“Heartburn pills taken by thousands of women ‘raise risk of hip fractures by up to 50 per cent’,” the Daily Mail reported today. The headline is based on a large new study of drugs called proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are commonly used to treat heartburn, acid reflux and ulcers.
The study found that post-menopausal women who regularly took PPIs for at least two years were 35% more likely to suffer hip fracture than non-users, a figure that increases to 50% for women who were current or former smokers. However, although this increase in risk is large, the overall risk of fractures remains small.
This was a large, well conducted study that suggests that long-term use of PPIs is associated with a small increase in risk of hip fracture, although the researchers point out that the risk seems to be confined to women with a history of smoking. Unlike previous research, this study took careful account of other factors that might affect risk such as body weight and calcium intake.
Women who are concerned about their use of PPIs are advised to consult their GP.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston University and Harvard Medical School and was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The study was published in the
peer-reviewed British Medical Journal.
Although the Mail’s headline is technically correct, it gives the impression that these drugs carry a very large increase in the risk of hip fracture. In fact, the study found that, in absolute terms, the increase in risk for regular users was small. Researchers found that among the women in the study who regularly used PPIs, about two in every 1,000 fractured a hip each year. In non-users, this figure was about 1.5 in every 1,000. This is a increase of about five fractures a year in every 10,000 women taking PPIs.
The Mail did point out this “absolute difference” towards the end of its story. Both the Mail and the BBC included comments from independent experts.
What kind of research was this?
The researchers point out that PPIs are among the most commonly used drugs worldwide. In the US they are available over the counter, but in the UK are available only on prescription. They are used for symptoms of heartburn, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and stomach ulcers. PPIs are thought to work by reducing acid production in the stomach. Concern has grown over a potential association between long-term use of these drugs and bone fractures, although the researchers say that previous studies have had conflicting results and many did not take other factors (called
confounders) that might affect the risk of fracture into account.
In their
cohort study of nearly 80,000 post-menopausal women, the researchers set out to examine the association between long-term use of PPIs and the risk of hip fracture. Unlike a
randomised controlled trial, a cohort study cannot prove cause and effect. However, cohort studies enable researchers to follow large groups of people for long periods and they are useful for looking at potential long-term risks and benefits of treatments. The study was
prospective, which means it followed participants in time, rather than collecting information retrospectively. This makes it more reliable.
What did the research involve?
This study took its data from a large ongoing US study called the Nurses Health Study, which began in 1976 and which sent health questionnaires every two years to 121,700 female nurses aged 30-55.
From 1982 participants were asked to report all previous hip fractures and in each biennial questionnaire, women were asked if they had sustained a hip fracture over the previous two years. Those who reported a hip fracture were sent a follow-up questionnaire asking for more details. Fractures from bad accidents, such as falling down a flight of stairs, were excluded from the study. A review of medical records for 30 of the women validated all self-reported fractures.
From 2000 to 2006 the women were asked if they had regularly used a PPI in the previous two years. In earlier questionnaires (1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000), the women were also asked if they had regularly used other drugs for acid reflux, called H2 blockers.
The biennial questionnaires also included questions on other factors including menopausal status, body weight, leisure activities, smoking and alcohol use, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and other medicines. Researchers used a validated food frequency questionnaire to calculate the women’s total intake of calcium and vitamin D.
They then analysed the data for any association between regular use of PPIs and hip fracture, adjusting their findings for key confounders such as body weight, physical activity, smoking and alcohol and calcium intake. They also took into account whether the reasons for using a PPI might have affected the results.
Finally, they carried out a systematic review combining their results with 10 previous studies on the risk of hip fracture and the long-term use of PPIs.
What were the basic results?
The researchers documented 893 hip fractures during the period of the study. They also found that, in 2000, 6.7% of women regularly used a PPI – a figure that had risen to 18.9% by 2008.
- Amongst women who had regularly taken a PPI at any time, there were 2.02 hip fractures per 1,000 person years, compared with 1.51 fractures per 1,000 person years among non-users.
- Women who regularly used PPIs for at least two years had a 35% higher risk of hip fracture than non-users (age adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35; 95%
confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.62), with longer use associated with increasing risk. Adjustment for risk factors, including body mass index, physical activity and intake of calcium did not alter this association (HR 1.36; CI 1.13 to 1.63).
The increased risk did not change when researchers also took into account the reasons for PPI use:
- Current and former smokers who regularly used PPIs were 51% more likely to have a hip fracture than non-users (HR 1.51; (CI) 1.20 to 1.91).
- Among women who never smoked there was no association between PPI use and hip fracture (HR 1.06; (CI) 0.77 to 1.46).
- In a meta-analysis of these results with 10 previous studies, the risk of hip fracture in users of PPI was higher compared to non–users of PPIs (pooled odds ratio 1.30; CI 1.25 to 1.36).
