DO YOU WASTE A LOT OF FOOD - IF SO READ THIS  POST FROM OCT 2013 


When the Harvard study team came on the TV, they said except for fish, poultry, and meat the dates do not mean any thing.

Eggs for example is good for a month or more

The "out dated food" is completely safe, they even said no cases of food poisoning has been reported ever after using food after the date on the label

How much money are we wasting- see below-- approx $ 250-500 per family per year.

Tell your patients neither the food or the old medications need to be thrown out, they are completely safe.

PLEASE

-------------------------------------------------------

New Report: Food Expiration Date Confusion Causing up to 90% of Americans to Waste Food

NRDC & Harvard Reveal Costs of Mass Consumer Confusion; Offer New Plan for Commonsense Food Date Labeling

NEW YORK (September 18, 2013) – U.S. consumers and businesses needlessly trash billions of pounds of food every year as a result of America’s dizzying array of food expiration date labeling practices, which need to be standardized and clarified, according to a new report co-authored by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic. 

One key finding from an industry-conducted survey: More than 90 percent of Americans may be prematurely tossing food because they misinterpret food labels as indicators of food safety.

“Expiration dates are in need of some serious myth-busting because they’re leading us to waste money and throw out perfectly good food, along with all of the resources that went into growing it,” said Dana Gunders, NRDC staff scientist with the food and agriculture program. “Phrases like ‘sell by’, ’use by’, and ‘best before’ are poorly regulated, misinterpreted and leading to a false confidence in food safety. It is time for a well-intended but wildly ineffective food date labeling system to get a makeover.”

NRDC and Harvard Law’s study, The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America is a first-of-its-kind legal analysis of the tangle of loose federal and state laws related to date labels across all 50 states and presents recommendations for a new system for food date labeling. The report is a follow-up to NRDC’s 2012 Wasted report, which revealed thatAmericans trash up to 40 percent of our food supply every year, equivalent to $165 billion.

For the vast majority of food products, manufacturers are free to determine date shelf life according to their own methods.  The report finds that the confusion created by this range of poorly regulated and inconsistent labels leads to results that undermine the intent of the labeling, including:

• False Notions that Food is Unsafe – 91 percent of consumers occasionally throw food away based on the “sell by” date out of a mistaken concern for food safety even though none of the date labels actually indicate food is unsafe to eat;
• Consumer Confusion Costs – an estimated 20 percent of food wasted in U.K. households is due to misinterpretation of date labels. Extending the same estimate to the U.S., the average household of four is losing $275-455 per year on food needlessly trashed;
• Business Confusion Costs – an estimated $900 million worth of expired food is removed from the supply chain every year. While not all of this is due to confusion, a casual survey of grocery store workers found that even employees themselves do not distinguish between different kinds of dates;
• Mass Amounts of Wasted Food – The labeling system is one factor leading to an estimated 160 billion pounds of food trashed in the U.S. every year, making food waste the single largest contributor of solid waste in the nation’s landfills.

Two main categories of labeling exist for manufacturers: those intended to communicate among businesses and those for consumers. But they are not easily distinguishable from one another and neither is designed to indicate food’s safety. “Sell by” dates are a tool for stock control, suggesting when the grocery store should no longer sell products in order to ensure the products still have shelf life after consumers purchase them. They are not meant to communicate with consumers, nor do they indicate the food is bad on that date. “Best before” and “use by” dates are intended for consumers, but they are often just a manufacturer’s estimate of a date after which food will no longer be at peak quality; not an accurate date of spoiling or an indication that food is unsafe.  Consumers have no way of knowing how these “sell by” and “use by” dates have been defined or calculated since state laws vary dramatically and companies set their own methods for determining the dates, none of which helps to improve public health and safety.

“We need a standardized, commonsense date labeling system that actually provides useful information to consumers, rather than the unreliable, inconsistent and piecemeal system we have today,” said Emily Broad Leib, lead author of the report and director of Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic. “This comprehensive review provides a blueprint calling on the most influential date label enforcers – food industry actors and policymakers – to create and foster a better system that serves our health, pocketbooks and the environment.”

Use of expiration dates for food stem from consumer unease about food freshness mounting over the 20^th century, as Americans left farms and lost their connection to the foods they consume. By 1975, a nationwide survey of shoppers showed 95% of respondents considered date labels to be the most useful consumer service for addressing freshness. The widespread concern prompted over 10 congressional bills introduced between 1973-1975 alone, to establish requirements for food dating. During that time, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress advocating a uniform national date labeling system to avoid confusion. Despite GAO’s prophetic advice, none of the legislative efforts gained enough momentum to become law. Instead, the 1970s began the piecemeal creation of today’s fractured American date labeling regime.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture have the power to regulate food labeling to ensure consumers are not misled, both agencies have failed to adequately exercise their authority. FDA does not require food companies to place any date labels on food products, leaving the information entirely at the discretion of the manufacturer. The only product for which a date is federally regulated is infant formula.

Food producers and retailers can begin to adopt the following recommended changes to date labels voluntarily but government steps, including legislation by Congress and more oversight by FDA and USDA, should be considered as well:

• Making “sell by” dates invisible to consumers, as they indicate business-to-business labeling information and are mistakenly interpreted as safety dates;
• Establishing a more uniform, easily understandable date label system that communicates clearly with consumers by 1) using consistent, unambiguous language; 2) clearly differentiating between safety- and quality-based dates; 3) predictably locating the date on package; 4) employing more transparent methods for selecting dates; and other changes to improve coherency;
• Increasing the use of safe handling instructions and “smart labels” that use technology to provide additional information on the product’s safety.

