Stressfully Work Yourself To Early Menopause

Having a job which is too stressful can hasten the onset of the menopause, according to a new French study.
Led by Dr Bernard Cassou, the French team considered menopausal and social histories in more than 1,500 women in the country, all born in 1938.
The study found that the average age for the start of menopause in nine percent of the women deemed to have 'high-pressure' jobs in the study was a year earlier than the overall norm.
Accordingly, the stress of having to juggle time deadlines within the workplace may "affect the ageing of the ovaries", suggested Dr Cassou.
Other menopause experts, however, have reacted with scepticism at the new findings, claiming that a number of factors can affect when the menopause hits.
"People who want to find links do, but there's a vast body of research which shows there is no evidence of a connection between stress and the menopause," Professor John Studd, chairman of the British Menopause Society, told the BBC.
The average age of the menopause in the UK is around 52, though one percent of British women are thought to experience it before the age of 40.

Sphere: Related Content

Chinese Seafoods to The United States Contain Antibiotics and Antifungal

The FDA said sampling of Chinese imported fish between October and May repeatedly found traces of the antibiotics nitrofuran and fluoroquinolone, as well as the antifungals malachite green and gentian violet. Of particular concern are the fluoroquinolones, a family of widely used human antibiotics that the FDA forbids in seafood in part to prevent bacteria from developing resistance to these important drugs. The best-known example is ciprofloxacin, sold as Cipro, which made headlines as a treatment during the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The chemicals are used to help shrimp and fish survive in squalid, overcrowded fisheries along the coast of China, and many European countries have long-banned the chemical-laced fish.

The FDA announced a broader import control of farm-raised catfish, basa, shrimp, dace (related to carp), and eel from China. FDA will start to detain these products at the border until the shipments are proven to be free of residues from drugs that are not approved in the United States for use in farm-raised aquatic animals.

FDA officials said the levels of the drugs in the seafood was low and the FDA isn't asking for stores or consumers to toss any of the suspect seafood.
Evidently consumers are left to protect themselves – if you are in a supermarket and needs some Catfish, Shrimp, Dace, Eel or Basa, find out if they are from china before you buy. Note also they may still deceive you to make you buy since they are yet recalled.

Sphere: Related Content

FDA Detains Imports of Farm-Raised Chinese Seafood

On June 28, 2007, FDA announced a broader import control of farm-raised catfish, basa, shrimp, dace (related to carp), and eel from China. FDA will start to detain these products at the border until the shipments are proven to be free of residues from drugs that are not approved in the United States for use in farm-raised aquatic animals. The agency took this action to protect American consumers from unsafe residues detected in these products. There have been no reports of illnesses to date.
FDA is taking this strong step now because of continuing evidence that certain Chinese aquaculture products imported into the United States contain illegal substances. Aquaculture, also known as fish farming, involves raising fish in enclosed areas to be sold for food. Almost half of all imported seafood is from aquaculture, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
During targeted sampling, from October 2006 through May 2007, FDA repeatedly found that farm-raised seafood from China was contaminated with antimicrobial agents that are not approved for use in the United States. More specifically, the antimicrobials nitrofuran, malachite green, gentian violet, and flouroquinolones, were detected. Nitrofurans, malachite green, and gentian violet have been shown to cause cancer with long-term exposure in lab animals. The use of fluoroquinolones in food animals may increase antibiotic resistance, making it harder for this class of drugs to fight certain infections in people.
"Consumers should know that this is not an immediate public health hazard," says Robert Brackett, PhD, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "The levels of contaminants that have been found are very low, and FDA is not advising consumers to destroy or return farm-raised seafood that they may have already purchased and have in their homes. The agency also is not seeking a recall of products already in the marketplace."
FDA is taking this action as a precautionary measure to prevent problems that may occur from long-term exposure to harmful residues. The agency is also concerned about the possible development of antibiotic resistance. "This action serves to keep contaminated products from entering the country so that they don't reach American consumers," Brackett says.
Here's a look at how FDA works to protect consumers from unsafe seafood.