The researchers also found that two years after women stopped taking PPIs, their risk of hip fracture returned to a similar level to that in women who had never taken them. Also, women taking H2 blockers had a “modest” increased risk of hip fracture but the risk was higher in women who took PPIs.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers conclude that their results provide “compelling evidence” of a risk between PPI use and hip fracture. They say the findings suggest that the need for long-term, continuous use of PPIs should be carefully evaluated, particularly among people who have smoked or are still smokers.
They suggest that PPIs may increase the risk of fracture by impairing the absorption of calcium, although in this study the risk of fracture was not affected by dietary calcium intake. The finding that the risk was confined to women with a history of smoking (an established risk factor for fracture) indicates that smoking and PPIs may act together (have a “synergistic effect”) on fracture risk.
Conclusion
This large study had several strengths. Unlike some previous studies, it collected information on and took into account other key risk factors for fracture, including body weight, smoking, alcohol use and physical activity. It also looked at the women’s use of PPIs every two years (rather than just asking them once) and took into account variations in use during this time in their analysis.
However, as the authors note, it also had some limitations:
- It did not ask about the brands of PPI used, nor the doses of PPI the women took, both of which could affect risk of fracture.
- The information about hip fracture was self-reported and not confirmed by medical records (although a smaller study has found self-reporting of hip fracture to be reliable).
- Also, the study did not record the women’s bone mineral density (BMD). Low[?] BMD is an important risk factor for fracture and adding a measure of this could have strengthened the study.
Finally, because this was a cohort study, other factors both measured and unmeasured may have affected the results, even though researchers took many of these into account in their analysis. Socio-economic status and education, for example, were not established. Because this was a study of registered nurses, the applicability of the results to other socio-economic groups might be limited.
This study found that the long-term, regular use of these drugs is associated with a small increased risk in hip fracture among older women, a risk that seems to be confined to past or current smokers. Women who regularly take PPIs and who are concerned about these findings are advised to talk to their GP. Whether any change in use of this commonly prescribed drug is needed requires further study.
Links To The Headlines
Indigestion drugs taken by millions linked to hip fractures. The Daily Telegraph, February 1 2012
Heartburn pills taken by thousands of women 'raise risk of hip fractures by up to 50 per cent'. Daily Mail, February 1 2012
Ulcer drugs 'link to fractures'. BBC News, February 1 2012
Links To Science
Khalili H, Huang ES, Jacobsen BC, et al.
Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of hip fracture in relation to dietary and lifestyle factors: a prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal. Published online January 31 2012
It isn't often that a prescription product repurposed on the street then returns to the clinic. But that's just what's happening with ketamine, sold as a generic and by Pfizer (
$PFE) under the brand names Ketalar and Ketaject (and illegally as Special K). Studies testing the injectable against depression are yielding some dramatic results, described by patients in language familiar to recreational users.
Researchers from the National Institute for Mental Health and from Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital have administered ketamine to severely depressed patients with almost instantaneous results, NPR reports. Yale scientists have pinpointed a potential explanation: Ketamine appears to affect glutamate in the brain, triggering new connections among brain cells.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox!
"I feel that something's lifted or feel that I've never been depressed in my life," was how NIMH researcher Carlos Zarate described his ketamine patients' reactions. "And it was a different experience from feeling high. This was feeling that something has been removed." One Ben Taub study patient, who believes she got ketamine, not placebo, said she went home feeling "no more fogginess, no more heaviness." Both of them reactions that
LA Weekly
deemed obvious. "Any raver could have told you this," the paper said.
Ketamine has serious potential side effects, including hallucinations during its infusion--and, not insignificantly, addiction. But unlike drugs already approved as antidepressants, the injectable appears to work quickly, a big advantage for patients in crisis. Further study is on the way; the Ben Taub researchers say that if their trial shows that ketamine outperforms a placebo, they plan to conduct a longer-term study to determine whether its effects could be long-lasting.
- see the blog
post at NPR
- get
more, also from NPR
- see the
LA Weekly
post
Related Articles:
Researchers study 'Special K' drug as potential tonic for depression
Scientists believe "magic" mushrooms could effectively treat depression
Researchers take a fresh look at hallucinogens
US Free Classifieds
Most Popular Online Classifieds in USA. No Sign up, No Email Required to Post.
Canada Free Ads
Free Online Classifieds in Canada.
UK Free Ads
United Kingdom Free Ads Website.
100% Free Ad Posting.INTL BOGUS MARKETERS TRY TO CRASH IN TOO
There seems to be no stopping the popularity of SnL Dietary Supplements as people around the world are beginning to take notice of its effectiveness and its one-of-a-kind formulation innovated yet again by Yumei Mise. As word about the benefits and the ever increasing weight-loss success stories from SnL spread via the internet, forums are currently abuzz with topics regarding SnL and hoodia gordonii. Demands and inquiries on how to order SnL have been steadily increasing as well.
Websearches on hoodia gordonii, l-carnitine and green tea extract lands SnL on the first page, testament to the increased traffic to the SnL website as well as links to forum discussion regarding SnL. Given the history of Yumei Mise as an innovator of highly effective and affordable products, this of course should come as no surprise.
