view entire issue in pdf format - On The Issues Magazine

Stated a spokesman for Denver General
Hospital, site of a McDonald's: "Yeah, the sodium
is high in some of the food but they also have salads
and salt-free french fries. It's not going to kill you.
It hasn't killed anyone yet."
Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen Health
Research Group, a Washington-based consumer
advocacy group, doesn't exactly agree with that
evaluation of the cholesterol-rich, high fat and
sodium products. Said Dr. Wolfe: "What better
way to create new patients than to sell food which
significantly increases the risk of coronary artery
disease and heart attacks?"
Maybe the hospitals can also get liquor licenses
and have cigarette concessions. Is this what the
doctor ordered?
BIOLOGY AND OUR DESTINY
Feature in the New York Times: In May, after what
it called "a comprehensive review of environmental
risks", the Pentagon concluded that its research
into defenses against biological weapons is "virtually
free of significant danger to people or the environment"
. While acknowledging that the use of
extremely lethal viruses, bacteria and toxins in its
laboratories is inherently dangerous, the Defense
Department's study asserted that "comprehensive
safety precautions" had "eliminated any substantial
hazards ". The study came one day after a congressional
staff report asserted that there were major
failings in the management of safety in the program
and cited the lack of any single body of
regulations governing the research work. The Pentagon
study acknowledged that the safety rules were
fragmented into several bodies of regulations, but
it said they were "elaborate" and "assure adequate
protection for the work force and virtually total protection
for the external environment".
The Pentagon program, which has grown fivefold
under the Reagan Administration, costs more
than $90 million a year. The Pentagon has justified
its work by contending that as many as 10 other
countries are conducting research on offensive
biological weapons. One of the Pentagon
laboratories, at the Dugway Proving Ground in
Utah, is planning a new containment facility to
enable it to conduct aerosol tests of highly
dangerous microorganisms.
Of course we should trust the report. After all,
underground nuclear tests don't release radiation,
Three-Mile Island couldn 't happen, Love Canal
was just a fluke and Agent Orange was safe for
people.
WOMEN OF A "CERTAIN AGE"
An article by Elizabeth Mehren in the Los Angeles
Times informs us of a major new study of the health
of midlife women which found that the health consequences
of menopause are "vastly overrated".
Epidemiologists Sonja M. and John B. McKinlay
conducted a five-year survey of Massachusetts
women between the ages of 45 and 55 and found
that "Basically, the menopause is a small ripple in
a woman's life." They contend that not only does
menopause not cause depression, but that it also
plays very little role in the general health of women.
The research found further that most women in this
age group named family as the primary cause of
stress and described work (outside the home) as a
relief from that stress. The linking of menopause
with ill-health and depression by physicians is a
perspective John McKinlay calls "very understandable'
' because ' 'they base their knowledge on what
they see and what they see is a very selected group
of people. Because they see sick women, they think
all women are sick."
Rita Jacobs, sociologist and gerontologist at the
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women,
observed that "doctors have been in the habit of
attributing every illness that a woman has either to
being premenopausal, menopausal or post
menopausal." However, she also stressed that it's
important not to overlook the fact that for some
women menopause is difficult.
And before menopause, everything wrong is
premenstrual, menstrual, prepartum, postpartum.
Perhaps a few more studies are in order so that
women can be regarded as people.
ANOTHER PERSON'S POISON
Associated Press dispatch:
The F.D.A. has decided not to put broad restrictions
on the use of sulfites in foods. The chemicals,
which have been used for decades to prevent
discoloration in food and are used in some drugs
to help maintain their potency, are in the F.D.A.
category of substances designated "generally
regarded as safe.'' But agency officials estimate that
they are dangerous to about 10 percent of the 10
million people in the United States with asthma and
to a "small number" of non-asthmatics.
This information came from a memorandum obtained
by A.P. Although the F.D.A. confirmed the
existence of the memorandum, they said it was not
for public release. A.P. obtained their copy from
a source outside the agency.
The memorandum said the F.D.A. had considered
prohibiting all uses of sulfites in food, or
requiring labeling of all sulfite-treated food used
in restaurants, but had rejected all of these
proposals.
Mitch Zeller, a staff attorney for the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, predicted that the
F.D.A.'s position was likely to be approved by
Health and Human Services, saying it "does so little
and bends over backwards to placate the food
industry".
So, as usual, it's "Let the buyer beware. "
SCENTS WITHOUT SENSE
A feature article by Deborah Blumenthal in the New
York Times tells us: "Cosmetic companies are going
after a new market: young children. The industry
is courting the upscale cradle set with
fragrances, soaps, mousse baby shampoos, sun
blocks and even a scent for those born yesterday.
Some of the products, not unexpectedly, are provoking
dismay from psychologists and dermatologists.'
' Not all of these products are bad. The
mousse shampoos won't irritate a baby's eyes and
sunblocks are formulated without PABA, which
can cause adverse reactions. But perfumes?
Parfums Givenchy has formulated an alcoholfree
perfume for babies under two [italics ours]
called Eau de Senteur, and Eau de Toilette for
children two and older which contains 30 percent
alcohol. The cost: $30 for 3.3 ounces. Meanwhile,
Gregorys International of Miami has on the market
Gregorys, a scent for little boys, at$15.50for0.85
ounce. Who buys this stuff? According to Alan
Mottus, marketing consultant for the cosmetics industry,
"It seems to be for guilty yuppie parents
who work all the time and want to smother their
children with little goodies."
Dr. Lawrence Lipsitt, director of the Child Study
Center at Brown University, says that any foreign
odor could interfere with a child's ability to bond
with its mother; research shows that infants as
young as six or seven days recognize their mother's
scent. And Dr. Sidney Hurwitz, a textbook author
who is a clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology
at the Yale University School of
Medicine says that even if the cosmetics are less
irritating "They can still cause irritation, they can
predispose children to problems later on and they
may help to trigger later allergies."
Lawrence Aiken, president of Parfums Givenchy
Inc. U.S.A., said the products had drawn no
objection from the F.D.A. Asked if the fragrance
had been tested on infants, he said: "Sure, sure.
In Europe."
Isn 't that where they tested and approved
thalidomide? At best, this whole thing has a most
unsavory smell.
jfc