How do drug residues end up in fish?
Some fish are given drugs to treat bacterial and parasitic diseases that cause major mortalities in fish. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) regulates drugs given to animals. CVM conducts research to improve the drug approval process and expand the number of safe drugs available for fish production. CVM also develops methods to detect unapproved chemicals in fish tissues so that harmful drug residues don't wind up in the fish on your plate.

Is imported seafood required to meet the same standards as domestic seafood?
Yes. Imported foods must be pure, wholesome, safe to eat, and produced under sanitary conditions. FDA requires imported seafood to be free of harmful residues. Importers must comply with regulations under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. In addition, seafood must be processed in accordance with FDA's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations. A 1997 regulation, "Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products," requires seafood processors to identify food safety hazards and apply preventive measures to control hazards that could cause foodborne illness.

What other specific FDA regulatory programs focus on seafood?
National Shellfish Sanitation Program: Administered by FDA, this program provides for the sanitary harvest and production of fresh and frozen molluscan shellfish (oysters, clams, and mussels). FDA conducts reviews of foreign and domestic molluscan shellfish safety programs. Salmon Control Plan: This is a voluntary, cooperative program among industry, FDA, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food Products Association. It's designed to provide control over processing and plant sanitation, and to address concerns in the salmon canning industry. Low-Acid Canned Food (LACF) Program: To ensure safety from harmful bacteria or their toxins, especially the deadly Clostridium botulinum (C botulinum), in canned foods, regulations were established to ensure that commercial canning establishments apply proper processing, controls, such as heating the canned food at the proper temperature for a sufficient time to destroy the toxin-forming bacteria. Products such as canned tuna and salmon are examples of LACF seafood products.
How does FDA know when there is a safety concern associated with seafood?
FDA, in collaboration with state regulatory counterparts, conducts in-plant inspections that focus on product safety, plant/food hygiene, economic fraud, and other compliance concerns. FDA also receives notice of every seafood entry coming from a foreign country and selects entries from which to collect and analyze samples. FDA laboratories analyze samples for the presence of various safety hazards and contaminants, such as pathogens, chemical contaminants, unapproved food additives and drugs, pesticides, and toxins. Through close collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and state and foreign regulatory partners, FDA also learns of seafood safety concerns that arise through reports of illness potentially associated with seafood products.

What steps does FDA take when problems with seafood are detected?
For imported seafood, FDA has the authority to detain the food at the border to keep it from entering the country. This happens when FDA's analysis of such products indicate that they are not in compliance with the laws and regulations enforced by FDA. FDA can subsequently refuse entries of detained products if evidence of compliance is not provided by the importer or the importer does not correct the problem.
FDA has developed a number of import alerts that address problems found in seafood products in the past. An import alert identifies products that are suspected of violating the law so that FDA field personnel and U.S. Customs and Border Protection staff can stop these entries at the border prior to distribution in the United States. Usually, these import alerts will describe the products or firms that are subject to detention without physical examination. When products are detained without physical examination, the burden for demonstrating compliance of the product falls on the importer. Such compliance must be demonstrated before the product can enter U.S. commerce.
FDA can recommend criminal prosecution or injunction of responsible domestic firms and individuals, as well as seizure of contaminated products in commercial distribution within the U.S. FDA also works with domestic seafood processors to initiate voluntary recalls of contaminated products that may pose a safety concern to consumers.

What kind of research on seafood safety does FDA do?
FDA conducts research to better understand the nature and severity posed by various safety hazards, and other defects which may affect quality and economic integrity and to develop methods to minimize these risks. There are FDA laboratories specializing in seafood research on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts to address regional problems related to toxins and contaminants. FDA also has a facility in Laurel, Md., for conducting state-of-the-art research on drugs used in aquaculture.

What is the consumer's role in seafood safety?
As with any food, consumers should take precautions to reduce the risk of foodborne illness associated with seafood. This includes properly selecting, preparing, and storing seafood. For example, consumers should only buy food from reputable sources and buy fresh seafood that is refrigerated or properly iced. Also, most seafood should be cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F. Some people are at greater risk for foodborne illness and should not eat raw or partially cooked fish or shellfish. This includes pregnant women, young children, older adults, and people with compromised immune systems.

