Currently viewing the category: "birth defects"

Coke and Pepsi to Remove Cancer Causing Ingredient

By On · Add Comment · In 4-MEI, anti-cancerous, birth defects, California, carcinogen, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo, Proposition 65, sodas, soft drinks

No secret that I am anti-soft drinks. Funny because I am not much anti-anything, believe it or not. But I don’t like sodas–not for me, not for my children, and not for others. It’s garbage. Liquid sugar. No nutritional value whatsoever. Ten teaspoons of sugar per can…need I go on?

Well, it appears as if Coke and Pepsi also contain a cancer causing ingredient, one that I know at least I was unaware of, called 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a major component of the caramel coloring the sodas sports.

According to recent statements, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have decided to lower the amount of 4-MEI in their soft drinks to comply with California standards that relate to findings that high levels of the chemical are shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats. Nice.

Not that either company actually cares about the health and safety of their customers, but they would have had to place a warning label on their liquid sugar product which discloses that it contains a known carcinogen. And what do you think that might have done to sales?

Both companies are probably resting assuredly that very few of their addicted consumers will ever find out about the cancer causing agent that has been a part of their drinks for decades. Indeed both companies assure shareholders that the changes will go unnoticed by addicts (and those not reading this blog).

“We are NOT changing our recipe; or our formula,” Coca-Cola Company spokesman Ben Sheidler told AFP in an email. No just the toxic coloring. Bravo liquid sugar manufacturers.

“What we did do is direct our caramel suppliers to make a manufacturing process modification in order to reduce the level of 4-MEI in our caramel so as to meet the requirement set by the state of California’s Proposition 65.”

California voters passed Proposition 65 in 1986, and the law aims to protect state residents from “chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.” 4-MEI was listed as a known carcinogen under Prop 65 in 2011.
Now mind you, both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo deny any health risk whatsoever, despite their products containing up to five times more 4-MEI than California standards. And not without a fight: The companies actually lost a battle against the state of California that dragged on for three years. The soda manufacturer’s argument: Trace amounts of 4-MEI are not sufficient to cause cancer in people. 
So let me get this straight. California has found 4-MEI–a compound used as caramel coloring, not just in soda but in soy sauce, coffee, bread, molasses, gravy and some beers–to be a carcinogen. And these companies have wasted time and money fighting on the grounds that, “It’s just a little cancer causing…and only in lab rats.” Yes, rats are always catching cancer in the lab…dumb rodents. That has nothing to do with you or me. 
Listen up liquid sugar pushers: You know damn well that if the public ever found out that you have a known carcinogen in your product, even if in just trace amounts, not one person would buy it. Not one. That’s why you caved in, because you would have been forced to label it, and there’d go your cash cow. 
Like I’ve said before, I’m a capitalist to the core, but providing a product that has a questionable ingredient, and then trying to be deceitful about it–and that’s what non-disclosure is, deceitful–is atrocious. You can minimize the issue all you want to, but you know that justice is often carried out in the marketplace. And your response speaks volumes.

Thalidomide’s Gift to Public Policy

By On · Add Comment · In antidepressants, birth defects, drugs, Frances Oldham Kelsey, pharmaceutical, Thalidomide
Rah, rah, rah! Three cheers for Thalidomide! Three cheers for the morning sickness pill of the 1950’s that led to thousands of birth defects.

Three cheers? Yes, because if it were not for the tragedy of Thalidomide, we wouldn’t have the regulations we have today for new pharmaceutical drugs. And we certainly wouldn’t be aware of the practice of withholding relevant and crucial information by pharmaceutical drug companies trying to pass their products off at any and all costs. Please take the time to read the history of Thalidomide here, and of the lone voice who refused to approve the drug for sale in the United States, FDA reviewer Frances Oldham Kelsey. When you do, you’ll see how lax our earlier laws were concerning drug approval.

At that time, pharmaceutical companies needed only to show that a drug was safe, and with a little trickery, it was easy to get things through. After the Thalidomide tragedy, though, the FDA changed the rules and required drugs to be both safe and effective. That means that manufacturers had to show that the drug actually did something beneficial–this prevented drugs from being “tried” on the public, as Thalidomide was in the U.S. Although it was never approved for sale, about 20,000 Americans received Thalidomide on a trial basis, including several pregnant women. Most birth defects were seen in Europe, but there were seventeen Americans born with birth defects caused by this drug.

We also have to thank Thalidomide for keeping us on our toes today. It’s exactly what I think about when I hear of antidepressant manufacturers hiding results. If you’ve got to hide ’em, there has got to be something terribly wrong. As I’ve said a thousand times over–when there’s big money involved, don’t count on human decency to make right decisions. And if it weren’t for Thalidomide…we might not know the full extent of that statement. So thank you Thalidomide for opening our eyes.