“The scale of food waste worldwide is one of the most emblematic examples of how humanity is needlessly running down its natural resources. This new report comes on the heels of one compiled by the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), which points out that 28 percent of the world's farmland is being used to produce food that is not eaten--an area larger than China,” said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director. "Everyone, every business, every city, state and government should do something to tackle this wastage to help reduce the global Foodprint.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

• Read the full issue brief here: http://www.nrdc.org/food/expiration-dates.asp orFixFoodDates.com
• NRDC’s blog series on food waste: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dgunders/
• NRDC’s Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill report: http://www.nrdc.org/food/wasted-food.asp
• UNEP and the FAO launched the Think Eat Save: Reduce Your Foodprint campaign in January 2013 - its partners include NRDC: www.thinkeatsave.org.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, a division of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, is an experiential teaching program of Harvard Law School that links law students with opportunities to serve clients and communities grappling with various food law and policy issues. The Clinic strives to increase access to healthy foods, prevent diet-related diseases, and assist small and sustainable farmers and producers in participating in local food markets. For more information, visit http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/

HOW TO LIVE LONGER , HEALTHIER- ALSO ON RESVERATROL

This may save your life, your husband's life, your Dad's life.

Alcohol is good for the heart , you live longer if you drink moderately. If you already had an MI and if you do not drink you have higher chance of getting another MI , all other conditions held equal –


To look it another way for people who already had an MI - abstinence will increase risk of new MI ? Can you believe it, every discharge from cardiac unit / cardiac rehab should be not only on ASA, ACEI , statin but also 5 ozs of cheap wine .
The fact is this has been known for years even as far back as 1948 We are worried about alcoholism. !!!.

But in cardiac population , say over the age of 40 it is a very safe recommendations. Why not do it.?



A study in 80,000 women showed women who drink has half the heart attack rate of non drinkers - even if they are thin, do not smoke and exercises daily. In other words one two drink a day is better than being thin, not smoking and even exercising daily- put together- BELIEVE IT- FACT



Archi Internal Medicine- March 22, 2004- - 14000 male MDs studied 44% less heart disease if you drink than if you are a teetotaler. By not taking 5 ozs of wine as a prescription daily you are doing yourself no favor at all , you are hurting yourselves being a teetotaler

I am challenging the cardiologists and all MDs for using that information for patients over the age of 40 --most of the MI population anyway.

Moderate drinkers live considerably longer than nondrinkers? Confirmed over and over again in animal feeding studies and population studies.

One -or two drinks -is as good as one hour of exercise a day !!!

Not drinking at all is as bad for the heart as morbid obesity- hard to believe. May be they are talking about once you have a heart problem then not drinking is as bad as morbid obesity

If you have high cholesterol and cannot take a statin what do you do. Prescribe 5 ozs of wine as medicine- PLEASE. In thousands of Danish men with high cholesterol - moderate drinkers have 50% less risk of developing ASHD than abstainers.

Have you had a single patient who cannot take statin where you prescribed 5 ozs of cheap wine? I challenge you.



Not drinking is a health risk. Again this message is for over 40 yrs old people, not for the general public, the down side of this recommendation for over 40 yrs age people is little

In 10, 000 Californians studied the benefit of moderate drinking showed reduced death rate as much as 30 % less for every decade they studied, ie 30 % less chance of dying when they were checked decade by decade.

Did you know that dementia is less - 42 % less if you drink 1-2 drinks a day.---- Some studies show 80% lower risk for senile dementia. Is that enough evidence for you ? See below for reference in the attachment.



Alcohol - 1-2 drinks is as good as metformin for diabetes? (See the attachment.) There is nothing to debate. All proved beyond any doubt.

Then why aren't diabetologists and all MDs not giving the prescription for wine ?


What is one drink ? 12 ozs of beer = 5 ozs of wine= 1.5 ozs of hard liquor= 12 gms absolute alcohol= one tablespoon of absolute alcohol

---------------------------------------------



What is resveratrol ? It is a natural antibiotic plants produce. It increases the natural life span of yeast, flat worms, fish and cats.



It is unclear if the health benefit of alcohol comes from the skins, stems, seeds, husks or even Oaks in which alcohol is aged. It is too early to say if the benefit is from resveratrol alone or not.

It seems fermentation is necessary for the benefit i.e. grape juice or cranberry juice is healthy but fermented drinks have some thing more in it for longevity.

It seems clear spirits like gin or vodka does not have the health benefit. But white wine is proved to be almost as good as red wine. Resveratrol found in skin of red grapes decreases inflammation also. Is that one way we improve longevity ?

It is nearly impossible to make any one an alcoholic if you are not one already by age of 40.

Why women only at 50- well , women generally do not get cardiovascular disease before 50 any way , why make a general nation wide recommendation before the usual age of risk starts .Of course we can individualize any single patient and decide. ( Breast cancer and wine see below in the attachment).

Even aspirin or that matter any medicine, if not used according to prescription can cause major problem right? . 5 ozs of wine is a prescription dose.

--------------------------------------

This is from Boston Globe and Harvard researcher: Sinclair:


Is resveratrol, the reputed antiaging ingredient found in red wine, on the market yet?
July 30, 2007

Yes. There are a number of resveratrol products being sold as dietary supplements, but as with many such supplements, these products have not been rigorously tested, or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as safe and effective.

High doses of resveratrol have been shown by researchers at Harvard Medical School and elsewhere to prevent mice fed a high-calorie diet from developing signs of incipient diabetes and to prolong life in yeast, worms, and mice. Scientists suspect, but have not proved, that resveratrol activates a gene called SIRT1 that may forestall the effects of aging. Red wine is famous for containing resveratrol, but the amounts are so tiny that it would take hundreds of bottles a day to get enough resveratrol to see the same benefits in humans that have been shown in mice, said molecular biologist David Sinclair, the Harvard scientist who studies resveratrol and was the cofounder of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge.

