A Fresno man turned up at a local emergency room carrying a 5-foot-long tapeworm he pulled out of his own intestine.

Explanation: If you’re not confident your favorite sushi restaurant sources and handles its fish in accordance with the law, we trust our little cautionary tale will inspire you to seek out one that does.

Medical, Emergency Room, sushi, tapeworms

In January 2018, readers notified us that a number of news outlets had reported that a man in Fresno, California, had walked into a local emergency room carrying a 5-foot-long tapeworm he said he had pulled out of his own body after experiencing symptoms that included cramping and bloody diarrhea. According to the reports, the patient, a frequent sushi eater, extracted the parasite as best he could after feeling it “wiggling” in his intestines and wrapped it around a toilet paper tube for transport. He presented it to doctors at Fresno’s Community Regional Medical Center and requested immediate treatment for “worms.” We decided to check the story out for ourselves by contacting the person named as the attending physician, Dr. Kenny Banh. It’s all true, Dr. Banh told us, right down to the toilet paper roll. “I have seen and treated intestinal worms and parasites before, but never had a patient bring in a giant tapeworm,” he said in an e-mail. By “giant” he means five-and-a-half feet long. The tapeworm had a flat, skinny body, tan in color, with narrow, dark brown lines down its back and “a big, flat head.” Tapeworms are a type of parasitic flatworm (also called cestode) most often taken into the body by eating contaminated raw meat or fish. They reside in the digestive tracts of infected human beings or nonhuman animals, where they hold themselves in place using the suckers on their heads, and they may or may not cause noticeable symptoms ranging from abdominal discomfort to intestinal blockage. They can grow to more than 30 feet in length. What was Banh’s first thought when he saw the creature? “Very cool,” he said. “People asked if it was disgusting, but as an EM physician I see much worse. This was more geeky scientifically interesting — though funny, as it was wrapped around a toilet paper roll.” Treatment for tapeworms in humans is fairly simple: usually a single dose of an oral antihelminthic, a drug that kills the worms, “similar to the deworming medication you give your pet dog,” Banh says. Of greater concern to the patient was figuring out how he contracted the tapeworm in the first place. He hadn’t been exposed to parasitic infection by travel, or by drinking contaminated liquids, or by eating raw meat, he was sure — which really only left one possibility: sushi. The patient said he eats a lot of sushi — daily, in fact — and his favorite dish is salmon sashimi. A bit of Googling confirmed that he was probably right. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a research letter in January 2017 noting that the Japanese broad tapeworm (Diphyllobothrium nihonkaiense) has been detected in wild salmon caught along the U.S. and Asian Pacific coasts and that it therefore poses “potential dangers for persons who eat these fish raw.” For any salmon sashimi addicts reading this, that doesn’t mean you have give up your habit on pain of contracting a tapeworm infection, but it does mean you need to make sure the raw salmon you consume has been handled properly. Freezing kills parasites, which is why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all fish be frozen before it can be served raw anywhere in the United States.


Explanation: The story reports recent evidence that anti-depressants given in conjunction with mood stabilizing drugs (such as lithium) do not significantly improve depression or exacerbate mania in bipolar patients. The story suggests that anti-depressants are over-prescribed to patients with bipolar disorder; therefore, there is a suggestion that less treatment with anti-depressants is better. The story appropriately describes the design and some of the quantitative results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted by The Systemic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The story includes information from an author of the study, as well as from a researcher not involved in the study, but who specializes in bipolar treatment. The story notes that the study was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health. The story mentions the potential harm of triggering a manic episode and reports (accurately) that there was no observed difference. The story could have gone further and discussed common harms from antidepressants stacked up against this finding of no benefit – strong incentive to stop giving antidepressant to bipolar disorder. The story also could have discussed other options (such as psychosocial treatments) and whether any of these treatments work. Overall, though, a very complete story – and in only 406 words.

The story does not mention the cost of medication to treat bipolar disorder; however, the story and evidence from the study cited are advocating fewer anti-depressant medications. So cost seems less of an issue in this case. However, the story missed an opportunity to talk about the cost of bipolar disease (90 million work loss days annually in the U.S) and associated health care/treament costs. The story provides some absolute data on patients' self-reported recoveries and mood. At 26 weeks follow-up, of 366 bipolar patients, 27% of patients who took a mood stabilizer and placebo experienced 8 weeks of of positively improved mood, but did not become manic; 23.%5 of patients receiving anti-depressants and a mood stabilizer achieved the same 8-week period of improved mood. The story mentions the potential harm of triggering a manic episode and reports (accurately) that there was no observed difference in the groups studied. The story could have gone further and discussed common harms from antidepressants stacked up against this finding of no benefit – strong incentive to stop giving antidepressants for bipolar disorder. The story describes the study design and provides some quantitative evidence from the study of bipolar patients who were given placebos or anti-depressant medications with mood stabilizing drugs. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story lists the estimated prevalence of bipolar disorder in the U.S. The story includes information from an author of the study cited, as well as from a researcher not involved in the study, but who specializes in bipolar treatment. The story mentions that the study was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, and the authors disclose the potential conflicts. The story notes, in passing, that mood stabilizing drugs are used. It doesn't say anthing about other options (such as psychosocial treatments) and whether any of these treatments work. It's clear from the story that the drugs in question are commonly prescribed and available. The story reports on a recent evidence that anti-depressants given in conjunction with mood stabilizer drugs do not significantly improve depression in bipolar patients. This was a novel research question and finding. There was independent reporting and no evidence the information in this story is taken directly from a press release.


Study sees 'severe and acute' emergency for world in coronavirus pandemic.

Explanation: The world faces “a severe and acute” emergency due to the pandemic caused by the coronavirus and national responses in the coming weeks will be critical to the trajectory of their epidemics, a leading group of scientists said on Thursday.

If no mitigating measures or policies had been taken, the COVID-19 disease outbreak would have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this year, the scientists said from Imperial College London said. But if mitigation strategies are implemented that are able to shield the elderly via a 60% reduction in social contacts, and slow but not interrupt transmission of the disease with a 40% reduction in social contacts for the wider population, that disease burden could be cut in half, saving 20 million lives. “But we predict that even in this scenario, health systems in all countries will be quickly overwhelmed,” said the report, the 12th study by this research team since the new coronavirus first emerged in Wuhan, China in December. “This effect is likely to be most severe in lower income settings where (health service) capacity is lowest.”  The researchers, led by Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology, said their analysis suggests healthcare demand worldwide can only be kept within manageable levels with  “the rapid adoption of public health measures ... similar to those being adopted in many countries” - including testing and isolation of cases and wider social distancing measures. Ferguson’s 10th study, published earlier this month, was seen as a key influencing factor on moves governments in Britain and Europe took to increase social distancing measures and tighten lockdowns in an effort to slow the expansion of the pandemic. The study, a mathematical modeling analysis which uses data and estimates to predict potential outcomes, found that in a best case scenario, if countries around the world implement suppression strategies early and sustain them, some 38.7 million lives could be saved. “Suppression strategies will need to be maintained in some manner until vaccines or effective treatments become available to avoid the risk of later epidemics,” Ferguson’s team wrote in a summary of their study’s findings. “Delays in implementing strategies to suppress transmission will lead to worse outcomes and fewer lives saved,” they added.


Medtronic insulin pump beats injections in study

Explanation: It touts benefits of insulin pumps and blood glucose sensors without mentioning potential harms. It fails to tell readers that the trial included only a subset of patients and thus the results may not necessarily apply to people with diabetes in general. It implies that the improvement seen in the intermediate endpoint measured (A1C blood sugar levels) will actually reduce the risk of eye, kidney, heart and other diseases without making clear that this trial was not designed to reveal differences in actual health outcomes. It makes no mention of the financial ties between the researchers and insulin pump manufacturers, even though the researchers’ published conflict of interest disclosure summary was substantially longer than the news story itself. This thumbnail sketch of medical device trial results that may suit the needs of investors trying to predict stock performance fails to meet the needs of people who need relevant information about ways to manage diabetes. But does it really even give investors the true nitty-gritty they need?