A Drug for Every Lifestyle

By On · Add Comment · In birth defects, cancer, drugs, lifestyle drugs, male pattern baldness, pharmaceuticals, propecia, Viagra, weight loss drugs

This month on the Dr. Nick Show, I talk at length about lifestyle drugs. Lifestyle drugs are devised to treat conditions that fall outside the medical realm of illness. Take male pattern baldness for instance – medical illness or life circumstance? Oh well, we have drugs to treat it either way. Should insurance companies (read: insurance premium holders/consumers/you and me) have to pay for it?

Another way to define lifestyle drugs is: medicines that treat conditions caused by lifestyle choices. So, for instance, there are some groovy weight-loss drugs on the market right now. Cool. Should you rely on them solely? Hmmm. Or, should you pound the treadmill, pound the weights, and cut the calories? I mean, why should one do all that hard work when there’s this cool little pill? I dunno, why?

Well if you listen to the latest episode of the Dr. Nick Show, you’ll get all the details on lifestyle drugs, and you’ll be able to make a decision on your own. And no matter what, you’ll see how these drugs are defining the direction our culture is moving with regard to pharmaceutical science.

It’s no problem – it simply is what it is. However, just know that every substances comes with an added risk. And there just ain’t an easy answer – like a pill – that can fix all of our problems. The piper always gets paid in one way or another, ya know.
Anyway, lifestyle drugs are here to stay. It’s big business. Check out these booming numbers – BusinessWeek calls them blockbusters (with sales of $1 billion or more a year). Drugs to help people wake and sleep as they please are particularly popular. And, of course, let’s not forget the drugs that help men have better erections.
No, no Campos – that’s help men who can’t have erections.
Uh, no…it’s not. Lot’s of young, healthy guys are partying on Viagra – Viagra and methamphetamine, that is. Or ecstasy. Or coke. Swear. Check it out . But don’t forget the risks gents. There’s always risks. For instance, the baldness drug propecia can cause birth defects if pregnant women inhale particles of broken pills (dosages are taken in half pills, so consumers must break them in half – brilliant, right?) or handle whole pills. And some cancer concerns exist with propecia too (scroll down to possible health concerns).
So, like I said, the lifestyle drugs are here to stay. Risk aside, the market is far too lucrative for pharmaceutical companies to slow down development. No to worry, just know the risks and be careful. Avoiding lifestyle drugs, in my opinion is always best, but, if ya gotta do ’em, then do ’em intelligently – which is, for a very short period of time.

Nicole Richie is Pregnant???

By On · Add Comment · In anorexic, birth defects, Downs Syndrome, drug user, emotional scarring, miscarriages, mothers, Nicole Richie, pregnancy, pregnant, skinny, Tay-Sachs
My wife asked me today, “Can you believe that Nicole Richie is pregnant? How can she hold a baby?” I presumed she meant the skinny, anorexic, drug user thing.

“Why wouldn’t she be able to?”, I asked.

“Because she’s so skinny?”

That question reminded me of something I found very interesting and, quite frankly, peculiar during our own pregnancy with our daughter Delilah. I noticed that an enormous amount of fear and caution is circulated among new, expecting mothers. Downs syndrome, Tay-Sachs, birth defects, emotional scarring, miscarriages, preschool enrollment – you name it, there was a precaution for it. Quite the bit of nail biting involved.

I have to say that I find it a bit counterproductive. I see where it comes from; liability is a grave concern among doctors, especially OB/GYN docs. As I understand it, obstetricians have the highest malpractice premiums of all doctors simply because they are the most often sued. Think about it: a child is born with a birth defect – gotta blame somebody, right? That’s the American way. Couldn’t be destiny or have greater, let’s say, spiritual meaning now could it? Nor could it possibly be a blessing – for the child and the parents. Nah – it’s gotta be the doctor’s fault. Sue him!

Here’s what I always say: It’s true, things do happen. And it’s always better to be safe than sorry, so testing is o.k. But let’s lighten up a bit. Don’t go through your pregnancy freaked out. Consider this: There are starving women in Africa having babies, and many survive. The human body is incredibly resilient, so for the most part, everything should be o.k. If you happen to fall within the small percentage of there being “a problem”, then I think it’s wiser to look at the deeper implication; the deeper meaning, if you will. It’s still a blessing. You just have to see it as such.

As far as Nicole Richie is concerned, I have a confession to make. I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say Nicole Richie in my blog. Paris, you’re next.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.