The optimism of Yumei Mise company, despite the booming popularity of the relatively new SnL brand, remains guarded as they caution users of SnL, both longtime users and new alike, to be on guard at the expected onslaught of global detractors wanting to capitalize on the growing fame of the SnL brand.
A good example of this would be another manufacturer of another ?weight-loss brand? who have been methodically visiting multiple weight-loss forums posting the same ?negative? review about SnL among other products and even going as far as putting up several bogus product ?review? websites to post the same ?negative? review.
The ?negative? review will have neither factual scientific basis nor studies backing up their claims. Its concern is just to to convince a few SnL users into trying the product that the people behind the bogus reviews are actually selling.
While underhanded marketing techniques like these are rather commonplace, what is alarming is that the product they are selling is not FDA approved and is just being sold in wild abandon on the internet. Further review of the contents of their product reveals that it even contains the dreaded fenfluramine-phentermine or fenphen, which gained notoriety at the turn of the millennium as studies showed that it causes irreversible heart problems and have been suspected of causing several fatalities in several areas around the world.
Yumei Mise through its website have since issued cautions to their users about such products going around the internet, especially those who have been riding on the popularity of SnL. The company at the same time assures that SnL still remains as one of safest and most effective weight loss supplement in the world today.
SnL Dietary Supplements is the first dietary supplement blend approved by the FDA in the Philippines with Hoodia Gordonii, arguably the worlds safest, naturally occurring appetite suppressant. Its active ingredient P57, have been studied and found out to have safe appetite suppressing qualities and it has been used safely by the bushmen of Kalahari Desert in Africa for centuries to stem their hunger for centuries during period of drought or during long hunting trips.
The much envied SnL blend also contains l-carnitine for fast conversion of stored body fats into energy, green tea extract which apart from being an effective fat burner is likewise a powerful antioxidant. Rounding up the excellent blend of SnL is GlutaNAC, a blend made famous by KB, another successful brand of Yumei Mise designed to effectively boost the glutathione levels in the body.
Yumei Mise has been a strong proponent of food supplement safety and pushes for the stricter regulations on products being traded on the internet. The company assures its loyal clients that SnL Dietary Supplement remains as one the worlds safest and most effective weight-loss supplements.
SnL Dietary Supplements is available in the Philippines at Mercury Drugstores, Watsons and other leading outlets. Local orders can also be attended to through the KB hotline number 0917-800-58-36. For international orders, inquiries, comments and suggestions, please visit the SnL website at www.yumeimise.net
These great documentary films have a simple lesson: effective political protest needs good organisation and smart messaging
So,
late last year, I said –
to some controversy here – that the violent crackdown against the Occupy movement in the United States represented the first salvos of a civil war initiated by political and allied economic elites against protesters in a nascent movement whose still-not-fully articulated agenda would represent a threat to their unmediated and untransparent hold on profits. And a civil war it has indeed turned out to be.
Over the weekend, 2,000 citizens marched in support of Occupy Oakland – and were met by flash grenades and,
some witnesses assert, rubber bullets. The
Los Angeles Police Department is engaging in training exercises with the US military. At a parallel march in support,
in New York City, a new apparition – large groups of masked men – joined the protesters, which is, globally, a sign that provocateurs intent on violence have joined the scene; and
journalist Tim Pool was assaulted.
And reports continue to surface around the nation, most recently from Atlanta, of
heightened local law enforcement investment in military-style hardware to use against domestic dissent. Predictably enough, after the
NDAA created a clause allowing for the indefinite detention of domestic terrorists, Oakland council member referred to the Occupy protesters as
"domestic terrorists".
In the midst of this escalation, some important lessons have emerged – from, of all places, the glittery and snowy
Sundance film festival in Park City, Utah. I was there to appear on a panel titled "Loving the Masses", and in the course of my visit, had the chance to see some of the riveting and important documentaries about grassroots protest movements that distinguished this year's offerings: these included the powerful
Never Sorry, about the Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei, directed by novice 27-year-old filmmaker Alison Klayman;
Half Revolution, presenting edge-of-your-seat reportage from the front lines of Cairo's revolution, by young Palestinian-Danish director Omar Shargawi and Egyptian-American director Karim el-Hakim; David France's compelling
How to Survive a Plague, about Act Up's rise and fall; the historically significant
A Fierce Green Fire, detailing 30 years of the environmental movement, by Mark Kitchell; and the truly infuriating doc about how US corporations cycle their profits out of the country, hiding them routinely in offshore accounts or in their Irish subsidiaries, so as to avoid paying any US taxes whatsoever – and doing so in collusion with their hired hands in Congress –
We're Not Broke, by Karin Hayes and Victoria Bruce. The news is bittersweet and the lessons are timely.
One thing that emerges from watching these documentaries, in aggregate, is that this narrative is global. As the power of global corporations transcends the political power of nation states, global corporations are simply rewriting legislation in advanced democracies behind closed doors, and leaving the people – of Greece or the UK, America or Italy – out of the decision-making process altogether; then presenting the need for cutbacks as a fait accompli. It is this lack of financial transparency and accountability that Occupy's movement threatens, and there are truly billions of dollars – in untaxed US profits alone – at stake if they become successful.
