a “careful analyst.” “That's knock-your-socks-off level -- even back then,” said Kaltofen, who worked on the infamous Love Canal case in upstate New York, where drums of buried chemical waste leaked toxins into a local water system. “You could have smelled it.” Biochemist Michael Hargett agrees that CCE, while imperfect, would have been enough to prompt more specific testing in what is now recognized as the worst documented case of drinking-water contamination in the nation's history. “I consider it disingenuous of the Corps to say, `Well, it wouldn't have meant anything,”' said Hargett, co-owner of the private lab that tried to sound the alarm about the contamination in 1982. “The levels of chlorinated solvent that we discovered ... they would have gotten something that said, `Whoops. I've got a problem.' They didn't do that.” Trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), benzene and other toxic chemicals leeched into ground water from a poorly maintained fuel depot and indiscriminate dumping on the base, as well as from an off-base dry cleaner. Nearly three decades after the first drinking-water wells were closed, victims are still awaiting a final federal health assessment -- the original 1997 report having been withdrawn because faulty or incomplete data. Results of a long-delayed study on birth defects and childhood cancers were only submitted for publication in late April. Many former Lejeune Marines and family members who lived there believe the Corps still has not come clean about the situation, and the question of whether these tests were conducted is emblematic of the depth of that mistrust. Marine Corps officials have repeatedly said that federal environmental regulations for these cancer-causing chemicals were not finalized under the Safe Drinking Water Act until 1989 -- about four years after the contaminated wells had been identified and taken out of service. But victims who have scoured decades-old documents say the military's own health standards should have raised red flags long before. In 1963, the Navy's Bureau of Medicine and Surgery issued “The Manual of Naval Preventive Medicine.” Chapter 5 is titled “Water Supply Ashore.” “The water supply should be obtained from the most desirable sources which is feasible, and effort should be made to prevent or control pollution of the source,” it reads. At the time, the Defense Department adopted water quality standards set by the U.S. Public Health Service. To measure that quality, the Navy manual identified CCE “as a technically practical procedure which will afford a large measure of protection against the presence of undetected toxic materials in finished drinking water.” Also referred to as the “oil and grease test,” CCE was intended to protect against an “unwarranted dosage of the water consumer with ill-defined chemicals,” according to the Navy manual. The CCE standard set in 1963 was 200 ppb. In 1972, the Navy further tightened it to no more than 150 ppb. In response to a request from The Associated Press, Capt. Kendra Motz said the Marines could produce no copies of CCE test results for Lejeune, despite searching for “many hours.” “Some documents that might be relevant to your question may no longer be maintained by the Marine Corps or the Department of the Navy in accordance with records management policies,” she wrote in an email. “The absence of records 50 years later does not necessarily mean action was not taken.” But the two men who oversaw the base lab told the AP they were not even familiar with the procedure. “A what?” asked Julian Wooten, who was head of the Lejeune environmental section during the 1970s, when asked if his staff had ever performed the CCE test. “I never saw anything, unless the (Navy's) preventive medicine people were doing some. I don't have any knowledge of that kind of operation or that kind of testing being done. Not back then.” “I have no knowledge of it,” said Danny Sharpe, who succeeded Wooten as section chief and was in charge when the first drinking water wells were shut down in the mid-1980s. “I don't remember that at all.” Wooten was an ecologist, and Sharpe's background is in forestry and soil conservation. But Elizabeth Betz, the supervisory chemist at Lejeune from 1979 to 1995, was also at a loss when asked about the CCE testing. “I do not remember any such test being requested nor do I remember seeing any such test results,” Betz, who later worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's national exposure branch at Research Triangle Park outside Raleigh, wrote in a recent e-mail. Hargett, the former co-owner of Grainger Laboratories in Raleigh, said he never saw any evidence that the base was testing and treating for anything beyond e coli and other bacteria. “That was a state regulation ... that they had to maintain a sanitary water supply,” he said. “And they did a good job