XTEND-15sec-NEWSt
8th July 2005
Please click on the summary link of interest:
Despite Alternatives, Addictive Drugs most often prescribed for Sleep Problems...n1
A recent study suggests that office visits by older patients and those with publicly funded health insurance plans were nearly twice as likely to result in the prescription of these kinds of medications.
The drugs, called benzodiazepines, are often a cheaper alternative to some newer types of medicines that don't have the same potentially addictive side effects, said Rajesh Balkrishnan, the study's lead author and the Merrell Dow professor of pharmacy at Ohio State University.
"Some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States are at greater risk of receiving prescription sleep medication with a high abuse potential," he said.
The study, which appears in the current issue of the journal Sleep, includes data from 94.6 million office visits in the United States over a six-year period. Patients included in the data set sought help for sleep-related difficulties in outpatient physician offices. More...
Warren Matthews comments: Insomnia is quite a serious problem for many people, particularly those over 50 years of age. Prescription sleeping pills, although they work, certainly have side effects. However, one of the biggest concerns with most of them is they can quickly become addictive.
Because of these problems we have been working on developing what we believe is the most advanced and effective natural alternative available in the world today. It will be called Neuro-Natural Sleep. We will announce it next Friday along with some other interesting news. But... for a 'sneak' preview you can have a look at the label by clicking here.
back to top
Codex adopts international guidelines for vitamins and minerals...n2
This week at a meeting in Rome CODEX delegates adopted a resolution which will set a global standard for vitamin and mineral supplements.
The new guidelines will be based on a risk assessment model rather than on RDA's which vary from country to country. For a good unbiased article on the subject please click here.
Warren Matthews comments: As I am sure you are aware, there has been an enormous amount of publicity about CODEX over recent months. Some of the publicity has been accurate and some has been way off the mark! There is a great deal of confusion about what it means, and indeed in some areas... panic!
We have been getting regular emails from concerned customers worried about whether these new rules will affect their access to our supplements? Well... rest easy, for three reasons. One, is that the new levels have not been 100% finalized as yet, two is that they have to be adopted by each individual nation, and three, in our case we are already within the anticipated limits anyway, because we don't believe in mega-doses of individual ingredients as they can be harmful.
The supplements that are likely to be affected are those which contain high doses of cheap common nutrients such as Vitamin C.
In some country's CODEX will have zero effect! For example, in Australia where supplements are regulated as complimentary medicines CODEX has no impact. It was for this reason that Australia insisted that the word 'only' be incorporated into the final resolution. 'Only' is referring to a supplement which is regulated as a food.
Most of our customers do live in Countries where supplements are regulated as foods, ie USA and Europe. But... there is still no cause to panic, unless you are accustomed to taking mega doses of vitamins and minerals (which you shouldn't be doing anyway).
Thanks to the action of a number of consumer and industry groups, and in particular pressure on politicians from concerned individuals throughout the world, I am confident that the final result of these CODEX actions will not be as bad as many people fear. But... then, I concede if it had not been for the pressure that I referred too, the future for supplements would be grim indeed.
So... it is important that the pressure on the decision makers is sustained to ensure that we have a sensible set of final regulations based on good science. This is really the best that we can expect.
Personally I would like to see a simple 'black list' of unsafe ingredients that cannot be used, based on good scientific evidence, maximum levels of ingredients based on good sound science, and all this coupled with government regulated GMP manufacturing protocols based on an international standard (not industry issued GMP's which are questionable). This would ensure that the risk of contaminated products reaching the marketplace would be significantly reduced, and it would largely eliminate the current widespread practice of companies selling products that are not true to label.
We shall see how this saga continues to unfold over the coming months...
back to top
Look out for your Potato Chips!n3
According to a report, chemicals in potato chips may cause 1/3 of diet cancers.
That chemical is acrylamide. It is an industrial chemical used in plastics, pesticides and sewage treatment that also can occur when starchy foods, such as chips, are processed at high temperatures.
The World Health Organization has said acrylamide may be responsible for up to one-third of all cancers caused by diet, as demonstrated by laboratory animal studies. Acrylamide is already on California's list of chemicals known to cause cancer, but some chipmakers haven't listed it on their product packaging as required by Proposition 65 statute.