Also apparent from these films is that the crackdowns against dissent are now globally coordinated:
Acta, which allows corporations to block access to certain sites online, was signed recently by a series of governments. In Half a Revolution, Cairenes hold up bullets and tear gas canisters marked "Made in America". As Twitter and Facebook became global routes for "revolutionary" sentiment used by dissidents such as Ai Weiwei – who documented, via Twitter, footage of his being beaten by secret police in a hotel room, as well as tweeting his brain scan images that showed proof of the damage done by the beating – and as Facebook drove the protests in Tahrir Square, both social media have both recently announced policies that limit their usefulness as tools for organizing, that weaken privacy protections, and that can help to put in jeopardy dissidents who run afoul of local censors.
On the organizing side, the lessons are profound from these documentaries, as well. It was heartbreaking to sit on the panel watching clips from A Fierce Green Fire and How to Survive a Plague and see that most of the forms of effective peaceful protest used by these successful movements are now illegal, or else extremely dangerous. Lois Gibbs, a citizen leader in the Love Canal pollution scandal, spoke of holding government officials hostage until the groups' demands were met. Well, these days, that would get you ID'ed as a "domestic terrorist" and shipped to abusive detention.
Act Up successfully put a condom around Senator Jesse Helms' house, blocked access to the FDA, and showed up to disrupt meetings about drug trials that had been held in secret. Especially affecting to me was how long they were given to make their points before being silenced – and how they faced brief arrest processes, at most, but no violence. Act up was, of course, successful and their activism on fast-tracking Aids drugs has saved millions of lives.
Important lessons also emerged, especially from Act Up. Occupy – a movement I love and respect, and which represents our last best hope – also fills me with distress because of how difficult it is for a movement committed to "no spokespeople" to get their message out. Act Up, which was founded by a group that included people who worked in the media and in advertising, were not so self-hobbled: they created a memorable "brand" (the pink triangle) and coined a powerful soundbite ("silence equals death"); and activists accepted media training from a member who was also a news anchor. They were "on message" – labeling the Catholic Church, for instance, "murderers" when it opposed condom use. And it was effective, so the word "murderer" was repeated in dozens of voices and entered the news stream. The Church lost that round; the soundbite won the day.
Also clear was that Act Up did not get bogged down in consensus decision-making – which has derailed every single group I have ever studied that has committed to it – and went with a clear agenda voted on by majority rule. (They also appeared, from footage of meetings, to have been following
Robert's Rules of Order.) Most importantly, they worked what every successful grassroots movement needs to create: an outside, disruptive pressure strategy, and a talk-to-and-negotiate-with-the-decision-makers-under-pressure "inside" arm, creating a pincer movement. So Act Up protesters would disrupt drug trials outside the FDA or a private drug company building, or occupy St Vincent's Hospital. Then, after the disruption had smoked out the leadership of the institution under fire, a few designated Act Up representatives would make themselves available to present their clear demands to those in power in those institutions and negotiate outcomes, with more protest and disruption implied if demands were not met.
Again and again, How to Survive a Plague shows that this tactic is effective. Right now, though, the Occupy movement has an ideological reluctance to creating both arms of the pincer. Many see it as "contaminating", in the words of one young activist, to even talk to the decision-makers they are protesting against, or to deal with the mainstream media. I would argue – as I did at Sundance – that the house is burning and we do not have time for this preciousness. The evidence from the French documentary, as well as from the Tahrir Square footage, is that the images in the news media let the world be a witness and, to some extent, protect protesters. But without journalists present, Syria is free to mow down citizens without intereference. That shows that disorganization and a policy of shunning media communication equals political death
Media exposure, a clear message, smart soundbites, clearly stated demands, and, most importantly, tasked, empowered negotiators working on the inside in concert with mass disrupters applying pressure from without – this equals political life.
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
foodborne pathogens dead in their tracks. And sometimes that sort of news appears in unexpected places.
Take, for example, the January edition of Popular Mechanics. In a section about the
"Ten Tech Concepts You Need to Know," readers learn that "this year's big ideas in tech will make your food safer, make hybrid cars more energy efficient, and sentence overpriced texting plans to death."
Right out of the gate, at the top of the list, is a USDA-approved food-safety process that the magazine refers to as "Pascalization," commonly known in the food industry as HPP, or high pressure processing. And while it's only been used on the commercial level for the past 2 decades or so, the technology has been around far longer than that.
Turns out that none other than French scientist, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) conducted research on food preservation. What he came up with -- high pressure processing -- is what Popular Mechanics describes as "changing the way we think about food."
This process doesn't rely on heat, such as pasteurization; or chemicals, such as preservatives; or irradiation to kill the harmful bacteria on food. And while heat and cooking are good ways to kill bacteria, they can also impair the flavor, texture, color and nutrition of the food. For the most part, the same is true of irradiation.