The story does not mention that the devices cost thousands of dollars and their use requires ongoing purchases of supplies and services. These costs may or may not be covered by health care insurance. As mentioned above, the story implies that the degree of improvement in the control of blood sugar levels reported by the researchers will reduce the risk of eye, kidney and heart disease, even though these health outcomes were not measured. Although control of blood sugar levels is a widely accepted target of diabetes treatment, the trial did not measure whether or not there were any noticeable improvements in real health outcomes. The story does not mention any potential harms of insulin pumps, even though the researchers reported that two patients were hospitalized because of infections at the site of the pump insertion. The story fails to report any of the limitations or qualifications reported by the researchers in their article in New England Journal of Medicine. These include: – the trial included only people who were able to adequately control their blood sugar levels and the results may not necessarily apply to people who are able to manage their diabetes by other methods; – the researchers were not blinded, that is, they knew whether patients were using the study devices or multiple daily insulin injections; – that the motivation of participants and support by health care providers in a clinical trial may not be replicated in regular clinical practice. And as mentioned above, the story implies that the improved control of one measure of blood sugar control (A1C) would lead to reductions in eye, kidney and heart disease, even though this trial did not measure those outcomes. Although diabetes and complications from the disease are serious and common, the story fails to note that this trial reported only changes in one measure of blood glucose control, not hard health outcomes. While the story says that, “Lowering A1C levels helps reduce the risk of long-term complications from diabetes such as eye, kidney and heart disease,” it fails to point out that this study did not measure whether participants who used the pump and senor devices had lower rates of these diseases. Not only does this story lack an independent source, it makes no mention of the ties between the researchers and manufacturers of insulin pumps and blood glucose sensors. Indeed, the disclosure summary included in the New England Journal of Medicine is 30 percent longer than the news report about the study. The story does note that the trial was sponsored by Medtronic, which manufactures the pump used by researchers. (Disclosures are summarized at the end of the article posted online at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa1002853Disclosure statements provided by each auther are available at: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa1002853/DC3   Although the story does mention that people with diabetes can manage blood glucose levels with multiple daily injections of insulin, without a pump, it leaves out a critical piece of information. Patients who could successfully manage their blood sugar levels without a pump were excluded from the study. Readers should be told how often people with diabetes can achieve treatment targets without using a pump. This story does not make clear that the trial results apply only to people who are unable to achieve treatment goals by using multiple daily insulin injections. The story points out that these results are from a post-market study, thus indicating the device is already available. However, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine accompanying the research article made an important point that was not included in the study: devices are not enough, effective glucose management requires effective management… and the “expert training and guidance received by patients in clinical trials cannot be readily duplicated in a busy clinical practice.” In other words, the results of this trial may not necessarily be achieved in general clinical practice because while the devices tested are widely available, expert support services are not. The novelty of insulin pumps and monitoring sensors was not part of this story. Not applicable because we can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. The quote used in this story does not appear in the news releases available for review. However, the story fails to include any information beyond that provided by Medtronic in its news release: http://wwwp.medtronic.com/Newsroom/NewsReleaseDetails.do?itemId=1277813641618〈=en_US


Slovakia may force women to get pre-abortion ultrasound.

Explanation: Lawmakers in Slovakia are scheduled to debate a proposed law Friday that would compel women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the embryo or fetus, a move many groups have decried as a backward step for women’s rights.

Health, General News, Abortion, Ultrasound, Slovakia, Europe

The bill was submitted by three members of the conservative Slovak National Party, who wrote that it is intended “to ensure that women are informed about the current stage of their pregnancy” before having an abortion. It would oblige doctors to show a woman ultrasound images “about the development stage of the embryo or fetus whose development is to be terminated.” The draft bill states that “if technically feasible, the physician must also enable her to listen to the heartbeat of the embryo or fetus.” The authors of the bill wrote that “the proposed draft law has positive impacts on marriage, parenthood and family” and that “society does not consider the induced termination of pregnancy a good solution.” In a series of demonstrations this week in Bratislava, protesters argued the draft law violates women’s fundamental human rights, including the rights to privacy, autonomy and the ability to make medical decisions free from coercion. In September, the Slovak Parliament rejected four other bills attempting to ban or restrict abortion in the largely Catholic central European country, but this latest bill passed its first reading last month. Silvia Shahzad, a lawmaker with the conservative Ordinary People political party, says she will be voting against the proposal. “To try to change the opinions of women about their pregnancy with this kind of pressure, this is not acceptable,” Shahzad said. In Slovakia, abortion is legal upon request in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; it is available after that for certain medical reasons. Earlier this month, more than 30 organizations, including Amnesty International and Marie Stopes International, wrote to Slovak parliamentarians expressing their “deep concern” about the proposed law. “If this legislation is adopted, Slovakia would be the only EU member state to impose these harmful requirements on women,” the groups wrote, adding the abortion requirements would violate several international human rights treaties Slovakia has ratified. Similar letters were sent by European legislators and the Council of Europe. The World Health Organization does not recommend a routine ultrasound before abortion. The U.N. health agency says abortions should be “delivered in a way that respects a woman’s dignity, guarantees her right to privacy and is sensitive to her needs and perspectives.” Hillary Margolis, a senior research at Human Rights Watch, said the provisions in Slovakia’s draft bill would intimidate some women from obtaining an abortion. “These are clearly tactics meant to potentially stigmatize women, humiliate them and subject them to degrading treatment,” she said. In the U.S., seven states have similar provisions obliging women to have an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heartbeat, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. The 2011 law in Texas was challenged, but an appeals court ruled the provisions, which also compel doctors to provide a description of the ultrasound image, did not violate the U.S. constitution. “What’s happening in Slovakia is unfortunately a replay of what’s been happening in the U.S.,” Nash said. “It’s worrying to see this kind of legislation being introduced elsewhere now. Just because it’s been successful in America doesn’t mean it should be exported.” Dr. Jennifer Conti, a spokeswoman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said it was medically inaccurate to refer to a “heartbeat” in the early stages of pregnancy. “We are not talking about a fully formed heart,” Conti said. She said there is no evidence to show that introducing stricter criteria for abortions reduces the numbers of women seeking them. “What we see is that when you make it more difficult to get an abortion, the rate of women dying or having complications or finding other alternatives goes up,” she said. Leah Hoctor, Europe director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, also worried about the “demoralizing” impact of the proposed regulations on doctors and nurses in Slovakia. “I could imagine for medical professionals in Slovakia this could be very troubling because they’re being forced to perform these procedures,” she said. “This sends a message to women across Slovakia and other countries about the very dangerous role politics can play when it comes to women’s access to health care.” Across Europe, 39 countries have legalized abortion on request. Six countries only allow abortion in rare instances, such as if the woman’s life is at risk: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Poland and San Marino.


California's governor is allowing people who are HIV-positive donate blood

Explanation: Mr. Moore’s view are highly out of step with the overwhelming view in the HIV advocacy community. SB 239 is supported by a massive public health coalition, including almost every HIV advocacy organization, including the Black Coalition on AIDS, Positive Women’s Network, APLA Health, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and many others.