Sphere: Related Content

Mesothelioma Victim Gets £100,000 Compensation

More than £100,000 compensation has been awarded to a man dying of the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma.
Ken McDonald, now 67, of Barrow, was awarded £102,500 compensation after contacting the Barrow Asbestos Related Disease Support group, who worked with his former union, the GMB and their solicitors.Tom Brennan, regional secretary of the GMB Northern, said: “I am pleased we have been able to win compensation for Mr McDonald during what is a difficult time for him and his family.”Mr McDonald was exposed to deadly fibres while working at Vickers shipyard in Barrow in the 1960s.The former electrician’s mate was diagnosed with mesothelioma last October.Working on the UK’s first nuclear submarine, the HMS Dreadnought, from 1961 to 1963, he used to carry bags of asbestos for the electricians to use when lagging pipes. He would become covered in asbestos dust but had no idea it could harm him.He said: “I am relieved to have received this compensation but I would rather have my health back. At least now I know that my wife and family will be provided for.”

Sphere: Related Content

Bariatric Surgeries - A Ray Of Hope For The Morbidly Obese

Carolyn Sayre

Losing weight is an uphill battle — especially for the morbidly obese. Diet and exercise often fail. Drugs are not very effective. And in the end, many people suffer for years only to be left with one last and very expensive resort: surgery. That was certainly the case with Shawn Tarman, a 42-year-old woman from Willow Grove, Penn., who says she'd tried absolutely everything to lose weight. She finally resorted to gastric bypass surgery, a procedure that shrinks the stomach, and lost over 100 pounds.
In the last decade, bariatric surgeries like gastric bypass have become an acceptable method for treating the 15 million people in the U.S. who suffer from morbid obesity. "Obesity can be life threatening," says Dr. Philip Schauer, president of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (ASBS). "And surgery is the next best step." Despite this, only 1% of patients who are eligible for surgery (those with a BMI over 40 or a BMI of 35 or more in conjunction with an obesity-related disease) actually get it. Sometimes, people just don't want to undergo a surgical procedure, but more often than not, obese patients are dissuaded by difficult insurance companies and are sometimes discouraged by doctors who feel they may not be the right age for the procedure.
But two new studies presented the annual meeting of the ASBS in San Diego, Calif., from June 11 to 16 show that adolescents and seniors, two age groups that have traditionally been urged to shy away from bariatric procedures, can actually benefit from surgical intervention. Another study shows that insurance companies could wind up spending less by approving bariatric surgery when compared to the life-long cost of obesity. And the latest piece of science shows that even though patients lose weight, they still need to be careful around certain indulgences — substances like alcohol have been found to have an even greater effect after surgery.
Researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have found that teenagers handle bariatric surgery even better than adults. The study of 309 adolescents and 55,192 adults found that only 5.5% of teenagers had complications after surgery compared with 9.8% in adults. "There has always been a lot of concern that doing surgery in a young person, however extreme the case is, will carry a lot of complications," says Dr. Esteban Varela, lead author of the study and director of Minimally Invasive Surgery at VA North Texas Health Care System. "But it is even safer." Between 2000 and 2003, the number of teenagers who had bariatric surgery tripled. While the number is growing, with 771 adolescents signing up in 2003, teenagers still represent less than 1% of all bariatric surgeries — a number that will begin to increase as more doctors view the practice as safe.
From the same center, a similar study of the elderly population showed that seniors do not experience significantly more complications than young adults. In fact, only 13% of patients, age 65 and older, who had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) — a surgical procedure that inserts a hollow band around the stomach to limit food intake — had complications. Even more compelling, nearly two-thirds of patients lost their excess weight and significantly improved their obesity-related conditions like diabetes. "No one questions whether we should offer knee or hip replacements to people over age 65," says David A. Provost, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who authored the study. "Weight loss surgery can provide similar quality of life improvements with less risk."
Even though Medicare and Medicare began covering bariatric surgery last year, many private insurance companies still do not want to pay for such an expensive procedure, which can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000. However, a small preliminary study presented at the conference could change some of this thinking. Researchers found that the average cost of bariatric surgery is often completely recouped by the patient after three years, after which time the medical expenses of patients who did not have surgery are twice as high. "Patients who come in for surgery have a lot of medical problems," says Dr. Anita Courcoulas, lead author of the study. "It makes sense that it would end up costing less." A larger study still needs to be done, but this new research shows that surgery may actually be the cheaper option in the long term.
Most insurance companies will make patients jump through hoops before they will actually pick up the tab for bariatric surgery. Providers often require that patients lose a specified amount of weight by staying on a medically enforced diet plan. However, a new study from Duke University Medical Center found that 62% of bariatric surgery patients trimmed the excess fat regardless of whether they lost or gained 10 pounds before surgery. "There is no value in policies like this," says Dr. Eric DeMaria, the study's lead author. "If there is no value, we shouldn't use it as a requirement."
Bariatric surgery isn't a cure-all. There are still significant diet and lifestyle changes that need to be enforced. For example, a new study from Stanford University shows that patients who have gastric bypass are more susceptible to the effects of alcohol. Inspired by an episode of Oprah Winfrey in which most individuals who had undergone gastric bypass said they got drunk faster on less alcohol, the researchers decided to test this theory. The study found that for people who had the surgery, drinking 5 ounces of wine would give them an average blood alcohol level of 0.08, while the level of non-patients was only at 0.05. People who had the surgery also took 108 minutes to sober up, while non-patients only needed 72 minutes. Since the stomach is smaller after bypass, alcohol is absorbed faster and takes longer to clear the system.
It may be an uphill battle, but the evidence at this year's conference shows that gastric bypass surgery is more effective and safer that originally thought, and can significantly improve the quality of life for all ages. It certainly did for Shawn Tarman. "Eating used to be my life," Tarman says. "And surgery helped me get that life back."