Under high pressure processing, already packaged products such as fresh hamburger and turkey; processed fruit such as apple sauce; oysters; fish; guacamole; and ready-to-eat meats such as sliced turkey, pastrami and beef are put inside a pressure chamber. Water is then added to the chamber before it is sealed. From there, the pressure is increased to the maximum desirable level and sustained for a set period of time. The chamber is then decompressed and drained and the packaged products are removed.
We're talking about a lot of pressure. For example, at sea level, air pressure is 14.4 pounds per square inch. In the case of products put under HPP, the pressure ranges from 60,000 to 87,000 pounds per square inch.
And while that sounds like enough pressure to squash or damage the packaged food, that doesn't happen because the pressure is applied equally on all areas of the product.
The good news is that the pressure zaps foodborne pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7, Listeria and Salmonella, as well as "spoilage" microorganisms such as molds and yeasts -- without affecting the nutritional qualities or the taste of the food products. That's because while it has enough force to significantly disrupt cellular activity, it doesn't affect the structures of the food components that are responsible for nutrition and flavor.
Another plus is that because HPP is applied when the products are already packaged, it eliminates the possibility of cross-contamination. In other words, the products are free of pathogens when they get to the customers, whether they be grocery shoppers, restaurants, schools or other institutions. Even so, people preparing the food must follow basic food-safety procedures, such as washing their hands and preventing cross-contamination with other foods or cooking utensils to keep the food safe from foodborne pathogens.
But HPP isn't a one-step-and-it's-safe sort of approach to food safety. Companies that use it also follow standard food safety principles all the way down the line.
Last year when Food Safety News wrote about
HPP, the big news was that meat-processing giant Cargill had introduced a patent-pending process for a new line of fresh hamburger patties produced under high pressure processing. At the time, the company hailed it as a "natural option for food safety" and a "technological breakthrough." Until then, no one had figured out how to use high pressure processing on fresh hamburger meat without affecting its taste, texture or appearance.
The patties were slated for the food service industry, with customers such as restaurants saying that they were looking for a "fresh hamburger" option with good shelf life. According to a
news release from Cargill, the HPP burgers have double the shelf life of non-HPP burgers. Yet the fresh flavor stays intact and food safety is enhanced.
The company's name for these HPP burgers is "fressure." The idea is that the fressure logo could be used on restaurant menus so customers would know the burgers were fresh, not frozen. And while the label advised that the meat be cooked to 160 degrees, the "fressure" burgers gave cooks and chefs the option to cook them to lower temperatures and therefore satisfy customers who wanted medium-rare burgers, for example. Even so, restaurant menus are required to carry a warning that undercooked or uncooked meats and shellfish can pose a risk to human health.
At the time, long-time HPP researcher V.M. Balasubramaniam, Department of Food Science and Technology at Ohio State University, told Food Safety News that this new development on the part of Cargill was "the most promising food-safety innovation in recent years." And he predicted that the technology would become a key player in food safety.
Ten months later, he echoed similar thoughts in the comments he supplied to Popular Mechanics, pointing out that sauces, fruit juices, guacamole, lunch meats, and fish hold up well to HPP and and that treated versions of these foods can be found in stores today.
He also pointed to falling equipment costs for HPP and the demand for longer shelf life, coupled with a poor consumer acceptance of food irradiation, which he referred to as "HPP's competition" as reasons that HPP will enter into the mainstream.
Indeed, it's almost there, with the industry having grown into a multi-billion-dollar business in recent years, he said.
Two Heavy-Hitters
As 2011 came to an end, more news about HPP found its way into mainstream media, thanks to two heavy hitters in the food industry.
The first of these is Cargill, which once again turned to HPP, this time for some of its ground turkey. Michael Martin, spokesman for Cargill, told Food Safety News that in the wake of the company's August and September 2011 recalls of millions of pounds of ground turkey (triggered by the possible contamination of the product by multi-drug resistant strain of Salmonella Heidelberg), the company explored all current food safety technologies to determine which could be effective at further reducing the potential for foodborne illness.
"One of those is high pressure processing (HPP), which we are using on some ground turkey products packaged in chubs," Martin said. Chubs are thin plastic packages containing ground meat or poultry, with the ends fastened together with a metal clasp.
Martin said the company continues to evaluate the food-safety value and consumer acceptance of the product undergoing HPP, which is being done by a third-party supplier.
The second heavy hitter to enter the HPP scene late in 2011 was none other than Starbucks. With its purchase of juice-maker Evolution Fresh in November, Starbucks cast its vote for HPP. In acquiring the company, Starbucks emphasized the competitiveness of high pressure processing since juices treated with HPP are never heated.
In the
Starbuck's news release about the purchase of the company, Jimmy Rosenberg, founder of Evolution Fresh and the newly named chief juice office of the company, said that using High Pressure Pasteurization (another term for HPP) to help ensure the inherent nutrients are kept intact during the juicing process is a key point of differentiation for a growing number of the company's juices.