Uncategorized, california, HIV, jerry brown

On 13 September 2017, YourNewsWire.com posted a story regarding a state legislative bill in California that contradicted itself within the first two paragraphs: California Governor Jerry Brown is expected to give a green light to a bill allowing HIV positive people to knowingly expose their blood to others. The bill, SB 239, will reduce the penalties for knowingly exposing someone to HIV without telling them, allowing HIV positive people to donate their blood to others. Lawmakers claim the current felony charge for the crime is ‘discriminatory.’ The measure, which was approved by the state Senate on 11 September 2017, does indeed reduce the penalties for HIV-positive people who knowingly expose others to the virus or donate blood. But as the state legislature’s website stated, doing so is still illegal: The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted 3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would prohibit a health officer, or a health officer’s designee, from issuing a maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Brown signed the bill into law on 6 October 2017. Before then, knowingly exposing a person to the virus via sexual contact was a felony punishable by either three, five, or eight years in prison. It was also a felony for an HIV-positive person to knowingly “donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk.” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, told us in an e-mail on 18 September 2017: Sexual assault will remain a felony, regardless of HIV status. So if someone with HIV sexually assaults someone, that will be continue to be a felony. In addition, SB 239 does not repeal the HIV-related sentencing enhancement for sexual assaults. The goal of the bill, Wiener said, was to end HIV infections: SB 239 will make it more likely that people will get tested for HIV and seek treatment, by removing stigma. Criminalizing health conditions harms public health. Criminalizing HIV makes it less likely people will get tested. If an HIV infection occurs, we need to make sure that people have access to healthcare. The bill passed in the state Senate by a margin of 24-12 (with four lawmakers abstaining) four days after the state assembly approved it in a 52-19 vote (with eight members abstaining). One of the bill’s critics, Republican Sen. Joel Anderson said: I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regiment of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony. It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this. However, a 28 June 2017 editorial by two Alameda County Public Health Department officials argued that intentional exposure to the virus is rare. J. Phoenix Smith (interim head of the department’s HIV care unit) and Nicholas J. Moss (director of its HIV STD Section) wrote: Of note, a careful examination of hundreds cases revealed only two cases of actual intentional HIV transmission — nationwide, over more than 30 years. Wiener and the bill’s sponsor in the Assembly, Democratic lawmaker Todd Gloria, said in a statement that the bill is supported by several LGBTQ and HIV-related advocacy groups, including the Center for HIV Law & Policy, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation among others. But another HIV activist, Deondre B. Moore, said in a March 2017 post for the group HIV Equal that the bill should be revised. In his piece, Moore reveals that a partner infected him with the virus after lying to him about testing negative. While he does not feel having HIV is a “death sentence,” he said, his peace of mind was stolen by his former partner’s behavior: No one deserves a pass. It’s one thing to be positive and be in control of your health by engaging in care and maintaining an undetectable viral load. It’s another thing to just not care and intentionally aim to infect others with HIV. Something should be done and justice should always be served. I believe that SB 239 should be revised to note that, a person with a proven undetectable viral load should not be penalized or have to face consequences for having unprotected sex and not disclosing their status. However, a person who is positive and is proven to be intentionally infecting or aiming to infect others should face felony charges and brought to justice. When asked for a response to Moore’s remarks, Wiener told us:


Tick, tick, tick: Alaska braces for invading parasites.

Explanation: Health and wildlife officials are taking steps to prepare for potentially dangerous parasites that could gain a foothold because of Alaska’s warming climate.

Climate, Health, Anchorage, Ticks, Wildlife, Alaska, Environment

Non-native ticks represent a threat to wildlife and people because they can carry and transmit pathogens, said Micah Hahn, an assistant professor of environmental health with the Institute for Circumpolar Health Studies at the University of Alaska Anchorage. “Things are changing really rapidly in Alaska,” she said. “It’s really important for us to establish a baseline. We need to know what ticks are already here, what ticks are established and reproducing, and where they are, so that we can monitor these changes as the environment changes in the future.” A $125,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health will help sample ticks and prepare a model to forecast where ticks could thrive, she said Tuesday in a presentation to the Local Environmental Observer network, whose members report unusual animal, environment and weather events. Researchers will look for ticks in the field. Researchers, wildlife officials and the state veterinary office also are encouraging biologists and the public to participate in a “Submit-a-Tick” program, in which they pluck blood-sucking arachnids from people and pets, drop them off at Department of Fish and Game offices and fill out a form with details of their capture. Alaska is largely free of many pests that bedevil people elsewhere, from snakes to creepy-crawly insects. Alaska’s handful of native ticks attach themselves to squirrels, snowshoe hares and wild birds and sometimes moose, dogs, or cats, but no one buys bug repellent or tick collars to keep them at bay. However, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game nearly a decade ago began to collect tick samples out of concern that moose ticks, which can kill moose, especially calves, could establish themselves in Alaska. Moose ticks have been found within Alaska’s neighbor, Canada’s Yukon Territory. “We are nervous that it’s very close to our border,” Hahn said. The search for moose ticks led to the recovery of a variety of non-native ticks, she said. Most were associated with travel outside the state. Researchers believe they hitch rides on people and pets but also migratory birds. In some cases, non-native brown dog ticks and American dog ticks were found by people who had not left the state in months, Hahn said. “The question is, where did that tick come from?” Officials have created an online Alaska tick information page with instructions on how to collect ticks. Researchers will use data collected to create a model focused on two nonnative ticks of concern, blacklegged ticks and western blacklegged ticks. Both can transmit Lyme disease. Ten Alaskans reported Lyme disease in 2017 but all were exposed in other states. Just because non-native ticks reach Alaska, it doesn’t mean they will survive, Hahn said. Some ticks are vulnerable to dry conditions or harsh winters. The models will coordinate tick sampling information with environmental conditions in Alaska, such as humidity, temperature and rainfall, to project where non-native ticks might thrive in future decades as climate conditions change. Alaska doctors and veterinarians don’t now automatically consider a connection to ticks if a person or pet shows up for treatment and has not traveled, Hahn said. “If we know what species are here, and where they are in the state, it can help us develop control measures to make sure we stay on top of the problem,” Hahn said. ___ Online: Alaska tick information page: https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/vet/ticks/


Easing school lunch regulations "is not reducing the nutritional standards whatsoever.

Agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue went to an elementary school lunchroom in Virginia to announce new rules for the food schools serve. Under the banner of trimming the childhood obesity rate, combatting rising levels of diabetes and other health problems, Congress passed and the Obama administration implemented new targets for schools. Perdue gave schools more time to comply in two areas -- whole grains and sodium levels -- and expanded the rules for milk. "We're giving these food service professionals the flexibility to move as we get a healthier generation," Perdue said May 1. "This is not reducing nutritional standards whatsoever. It's pausing here to evaluate whether or not the progressive standards of moving even further are appropriate or not." Perdue argued that if kids don’t like what they’re offered, they simply won’t eat it, and giving schools more time to comply would help children get more of the nutrition they need. We focus here on Perdue’s claim that his move does not reduce nutritional standards. Is it true that they do no reduce nutritional standards set by the department in 2012 "whatsoever?" While Perdue is technically correct about not reducing the standards, his department will not be enforcing them. "He is not changing the standards per se, but he is allowing schools to not follow them," said nutrition policy researcher David Pelletier at Cornell University. "It’s a bit like saying the posted speed limits on the roads remain the same, but you can go as fast as you want." The starting point Washington’s school lunch program reaches about 30 million kids every day at a yearly cost of about $11 billion. To qualify for federal support, schools must meet a number of dietary regulations. In 2012, the Agriculture Department announced the final version of Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. For milk, schools could provide "flavor in fat-free milk only." By 2015, all grain products, such as bread, oatmeal and noodles had to be "whole grain-rich." That term meant that at least half was whole grain and the rest could be processed but enriched with vitamins and minerals. The rule for reducing sodium, or salt, was more complicated and set increasingly lower targets that varied slightly by age group. So for example, by July 2014, a lunch for an elementary student couldn’t contain more than 1,230 mg of sodium, which is about 65 percent of the upper limit for a full day as set in the Federal Dietary Guidelines. By July 2017, the target became 50 percent of the daily limit, and by July 2022, the target went down to about 33 percent. Making 'school meals great again' Perdue’s office sent out a press release entitled "Ag Secretary Perdue Moves to Make School Meals Great Again." It said the department would start the process to allow schools to start serving 1 percent flavored milk. At the elementary school event, Perdue said, "I wouldn't be as big as I am today without chocolate milk." For grains, schools could apply for exemptions to the whole grain-rich content rule through 2020. On sodium, any school meeting the first target for lunches of about 65 percent of the daily limit would be considered in compliance through 2020. In a statement, the department said this was similar to a 2016 memo from the Obama Agriculture Department. That memo said it recognized that manufacturers had lagged in cutting down the salt in food, and so schools "that are working toward compliance" would not suffer if they hadn’t yet made the grade. Perdue’s policy is more lenient, declaring that no school need push beyond the first target while, as Perdue said, the department pauses "to evaluate whether or not the progressive standards of moving even further are appropriate or not." Were nutrition standards reduced? For whole grains and sodium, the new policy extends the timeline for achieving those standards, but so far, the overall goals remain -- with the option to reassess later. Pelletier of Cornell and nutrition policy researcher Joann Slavin at the University of Minnesota both said the underlying nutrition standards are unchanged. But Pelletier called Perdue's statement a "semantic trick." The situation with milk is a little trickier. The 2012 rules, which match the recommendations from a 2009 National Academy of Sciences panel, said flavored milk had to be non-fat. Perdue hasn’t officially changed that yet, but he said "USDA will seek to publish an interim rule as soon as possible to effect the change in milk policy," to allow flavored 1 percent milk. Slavin said the federal rules on milk went too far. That said, they were published as nutritional standards and followed the guidance from an independent research group. Our ruling Perdue said his changes to the school lunch requirements did not reduce nutritional standards. The plain facts and the assessment of experts confirm that the long term goals for whole grains and sodium remain in place for now. However, under the new policy, schools need not make more progress toward those goals for another three years. In addition, the current standards don’t allow flavored 1 percent milk, and the new policy states that the department wants to change that through an interim rule. So the standards might not have changed yet, but Perdue said he plans to do so. We rate this claim .


