Saturday, March 31, 2012
Baby Skin Care Matters
View the Original article
Cosmetic Dentist Beverly Hills
View the Original article
U.S. Women in Labor Longer Than They Were 50 Years Ago
The report's authors said several factors helped to explain the longer labors.
"Older maternal age and increased BMI (body-mass index, a ratio of weight to height) accounted for a part of the increase. We believe that some aspects of delivery-room practice are also responsible for this increase," lead author Dr. Katherine Laughon, an epidemiologist with the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said during a Friday afternoon news conference.
For the study, Laughon's team collected data on nearly 40,000 women who gave birth between 1959 and 1966, and compared those findings with nearly 100,000 women who delivered between 2002 and 2008.
The researchers found women in the 21st century were in labor 2.6 hours longer for first births and two hours longer for subsequent births than women from the 1960s.
Mothers in the 2000s also were older, heavier and used painkillers more during labor, and were more likely to have a Cesarean delivery than women in the 1960s.
Other differences that might explain the increase reflect changes in later-stage delivery practices. For instance, in the 1960s the use of episiotomy (a surgical incision to enlarge the vaginal opening during delivery) and forceps (surgical instruments used to extract a baby) were more common, the researchers noted.
The use of epidural injections to ease the pain of delivery is more common now than 50 years ago. Epidurals were used in more than half of recent deliveries, compared with 4 percent of deliveries in the 1960s, the study authors said, adding that epidural anesthesia is known to increase delivery time.
The study also found that Cesarean deliveries are four times more common today than 50 years ago -- 12 percent vs. 3 percent.
"Women are in labor longer
View the Original article
FDA Calls on Tobacco Companies to List Harmful Ingredients
Both actions are preliminary at this point, and subject to a period of public comment.
While there are more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco and tobacco smoke, the FDA has a working list of 93 chemicals that cause or may cause harm to smokers or non-smokers. These include formaldehyde, nicotine, arsenic, cadmium, ammonia and carbon monoxide. Tobacco companies will be required to list quantities of 20 different ingredients associated with cancer, lung disease and other health problems on consumer-friendly packaging by April 2013.
"For the first time, all tobacco manufacturers will be required to report quantities of potential harmful compounds in every regulated tobacco product they sell in the U.S.," said Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, during a media briefing. "Tobacco itself contains many chemical compounds, many of which are harmful in raw state but also when smoked."
Exactly how and where this information will be conveyed to the public is not yet known. "We are doing research on how to best communicate that information in a consumer-friendly way to the public," he said.
The second FDA action announced that tobacco companies must back up any claims they make if they want to market a tobacco product as "less risky" to health.
"Products can't be marketed as reducing risks unless that claim is supported by science," Deyton said. At this time, this primarily refers to roll-your-own and smokeless tobacco products.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) gives the FDA the power to regulate certain aspects of tobacco marketing and manufacturing. The preliminary rules are open for public comments until June 4, 2012.
More information
Learn more about the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
View the Original article
CDC: Ads spark huge increase to quit smoking line
Calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW totaled more than 33,000 last week
View the Original article
Panel backs sharing studies of lab-made bird flu
The decision could end a debate that began in December when the government took the unprecedented step of asking the scientists not to publicize all the details of their work.
The research, by two scientific teams
View the Original article
FDA rejects call to ban BPA from food packaging
The agency said Friday that petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions on the much-debated chemical, commonly known as BPA, though federal scientists continue to study the issue.
The Natural Resources Defense Council's petition was the latest move by public safety advocates to prod regulators into taking action against the chemical, which is found in everything from CDs to canned food to dental sealants.
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of food and beverage containers.
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals.
But FDA reiterated in its response that that those findings cannot be applied to humans. The agency said the studies cited by NRDC were often too small to be conclusive. In other cases they involved researchers injecting BPA into animals, whereas humans ingest the chemical through their diet over longer periods of time. The agency also said that humans metabolize and eliminate BPA much more quickly than rats and other lab animals.
"While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans," the agency said in its response.
The Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban BPA as a food additive, including all uses in food or beverage packaging. Petitions on various safety issues are routinely filed by advocacy groups, companies and even individuals. When the FDA failed to respond within the required timeframe, the environmental group sued the agency. In December a federal judge ruled that the agency had to respond by the end of March.
"The FDA is out-of-step with scientific and medical research," said Dr. Sarah Janssen, NRDC's senior scientist for public health. "This illustrates the need for a major overhaul of how the government protects us against dangerous chemicals."
FDA officials stressed that their assessment of BPA is ongoing, and they expect to issue another update later this year based on their most recent findings. The agency's last official statement was that there is "some concern" about BPA's effects on infants and young children.
The government is spending $30 million to conduct additional studies on the chemical's impact on humans. Several federal studies published in the last two years suggest that even human embryos retain far less BPA than other animals.
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA. The chemical industry says BPA is the safest, most effective sealant.
Some manufacturers have begun switching to alternatives. Heinz reportedly uses BPA-free coatings for its Nurture baby formula cans, and ConAgra and General Mills say they have switched to alternative sealants for some canned tomatoes.
The federal government has been grappling with the safety of BPA for more than four years. The FDA revised its opinion on BPA in 2010 saying there is "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brain and reproductive system of infants, babies and young children. Previously the agency said the trace amounts of BPA that leach out of food containers are not dangerous.
While older children and adults quickly eliminate the chemical through their kidneys, newborns and infants can retain it for longer. Scientists pushing for a ban on the chemical argue that BPA mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with growth.
View the Original article
Dutch, Belgians mark decade of 'mercy killings'
View the Original article
US won't ban chemical BPA from food packages
View the Original article
Vihjeitä polttaa rasvaa vatsa
View the Original article
Luonnollisten hoitoon ihon kohtelu – yksinkertainen tapa säilyttää nuorten näköisiä ihon
View the Original article
Friday, March 30, 2012
Fluoridation: halvempia kuin hammaslääkäri
View the Original article