at that.” Motz, the Marine spokeswoman, told the AP that the method called for in the manual would not have detected the toxins at issue in the Camp Lejeune case. “The CCE method includes a drying step and a distillation (evaporation) step where chloroform is completely evaporated,” she wrote in an email. These volatile organic compounds, “by their chemical nature, would evaporate readily as well,” she wrote. ATSDR contacted the EPA about the “utility” of such testing and concluded it would be of no value in detecting TCE, PCE, or benzene, Deputy Director Tom Sinks wrote in an email to members of a community assistance panel on Lejeune. “It is doubtful that the weight of their residue would be detectable when subjected to this method,” Sinks wrote. Kaltofen, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, acknowledged that CCE is “a relatively primitive test.” But in addition to the water's odor, Kaltofen said, “there are some things that a careful analyst would easily have noticed.” Hargett agreed. “It would have prompted you to simply say, `Wow. There is something here. Let's do some additional work,”' he told the AP. Any “reputable chemist ... would have raised their hands to the person responsible and said, `Guys. You ought to look at this. There's more here.”' The Marines have said such high readings were merely spikes. But Kaltofen countered that, “You can't get that level even once without having a very serious problem ... It's the worst case.” In a recent interview, Wooten told the AP that he knew something was wrong with the water as early as the 1960s, when he worked in the maintenance department. “I was usually the first person in in the big building that we worked in,” he said. “And I'd cut the water on and let it run, just go and flush the commodes and cut the water on and let it run for several minutes before I'd attempt to make coffee.” Wooten said he made repeated budget requests for additional equipment and lab workers. But as Betz told a federal fact-finding group, “the lab was very low on the priority list at the base.” She said her group -- the Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Department -- was “like the `red headed stepchild.”' Even a series of increasingly urgent reports from an Army lab at Fort McPherson, Ga., beginning in late 1980, failed to prompt any real action. “WATER HIGHLY CONTAMINATED WITH OTHER CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS (SOLVENTS!)” cautioned one memo from the Army lab in early 1981. Because the base water system drew on a rotating basis from a number of different wells, subsequent tests showed no problems, and officials chalked these “interferences” up to flukes. One base employee told the fact-finding group that in 1980, “they simply did not have the money nor capacity” to test every drinking-water well on the base. “This type of money would have cost well over $100,000, and their entire operating budget was $100,000,” the employee said, according to a heavily redacted summary obtained by the AP from the Department of Justice through the Freedom of Information Act. “However, they did not do the well testing because they did not think they needed to.” So, from late 1980 through the summer of 1982, the former employee told investigators, “this issue simply laid there. No attempts were made to identify ground contamination” at Hadnot Point or Tarawa Terrace, where most of the enlisted men and their families lived. It wasn't until a letter from Grainger in August 1982 reported TCE levels of 1,400 ppb that any kind of widespread testing began. Though the EPA did not yet enforce a limit for TCE at the time, the chemical had long been known to cause serious health problems. “That is when the light bulb went off,” Sharpe told federal investigators in a 2004 interview, obtained by the AP. “That is when we connected the tests of the 1980, 1981, and 1982 time period where traces of solvents were detected to this finding.” Still, it was not until the final weeks of 1984 that the first wells were closed down. Between the receipt of that 1982 letter and the well closures, the employee told the fact-finding group, “they simply dropped the ball.” Each year of delay meant an additional 10,000 people may have been exposed, according to Marine estimates. Municipal utilities around the country were using far more sophisticated tests to detect much lower contaminate levels, said Kaltofen, while the people at Camp Lejeune were doing “the bare minimum. And it wasn't enough.” Last year, President Obama signed the Camp Lejeune Veterans and Family Act to provide medical care and screening for Marines and their families, but not civilians, exposed between 1957 and 1987 -- although preliminary results from water modeling suggest that date be pushed back at least another four years. The law covers 15 diseases or conditions, including female infertility, miscarriage, leukemia, multiple myeloma, as well as bladder, breast, esophageal, kidney and lung cancer. Jerry Ensminger, a former drill sergeant, blames the water for the leukemia that killed his 9-year-old daughter, Janey, in 1985. He and Michael Partain -- a Marine's son who is one of at least seven dozen men with Lejeune ties diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer -- have scoured the records, and he thinks the Corps has yet to accept responsibility for its role in this tragedy. “If I hadn't dug in my heels,” Ensminger said, “this damned issue would have been dead and buried along with my child and everybody else's.”