Sirtris researchers are trying to develop a drug that is a more efficient version of resveratrol to combat Type 2 diabetes and other illnesses, but it will take at least five years to bring it to market -- if it works. Other companies also have resveratrol-like products in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, Bill Sardi, president of Resveratrol Partners LLC, which makes Longevinex, a resveratrol supplement, said his company is working on human safety studies.

While he said he believes resveratrol supplements are safe, he suggested that people not take them along with medications because they may result in higher levels of certain medications in the bloodstream.

Mark Holman, vice president for marketing for NFI Consumer Products, which makes Resvinatrol Complete, said his company is also continuing to study its products.

Bottom line? Caveat emptor, as usual. Since some supplements on the market contain other ingredients that have not been fully tested in combination with resveratrol and since the animal studies suggest that high doses are necessary to achieve benefits, it's probably too soon to take resveratrol supplements. Taking high doses of insufficiently tested supplements is just too risky.

JUDY FOREMAN-


DO not dilute the message;

The message is if you are over 40 yrs old men and 50 yrs for women you take 5 ozs of cheapest wine daily as a prescription. Not "drink", but take it as a medicine. Write that as on order in a prescription pad.



Alcohol And Health


Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly.

Some Background

Alcohol has been used medicinally throughout recorded history; its medicinal properties are mentioned 191 times in the Old and New Testaments. 1 As early as the turn of the century there was evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol was associated with a decrease in the risk of heart attack. 2 And the evidence of health benefits of moderate consumption has continued to grow over time.

The health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have long been known. One of the earliest scientific studies on the subject was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1904. 6

Reviews of research evidence report a strong, consistent relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and reduction in cardiovascular disease in general and coronary artery disease in particular. 3 On the basis of its extensive review of research, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reported that moderate drinkers have the greatest longevity. It also found that moderate drinking is beneficial to heart health, resulting in a sharp decrease in heart disease risk (40%-60%). 4 This is important because cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in the United States, and heart disease kills about one million Americans each and every year. 5

The Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism wrote that "Numerous well-designed studies have concluded that moderate drinking is associated with improved cardiovascular health," and the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association reported that "The lowest mortality occurs in those who consume one or two drinks per day."7 A World Health Organization Technical Committee on Cardiovascular Disease asserted that the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and reduced death from heart disease could no longer be doubted. 8 But the benefits are not limited, important as they are, to reductions in heart disease.

Alcohol vs. Lifestyle

Why drink to reduce the risk of heart disease? Wouldn't eating a good diet, exercising, and losing weight do the same thing?

No, it wouldn't. The moderate consumption of alcohol appears to be more effective than most other lifestyle changes that are used to lower the risk of heart and other diseases. For example, the average person would need to follow a very strict low-fat diet, exercise vigorously on a regular basis, eliminate salt from the diet, lose a substantial amount of weight, and probably begin medication in order to lower cholesterol by 30 points or blood pressure by 20 points.

But medical research suggests that alcohol can have a greater impact on heart disease than even these hard-won reductions in cholesterol levels or blood pressure. Only cessation of smoking is more effective. Additionally, other medical research suggests that adding alcohol to a healthful diet is more effective than just following the diet alone. 9

Longevity

Moderate drinkers tend to live longer than those who either abstain or drink heavily.

A Harvard study found the risk of death from all causes to be 21% to 28% lower among men who drank alcohol moderately, compared to abstainers. 10
A large-scale study in China found that middle-aged men who drank moderately had a nearly 20% lower overall mortality compared to abstainers. 11
Harvard's Nurses' Health Study of over 85,000 women found reduced mortality among moderate drinkers. 12
A British analysis of 12,000 male physicians found that moderate drinkers had the lowest risk of death from all causes during the 13 year study. 13
A large study of about 88,000 people conducted over a period of ten years found that moderate drinkers were about 27% less likely to die during the period than were either abstainers or heavy drinkers. The superior longevity was largely due to a reduction of such diseases as coronary heart disease, cancer, and respiratory diseases. 14
A large study funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that moderate drinking increased the length of life by about 3% among white males. 15
A twelve year long prospective study of over 200,000 men found that subjects who had consumed alcohol in moderation were less likely to die than those who abstained from alcohol. 16
A study of more than 40,000 people by the Cancer Research Center in Honolulu found that "persons with moderate alcohol intake appear to have a significantly lower risk of dying than nondrinkers.” 17
An analysis of the 89,299 men in the Physicians' Health Study over a period of five and one-half years found that those who drink alcohol in moderation tend to live longer than those who either abstain or drink heavily. 18
An Italian study of 1,536 men aged 45-65 found that about two (2) years of life were gained by moderate drinkers (1-4 drinks per day) in comparison with occasional and heavy drinkers. 19
A study of 2,487 adults aged 70-79 years, who were followed for an average period of over five and one-half years, found that all-cause mortality was significantly lower in light to moderate drinkers than in abstainers or occasional drinkers (those who drank <1 20="" br="" drink="" per="" week="">Healthier Lives

Moderate drinkers tend to enjoy better health than do either abstainers or healthy drinkers.

A nation-wide survey in the U.S. revealed that daily moderate drinkers experienced significantly less acute hospitalization. 21
A nine year study of predictors of good health found moderate alcohol consumption to be associated with the most favorable health scores. 22
A nation-wide Canadian study found moderate drinkers who consumed alcohol daily to have 15% less disability than the general population. 23
A Dutch study found that moderate drinkers under stress were less likely to be absent from work than were either abstainers or heavy drinkers. 24
Heart Attacks

Moderate drinkers are also less likely to suffer heart attacks than are abstainers or heavy drinkers.

