You’ve probably heard about “medical tourism,” the traveling of patients to foreign countries in order to receive care. But what you may not know is just how popular medical tourism has become: according to Deloitte LLP, an international consulting firm, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care in 2007. Aggressive projections put this number somewhere around 6 million by 2010.

As interest in medical tourism increases it’s important to understand the nuts and bolts behind its allure, and the risks that it poses — both for patients and health care systems at home and abroad.

Saving Money

Over the past few years insurers and employers have warmed up to medical tourism as a way to save money: its cheaper for insurance plans to help fund patients’ trips to foreign doctors who charge much less for procedures than their U.S. counterparts.

The price differentials  are stunning. According to a recent Deloitte report, Thailand, the world’s leading medical tourism hub, saw 1.2 million medical tourists from around the world in 2006. On average, medical procedures in Thailand cost a mere 30 percent of American prices. India, another destination that sees more than 400,000 medical tourists each year, charges just an average of just 20 percent as much as the U.S. Thousands of Americans also flock to Mexico and South America every year for cosmetic and dental surgery, where procedures cost anywhere from 75 to 50 percent less than they do in the U.S.

Chinese imports have had a bad year in the news, making headlines for contaminated pet food, toxic toys, and recently, certified organic ginger contaminated with levels of a pesticide called aldicarb that can cause nausea, headaches and blurred vision even at low levels. The ginger, sold under the 365 label at Whole Foods Market, contained a level of aldicarb not even permissible for conventional ginger, let alone organics. Whole Foods immediately pulled the product from its shelves.

Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association, emphasizes that most organic farmers “play by the rules.” They believe in organic principles and thereby comply with organic standards. Unfortunately, Congress’ pitifully inadequate funding for enforcement, including for organic imports from countries like China, “guarantees it’ll be easy for unscrupulous players to cheat, and that’s obviously what’s going on here.”

Farms that produce USDA-certified organic food are not personally inspected by anyone from the USDA National Organic Program (NOP). As a small and underfunded agency within the USDA (it has fewer than a dozen employees), NOP relies on what it calls Accredited Certifying Agencies — ACAs — to do the legwork. The ACAs take responsibility for ensuring that any farm or processor bearing the organic label meets the strict requirements for certification.

Since the Chinese government does not allow foreigners to inspect Chinese farms, an extra step is involved for oversight of organics from China: Chinese companies, which are allowed to inspect Chinese farms, subcontract with foreign ACAs. Cummins believes “the safest course of action is … to say we won’t certify imports from China because their law won’t allow inspections.”

For Americans who shop at the growing number of farmers markets springing up around the country, the status of organics from China — or even organics from faraway U.S. states — may be irrelevant. Just as the hippies who founded the movement intended, ethical eating extends beyond pesticide-free food for these shoppers, some of whom call themselves locavores, meaning “one who eats food produced locally.” They wish to support small farmers and to ensure their food was produced in an environmentally friendly manner by workers who were treated well and paid fairly.

And not matter how strict a law may be, there will always be those who game the system. Even if a Chinese inspector notices illegal pesticide use, he or she might feel pressured to stay silent, says Dr. Robert E. Hegel, professor of Chinese and Comparative Literature at Washington University in St. Louis. “Everybody there is so proud of increased production that few people ask much about the farmer’s production methods,” says Hegel. “And there’s no ‘organic’ food tradition in China.” According to Hegel, in China “everything was just ‘food’ and it was, until the 1950s, mostly ‘organic’ by our contemporary definitions — fertilized with human and animal waste, compost … and ashes.”

For more click here

But that was then. Today, corn ethanol has become the bad-boy alternative to petroleum, criticized for driving up food prices, destroying rain forests and worsening climate change. For good measure, the criticism is usually leveled at biofuels in general, even though the other category of biofuel — biodiesel — is not made from corn and has a much more beneficial climate-improving profile. For some environmentalists, the only acceptable green energy options are wind, solar and geothermal power. Former Vice President Al Gore recently challenged America to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels in ten years by shifting electricity production to those three ideal options. Along the way, he suggested assisting auto makers to build plug-in cars and phase out gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.

However, even if this utopia can be achieved in a decade — and I fervently hope that it can — Americans are stuck with cars they wish they could plug in but can’t. America and the world will need liquid fuels for a long time to come, and biofuels, including some corn ethanol made at the most efficient distilleries, offer a far better option than continued use of fossil fuels.