Sununu appointments to shape judicial, education policy.

Explanation: Republican Gov.-elect Chris Sununu will have a chance to shape New Hampshire’s judicial, education, criminal justice and environmental policy.

New Hampshire, Environment, Education policy, Environmental policy, Education

Sununu will make key appointments in the departments that focus on those and other areas of governance during his two-year term. The decisions won’t be his alone; the five-member executive council must approve all gubernatorial appointments. But Republicans will control the council, making it more likely Sununu’s appointments will get through. Sununu takes office in January and has not yet announced nominees. ___ ATTORNEY GENERAL Democratic Attorney General Joe Foster’s appointment is up in early 2017. As the head of the Department of Justice, the attorney general is the state’s chief defender and prosecutor. Sometimes the decisions are political. Foster, for example, chose not to defend a state law around education funding to the ire of many lawmakers. He also attempted to make the courts send mental health records to the national gun background check system, a move the courts rejected. Foster helped set the state’s response to the opioid crisis. Under his leadership, the state sued Purdue Pharma over its marketing of prescription pain killers and began approaching drug overdoses as crimes with potential murder charges for dealers. Sununu’s attorney general could continue any of these policies or change them. ___ EDUCATION Sununu will make three appointments to the State Board of Education and an opportunity to appoint a new education commissioner. The seven-member board is an advisory body of sorts to the department, with say over setting state education standards and approving charter school applications. The board adopted standards in language arts and math that line up with Common Core, a set of standards developed by the states that are opposed by many Republicans. More recently, the board approved new science standards. Education Commissioner Virginia Barry’s term ends in early 2017. On the campaign trail, Sununu said he wants to end the Common Core standards and focus more on “local control” in schools — priorities that are likely to shape his picks. ___ SUPREME COURT Two of New Hampshire’s five Supreme Court justices will retire soon — Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy and Chief Justice Linda Dalianis — giving Sununu an opportunity to reshape the court through his appointments. The past three Democratic governors have appointed a bipartisan judicial review commission to suggest nominees. The last Republican governor, Craig Benson, appointed his own partisan commission. Sununu told the Concord Monitor in October he would “absolutely” use a bipartisan selection commission. The Supreme Court is the state’s last stop for judicial decisions. In recent years, the court has voted to uphold the death penalty for convicted cop killer Michael Addison and to keep the sexual history of a murdered college student private during her killer’s appeal. The court also made the Claremont education decision that established the state’s school funding formula. ___ ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY Department of Environmental Services Commissioner Thomas Burack recently announced his intention to resign after about 10 years in the post. The department works to keep New Hampshire’s air, land and water clean, and deals with issues such as the drought and the contamination of drinking water by the chemical PFOA. The Public Utilities Commission regulates electric, natural gas and telecommunications utilities in the state. One of its duties is approving the utilities’ rate requests. One of three commissioners’ terms is expiring soon. The commissioner of environmental services and Public Utilities Commission members serve on the Site Evaluation Committee, which approves large-scale energy projects, such as the Northern Pass transmission line project. ___ OTHER DEPARTMENTS Other appointments Sununu will make include commissioners of labor, corrections, liquor, cultural resources, agriculture, insurance, and resources and economic development.


Sanofi Obesity Drug Helps Sugar Levels Of Diabetics in Study

Explanation: This story is about a drug which is currently unavailable in the US that may be useful in the arsenal of treatments for diabetes. The story was crafted around the results of one single study recently presented at a meeting. See our primer on "News From Scientific Meetings" to learn about the pitfalls in such reporting. The results have not been critically reviewed by experts in the field. In addition, it is not clear as to whether the beneficial effects on cholesterol and triglyceride levels are directly due to the effects of the drug itself or derive from the loss in weight/reduction in food intake by the people in the study. The story mentioned that rimonabant is the first in a new class of drugs that might have use in treating diabetes, but it did not contain much information about its mode of action, how it might be used (alone or in conjunction with other medications and/or lifestyle interventions), or what the nearly 10% discontinuation rate in the trial might suggest. The FDA has raised major concerns about this drug and rates of depression, and that is not clear from the story. Although the title of the story makes it sound like use of this drug in the treatment of type II diabetes is a fait accompli, rather than report on the results from a single story, the article would have better served the reader by presenting the back story – which phases of clinical trials have been completed, what are the concerns associated with the drug's use, and where does it fit in the scheme of diabetes treatment.

The story didn't discuss the cost of the drug. Although the story informed the reader that half of the people taking the rimonabant brought their blood sugar to the range considered to be the target for good glucose control, the story did not provide information about the starting blood-sugar levels for this cohort. In addition, the story mentions in passing that the improvements were linked to weight loss. It is not clear from the story whether weight loss alone was sufficient to elicit the benefits in blood-sugar level observed. The story did an incomplete job on side effects. It did mention nausea, depressed mood and skin tingling "which led to a discontiuation rate of 9.4%." But the FDA has raised major concerns about this drug and rates of depression, and that is not clear from the story. The evidence presented comes from a study just presented at a scientific meeting. See our primer on "News From Scientific Meetings" to learn about the pitfalls in such reporting. Although the results of this study are interesting, it is premature to extrapolate from this to use in treatment. The story did mention that there are currently a number of clinical trials being conducted that should better inform us about the utility of this particular drug in treating and/or managing diabetes. This story presents data on rimonibant out of context. There have been other larger studies of rimonibant that have already been reviewed by the FDA. The FDA has already turned down one request for approval of this drug for the US market citing concerns over side effects, especially depression. This study doesn't go into the details of that history in enough detail. Does not appear to overtly disease monger. Although the story did include the thoughts of two analysts, this story would have been more useful to readers if it had included comments from a clinician or scientist not involved in the study who could have commented on why the benefits of this drug differ from those of others currently used for treating this condition. This story reported on the comparison of rimonabant as compared to placebo in a group of individuals with type-two diabetes whose sugar levels were not adequately controlled using diet alone. Although rimonabant may be the first in a new class of drugs that may someday be used in the treatment of diabetes, the story failed to mention the pharmacologic and lifestyle approaches currently used to treat diabetes. It did not mention the clear evidence that intensive behavioral counseling for weight loss is effective in improving health outcomes in obese adults, and improving blood sugar control in diabetic patients. The fact that the drug discussed in this story is not currently available in the US is not completely clear in this story. The article does mention that this drug is available in Europe, but doesn't clearly state it isn't available in the US. It ends with the prediction that the new data should result in eventual approval of rimonabant by the FDA, though the time frame for such approval is not predictable. It's clear from the story that this is a relatively new drug in a new class of drugs for obesity/diabetes treatment, and that this research is looking at a possible new use for the drug. Because the story turned to several independent sources, it does not appear that it relied solely or largely on a news release.