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/18/victims-claim-marines-failed-to-safeguard-water-supply/

Shrinks, critics face off over psychiatric manual

In the new psychiatric manual of mental disorders, grief soon after a loved one's death can be considered major depression. Extreme childhood temper tantrums get a fancy name. And certain “senior moments” are called “mild neurocognitive disorder.” Those changes are just some of the reasons prominent critics say the American Psychiatric Association is out of control, turning common human problems into mental illnesses in a trend they say will just make the “pop-a-pill” culture worse. Says a former leader of the group: “Normal needs to be saved from powerful forces trying to convince us that we are all sick.” At issue is the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, widely known as the DSM-5. The DSM has long been considered the authoritative source for diagnosing mental problems. The psychiatric association formally introduces the nearly 1,000-page revised version this weekend in San Francisco. It's the manual's first major update in nearly 20 years, and a backlash has taken shape in recent weeks: - Two new books by mental health experts, “Saving Normal” and “The Book of Woe,” say the world's most widely used psychiatric guide has lost credibility. - A British psychologists' group is criticizing the DSM-5, calling for a “paradigm shift” away from viewing mental problems as a disease. An organization of German therapists also attacked the new guide. - Even the head of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health complained that the book lacks scientific validity. This week, the NIMH director, Dr. Thomas Insel, tried to patch things up as he and the psychiatrists group issued a joint statement saying they have similar goals for improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. The manual's release comes at a time of increased scrutiny of health care costs and concern about drug company influence over doctors. Critics point to a landscape in which TV ads describe symptoms for mental disorders and promote certain drugs to treat them. “Way too much treatment is given to the normal `worried well' who are harmed by it; far too little help is available for those who are really ill and desperately need it,” Dr. Allen Frances writes in “Saving Normal.” He is a retired Duke University professor who headed the psychiatry group's task force that worked on the previous handbook. He says the new version adds new diagnoses “that would turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting and bad eating habits into mental disorders.” Previous revisions were also loudly criticized, but the latest one comes at a time of soaring diagnoses of illnesses listed in the manual - including autism, attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder - and billions of dollars spent each year on psychiatric drugs. The group's 34,000 members are psychiatrists - medical doctors who specialize in treating mental illness. Unlike psychologists and other therapists without medical degrees, they can prescribe medication. While there has long been rivalry between the two groups, the DSM-5 revisions have stoked the tensions. The most contentious changes include: - Diagnosing as major depression the extreme sadness, weight loss, fatigue and trouble sleeping some people experience after a loved one's death. Major depression is typically treated with antidepressants. - Calling frequent, extreme temper tantrums “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” a new diagnosis. The psychiatric association says the label is meant to apply to youngsters who in the past might have been misdiagnosed as having bipolar disorder. Critics say it turns normal tantrums into mental illness. - Diagnosing mental decline that goes a bit beyond normal aging as “mild neurocognitive disorder.” Affected people may find it takes more effort to pay bills or manage their medications. Critics of the term say it will stigmatize “senior moments.” - Calling excessive thoughts or feelings about pain or other discomfort “somatic symptom disorder,” something that could affect the healthy as well as cancer patients. Critics say the term turns normal reactions to a disease into mental illness. - Adding binge eating as a new category for overeating that occurs at least once a week for at least three months. It could apply to people who sometimes gulp down a pint of ice cream when they're alone and then feel guilty about it. - Removing Asperger's syndrome as a separate diagnosis and putting it under the umbrella term “autism spectrum disorder.” Dr. David Kupfer, chairman of the task force that oversaw the DSM-5, said the changes are based on solid research and will help make sure people get accurate diagnoses and treatment. Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, the psychiatry association's incoming president, said challenging the handbook's credibility “is completely unwarranted.” The book establishes diagnoses “so patients can receive the best care,” he said, adding that it takes into account the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. But Insel, the government mental health agency chief, wrote in a recent blog posting that the guidebook is no better than a dictionary-like list of labels and definitions. He said he favors a very different approach to diagnosis that is based more on biological information, similar to how doctors diagnose heart disease or problems with other organs. Yet there's scant hard evidence pinpointing what goes wrong in the brain when someone develops mental illness. Insel's agency two years ago began a research project to create a new way to diagnose mental illness, using brain imaging, genetics and other evolving scientific evidence. That project will take years. The revisions in the new guide were suggested by work groups the psychiatric association assigned to evaluate different mental illnesses and recent research advances. The association's board of trustees decided in December which recommendations to include. Advocacy groups have threatened Occupy-style protests and boycotts at this week's meeting. “The psychiatric industry, allied with Big Pharma, have massively misled the public,” the Occupy Psychiatry group contends. Organizers include Alaska lawyer Jim Gottstein, who has long fought against overuse of psychiatric drugs. The new manual “will drastically expand psychiatric diagnosis, mislabel millions of people as mentally ill, and cause unnecessary treatment with medication,” says the website for the Committee to Boycott the DSM-5, organized by New York social worker Jack Carney. Committee member Courtney Fitzpatrick, whose 9-year-old son died seven years ago while hospitalized for a blood vessel disease, said she has joined support groups for grieving parents “and by no means are we mentally ill because we are sad about our kids that have died.” Gary Greenberg, a Connecticut psychotherapist and author of “The Book of Woe,” says pharmaceutical industry influence in psychiatry has contributed to turning normal conditions into diseases so that drugs can be prescribed to treat them. Many of the 31 task force members involved in developing the revised guidebook have had financial ties to makers of psychiatric drugs, including consulting fees, research grants or stock. Group leaders dismiss that criticism and emphasize they agreed not to collect more than $10,000 in industry money in the calendar year preceding publication of the manual.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/16/shrinks-critics-face-off-over-psychiatric-manual/

The golden rules of sun protection

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know to apply sunscreen. There's a lifesaving reason to: About 3.5 million cases of skin cancer will be diagnosed this year. “The incidence of skin cancer, including melanoma—the deadliest kind—is going up, and wearing sunscreen is one of the best ways to prevent it,” said Dr. Ronald Moy, a dermatologist and spokesperson for the Skin Cancer Foundation. Stick with these smart tips—and check out our product picks—to make sure you're as protected as you can possibly be. Select a sunscreen you love Finding your sunscreen soul mate is the key motivating factor for using it regularly, experts agree. “If you think your sunscreen is pasty, thick or smelly, you have the wrong kind,” said Dr. Jeffrey Dover, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Yale University. “It may make you less likely to put it on, or to reapply when you do.” Happily, there are plenty of lightweight, sheer formulas, like Vichy Capital Soleil Foaming lotion SPF 50 ($29; vichyusa.com) and La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60 Ultra Light sunscreen fluid for face SPF 60 with Cell-Ox Shield XL ($30; laroche-posay.us). Health.com: Which Sunscreen Is Best For You? Remember, SPF 30 is the new 15 As a general rule, SPF 15 blocks 93 percent of UVB rays, SPF 30 blocks 97 percent and SPF 50 blocks 98 percent. Doctors now typically recommend at least SPF 30—at least