Harvard researchers have identified the moderate consumption of alcohol as a proven way to reduce coronary heart disease risk. 25
An exhaustive review of all major heart disease studies found that "Alcohol consumption is related to total mortality in a U-shaped manner, where moderate consumers have a reduced total mortality compared with total non-consumers and heavy consumers." 26
A National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism study asserts that "The totality of evidence on moderate alcohol and CHD (coronary heart disease) supports a judgment of a cause-effect relationship... there are cardio protective benefits associated with responsible, moderate alcohol intake." 27
An extensive review of recent medical research by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that, with few exceptions, studies from at least 20 countries around the world demonstrate a 20- to 40-percent lower coronary heart disease CHD incidence among drinkers compared to nondrinkers. Moderate drinkers exhibit lower rates of CHD-related mortality than either heavy drinkers or abstainers. 28
A study of 18,455 males from the Physicians Health Study revealed that those originally consuming one drink per week or less who increased their consumption to six drinks per week or less has a 29% reduction in CVD risk compared to those who did not increase their consumption. Men originally consuming 1-6 drinks per week who increased their consumption moderately has a 15% decrease in CVD risk compared to those who made no change. 29
The Harvard Health Professionals Follow-Up Study of over 44,000 males found moderate alcohol consumption to be associated with a 37% reduction in coronary disease. 30
A British study of women found moderate consumption of alcohol to be associated with lower levels of cardiovascular risk factors. 31
A study of over 5,000 women with type 2 diabetes mellitus by Harvard researchers found that coronary heart disease rates "were significantly lower in women who reported moderate alcohol intake than in those who reported drinking no alcohol." Women who drank more than 5 grams (about half a glass) a day reduced their risk of CHD (fatal or nonfatal) by more than half. 32
In a study of nearly 88,000 men, Harvard researchers found that drinking reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk among both diabetics and non-diabetics. Weekly consumption of alcohol reduced CHD risk by one-third (33%) while daily consumption reduced the risk by over half (58%) among diabetics. For non-diabetics, weekly consumption reduced CHD risk by 18% while daily consumption reduced the risk by 39%. 33
Light to moderate consumption of alcohol appears to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by as much as 80% among individuals with older-onset diabetes, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 34
The Honolulu Heart Study found a 49% reduction in coronary heart disease among men who drink alcohol in moderation. 35
Harvard researchers concluded about coronary heart disease that "Consumption of one or two drinks of beer, wine, or liquor per day has corresponded to a reduction in risk of approximately 20-40%." 36
At a scientific conference, researchers from Korea, Italy, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and the United States reported striking reductions in death among moderate drinkers, with heart disease and total mortality rates about one half or less compared to non-drinkers. 37
After over 6,000 participants in the Framingham Heart Study were followed for a period of six to ten years, researchers found that "when consumed in moderation, alcohol appears to protect against congestive heart failure." 38
After reviewing the research, Dr. David Whitten reported that "The studies that have been done show pretty clearly that the chances of suffering cardiac death are dramatically reduced by drinking" one or two drinks a day and asserted that "We don't have any drugs that are as good as alcohol."39
Based on the medical evidence, noted investigator Dr. Curtis Ellison asserted that "abstinence from alcohol is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease."40
The American Heart Association, based on the research evidence, concludes that the “Consumption of one or two drinks per day is associated with a reduction in risk of (coronary heart disease) approximately 30% to 50%.” 41
Heart Attack Survivability

In addition to reducing the risk of heart attacks, the moderate consumption of alcohol also increases their the survivability.

Drinking alcohol in moderation throughout the year before an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been found o reduce the risk of dying afterward. Information on the prior drinking behaviors of about 1,900 patients was collected during their hospitalization for AMI. Deaths of participants were then monitored over the next four years. After adjusting for age, sex and other factors, investigators found that light and moderate drinkers had lower death rates than patients who abstained. Moderate drinkers had the lowest mortality rate, reducing their risk by 32%, compared to abstainers. The health benefits were virtually identical for beer, distilled spirits, and wine. 42
Men who consume two to four drinks of alcohol after a heart attack are less likely to experience a second heart attack than are abstainers, according to a study of 353 male heart attack survivors. Researchers found that men who consumed an average of two drinks of alcohol per day were 59% less likely than non-drinkers to have another heart attack. Those who drank an average of four drinks per day experienced a risk reduction of 52% compared to abstainers. 43
Drinking alcohol (beer, wine, or distilled spirits) in moderation reduces the damage to effected tissue following a heart attack, according to research by Dr. Ron Korthuis, Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical Pharmacology and Physiology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. 44
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

To learn about this preventable health problem visit Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

How does alcohol reduce heart disease? It appears that moderate consumption of alcohol improves health and longevity in a number of ways, including the following:

Alcohol improves blood lipid profile 45
It increases HDL ("good") cholesterol 46
It decreases LDL ("bad") cholesterol 47
It improves cholesterol (both HDL and LDL) particle size 48
Alcohol decreases thrombosis (blood clotting)
It reduces platelet aggregation 49
It reduces fibrinogen (a blood clotter) 50
It increases fibrinolysis (the process by which clots dissolve) 51
Alcohol acts through additional ways 52
Gaining Weight?

Drinking puts on pounds, right? Wrong! To learn more, visitAlcohol, Calories and Weight.

It reduces coronary artery spasm in response to stress
it increases coronary blood flow 53
It reduces blood pressure 54
It reduces blood insulin level 55
It increases estrogen levels
It reduces harmful arterial plaque 56
Other Benefits

The moderate consumption of alcohol is also apparently effective in reducing the incidence of a broad range of diseases and other health problems.