Protesting Poles engage in drive for abortion rights.

Explanation: Poles took to social media and their cars on Tuesday to oppose proposals set to be discussed in parliament this week to limit abortion rights and to criminalise sex education in conservative Poland.

As restrictions on movement to contain the novel coronavirus prevented street gatherings, protesters driving in their cars blocked off one of Warsaw’s main roundabouts, Rondo Dmowskiego. They honked their horns and held up signs in their car windows, footage on social media seen by Reuters showed. Polish women’s rights groups also called for Poles to protest on their balconies, in shopping queues and by putting posters in their windows. Police, using loud speakers, warned demonstrators they could be held criminally liable if they flouted lockdown rules. Abortion rights are a contentious issue in Poland, with the conservative ruling Law and Justice (PiS) keen to curb the nation’s already restricted access further, despite significant public opposition. Parliament is set to decide later this week whether to debate a proposal submitted for its consideration by anti-abortion activists. It is unclear whether the PiS, which controls the legislature, will back it, however. The party, which campaigns on introducing more religious values into public life, has previously retreated from proposals to nearly ban abortion after a massive public outcry. Campaigners say it would face renewed criticism if it pushed through legislation when restrictions on public life because of the coronavirus pandemic prohibit large-scale demonstrations. “The chaos and anxiety surrounding COVID-19 shouldn’t be used as a distraction from harmful attempts to push through dangerous legislation,” Hillary Margolis, senior women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest human rights groupings, said on Tuesday. “The Polish government’s focus during the pandemic should be to protect people’s health and rights, not diminish them.”  For the PiS, a tough stance against abortion could bolster its support among the conservative electorate ahead of a presidential election scheduled for May 10. Its incumbent, Andrzej Duda, is leading in opinion polls. Under current rules, abortion is allowed in Poland in the case of rape, incest and risks to maternal health or if prenatal tests show serious, irreversible damage to the foetus. The new proposal would eliminate foetal health as an exception, which accounts for the vast majority of legal abortions conducted in Poland. “I believe that killing disabled children is simply murder,” Duda, a PiS ally, told Catholic news outlet Niedziela, earlier this month when asked about the proposal. “If legislation about this crosses my desk, I will certainly sign it into law,” he said. The abortion imitative, alongside a proposal to criminalise sex education in schools, was submitted during parliament’s previous term, before the October 2015 general election, which the PiS won. It must be reviewed by May, according to parliamentary rules. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic on Tuesday also urged parliament to reject the two bills, saying they could restrict women’s rights to safe and legal abortions and children’s rights to sex education. A spokesman as well as PiS members of parliament contacted by Reuters did not respond to requests for comment. #RatujmyKobiety, which translates as #Rescue Women, was one of the trending hashtags on Twitter in Poland on Tuesday.


'You have stolen my dreams,' an angry Thunberg tells U.N. climate summit.

Explanation: Teenage activist Greta Thunberg angrily denounced world leaders on Monday for failing to tackle climate change, unleashing the outrage felt by millions of her peers in the heart of the United Nations by demanding: “How dare you?”

The Swedish campaigner’s brief address electrified the start of a summit aimed at mobilising government and business to break international paralysis over carbon emissions, which hit record highs last year despite decades of warnings from scientists. “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?” said Thunberg, 16, her voice quavering with emotion. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she said. Inspired by Thunberg’s solitary weekly protest outside the Swedish parliament a year ago, millions of young people poured onto the streets around the globe last Friday to demand governments attending the summit take emergency action. “I was very struck by the emotion in the room when some of the young people spoke earlier,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the U.N. Climate Action Summit. “I also want to play my role in listening to them. I think that no political decision maker can remain deaf to this call for justice between generations.”  U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who organised the one-day event to boost the 2015 Paris Agreement to combat global warming, had warned leaders only to turn up if they came armed with concrete action plans, not empty speeches. “Nature is angry. And we fool ourselves if we think we can fool nature, because nature always strikes back, and around the world nature is striking back with fury,” said Guterres, a former Portuguese prime minister. “There is a cost to everything. But the biggest cost is doing nothing. The biggest cost is subsidising a dying fossil fuel industry, building more and more coal plants, and denying what is plain as day: that we are in a deep climate hole, and to get out we must first stop digging,” he said. Nevertheless, there were few new proposals from governments for the kind of rapid change climate scientists say is now needed to avert devastating impacts from warming. The summit has, by contrast, been marked by a flurry of pledges from business, pension funds, insurers and banks to do more. “We have broken the cycle of life,” said Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of French food group Danone (DANO.PA), who announced a “One Planet” initiative with a group of 19 major food companies to transition towards more sustainable farming. “We need your support for shifting agricultural subsidies from killing life into supporting biodiversity,” Faber said. U.S. President Donald Trump, who questions climate science and has challenged every major U.S. regulation aimed at combating climate change, made a brief appearance in the audience of the summit along with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He did not speak but he listened to remarks by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who serves as a U.N. special envoy on climate action, called out Trump’s low-key appearance before he spoke on Monday: “Hopefully our deliberations will be helpful to you as you formulate climate policy,” he said to audience laughter. Merkel announced Germany would double its contribution to a U.N. fund to support less developed countries to combat climate change to 4 billion euros from 2 billion euros. Among the day’s other initial announcements was one from the Marshall Islands, whose president Hilda Heine said she would seek parliamentary approval to declare a climate crisis on the low-lying atoll, already grappling with sea level rise. Heine said her country and New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and others who form the “High Ambition” bloc at U.N. climate negotiations, will commit to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. With climate impacts such as extreme weather, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise unfolding much faster than expected, scientists say the urgency of the crisis has intensified since the Paris accord was agreed. The agreement will enter a crucial implementation phase next year after another round of negotiations in Chile in December. Existing pledges to curb emissions are nowhere near enough to avert catastrophic warming, say scientists, who warn that failing to change course could ultimately put the survival of industrial societies at risk. Laurence Tubiana, a former French diplomat and an architect of the Paris accord, said she drew some comfort from more ambitious pledges by a nucleus of political and business leaders. “When you look at the emergency and you see the level of the response, of course I cannot be happy,” Tubiana told reporters. “The golden nugget I see is this group of countries, companies and cities.”  Over the past year, Guterres has called for no new coal plants to be built after 2020, urged a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and asked countries to map out how to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. While some countries have made progress, some of the biggest emitting countries remain far behind, even as wildfires, heat waves and record temperatures have provided glimpses of the devastation that could lie in store in a warmer world. In a measure of the gap between government action and the ever-louder alarms sounded by climate scientists, the United Nations Development Programme said that 14 nations representing a quarter of global emissions have signalled that they do not intend to revise current climate plans by 2020. Pope Francis, in a message broadcast to the conference,  called for honesty, responsibility and courage to face “one of the most serious and worrying phenomena of our time”.


FDA approves TB pill that cures more hard-to-treat patients.