being the key words. If you have a family history of skin cancer or are vacationing in a tropical spot (where the sun is especially intense), go for 50 or even 70. Just keep in mind: No sunscreen provides 100 percent protection. So to be as safe as possible, you still need to reapply every two hours and after a swim, even if you used the water-resistant kind, said Dr. Joshua Zeichner, director of cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Try Neutrogena Beach Defense sunscreen spray broad-spectrum SPF 30 ($11; at mass retailers). FYI, sunscreen becomes less effective about three years after you open the container. Check labels for the term broad-spectrum It means the sunscreen provides protection against both UVA (wrinkle- and cancer-causing) and UVB (burning) rays. Problem is, that labeling rule only went into effect in December and stores still sell inventory made prior to it, noted Dr. Steven Wang, director of dermatologic surgery and dermatology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Basking Ridge, N.J.  So if you're shopping and there's no broad-spectrum mention, check the ingredients for zinc or avobenzone, the only two that provide top-notch UVA coverage, he says. Coola Mineral Sport broad-spectrum SPF 35 Citrus Mimosa ($36; coolasuncare.com) contains zinc, and L'Oréal Paris Sublime Sun Liquid Silk Sunshield for face broad-spectrum SPF 30 ($10; at mass retailers) has avobenzone. Health.com: 7 Ways You're Aging Your Skin Layer it on Think you apply enough

The best pregnancy foods

When a woman is pregnant, we’re often quick to laugh off her cravings for even the unhealthiest foods. However, pregnancy is a time to indulge in nutritionally dense sources of delicious food - and avoid unhealthy foods, as often as possible. Processed foods offer little nutrition and may contain chemicals. Check labels and avoid products containing the following items: MSG, chemical additives, trans-fats, artificial dyes and anything in a plastic container that may contain BPA. Instead, look for organic and fresh foods whenever possible. When choosing proteins, look for options that come from animals that have not been given hormones or antibiotics. Foods rich in probiotics, healthy fats and folate are also all important components of a pregnancy diet. Probiotics are the building blocks for digestive health. Consuming probiotic-rich foods during pregnancy could help strengthen the immune systems of both the mother and baby. Probiotics can be easily incorporated into your diet through fermented foods such as kefir, organic plain yogurt, sauerkraut, kimchi and pickled vegetables. Healthy fats are vital to the baby’s brain, organ and tissue development, so embrace them. Butter from pastured cows and coconut oil both contain lauric acid, which has antiviral, antibacterial and immune supporting functions. Egg yolks contain choline which may enhance a baby’s brain development. Organic, full-fat dairy, avocado, nuts and healthy sources of meat all provide additional healthy fats. Wild-caught salmon, herring and sardines all contain healthy fats such as omega-3 and DHA. Wild, grass-fed animals like beef, wild boar, and longhorn are also great sources of omega-3’s. Folate is also critically important for the development of a healthy fetus. Dr. Luis Espaillat-Rijo, a voluntary assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Miami and clinical fellow at the Cleveland Clinic of Florida, stated that if he had to choose just one thing to recommend to pregnant women, it would be folate. Espaillat-Rijo explained that there is a direct link between folate supplementation and a decrease in incidence of neural tube defects. Folate also reduces the likelihood of anemia in the mother and can prevent early miscarriage and premature delivery. High quality, organic liver from a pastured animal is a great food to include in your diet once a week – it contains three times the amount of folate as a serving of raw spinach. Sunflower seeds, dark leafy greens and beans are also great sources of folate and make a wonderful addition to a pregnancy diet. This isn’t to say you can’t give in to your cravings. However, try to make your indulgences as healthy as possible.  If you’re craving a cheeseburger, choose grass-fed ground beef and organic cheese on a whole grain or sprouted bun. If all you want is a milkshake, seek out ice-cream made from hormone-free milk and top it with organic dark chocolate. Make the best choices you can, as often as you can. If you’re eating well the majority of the time, there’s no need to feel guilty about the occasional slip.Jacqueline Banks is a certified holistic health counselor and busy mother. & Her focus is on helping other busy moms in all stages of motherhood keep themselves and their little ones healthy and happy. & She uses natural and organic solutions to solve individual health problems and promote clean living. Check out her website at www.jbholistic.com.& & source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/14/best-pregnancy-foods/