Rosenberg founded Naked Juice, which is now owned by PepsiCo. Another juice contender, Odwalla, was bought by CocaCola. But companies pasteurize their juices. Starbucks plans to serve Evolution juices at juice and health bars, in stores, and also at its company-owned retail stores, thus bringing the HPP juices to the attention of about 60 million people worldwide each week. In an email to Food Safety News, a spokesperson for Starbucks said that juices processed with HPP will be noted as such on the bottle labels.
"As more information becomes available about HPP, we believe customers will seek out these juice products," said the spokesperson.
The news about Starbuck's plans for Evolution juices found its way into USA Today and the LA Times, among many other mainstream media outlets. "For us, this is exciting because Starbucks will be marketing the juice as HPP," Glenn Hewson, vice president of Global Marketing for
Avure, the global leader in HPP food processing equipment, told Food Safety News. Last year, Avure described HPP as "food safety's best kept secret" and pointed to $3 billion in food products worldwide created with HPP each year.
Among the companies using it for all or some of their products are Hormel, Fresherized Foods, Garden Fresh Gourmet, Perdue, Puro Fruits, SimplyFresco, Maple Lodge Farms, and Wholly Guacamole.
America is the leader in HPP, with Mexico coming in second. HPP products are also being produced in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea.
And while there's an additional cost of using HPP, food companies are finding that consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety and that many are willing to pay the extra cost.
Labels
When people learn about HPP, the first question they usually ask is how they can know which foods are processed with HPP.
Unfortunately, said Avure's Hewson, many companies don't include that information on their labels, although they do include it on their websites.
With that in mind, Hewson said that manufacturers of HPP products should consider joining the ranks of companies like
Fresherized Foods,
Maple Lodge Farms and
Ifantis in developing HPP branding that tells consumers about the benefits on the technology right on the package.
"Processors will find that branding cements consumer awareness and drives market demand for their products that stand out from the crowd," he said.
He predicts that before long, there will be an industry mark that signifies that HPP has been used to produce the food items that have undergone the process.
To watch some videos about HPP processing, go
here,
here, and
here.
Companies using HPP are invited to list the products they make with the technology in readers' comments at the end of the article.
The overlap between the security measures for major sporting events and contemporary war zones are a striking and increasingly globalised phenomenon. Lest we forget that the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup are ostensibly about sport and not security, London 2012 chairman Lord Coe was recently moved to offer his
assurance that the British capital will not be a “siege city” come August. However the presence of warships, surface to air missiles,
thousands of military personal and
pre-emptive bans on protest suggests otherwise. In Rio, the state has used the paramilitary BOPE to “pacify” favelas (shantytowns) ahead of the unparalleled consecutive hosting of the World Cup and Olympics in 2014 and 2016 respectively. As noted in a US State Department cable the efforts to “purge” these often violent areas effectively controlled by drug gangs shares an overt resemblance to the
counter-insurgency strategy used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, ever spiralling security costs have provided scope for extra-legal entrepreneurialism as witnessed by the current fraud charges facing
Luiz Fernando Correa, director of security for the 2016 Rio Olympics.
The security governance of mega-events is situated in a strange interzone between dream and nightmare. On the one hand the wide scale deployment of military and police would seem appropriate for an invasion or an internal state of emergency. Indeed, hosting authorities actively promote their capacity to enforce counter-measures for a number of ghoulish scenarios: stampedes in stadiums, suicide bombers disguised as fans and mass evacuations as a result of nuclear or chemical attacks. But rather than being mobilised around crises, security measures are utilized to govern sporting festivals and to ensure the images of nationalistic prowess and social cohesion. For urban authorities mega-events offer a platform to show host cities at their most modern and attractive. As a result policing measures are constrained by ‘proportionality’ as planners aim to keep the festival of sport in the headlights with security as a looming assurance (or threat) in the background.
The invocations of patriotic pride which accompany the official boosterism around mega-events entails a further overlap with warfare. Ahead of the 2010 World Cup, one South African parliamentarian claimed that:
Such sentiment served as a built-in legitimation for spiralling security costs, which in the case of South Africa, went from an initial projection of 94 million Rand in 2003 to the 1,3 Billion Rand “war chest”Now, however, comes the biggest spectacle and biggest opportunity to achieve a common national identity. As South Africans, we are destined to achieve great things and that togetherness must be forged in the burning excitement which is the World Cup. Never mind the costs that we will have to carry, we as South Africans can use sport to achieve what other nations have done through war.
deployed in 2010. This largesse was certainly appreciated by the foreign security firms which won contracts for the South African Police Service (SAPS) procurement drive. As proudly noted in an in-house police journal this included surveillance helicopters linked to mobile command vehicles, water cannons, body armour and bomb disposal Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) “used extensively by US forces in Iraq.”
The government saturated the domestic media with claims that this expenditure would leave a security legacy as part of state efforts to reduce high national rates of violent crime. But notably in a country where widespread and intense public protest, often accompanied by police repression, is a continual feature of political life, most of the security systems acquired are designed with riot control in mind. Government officials claimed that South African citizens needed to put ‘internal disputes’ aside so as to present a unified front for the duration of the World Cup. This was accompanied by a de facto
ban on political marches and the installation of ten kilometre cordons around stadiums to prevent strike action and other forms of “domestic extremism”.