Explanation: U.S. regulators Wednesday approved a new tuberculosis medicine that shortens and improves treatment for the hardest-to-treat cases, a worsening problem in many poor countries.

Health, General News, Business, Tuberculosis

It’s the first TB drug from a nonprofit group, the TB Alliance. Formed to come up with better treatments, the group developed pretomanid with help from charities and government agencies. The pill was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use with two other antibiotics. Decades of incomplete or ineffective treatment has resulted in TB strains that have become drug resistant and aren’t killed by long-standard medicines. In a key study, the three-pill combo cured about 90% of patients with very drug-resistant TB, usually within 6 months. Patients also infected with HIV, a common situation, fared as well as the other study participants. Pretomanid also appears to stop patients from spreading the deadly bacterial infection after just a few days’ treatment. Until now, the best option cured about two-thirds of patients, took 18 to 30 months and required up to eight kinds of shots and pills. Many patients die or don’t finish treatment, according to TB Alliance CEO Mel Spigelman. Worldwide, TB kills about 1.6 million people annually. It spreads through droplets when someone sick with TB sneezes or coughs. TB attacks the lungs and sometimes other organs. Pretomanid was approved for use with Zyvox and Sirturo, two other antibiotics used for the toughest cases. The three drugs, which have little known resistance, attack tuberculosis in different ways. Potential side effects include liver damage, nerve pain and an irregular heartbeat. The new combo could help over 75,000 patients per year, mostly in India, China, Indonesia, South Africa and Nigeria, Spigelman said. The FDA is the first regulator to approve pretomanid, though there aren’t many severe cases in the U.S. The FDA’s action should bring quick approval in countries where it’s endemic. The alliance will work with the World Health Organization to speed adoption of the treatment in those countries. The alliance is contracting with multiple generic manufacturers to make pretomanid and keep it affordable. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson at https://twitter.com/LindaJ_onPharma . ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


California legislators focus on climate, immigration, roads.

Explanation: California’s Democratically-controlled Legislature kicked off 2017 pledging to stand strong against Republican President Donald Trump and pursue a liberal slate of policies on everything from climate change to health care.

Legislature, Climate, Climate change, Health, Legislation, Immigration, Universal health care, Environment, California, Jerry Brown, Donald Trump

They headed home Friday for the year having reauthorized a major climate change-fighting initiative and hiking taxes to pay for road and bridge repairs. But a proposal to provide universal health care coverage for Californians fell by the wayside. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has until Oct. 15 to sign legislation. Here’s a look at what lawmakers did — or didn’t do — this year. ENVIRONMENT Lawmakers gave another decade of life to California’s cap-and-trade program, the centerpiece of the state’s effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The measure passed with bipartisan support, ultimately costing Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes his job following an insurrection from party activists. Environmental justice groups, meanwhile, argued it was too generous to oil companies. They weren’t mollified by companion legislation to address toxic air around oil refineries. Cap and trade puts limit on carbon emissions and requires polluters to obtain permits to release greenhouse gases under the cap. Some permits are auctioned off, providing billions of dollars in state revenue. Lawmakers voted to spend $1.5 billion of that money on electric vehicle rebates, cleaner trucks and buses and other initiatives to reduce pollution. ROAD REPAIRS — AND A TAX HIKE After years of failed attempts to address much-needed road repairs across California, lawmakers voted to increase the gas tax to generate $5 billion a year. Gas prices will rise 12 cents per gallon in November and 19.5 cents by 2020. Diesel taxes will increase 20 cents, and drivers will pay a new vehicle registration fee ranging from $25 to $175 depending on the value of their vehicles. The money pays primarily for road repairs, not new or expanded highways, though some of it will also fund transit, parks and other projects. The tax increase is at the center of an attempt by Republicans to recall Democratic Sen. Josh Newman, who supported it. HEALTH CARE Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, faced a backlash when he shelved a plan to eliminate health insurance coverage and provide government-funded health care for everyone in California. Rendon said the proposal, which did not have a plan to raise the estimated $400 billion per year that it would cost, was not fully developed. He’s since formed a special committee to explore universal health coverage. Meanwhile, the Legislature approved a drug-price transparency bill that had stalled for two years. It requires pharmaceutical companies to provide advance notice before instituting large price increases. The bill is awaiting a signature or veto from Brown. LAW ENFORCEMENT Lawmakers failed to act on one of their highest-profile law enforcement issues: changing a money bail system that critics say disproportionately punishes poor defendants. They plan to try again next year. But the Legislature did send Brown two bills that would lighten criminal penalties for young offenders. One would bar sentencing juveniles to life without parole, in keeping with recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The other would expand the state’s youthful parole program by requiring parole consideration for offenders who committed their crimes before age 25, up from age 23 in current law. Another would write into state law a federal court order that requires officials to consider releasing inmates age 60 or older who have served at least 25 years in prison, excluding death row and other no-parole inmates along with police killers and third-strike career criminals. Other bills would restrict employers from asking about prior criminal convictions on job applications, allow juvenile offenders to ask a judge to seal records of crimes committed before turning 17 and end additional three-year sentence for repeat drug offenders. IMMIGRATION The centerpiece of California’s effort to push back against Trump’s immigration policies is a plan to limit cooperation of local and state law enforcement with federal immigration agents. Dubbed a “sanctuary state” proposal, it passed the Legislature late Friday and heads to Brown for signature. Under other immigration bills awaiting Brown’s action, immigration officials would need warrants to enter college campuses or work places. And lawmakers approved $30 million in legal and college financial aid for participants in a program that gives temporary legal protection to young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children or by parents who overstayed visas. HOUSING A package of bills to address the state’s affordable housing crisis likewise cleared the Legislature at the last minute, with Brown planning to sign them. The three key bills will place a $4 billion housing bond on the 2018 ballot, streamline development approval in communities that aren’t meeting housing goals, and add a $75 fee on real estate transaction documents. California is home to many of the nation’s most expensive rental markets, and demand for housing outpaces supply by about 1.5 million homes. OTHERS People who don’t pay traffic fines will no longer face a suspension of their driver’s license under a budget bill signed by Brown. That’s one of a handful of bills passed this year aimed at eliminating fines that disproportionately harm poor people. A bill headed to Brown would let Californians choose the third gender option of “non-binary” on driver’s licenses and other state documents. Lawmakers also sent the governor a bill to ban pet stores from selling dogs, cats and rabbits bred at mass-breeding operations, instead requiring them to work with animal shelters and rescue operations. An effort to push back middle and high school start times to 8:30 a.m. or later also failed to pass, but will be addressed next year. ___ Associated Press writer Kathleen Ronayne contributed reporting.


David Attenborough said that "I am unaware of any animal that is as cruel as Israelis" as part of a scathing attack on the country's treatment of the Palestinian people.

Explanation: Sir David Attenborough is a household name in the U.K. and a hugely-respected broadcaster whose pronouncements are closely followed and widely reported in the news media. If he had weighed in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in a way which asserted that Israelis were worse than animals, such comments would certainly have made headline news. No such news coverage exists, though, because Attenborough never made any such comments.