Sphere: Related Content

Getting Back To Form With Genitoplasty

More women are requesting cosmetic surgery on their genitals than ever before, according to a new report from the NHS.
The report claims that in Britain, the number of "labial reductions" jumped to 800, almost twice as many over the past five years.
"More and more women are said to be troubled by the shape, size or proportions of their vulvas", wrote Lih Mei Liao and Sarah Creighton from London's UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health. "I've been doing this over 13 years, and it has become much more popular," said Robert Rho, a plastic surgeon at the Labiaplasty Master Surgery Center of New York.
"We're doing more cases in recent years. There's been more exposure in the media, so people are more aware of the surgery."
Patients who sought genitoplasty "uniformly" wanted their vulvas to be flat and with no protrusion, similar to the prepubescent look of girls in Western fashion ads, pornography and on genitoplasty web sites.
"Not unlike presenting for a haircut at a salon, women often brought along images to illustrate the desired appearance," say Creighton. "The illustrations, usually from advertisements or pornography, are always selective and possibly digitally altered."
More studies are needed to determine if vaginal surgery offers any long term benefits for women.
The report is published in the British Medical Journal Porn Influencing Women To Have Demand for 'Designer Vagina' Surgery.

Sphere: Related Content

Read Between The Lines - Are transfusions the holy grail?



Stephen Cauchi

The Age


"IT TAKES someone special to give blood" says the Australian Red Cross Blood Service's slogan — which makes 500,000 Australians every year quite special. But could their altruism be misplaced?
The answer, according to American cardiothoracic specialist Bruce Spiess, may well be yes. During last week's annual scientific meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Professor Spiess, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, poured scorn on the belief that blood, or at least the transfusion of it, was the elixir of life.
"Blood transfusions are a religion. They have never been safety or efficacy tested," he said. "Drug options are carefully tested and regulated through prospective, randomised double-blind testing, but blood transfusion stands apart in that it has predominantly been believed to be helpful and evolved as a pillar of modern medicine."
Professor Spiess cited a Swedish study involving Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbids them to accept transfusions. It showed that 499 Witnesses who had open-heart surgery had better survival rates than other open-heart patients.
The problem with transfusions is not transmission of diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, which are screened for by blood banks, but post-operative complications such as pneumonia, wound infection and organ failure, some of which can be fatal.
Blood transfusions could indeed cause "major morbidity or even mortality", said Professor James Isbister, of the University of Sydney. "Increasingly, evidence and experience is suggesting that blood banking and transfusions medicine have excessively focused on supply rather than the demand/patient perspective."
Because blood is given free, it is a cheap alternative to treatments such as drugs. A statement from the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists said: "In Australia, the economics of blood discourages the use of alternatives because Australians donate blood and the Red Cross gives it to hospitals free … alternatives to transfusion include minimising blood loss and maximising oxygenation."
Professor Spiess told the conference of anaesthetists — the profession responsible for half the transfusions associated with surgery — that campaigns to encourage blood donation had helped shape the notion that all transfusions were good. Women received more transfusions than men, with worse outcomes from heart surgery a particular problem.
The Australian Red Cross Blood Service, which administers the nation's blood banks, referred The Sunday Age to Larry McNichol, head of anaesthesia at the Austin Hospital. Dr McNichol, who is also chairman of a Department of Human Services committee on transfusions, said his friends were "gobsmacked" when he told them about the problems with blood.