The attorneys have filed Proposition 65 notices with the manufacturers of Lays, Pringles, Kettle Chips and Cape Cod chips. Research has shown those brands have unsafe levels of acrylamide in some of their chip varieties. The study looked at one ounce servings, which ranged from 11 to 20 chips depending on the brand, and determined the acrylamide content was substantially more than the 0.2 micrograms per day amount which prompts the Proposition 65 warning.
The brands tested and cited for high levels of acrylamide are: Lay's Baked!, Lay's Stax BBQ, Lay's KC Masterpiece. Lay's Natural Country Barbecue, Lay's Light KC Barbecue Masterpiece, Pringles Snack Stacks (Pizzalicious Flavor), Pringles Sweet Mesquite BBQ, Kettle Chips Lightly Salted, Kettle Chips Honey Dijon, Cape Cod Robust Russet and Cape Cod Classic Chips.
Processed food manufacturers have reportedly asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California for a exemption to Proposition 65 labeling for foods with carcinogens caused by heat processing. The governor's office is expected to announce its decision by August.
Comment by Warren Matthews: Well, this is just more reinforcement for what I have been preaching for many years. If it comes in a packet... don't eat it. You have no idea what is really in it. It will never be possible to really measure the damage that the chemicals used during processing, do to your body. Don't take the risk... keep away from all foods that are processed.
back to top
Important notice: All material provided within XTEND-15sec-NEWS is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not to be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken solely on the contents of this publication. Consult your physician or a qualified health professional on any matters regarding your health and wellbeing or on any opinions expressed within this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is believed to be accurate based on the best judgment of the editor but the reader is responsible for consulting with their own health professional on any matters raised within.
Despite Alternatives, Addictive Drugs most often prescribed for Sleep Problems... (Full Article)f1
A recent study suggests that office visits by older patients and those with publicly funded health insurance plans were nearly twice as likely to result in the prescription of these kinds of medications.
The drugs, called benzodiazepines, are often a cheaper alternative to some newer types of medicines that don't have the same potentially addictive side effects, said Rajesh Balkrishnan, the study's lead author and the Merrell Dow professor of pharmacy at Ohio State University .
"Some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States are at greater risk of receiving prescription sleep medication with a high abuse potential," he said.
The study, which appears in the current issue of the journal Sleep, includes data from 94.6 million office visits in the United States over a six-year period. Patients included in the data set sought help for sleep-related difficulties in outpatient physician offices.
Balkrishnan and his colleagues gathered six years of outpatient office visit data - from 1996 to 2001 - from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). The NAMCS includes information on patient demographics, the reason for a visit, a patient's diagnosis, the medication prescribed and the therapeutic and preventive services recommended during that visit. The majority of patients went to family practice physicians, internal medicine providers or psychiatrists.
Using information from the NAMCS, the researchers analyzed the treatment patterns of patients 18 and older who reported sleep problems.
Nearly two-thirds of those visits resulted in medication prescriptions for a person's sleep difficulties, and three-quarters of those prescriptions were for a benzodiazepine. (Five of the 13 kinds of benzodiazepines on the market in the United States are indicated for treating insomnia.)
The other 25 percent of patient visits for sleep disorders ended with prescriptions for non-benzodiazepine medications.
Benzodiazepines were widely prescribed for anxiety and other stress-related problems in the 1960s and 1970s. These drugs, which have a calming effect on the nervous system, are still prescribed as muscle relaxants and tranquilizers. (Valium is one example of a benzodiazepine, although it is not recommended for treating insomnia in the United States.)
"Benzodiazepines are usually effective for just a few weeks when used to treat insomnia. But addiction can develop relatively quickly", Balkrishnan said.
"A person can develop a strong psychological and physical dependence on these drugs in a short time, and experience severe withdrawal-like symptoms once he stops taking the medication," he said.
Office visits by people 50 and older were about 5 times as likely to result in a drug treatment for sleep problems as were visits by 18- to 34-year-olds.
And people 65 and older were twice as likely as the 18- to 34-year-olds to receive prescriptions for benzodiazepines. Visits by patients with Medicare or Medicaid - the federally subsidized health insurance plans - were also twice as likely to result in benzodiazepine prescriptions as visits by patients with private health insurance.
Psychiatrists were four times as likely to prescribe newer non-benzodiazepine drugs during patient visits compared to family practice and internal medicine physicians.