Despite the official rhetoric of the World Cup as a “proudly South African” event, the actual structure of security governance was largely defined by FIFA, the official owner of the World Cup brand. Under the comprehensive government guarantees which were signed as a condition of bidding for, let alone winning, hosting rights, the state was obliged to manage and cross subsidise all ‘necessary’ arrangements for FIFA’s World Cup. According to the conditions agreed to in the 2003 Bid Book, the security services were responsible for funding and administering security measures at all designated venues along with providing continuous close
protection services for the FIFA “family”. FIFA was granted legal indemnity from any legal cases arising as a result of the 2010 World Cup, as well as exemption from taxation. FIFA was also allowed to import and export foreign currency without restriction.Moreover, the SAPS was signed up to enforce the marketing rights of FIFA and its corporate sponsors. This lead to the establishment of special police units under the direction of FIFA officials who during the World Cup patrolled “commercial exclusion zones” around stadiums for evidence of ambush marketing. In practise, this meant that national security and commercialisation became progressively indistinguishable. For example, according to one internal planning document, restricted flying zones around host cites were necessary countermeasures against “the possibility of the utilisation of aircraft for ambush marketing and terrorist attacks.”
While the temporary security edifices which spring up around mega-events have been described as a
“mobile” variant of the infamous Baghdad ‘greenzone’, FIFA’s hosting preconditions have another resonance with that occupation. During its post-war rule, the US lead Coalition Provisional Authority issued a series of sweeping orders which allowed Western companies to move profit out of the country without restriction and granted foreign contractors
legal immunity in Iraqi courts. But while the plunder of Iraq’s resources was accompanied by invasion and the gun sights of F-16’s, South Africa’s government voluntarily bid to establish an overarching legislative greenzone for FIFA. The results speak for themselves: before the tournament had ended FIFA had publicly declared profits of $3bn in tax free revenue while the national government only managed to
break even on its R 33bn of tournament related spending. Functioning in a legal and taxation bubble, FIFA was able to pursue its stated mission of
"ensuring maximum return on investment for the sponsors.”
Publically funded security measures were a central pivot in the maintenance of this skewed accumulative geography. As the World Cup progressed the relationship, FIFA dependency on the state became increasingly parasitic. Under the initial security agreements crowd control duties within stadiums were to be privately funded by the FIFA directed Local Organising Committee. However, after the LOC refused to pay acceptable wages to Stallion Security during the preparatory 2009 Confederations Cup, the police were enrolled to
perform stadium duties. Farcically, almost exactly the same scenario, and with the same company, played out during the World Cup itself where extra millions were added to the security bill when police reservists had to
replace striking private security guards. The Minster of Police Nathi Mthethwa has subsequently claimed that he would pursue remuneration from the LOC. This may prove difficult as, under hosting agreements, the LOC has no permanent legal status while Mthethwa was himself on the board of directors for the
expired committee.
However, the management of the SAPS skilfully succeeded in spinning the issue of stadium guarding and
presented it as an example of the capacity to deliver ‘world class security’ at short notice rather than an avoidable case of LOC mismanagement. Indeed, security measures were used as a PR opportunity for an organisation which has faced much domestic criticism for perceived ineptitude and brutality to present itself as a
modernised, elite force. Although the predetermined governance structure of the World Cup ring-fenced direct profits for FIFA, the preparations occurred across such a range of scales and institutions that it provided spaces for the security services to replenish budgets and arsenals. These augmentations were assisted by fighter jets and naval frigates which were purchased as a result of South Africa’s controversial 1999 arms deal. Ironically, the World Cup security measures were in part operationalised as a by-product of an unfolding political scandal which has
implicated a number of South African politicians, including President Zuma and a number of major arms manufacturers.
For Daniel Bernhard and Aaron K Martin, the seeming irrationality of economic arrangements is linked into the symbolic value of mega-events for
domestic political elites. Hallmark events allow host governments to roll out spectacular and sophisticated security measures which affirm their full authenticity in an elite club of nation states capable of funding such assemblages. Forgoing upwards profits may be the price of access which political elites are prepared to pay for symbolic opportunities.
As the South African example highlights, mega-event securitisation has become a self-reinforcing feedback loop between state and corporate sector. A shared discourse of ‘exceptionalism’, and no holds barred spending, provided scope for projects that may be impossible under normal conditions. For FIFA security means the establishment of a state blanket which shields its brands and protects the interests of its corporate partners. In turn, South Africa’s security forces used the opportunity to recalibrate their international standing.