"They were saying, 'How can you say blood isn't fantastic, it saves people's lives'," he said.
"It is fantastic, it's a gift and it's saved lots of lives. But it's also important to realise that for everything there is a side-effect. It's just that it's taken us a long time to start building up the evidence for the potential adverse effects of having a transfusion."
Transfusion is needed when hemoglobin — the oxygen-containing protein in red blood cells — falls below a certain level, endangering the body's ability to transport oxygen. But the level at which transfusion is required, said Dr McNichol, is debatable.
"We were always taught that if (hemoglobin) drops below 10 (grams per deci-litre) you should perhaps give (the patient) some blood. What we're really saying, and Bruce Spiess articulated it really well, is that there is no scientific basis for the figure of 10. Somebody just said, it sounds around about the right figure."
There is evidence, said Dr McNichol, that some anaesthetists were giving blood when the count fell as low as seven. In general, the right level depended on the patient's condition.
For Jehovah's Witnesses in surgery, there is a range of strategies. Drugs can be taken that boost hemoglobin, reducing the need for transfusion or reducing surgical bleeding. During some forms of surgery, the patient's blood can be collected, washed, and pumped back into the body.
There are also ways to treat blood so it becomes less likely to cause side-effects. One is the removal of white blood cells. The other is bacterial testing of platelet bags. Both measures have received federal funding, bringing Australia into line with Britain, Europe, Canada and most of the US. Despite such measures, the growing consensus is: transfuse only when necessary.
"It's not an insignificant thing to have to give a patient a unit or two of blood because these things can be bad for you," Dr McNichol said. "What the emphasis is on now is saying what can we at the clinical coalface do to minimise the chances of patients having to have blood."



"They were saying, 'How can you say blood isn't fantastic, it saves people's lives'," he said.
"It is fantastic, it's a gift and it's saved lots of lives. But it's also important to realise that for everything there is a side-effect. It's just that it's taken us a long time to start building up the evidence for the potential adverse effects of having a transfusion."
Transfusion is needed when hemoglobin — the oxygen-containing protein in red blood cells — falls below a certain level, endangering the body's ability to transport oxygen. But the level at which transfusion is required, said Dr McNichol, is debatable.
"We were always taught that if (hemoglobin) drops below 10 (grams per deci-litre) you should perhaps give (the patient) some blood. What we're really saying, and Bruce Spiess articulated it really well, is that there is no scientific basis for the figure of 10. Somebody just said, it sounds around about the right figure."
There is evidence, said Dr McNichol, that some anaesthetists were giving blood when the count fell as low as seven. In general, the right level depended on the patient's condition.
For Jehovah's Witnesses in surgery, there is a range of strategies. Drugs can be taken that boost hemoglobin, reducing the need for transfusion or reducing surgical bleeding. During some forms of surgery, the patient's blood can be collected, washed, and pumped back into the body.
There are also ways to treat blood so it becomes less likely to cause side-effects. One is the removal of white blood cells. The other is bacterial testing of platelet bags. Both measures have received federal funding, bringing Australia into line with Britain, Europe, Canada and most of the US. Despite such measures, the growing consensus is: transfuse only when necessary.
"It's not an insignificant thing to have to give a patient a unit or two of blood because these things can be bad for you," Dr McNichol said. "What the emphasis is on now is saying what can we at the clinical coalface do to minimise the chances of patients having to have blood."

Sphere: Related Content