Strokes

A study published in the American Heart Association's journal found abstainers' risk of stroke to be double that of moderate drinkers. 57
The American Heart Association has also reported moderate consumption of alcohol to be associated with dramatically decreased risk of stroke among both men and women, regardless of age or ethnicity. 58
A study of men with high blood pressure found that those who averaged one to six drinks per week has a 39% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes than were abstainers. Those who averaged one or two drinks each day were 44% less likely to experience such death. 59
A study of over 22,000 men found that light to moderate drinking significantly reduces the overall risk of stroke. 60
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that consuming one or two drinks a day can reduce the risk of ischemic stroke by about half. Its findings support the National Stroke Association Stroke Prevention Guidelines regarding the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption. 61
Hypertension or High Blood Pressure

A Harvard University study found the lowest levels of hypertension among young adults who consumed one to three drinks per day. 62
A study of alcohol consumption and subsequent high blood pressure for eight years among over 7,000 women found that those who consumed an average of about half a drink a day had a 15% lower chance of developing high blood pressure than did women who abstained from alcohol. This is very important because it's one of the few risk factors over which a person has control. 63
Diabetes

Medical researchers examined the results of 15 different studies and found that moderate drinkers are less likely to have type 2 diabetes than are abstainers. Teetotalers and heavy drinkers have equally high risk of the disease.
The 15 studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK and followed a total of 369,862 men and women for an average of 12 years.
Moderate drinkers (those who drank between about a half a drink to four drinks per day) were found to be 30% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than abstainers or heavy drinkers.
Whether drinkers consume beer, wine or distilled spirits makes little difference, but the pattern of consumption does. It’s much better to consume frequently (such as daily) rather than infrequently for maximum health benefits. 64
The American Diabetes Association reports that "In people with diabetes, light-to-moderate amounts of alcohol are associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, probably because alcohol raises HDL cholesterol, the so-called 'good cholesterol.'" 65
An analysis of pairs of twins with different drinking patterns found that those who consumed alcohol in moderation had half the risk of developing type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes compared to those who consumed less alcohol. The study involved nearly 23,000 Finnish twins. 66
A study of almost 21,000 physicians for over 12 years has found that men who are light to moderate drinkers have a decreased risk of Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes mellitus. 67
A study of 8,663 men over a period of as long as 25 years found that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was significantly lower among moderate drinkers than among either abstainers or heavy drinkers. These findings persisted after adjusting for age, smoking, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, waist circumference, parental diabetes, fasting plasma glucose, body mass index (BMI), serum triglyceride concentration, and cardiorespiratory fitness. 68
Pre-menstrual women who consume a daily drink of beer, wine or distilled spirits (whiskey, rum, tequila, etc.) have a much lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than abstainers, according to a study that duplicates similar findings in men. The Harvard study involved about 110,000 women age 25 to 42 over a ten-year period. Dramatic reductions (about 60%) occurred among women who drank between 1/2 and two drinks daily compared to abstainers. The reduction of risk was lower for those who drank less. 69
Drinking alcohol (beer, wine, or distilled spirits) in moderation was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes among women age 40-70 in a large study in the Netherlands that followed them for an average of over six years. The authors wrote that the “findings support the evidence of a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes with moderate alcohol consumption and expand this to a population of older women.” 70
Research, conducted at the University of Padova Medical School in Italy found that consuming alcohol directly improved the action of insulin in both healthy diabetics. Alcohol also improved fatty acid levels. 71
And the list of research evidence about the positive effects of moderate drinking on diabetes continues. 72
Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementia

A French study found moderate drinkers to have a 75% lower risk for Alzheimer's Disease and an 80% lower risk for senile dementia. 73
Research on 7,460 women age 65 and older found that those who consumed up to three drinks per day scored significantly better than non-drinkers on global cognitive function, including such things as concentration, memory, abstract reasoning, and language. The investigators adjusted or controlled for such factors as educational level and income that might affect the results, but the significant positive relationships remained. 74
Researchers in Australia studied 7,485 people age 20 to 64 years. They found that moderate drinkers (males who consumed up to 14 drinks per week and females who consumed up to 7) performed better than abstainers on all measures of cognitive ability. Sex, race, education and extroversion-introversion failed to account for the findings. 75
Older people who drink in moderation generally suffer less mental decline than do abstainers, another study finds. Over one thousand persons age 65 and older were studied over a period of seven years. Overall, light and moderate drinkers experienced less mental decline than did non-drinkers.76
Women who consume alcohol (beer, wine or distilled spirits) moderately on a daily basis are about 20% less likely than abstainers to experience poor memory and decreased thinking abilities, according to data from 12,480 women age 70 to 81 who participated in the long-term study. 77
A study of about 6,000 people age 65 and older found that moderate drinkers have a 54% lower chance of developing dementia than abstainers. The type of alcohol beverage consumed (wine, spirits, or beer) didn't make a difference in the protective effects of drinking in moderation. 78
A study of 7,983 people aged 55 of age or older in The Netherlands over an average period of six years found that those who consumed one to three drinks of alcohol (beer, wine, or distilled spirits) per day had a significantly lower risk of dementia (including Alzheimer's) than did abstainers. 79
A study of over 400 people at least 75 years old who were followed for a period of six years found that drinkers were only half as likely to develop dementia (including Alzheimer’s disease) as similarly-aged abstainers from alcohol . Abstainers were defined as people who consumed less than one drink of alcohol per week. 80
Moderate drinking among older women can benefit memory according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health. Moderate drinkers performed better on instrumental everyday tasks, had stronger memory self-efficacy and improved memory performance," said Dr. Graham McDougall, who led the research. The performance memory tests include such topics as remembering a story, route, hidden objects, future intentions and connecting random numbers and letters. In all cases, the group who drank scored better than those who did not drink. Women who drank alcohol in moderation (defined as consuming up to two drinks of beer, wine or spirits per day) also performed better on attention, concentration, psychomotor skills, verbal-associative capacities and oral fluency. 81
A study of 1,018 men and women age 65-79 whose physical and mental health was monitored for an average of 23 years found that “drinking no alcohol, or too much, increases risk of cognitive impairment,” in the words of the editor of the British Medical Journal, which published the study. 82
A study of over 6,000 people in the U.K. found that those who consume as little as a single drink of alcoholic beverage per week have significantly greater cognitive functioning than teetotalers. Abstainers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to receive the lowest cognitive functioning test scores. The beneficial mental effects of alcohol were found when a person drinks up to about 30 drinks per week, and increased with consumption. The researchers did not test the effects of higher levels of alcohol drinking. The research team suggests that alcohol (beer, wine, or liquor) improves mental functioning because it increases blood flow to the brain. Dr. Guy Ratcliffe, the Medical Director of the Medical Council on Alcohol, said that “this is a well-researched study, and it’s important that information such as this is available so that people can make informed decisions about alcohol consumption.” 83
Moderate alcohol consumption protects older persons from the development of cognitive impairment, according to a study of 15,807 Italian men and women 65 years of age and older. Among the drinkers only 19% showed signs of mental impairment compared to 29% of the abstainers. The relationship continued even when other factors in cognitive impairment, such as age, education, and health problems were considered. 84
An 18-year study of Japanese American men found "a positive association between moderate alcohol intake among middle-aged men and subsequent cognitive performance in later life." Moderate drinkers scored significantly higher on the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), which includes tests of attention, concentration, orientation, memory, and language. Both nondrivers and heavy drivers had the lowest CASI scores.85
The moderate consumption of alcohol was associated with superior mental function among older women compared to abstainers in a study of 9,000 women aged 70 to 79 over a period of 15 years. The women's mental function was assessed with seven different tests. After adjusting for other factors that might affect mental function, the researchers found that the women who drank in moderation performed significantly better on five of seven tests. They also performed significantly better on a global score that combined all seven tests. The researchers found that the effect of moderate alcohol consumption on cognitive functioning was the equivalent of being one to two years younger. 86
Drinking alcohol (beer, wine or liquor) in moderation is one of the strategies that can reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia in later life according to a review of research conducted by scholars from the School of Aging Studies at the University of South Florida (Drs. Ross Andel and Tiffany Hughes) and the University of Alabama at Birmingham (Dr. Michael Crowe). They carefully analyzed the existing research to identify how dementia can be reduced. Abstaining from alcohol and abusing alcohol are both risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia. 87
Other

Common Cold. Moderate drinkers have been found to be more resistant than abstainers to five strains of the common cold virus. Those who consumed 2 to 3 drinks daily had an 85% greater resistance. Those drinking 1 to 2 drinks daily had a 65% lower risk and those who drank less than daily had a 30% lower risk than abstainers. 88
Intermittent Claudication (IC). In a study of 18,339 observations, researchers found that drinking alcohol in moderation significantly reduces the risk of intermittent claudication. IC is associated with a two- to four-fold increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. 89
Kidney Cancer. An analysis of data from 760,044 men and women who were tracked for seven to 20 years found that moderate drinkers are about 30% less likely to develop kidney cancer than are abstainers. 90 A large prospective study of 59,237 Swedish women age 40-76 found that those who consumed at least one drink per week had a 38% lower risk of kidney cancer than did abstainers or those who drank less. For women over 55, the risk dropped by two-thirds (66%). 91

Metabolic Syndrome. Researchers at Boston Medical Center analyzed data from 8,125 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. They found that drinkers had a 43 percent lower chance of having Metabolic Syndrome than did abstainers or non-drinkers. After taking into account age, sex, race, education, income, tobacco use, physical activity, and diet, the researchers found that subjects who consumed 1-19 alcoholic drinks per month had a 35% reduction in risk, and those who had 20 or more drinks each month had a 66% reduction in risk of Metabolic Syndrome. 92
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cancer). A review of findings from nine international studies suggests that drinking alcohol reduces the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by 27%. The protective effect of alcohol did not vary by beer, wine, or distilled spirits consumption.. The research also found that alcohol's protective effect varies by form or subtype of non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma. Drinkers were about half as likely as non-drinkers to develop Burkitt's lymphoma. The cancer is the sixth most common in the USA. 93
Peripheral Artery Disease. Harvard researchers have found moderate drinkers to be almost 1/3 less likely to suffer Peripheral Artery Disease (a significant cause of death among the elderly) than those consuming less than one drink per week. 94
Rheumatoid Arthritis. Research studies suggest that the consumption of alcohol reduces the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. A large study in Sweden additionally found that the risk of developing the painful disease decreased as the consumption of alcohol increased from light to moderate levels. 95
And the list goes on...

Moderate consumption of alcohol appears to be beneficial to reducing or preventing even more diseases and health problems:

Angina Pectoris 96
Bone Fractures and Osteoporosis 97
Digestive Ailments 98
Duodenal Ulcer 99
Erectile Dysfunction 100
Essential Tremors 101
Gallstones 102
Hearing Loss 103
Hepatitis A 104
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cancer) 105
*Kidney Stones 106
Macular Degeneration (a major cause of blindness) 107
Pancreatic Cancer 108
Parkinson's Disease 109
Poor Cognition and Memory 110
Poor Physical Condition in Elderly 111
Stress and Depression 112
Type B Gastritis 113
What Is Moderation?