Biofuel critics, including the Grocery Manufacturers of America, often frame the problem as a choice between feeding people and feeding SUVs; they blame rising food prices on diverting food crops to fuel production. The trade group has mounted a public relations campaign to try to roll back high Congressional mandates for increasing use of ethanol. While concern about rising food prices is certainly justified, for grocery manufacturers the argument is also self-serving. Food manufacturers make their profits not on raw vegetables or commodities like cooking oil but on processed foods, and they want to direct public anger about food price inflation away from themselves. Packaging, processing, advertising, transportation and profits account for most of the price of processed foods, and the surging price of oil figures heavily in that mix. The cost of corn, even as the major ingredient in a food like corn flakes, accounts for a tiny fraction of the final price.

But it’s false to frame the biofuel debate as a choice between people or SUVs. While there are daily references in the media to the diversion of corn to fuel-making, there’s hardly ever a mention of the fact that feeding our livestock uses 50 percent to 60 percent of the American corn crop. Here are the calculations used by the US Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service for how much corn animals must be fed to produce a pound of meat for retail sale: seven pounds of corn equals one pound of beef; six-and-a-half pounds of corn equals one pound of pork;  two and six-tenths pounds of corn equals one pound of chicken. (Meat industry estimates are lower but generally refer to the amount of corn necessary to make the live animal gain a pound, not the amount necessary to get a pound of food in the meat case.) Corn is a dietary staple in parts of the world like Mexico, but not here in the United States, where the answer to “What’s for dinner?” is supposed to be “beef.” Talk about feeding SUVs or people is deceptive, since it masks the intermediate step of feeding animals a whole lot of corn to get one steak dinner.

Even more hidden from public view is the role of animal feeding in global warming. The shocking fact is that production of beef, pork and poultry is a bigger part of the climate problem than the cars and trucks we drive, indeed of the whole transportation sector. In our fantasies — and ads — we see contented cows eating grass, but the fact is all but a lucky few spend much of their lives in dismal feedlots where grass does not grow, getting fat on corn and other unspeakable byproducts. Internationally, two-thirds of the earth’s available agricultural land is used to raise animals and their feed crops, primarily corn and soybeans, and the trend is accelerating as people in Latin America and Asia increasingly demand an Americanized diet rich in meat. The need to grow more animal feed and more animals has been devastating rainforests and areas like Brazil’s Cerrado region, the world’s most biologically diverse savannah, long before the demand for biofuels began escalating.

It’s What We Eat

Vegetarians have long understood this issue, but asking the American public to eat less meat is still a radical idea, politically untouchable. Yet the meat industry is a giant source of greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is only one, and not the most dangerous one. All those steer feedlots and factory buildings crammed with pigs and chickens produce immense amounts of animal wastes that give off methane. On an equivalent basis to carbon dioxide, methane is twenty-three times more potent as a greenhouse gas. When you add in the production of fertilizer and other aspects of animal farming (including land use changes, feed transport, etc.) livestock farming is responsible for nearly one-fifth of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transportation sector, according to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

For more visit the source

Now, I’ve been telling people about the dangers of ’soy’ for a minute now and even pointing out that the feminization (limp wrist) phenom) of the ‘conscious-eating’ community is a direct result of heavy soy intake. Now that the scientist have released a study confirming my suspicions hopefully they’ll listen and take heed.

via Mail Online

Too much tofu could affect a man’s fertility, scientists warn.

Researchers have found that eating even a modest amount of soy products - which are popular with vegetarians - could significantly lower your sperm count.

Men who ate an average of half a serving of soy food a day had lower concentrations of sperm than those who did not, the study found. And for those who were overweight or obese, the effects were more pronounced.

Low sperm count is known to make it harder for a man to conceive.

It is thought that soy compounds called isoflavones, which mimic the female sex hormone estrogen, are behind the effect. Animal studies have linked a high consumption of isoflavones with infertility.

But until now there has been little evidence of their impact on human reproduction.

In the latest study, U.S. researchers found that those with the highest soy intake produced much less sperm than those who ate none.

Led by Dr Jorge Chavarro, from the Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston, they questioned men about consumption of 15 soy-based foods. These included tofu, tempeh, soy sausages, bacon, burgers and mince, soy milk, cheese, yoghurt and ice cream, and soy products such as roasted nuts, drinks, powders and energy bars.

Men in the highest intake group had an average soy food intake of half a serving per day.

The association between soy consumption and sperm count may be stronger for those who were obese or overweight, because their bodies produce more oestrogen than slim men, the researchers believe.

For those with higher sperm counts, the effect was also stronger. Dr Chavarro said: ‘The implication is that men who have normal or high sperm counts may be more susceptible to soy foods than men with low sperm counts.’

In the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers concluded: ‘We found an inverse association between the consumption of soy foods and sperm concentration which was more pronounced at the higher end of the sperm concentration distribution and among overweight or obese men.’

Source

Click to read more …