Politics, David Attenborough, israel, middle east

Between 2014 and 2018, a quotation emerged online which purported to show the English broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough comparing Israeli people to ‘animals’ for their alleged treatment of the Palestinians. Attenborough’s alleged statement was turned into a meme which read as follows: I am not aware of any animal that is so cruel as the Israelis — not even crocodiles. They bomb schools, hospitals, refugee camps, orphanages, UN feeding stations, water works, power plants, ambulances, kids playing on the beach. They put millions of people in siege. They shoot children going to school. They kidnap kids and harvest their organs. They inject prisoners with disease pathogens before releasing them. They murder by land sea and air. And worst of all, they slander their defenceless victims as “terrorists”. David Attenborough, July 21st 2014. These words also appear on lists of “David Attenborough quotes” and were prominently cited by the Indian journalist Aijaz Zaka Syed in an August 2014 column he wrote for the Saudi newspaper Arab News on the subject of Israel’s then ongoing “Operation Protective Edge” in Gaza. Syed prefaced the quotation with “As an agitated David Attenborough, the celebrated British environmentalist, noted …” The quotation has almost always appeared with a specific date attached to it: “July 21st, 2014.” It’s possible the date was used to add to the statement’s appearance of authenticity — not only did Attenborough say these things, the logic goes, but we know exactly when he said them. However, the inclusion of this date actually allows us to conclude that the quotation is not a genuine one. On 21 July 2014, a user with the pseudonym “David Attenborough” commented under an article on the Iranian news web site PressTV. That article has since been removed, but an archived version shows that the headline proclaimed “Israel drops white phosphorus bombs on Gazans,” and in the comments section of that article a “David Attenborough” wrote: I am unaware of any animal that is as cruel as Israelis — not even crocodiles. They bomb schools, hospitals, refugee camps, orphanages, UN feeding stations, water works, power plants, ambulances, kids playing on the beach. They put millions of people in a siege. They shoot children going to school. They kidnap kids and harvest their organs. They inject prisoners with disease pathogens before releasing them. They murder by land sea and air. And worst of all, they slander their defenceless victims as “terrorists”. The distinctive date and time format from this comment (“5:8 PM”) was carried over into some later versions of the meme, which establishes that the 2014 PressTV article was the original source of this quotation. One version of the meme even falsely described Attenborough as an MP (member of parliament), further undermining its credibility:  Attenborough did not say those things about Israel. The date and time included with the quotation since its emergence online establishes that it originated with a comment made by an unknown person using the moniker “David Attenborough” on an Iranian news web site.


Testing for more breast cancer genes offers useful information

Explanation: This story does a nice job of describing a recent study that looked at the clinical validity of several cancer genetic test panels. The study looked at a group of women who were very high risk for breast cancer but tested negative for the BRCA1/2 genes and who were tested for other, potentially high-risk genes. It describes the potential harms associated with such test panels, touches on the authors’ reported conflicts of interest, and avoids disease mongering. It could have done better by specifying costs, interviewing independent experts, and by putting this evidence in context — explaining some general issues with genetic testing and their analytical as well as clinical validity. About 5-10% of breast cancer cases in the US are linked to hereditary genetic mutations, the two best-known mutations being BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in dozens of other genes have been studied and identified as possible risk factors for breast cancer. Myriad Genetics owned a patent on these two tests until 2013, when the Supreme Court ruled that genes couldn’t be patented, thus invalidating their patents and their status as the only company that could offer BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Since this ruling, other companies have begun to offer multiple genetic test panels that are now marketed to doctors and to patients alike. The main question behind these, and other (including non-cancer), genetic tests is what to do with the information generated by them. Are identified genetic mutations “clinically actionable”? Are the results meaningful enough to allow the medical team to alter or tailor clinical management? The availability of various panels of genetic tests, for cancer as well as for other diseases, has been controversial in the medical community. At issue are the “analytical validity” of the test (Can the test accurately detect whether a specific genetic variant is present or absent? ), as well as the “clinical validity” of the test (Can the test provide information about diagnosis, treatment, management, or prevention of a disease that will be helpful to a patient or to a consumer?)

The article mentions that the tests themselves “are not more expensive than testing for the BRCA mutations alone,” but it doesn’t state what those BRCA-only panels cost. In addition, insurance coverage for panel testing is not as uniform as it is for BRCA 1/2 testing. There are established guidelines for BRCA 1/2 testing from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network that most insurance companies honor. There are not yet established guidelines for panel testing. We appreciate the nod to cost, but we thought a little bit more detail was needed here for a Satisfactory rating. The story relays the benefits described in the study for the study population. It notes that 63 (about 4%) out of more than 1,000 women who test negative for BRCA mutations tested positive for non-BRCA mutations. “Of those, the researchers decided that 33 would have been considered for additional screening or prevention measures based on their results.” That description earns to the story a Satisfactory rating. Additional details on what screening and prevention measures might be recommended for which women — and some statement about whether those results are likely to apply to people outside of the study — would have been welcome. Potential harms, including having uncertain results leading to psychological difficulties, were mentioned in a quote from the lead author, who also discussed the complexity of interpreting the results. The article also quoted him as saying that misinterpretation could potentially lead to “a drastic, unnecessary surgical procedure”. The story describes the evidence as presented in the original article and includes some restraining comments from the researchers about the complexity of interpreting the tests and the fact that they are not advocating for broad-based testing. However, there are various major questions and issues related to genetic test panels themselves, including their “analytic validity”  (the degree of accuracy with which a test detects the presence or absence of a mutation), and “clinical validity” (how well the mutation is related to the presence, absence, or risk of a specific disease), which are not mentioned. We would like to have seen those terms – key issues when reporting on the utility of genetic testing — mentioned and discussed somewhere in the article. (Or if not those specific terms then the issues that they are meant to describe.) This is important because this study looked at two specific panels, but gene mutations included in some other tests may have uncertain analytic/clinical validity. Related to these issues, the story doesn’t clarify that while the management of the women with positive “panel” test results might have changed because of the result, it’s not clear from this study whether their ultimate outcome (e.g. rate of cancer diagnoses or survival) was improved or to what extent because of the additional testing. Finally, it would have been great to see mention of the CDC’s ACCE model which is a “publicly-available analytical process for evaluating scientific data on emerging genetic tests”. There was no disease mongering here. Breast cancer is a real concern to many women. The article mentions that several of the study’s authors have links to the industry and to companies that produce the genetic test panels. The story also quotes from an editorial written by an expert who wasn’t involved with the study. Conducting an interview with an outside expert might have unearthed additional useful context, but the story is pretty solid here as it stands. The piece in itself is about an investigation of the clinical usefulness of additional (alternative) genetic panels to the “routine” BRCA1/2 tests. So the story meets our standard here. But as mentioned before, there are serious concerns about the use and availability of genetic test panels and it would have been great to add some context. Although availability isn’t explicitly addressed, the story does note that women and their physicians are “ordering a wide selection of multiplex tests daily,” from which one can infer that they are available. The story could have been more specific as to which panels were tested here and what others are available from physicians and even online. A good review is included in a table in this recent article from the NEJM. The novelty of the research — the fact that there’s now some evidence that these tests may provide actionable information — is discussed. It would have been great to put this research and the tests themselves in context with recent legal and scientific advances in the field. The story references an interview with the study’s lead author, so we can be sure it went beyond this news release issued about the study.