"Psychiatrists may be more informed than other kinds of doctors about newer, non-benzodiazepine drugs," Balkrishnan said. "Or psychiatrists may see patients with more complex problems in whom other therapies such as over-the-counter medications have failed.
"Overall, the study suggests that some physicians do consider other options before jumping to prescribe a drug to treat sleep problems," he said.
But many health care providers don't take public health insurance, Balkrishnan said. This means that these patients, regardless of their age, are more likely to receive cheaper benzodiazepines as treatments for their sleep problems.
And elderly people, 65 and older, with private health insurance were more likely to receive benzodiazepines.
"We need to understand the reasons for these disparities in order to stop this trend," Balkrishnan said. "There needs to be a move toward a more uniform prescription system - at least for certain types of medications.
"One possibility is to create guidelines that say let's reserve the most addictive benzodiazepines for patients for whom every other kind of treatment has been unsuccessful."
While the study did not look at the types of non-drug treatments prescribed to treat sleep disorders, such as behavioral therapy, the researchers found that nearly half (48 percent) of patient visits resulted in a drug prescription, while 14 percent of the office visits resulted in a combined prescription of medication and behavioral therapy. Just five percent of patient visits resulted in prescribed behavioral therapy only.
The study was funded by a grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals of North America, Inc., Lincolnshire, Ill. The study does not discuss any specific products of the sponsor company.
back to top
Codex adopts international guidelines for vitamins and minerals... (Full Article)f2
7/5/2005 - Global standards for vitamin and mineral supplements were adopted by Codex yesterday, despite some last minute requests for amendments and consumer group campaigns to stall the ratification, writes Dominique Patton.
The guidelines, under discussion by Codex committee members for more than 10 years, recognize vitamin and mineral supplements as a food category, and are expected to expand markets for supplement makers.
"You can't underestimate the impact of these guidelines. They create a global category of vitamin and mineral supplements - in many countries there is no such category in place," said Simon Pettman, executive director of the International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations (IADSA).
Codex Alimentarius, established by the United Nations in 1961, establishes guidelines to harmonise trade in food and although the standards are not binding, they tend to influence less liberal markets and those without a regulatory framework in place, particularly common in supplements.
Pettman told NutraIngredients.com that more than 60 countries worldwide, including China, India, Taiwan and Mexico, are currently looking at introducing new or amended regulations for vitamin and mineral supplements.
"This means more than 50 per cent of the global population," he said.
One element of the new Codex guidelines is set to be particularly influential for the supplement industry - the basis for setting permitted levels of vitamins and minerals. Last year the committee working on the draft guidelines agreed that maximum levels should be based on risk assessment rather than RDAs (recommended dietary intake), currently used by a number of countries but resulting in significantly lower levels than those based on risk assessment.
However the natural health campaigners Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), which has released a documentary this week describing the threat posed by Codex guidelines, fears that the method for setting maximum levels currently being investigated by a FAO/WHO committee will be based on previously developed systems that it believes are scientifically flawed. These would set the levels much lower than those currently used by many consumers.
The group has commissioned independent risk assessment scientists at the Netherlands-based HAN Foundation to develop new methods for vitamins and minerals.
However John Hathcock, vice president of scientific and international affairs at the US trade association the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said: "The risk assessment values for vitamins and minerals is always severalfold higher than reference dietary intakes. Of course the risk assessment system could be abused, like any other, but the RDAs are already very low."
Hathcock noted that the FAO/WHO risk assessment project attempts to harmonise risk assessment methodology across nations but "specifies no numbers whatsoever".
Hathcock also said that consumer groups claiming that the Codex guidelines would lead to restrictions on supplements were misinformed.
"There are a lot of people who don't understand what Codex does and how far the WTO powers extend. Codex does not force any country to adopt these guidelines, and the WTO will only force a country to raise standards up to Codex, rather than down from domestic policy."
Around 85 of the 172 members of Codex Alimentarius are in Rome this week at the body's Commission meeting, and they were largely in favour of adoption of the guidelines, which also cover packaging, labelling and sources of vitamins and minerals.
The Commission agreed to amend the text following a request from Australia that the word 'only' be added to section 1.3 so that it would read: "These guidelines apply only in those jurisdictions where products defined in 2.1 are regulated as foods."
To read the full article click here.
back to top