Medical researchers generally describe moderation as one to three drinks per day. It appears that consuming less than about half a drink per day is associated with only very small health benefits. Four or five drinks may be moderate for large individuals but excessive for small or light people. Because of their generally smaller size and other biological differences, the typical woman should generally consume 25 to 30 percent less than the average man. 114 And, of course, recovering alcoholics, those with any adverse reactions to alcohol, and those advised against drinking by their physicians should abstain.

A drink is a 12 ounce can or bottle of beer, a five ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of liquor (either straight or in a mixed drink). 115 Learn about Alcohol Equivalence and visit Standard Drinks.

Harvard's Healthy Eating Pyramid, produced by the Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, was co-developed by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health. It is based on the best available scientific knowledge and recommends drinking alcohol in moderation (unless there is a good reason to abstain). 116

Drinking patterns appear to be as important as the amounts consumed. "The key to healthy, moderate consumption is a regular, one to three drinks per day pattern." 117 However, drinking a "weeks worth" of alcohol over a period of a few hours would be unhealthful, even dangerous, and clearly to be avoided.

All of the many health benefits of drinking apply only to moderate consumption - - never to heavy drinking. To the contrary, heavy drinking is associated with reduced longevity and increased risk of a diversity of diseases. Unfortunately, there really can be too much of a good thing.

Salud, skoal, a votre sante', prost, l'chayim, or, in English, "to your health," but all in moderation!

The material on this site is for information only and is not advice

References and Readings--upon request-

63.

ALL GENERICS ARE NOT PRICED EQUAL - PRICE MAY VARY FROM $ 11 to $ 500--POSTED on NOV 3 , 2013

 FROM PBS NEWS HOUR , USA


PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH YOUR PATIENTS- MY MD FRIENDS


AFTER YOU READ THIS  CHECK OUT WWW.GOODRX.COM Please Your patients will thank you

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Carol Thompson of Edina, Minnesota, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009. For part of the year, she paid more than $400 a month out-of-pocket for her brand-name drug because of her insurance plan’s high deductible. A couple years later, after the drug, called Letrozole, went generic, the price dropped dramatically: to around $10 at her local Costco. Always looking for an even better deal, she decided to ask another big chain about its retail price.

 CAROL THOMPSON: The gentleman looked it up and he came back to me with a price of around $400. And I said to him, "Oh can't be. You must be looking at the brand name drug. It can't be that expensive."

 MEGAN THOMPSON: But there was no mistake: one store quoted a price forty times more than the other. How could that be? Especially when generic drugs are commonly thought to be so inexpensive.

 CAROL THOMPSON: I was shocked. I was confused. I thought, "What am I missing? You know, this doesn't compute."

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Thompson, who’d never been a consumer activist, said she felt compelled to try to figure this out.

 CAROL THOMPSON: I started just on my own to phone some other pharmacies in the Twin Cities here. Compare generic prices in one city Compare generic prices in one city

MEGAN THOMPSON: Last June, she made another round of calls like she did more than a year prior. And what she found was that nothing had changed: wildly varying prices for her generic breast cancer drug.

 CAROL THOMPSON: Hi. I'd like to find out-- what the retail price is for a 30-day supply of a generic drug called Letrozole? Sot: $11.04 Sot: $29.88. Sot: $45.99. Sot: $364.99 Sot: ooh, I didn't realize it was that much. It's-- $435. Sot: $455. 

 CAROL THOMPSON: It didn't seem fair. And it seemed to me especially egregious when it was a life-saving when it involved a life-saving cancer drug. It just upset me.
 MEGAN THOMPSON: Her discovery wasn’t just alarming for her; it was also very personal for me. Because Carol Thompson is my mom.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: We used her story because what we thought might just be a fluke turned out to be part of a much larger problem that few are aware of. Wildly different retail prices not just for my mom’s cancer drug, but many other generics, too.

 LISA GILL: What we found was absolutely shocking.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Lisa Gill is the editor for prescription drug coverage at Consumer Reports. Last spring she led a survey of more than 200 pharmacies around the country asking the retail prices of five blockbuster drugs that had recently gone generic. The study found the cost of a month’s supply of generic Plavix, a blood thinner, ranged from $15 at Costco and $12 at an online store …all the way up to 10 to 15 times more at Target and CVS. It was similar for generic Lipitor, used to control cholesterol. Prices ranged from 15 to 17 dollars, up to around 9 times higher at other national chains. LISA GILL: It was unprecedented for us. We had never found this kind of variation in a drug pricing study before.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Gill says while many stores offer older, more common generic drugs for just a few dollars… it’s the prices for some newer generics that vary so much. And, Gill says, they discovered something else in their survey that surprised them.

 LISA GILL: You actually can’t get the lowest price until you ask.

 CAROL THOMPSON: Can you do any better on the price?

 PHARMACIST: We certainly do price matches.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: indeed, after my mom tried that strategy, target, which had one of the highest prices - $455 - said it would match the price at other pharmacies.

 PHARMACIST: We would just need the other pharmacy's information so we can contact them to verify the price.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: And remember, others quoted the drug for as little as $11.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: So, you’re saying that customers essentially have to walk into a pharmacy and bargain with their pharmacist.

 LISA GILL: Right. It’s worse than buying a car. Because at least when you’re buying a car there’s a sticker on the window where you know there’s a price that you’re going to work- try to work down from. In this case, you don’t have anything. You really are the- unarmed with information and- and it’s- it’s really a shame.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Gill says it’s rare for someone to even think of calling around like my mom did, since most consumers have no idea prices can vary so much. And that could lead to the uninsured or people with inadequate drug coverage overpaying by hundreds of dollars. Or skipping medications altogether.

 LISA DUNCAN: And she told me the price. I was like, "I can't get it. You know, put it back on the shelf."