Ultra-low salt intake may not boost health, U.S. panel says

Americans at high risk for heart problems who have been told for years to sharply cut salt from their diet may not actually benefit from ultra-low sodium diets and could even face some harm, an independent panel of health experts said on Tuesday. The influential Institute of Medicine, in a report to U.S. health officials, reviewed the latest data on the link between salt intake and health. While blacks, diabetics and others more likely to have heart problems are urged to slash their salt intake, the IOM review showed there was limited evidence such a diet helped, and that too little salt might increase the risk of heart trouble. “The evidence on both the benefit and harm is not strong enough to indicate that these subgroups should be treated differently from the general U.S. population,” the panel wrote. That suggests higher-risk populations may not need such a drastic reduction of salt in their diets and that other steps to curb heart disease risk may be needed. Americans are still consuming far too much salt, the IOM experts said. On average, U.S. adults eat about 1.5 teaspoons of salt over the course of the day, or about 3,400 milligrams. Federal guidelines recommend that healthy people consume no more than 2,300 milligrams daily. But the latest data calls into question whether individuals with higher risk factors for heart disease or stroke should limit their daily intake to 1,500 milligrams, as the government recommends. Brian Strom, the panel's chairman and a public health professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the newest studies back the known benefits of “reducing sodium from very high intake levels to moderate levels.” “But they also suggest that lowering sodium intake too much may actually increase a person's risk of some health problems,” he said, including heart ailments. Still, the studies are limited and in some cases flawed, so more research is needed, the IOM panel told the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which requested the report. Health advocates including the American Heart Association were quick to dismiss the findings, saying the recent studies reviewed by IOM focused on sick patients and not the majority of Americans, most of whom eat too much salt. “The bottom line for consumers is still: cut back on sodium,” said the Center for Science in the Public Interest's (CSPI) Bonnie Liebman. 'IT'S PRETTY TOUGH' The problem is not just food loaded with salt. It's also that Americans eat a lot of food that contains lower amounts of salt, such as bread and pasta, without realizing their sodium content. Health officials have called for Americans to take various steps to cut back, such as asking for no-salt dishes in restaurants and eating more naturally low-salt foods like fruits and vegetables. Health advocates said the IOM's review was beside the point given the high levels of sodium that still plague U.S. foods. It's almost impossible to ingest just 1,500 milligrams a day, said Liebman, director of nutrition for CSPI. “Virtually any meal at any restaurant would give you at least half-a-day's worth of sodium, maybe a whole day's worth, maybe more,” Liebman said. “You'd have to make everything from scratch. ... It's pretty tough.” Consumer groups and some lawmakers have for years called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to set federal salt levels for food, a recommendation that the IOM backed in 2010. In New York City, health officials have been working with restaurants and food companies to voluntarily remove salt from everyday foods. A trio of studies published on Monday found that smaller restaurants still load their food with salt even as national chains and food manufacturers have cut back.  The FDA, in a statement, said it was reviewing the IOM's report, calling it consistent with its “efforts to work toward achievable and reasonable voluntary reductions in the sodium content of the U.S. food supply.” IOM was not asked to review current federal salt intake guidelines, which were issued in 2010. U.S. health officials are expected to revise the guidelines on salt and other nutrients in 2015.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/15/ultra-low-salt-intake-may-not-boost-health-us-panel-says/

Water governs cell movement: Aquaporins play key role, new research finds

The ability of cells to move and change shape is significant in many biological processes. White blood corpuscles gather at "hotspots" like infections and inflammations. Stem cells in the embryo move off in different directions to make the organs of the body. One unwanted movement is the movement of tumour cells, which lead to cancer metastasis…