Huge public expenditures and substantial restrictions on civil liberties are litigated with tactical deployment of a rhetoric of security legacies. But notably in the year since the tournament, police management seems to have downplayed the significance of the World Cup. Indeed, the SAPS had conceded that this visible policing strategy was only probably a factor in reducing some aspects of the national crime rate which amounts to a far more limited policing legacy than the one
promoted ahead of the World Cup. This ambivalent conclusion contrasts sharply with the bombastic ”mission accomplished” rhetoric seen in post-tournament official statements. And like the ever-shifting justifications for the Iraq war, it appears that the concept of legacies is used throughout the world as a tool to bombard publics with pretexts for increasingly expensive and intensive security measures.
Analysts have predicted that AstraZeneca is about to make thousands of redundancies at its two plants in Cheshire after disappointing annual results.
An official announced is expected later this week which is expected to see AZ reduce its UK workforce by around 3,000.
A spokeswoman for the pharmaceutical company declined to comment on the speculation, although AZ did release plans two years ago detailing a reduction of 10,000 global posts by 2014.
AstraZeneca, the UK’s second-biggest pharmaceutical company, has a total of 13 sites across the UK and employs around 11,000 staff.
Reports suggest AZ is set to forecast flat revenues for 2011 of around ?21.3 billion and a 15% increase in pre-tax profits of approximately ?8.1bn.
But the company has suffered a number of setbacks in the last twelve months in its efforts to find its next blockbuster brand. Its ovarian cancer drug olaparib was sent for further development after clinical test showed it to be ineffective. Compounds which were aimed to treat major depressive disorders also demonstrated similar disappointing results and were sent back for further research.
In the US, the company suffered further disappointment after the FDA delayed the approval of Brilinta and requested further data of the blood-thinning product before making a decision. This follows the discontinuation of motavizumab which led to a ?287.2 million accounting charge, plus an additional impairment charge of ?246m in Q4 of 2011 after a series of potential new products failed to materialise.
The company’s full annual results are set to be released on 2 February 2012.
Forever Young
by shannan roussface down aging with this year's best and brightest in skin care. prepare yourself for a whole new way to moisturize, a potent at-home peel and more radiance-boosting, wrinkle-fighting finds.
Balms Away
if you haven't heard of bb creams, then let us be the first to tell you that this new section in skin care is about to take off. already popular in asia, bb (short for blemish balms) creams are designed to soothe, protect and heal skin, while also providing a bit of coverage. this one from estee lauder contains hyaluronic acid, to help drawn in moisture and antioxidants to neutralize free radicals that age skin.shop now:
estee lauder daywear antioxidant bb creme spf 35, $38
Smooth Operator
like a souped-up tinted moisturizer with ultra-hydrating ingredients, this new bb cream is perfect for dry winter months when your complexion could use some extra pampering.shop now:
garnier skin renew miracle skin perfector
bb cream, $13
Get Glowing
cosmetics brand too faced boasts an oil-free version of bb creams that's ideal for sensitive, breakout-prone skin. light-diffusing pigments and major moisture help create that youthful, dewy glow.shop now:
too faced tinted beauty balm, $32
Twice as Nice
similar to bb creams, this new foundation offers more than just a temporary skin-evening fix. infused with an anti-aging serum, it also helps condition skin and protect against wrinkle-causing free radicals.shop now:
covergirl & olay tone rehab 2-in-1 foundation, $14
Peel Away
according to the company's research, this new at-home kit is proven to be up to four times more effective than a series of three dermatologist peels. both products in the kit contain retinol, a vitamin a derivate similar to the ingredient in prescription anti-aging creams. shop now:
roc retinol correxion max wrinkle resurfacing system, $27
On the Spot
in addition to niacanimide (which has been shown to fade dark spots, fight acne and reduce the appearance of wrinkles), this ultra-soothing serum contains a one-of-a-kind watercress skin lightening complex. the green ingredient is the latest "it" super food, and studies suggest that it soothes and heals damaged skin. shop now:
vbeaute lite up intense brightening agent, $150
In the Clear
another spot-fader, this potent solution claims activated c (from vitamin c) as its star ingredient. makers claim it helps break up melanin clusters, the cause of unwanted spots, and helps prevent new ones from forming.shop now:
kiehl's dermatologist solutions clearly corrective dark spot solution, $50
End of the Line
boasting peptides—which studies have shown turn on collagen products—this new serum is one of the latest weapons against fine lines. the serum also contains sodium hyaluronate, a super-hydrator that holds up to 1,000 times its weight in water.shop now:
efface line erasure concentrate, $175
Damage Control
based on research showing that damaged skin contains high levels of a specific protein, serpin b3, which accelerates aging, this serum targets the protein culprit and helps keeps skin cells strong and healthy.shop now:
shiseido future solution lx, $225
Prime Time
officially launching on feb. 1, this primer contains silk extract to give skin a velvety soft feel. but the real work is done by hawthorn berry extract, which makers say boosts the effectiveness of subsequent skincare ingredients.shop now:
kanebo sensai prime solution, $170
Body Conscious
you've taken care of your face and neck, but let's not forget about the rest. this total body age-fighting moisturizer contains ingredients to help lock in hydration, so skin stays smooth and supple.shop now:
aveeno positively ageless skin strengthening body cream, $9
No comments:
Post a Comment