 MEGAN THOMPSON: In 2008, Lisa Duncan moved from Indiana home to Minnesota to be near her aging father. But she had no job, and no insurance to pay for the prescriptions to treat her bipolar disorder. She'd attempted suicide twice before her doctors in Indiana had found the right mix of medications to stabilize her. She had paid a low insurance copay for one of her generics, called Lamotrigine. But now she says her local big-name chain in Minnesota quoted her an out-of-pocket price of more than $100 for a month’s supply of the drug. A price this single mother of four could not afford.

 LISA DUNCAN: It was very scary. I thought I don't want to back to the way it was. But I can't afford it. I don't have the money, you know?

 MEGAN THOMPSON: A pharmacist at a community clinic for low-income patients in Minneapolis suggested Duncan try Costco. She said it quoted her a price of around $15 for the month’s supply, compared to the 100 dollar charge at the other store.
 LISA DUNCAN: And I said, "are you looking at the right medication," because that's just sounded off the wall. And she said, "oh, yeah,” you know.

 JESSE LANE: We get phone calls for pricing, and the same person will call back within minutes, thinking that there's been an error in the pricing because they've been quoted such high prices elsewhere.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Jesse Lane is a pharmacist at Costco. It turns out; the low-cost chain allows non-members to use its pharmacies, which consistently had some of the lowest prices on generic drugs. He says unlike some other chains, Costco prices its drugs by adding a small mark-up to the wholesale price it pays, just like every other product on its shelves. Lane has worked at other chains, which he says take a different approach.
 JESSE LANE: A lot of times, what other chains will do-- they'll take price for the brand medication and they'll just decrease that by a certain percentage and give that as their price for the generic.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Costco wouldn’t tell us the wholesale price it paid for my mom’s cancer drug, but another pharmacist told us what he paid. Tom Sengupta owns Schneider Drug. It’s one of just a few small, independently-owned pharmacies left in the Twin Cities. Those smaller independents all quoted my mom some of the lowest prices for her breast cancer generic, something that surprised her.

 CAROL THOMPSON: It's not intuitive, really, that a corner drugstore, an independent-- small, independent retailer would also have some of the best prices.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: At many large chains, prices are set at the corporate level, according to representatives we spoke to. But Sengupta decides on his own what to charge - $14 for my mom’s drug. He just adds a small mark-up to the wholesale price he can buy it for – anywhere from around 7 dollars to 28. 

TOM SENGUPTA: And also, my pricing is based on the person I'm talking to. You know, because if they need something, this is my responsibility to provide that to them. I’m not losing any money.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Sengupta guesses that big chains, which buy in larger volume, can probably get even better wholesale prices than he can. And he bristles when he hears some quoted my mom a price of more than $400 when he’s charging just $14. 

 TOM SENGUPTA: How could you justify that? You know? If you had any morality – we don’t need to make money like that. We have to ask, what’s happening? Where is their moral compass?

 MEGAN THOMPSON: We asked the National Association of Chain Drug Stores for an interview, but the group declined, saying it couldn’t comment on the pricing practices of its members. But in a statement emailed to the NewsHour, the group said instances of customers paying the full, retail price for a drug using no insurance… “… account for only 8.5 percent of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies nationwide… “ And, there are many factors involved in product pricing. Costs at the exact time when the drugs were purchased from the supplier, the law of supply and demand, decisions related to business models and other factors are some of the components that determine drug prices. We also asked target why it would charge $455 for my mom’s cancer drug, if it would apparently be willing to match the much lower price of $11. In an emailed statement, target didn’t answer the question directly, only saying factors that impact prices include “a guest’s insurance plan, price changes from manufacturers… and the guest’s deductible.” And in response to the Consumer Reports survey last spring, CVS, which had some of the highest prices, said in a statement: “a random price check of only five drugs is too small to draw meaningful conclusions about which pharmacies offer the best overall value for customers.”

 MEGAN THOMPSON: So in the face of all this, how can consumers find the best prices on generic drugs? No federal agency keeps track of all these prices, and state resources are limited. So, others have stepped in. New web sites to help consumers compare drug prices have launched, including Good Rx, co-founded by Doug Hirsch. A former employee at Facebook and Yahoo, he came up with his own idea for a start-up after he spent time uninsured and found wildly different prices for his generic drug.

 DOUG HIRSCH: And I thought, “this is really inefficient.” You know. I use Orbitz these days for looking at my airline, I was like why is it so difficult for someone to know the cost of their prescription drug.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Good Rx aggregates billions of drug prices from pharmacies across the United States and matches them with discounts, coupons, clubs and other plans, that Hirsch says many consumers don’t know about.
 DOUG HIRSCH: There are all sorts of different discounts. This is an online pharmacy, this is a coupon price at Kmart.

 MEGAN THOMPSON: Good Rx launched last year and the information is in demand: Hirsch says the web site now gets almost a million visits a month. It’s the type of information my mom, who today has Medicare and a low deductible for prescriptions, hopes people will pay attention to.

 CAROL THOMPSON: I would say let the buyer beware. Shop around. Be thorough. Do your homework

. SUPPORT YOUR PBS LOCAL STATION PrintEmailShare Beginning October 24, 2012, PBS NewsHour will allow open commenting for all registered users.

We hope that the elimination of our moderation process will enable a more organic discussion amongst you, our audience. However, if a commenter violates our terms of use or abuses the commenting forum, their comment will be removed. We reserve the right to remove posts that do not follow these basic guidelines: comments must be relevant to the topic of the post; may not include profanity, personal attacks or hate speech; may not promote a business or raise money; may not be spam. Anything you post should be your own work. The PBS NewsHour reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its website or in any medium now known or unknown the comments or emails that we receive. By submitting comments, you agree to the PBS Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which include more details.