Congress, Polls and Public Opinion, California, Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Do voters really have a higher opinion of hemorrhoids -- hemorrhoids! -- than Congress? Do they really prefer root canals, traffic jams and colonoscopies over this branch of government? Really? That’s Arnold Schwarzenegger’s colorful claim from a February 2017 video that went viral. He repeated the allegations in an April 12, 2017 post on Facebook. In the video, he points out the deep disdain for Congress but also notes that nearly all members are re-elected due to what Schwarzenegger calls a rigged political redistricting system, or gerrymandering. Here’s his claim in its raw form: "Here are some of the things that are more popular than Congress: hemorrhoids, Nickelback, traffic jams, cockroaches, root canals, colonoscopies, herpes. Even herpes, they couldn’t beat herpes in the polls." The former California governor and movie star has vowed to raise awareness about gerrymandering now that’s he’s finished as host of The New Celebrity Apprentice and squashed rumors he might run for U.S. Senate. While we know approval ratings for Congress are low, we wondered if they’re really as pathetic as Schwarzenegger wants us to believe. We set out on a fact check. Our research This isn’t the first time we’ve checked Schwarzenegger’s claims on Congress and gerrymandering. In February, we rated his assertion that, "The average margin of victory in the House of Representatives was 37%." He was referring to the average percentage point victory for both Democrats and Republicans in the 2016 election. We asked Schwarzenegger’s spokesman for evidence backing up his claim about Congress’ pitiful popularity. He pointed to results from surveys conducted by Public Policy Polling in January 2013 and October 2013. The polling company is known for conducting some tongue-in-cheek surveys and works with liberal clients. In the polls on Congress’ popularity, it asked hundreds of registered voters if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things. Before we tackle those results, let’s look at Congress’ overall approval ratings in these recent PPP polls: -- January 2013: Congress’s overall favorability rating among voters was just 9 percent favorable and 85 percent unfavorable. -- October 2013: Congress’ overall favorability rating dipped slightly to 8  percent favorable with the same 85 percent unfavorable. -- March 2017: Congress’ overall favorability rating nudged up to 11 percent with only 68 percent of voters disapproving of it. Now, let’s tackle those head-to-head results: Hemorrhoids -- 53 percent of voters said they had a higher opinion of hemorrhoids than Congress, which was favored by only 31 percent in this matchup, according to the October 2013 survey Nickelback -- 39 percent of voters said they had a higher opinion of the rock band Nickelback than Congress, which was favored by only 32 percent Traffic jams -- 56 percent of voters said they had a higher opinion of traffic jams, than Congress, which was favored by only 34 percent Root canals -- 56 percent of voters said they had a higher opinion of this dental procedure than Congress, which was favored by only 32 percent Colonoscopies -- 58 percent of voters said they had a higher opinion of this invasive procedure than Congress, which was favored by only 31 percent Herpes The PPP surveys didn’t ask about herpes. It did ask, however, about gonorrhea. And Congress was still less popular than that venereal disease. A spokesman for the company that produced Schwarzenegger’s video pointed to a 2011 CNN op-ed where comedian and radio show host Dean Obeidallah claimed Congress was less popular than herpes, without citing evidence. Our ruling Arnold Schwarzenegger recently claimed: "Here are some of the things that are more popular than Congress: hemorrhoids, Nickelback, traffic jams, root canals, colonoscopies, herpes. Even herpes, they couldn’t beat herpes in the polls." Surveys by the Public Policy Polling mostly back-up Schwarzenegger’s dramatic claim. It should be noted, however, that the polls were conducted about four years ago and don’t include a comparison of Congress to herpes. Congress’ overall approval rating has remained in the dumps since that time, rising only slightly from 8 percent to 11 percent. It’s disapproval rating has, however, shrunk somewhat from 85 percent to 68 percent. We rate Schwarzenegger’s claim . – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.


The CIA found a "dead man's switch" on the computer of the deceased father of a doctor treating Hillary Clinton for dementia.

Explanation: Before the recent series of Clinton-related fabrications,Sorcha Faal claimed President Obama had ordered the military to attack the city of Charleston with nuclear weapons (which didn’t happen), Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama’s purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was terminated for misconduct), and Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were engaged in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of Monsanto.

Junk News, clinton body count, daniel fleck, dnc deaths

In July 2015, Hillary Clinton’s personal physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack, issued a public letter affirming that the candidate is “in excellent condition and fit to serve as President of the United States.” Presidential candidates typically have their doctors release such statements, but this instance was particularly noteworthy because the Democratic presidential nominee has been beset by unfounded rumors holding that she is prone to seizures and is concealing some serious neurological condition. In August 2016, someone issued a hoax “leak” of purported medical records from Dr. Bardack supposedly documenting that, contrary to what the physician had asserted in public, Hillary Clinton was experiencing “more frequent” seizures and showed signs of “advancing” dementia. Shortly afterwards, the notorious conspiracy-pushing outlet WhatDoesItMean.com  published a fabricated article reporting that Vincent Fleck, the “father of the doctor treating [Hillary Clinton] for dementia” and the “leaker” of those records, had died under mysterious circumstances: The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is reporting today that the continuing to grow list of mysterious deaths surrounding US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has increased after the father of the doctor treating her for dementia suddenly died this past weekend — and who is believed to have been behind the leaking of her most secret medical records. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] The SVR first became “alerted/alarmed” regarding the circumstances of this latest mysterious death associated with Hillary Clinton on 17 July, this report says, when a “known/suspected” Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “hit team” traveled about 70 kilometers (44 miles) from their New York City “base/headquarters” to a small village named Mount Kisco, both being located in New York State. Upon arriving in Mount Kisco, this report continues, this CIA “hit team” broke into a specialized small computer security companies annex office named Right Click Solutions, located at 322 East Main Street, but were “shocked/surprised” by the unexpected arrival of an off duty employee — who immediately called the local police forces when he noticed the break in — and who were only able to obtain a single laptop computer. An “electronic interrogation” of this company and its customers to ascertain the CIA’s interest in it, this report says, revealed an anomaly where this computer security company had installed a “Snowden-like dead man’s switch” on the personal computer of man named Vincent Fleck. [Note: The “dead man’s switch” refered to by the SVR in this report relates to a software programme that will automatically distribute information should something happen to the owner.] It is true that news accounts reported the death of a Vincent Fleck of Mount Kisco, who passed away from drowning or a medical event suffered while competing in a triathalon in early August 2016. However, all the rest of the story about a CIA “hit team” finding a “dead man’s switch” on Vincent Fleck’s computer is a fabrication, as is the claim about Dr. Daniel Fleck’s treating Hillary Clinton for dementia. (It’s rather unlikely a physical therapist with a regular practice specializing in sports injuries would be furtively treating a high-profile politician campaigning throughout the country for dementia.) As reflected in the example tweets reproduced above, many readers inferred that Dr. Daniel Fleck himself had died mysteriously, but we confirmed with a beleaguered employee at his practice (beset with phone calls about the conspiracy rumors) that the physician was alive and well. Vincent Fleck was the fourth individual “connected” to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com as part of a series of fabrications suggesting people who posed risks to Clinton’s power were being serially murdered. Previously, the outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton’s e-mail, and claimed former UN official John Ashe was murdered on the eve of scheduled testimony against Clinton. The site also used the tragic unsolved murder of Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich to germinate a baseless conspiracy theory that ultimately caused the young man’s family additional sorrow in an already harrowing period of grief. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor’s office affirmed Ashe’s legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. Rich’s murder remains unsolved, but his family has pled with the public not to engage in painful speculation about the circumstances of his killing. All four rumors were started by a blogger known by the nom de plume “Sorcha Faal.”  RationalWiki says of Faal’s “sensational” and “outrageous” WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site that: Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of “reports” published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don’t think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don’t contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish.


A Russian woman was embalmed alive due to the intravenous administration of formalin.

Explanation: What's true: Ekaterina Fedyaeva died after a medical error resulted in her mistakenly being poisoned with formalin. What's false: Fedyaeva was not given formalin intravenously and did not experience the functional equivalent of being "embalmed alive."

On 9 April 2018, a number of tabloid-like news reports suggested that a Russian woman had been “embalmed alive” after doctors mistakenly administered formalin intravenously instead of saline: Russian woman ’embalmed alive’ after being given solution with formaldehyde instead of saline drip https://t.co/ft8UNewMj7 pic.twitter.com/Gny5xg9Cbz — National Post (@nationalpost) April 10, 2018   One of the first articles to appear reported that 28-year-old Ekaterina Fedyaeva had been “embalmed alive”: Ekaterina Fedyaeva’s mother has accused medics of ‘murder’ after they put her daughter on a formalin drip – a solution contain formaldehyde – instead of saline. She was given a drip normally infused into the veins of the dead to prevent decomposition. Other news reports were light on details about the medical mishap, stating only that Fedyaeva had been given “formalin, a solution that contains formaldehyde — which is used to preserve dead bodies.” An article from the Russian news agency TACC (translated) clarified the chain of events, reporting that formalin had mistakenly been used instead of saline during a relatively routine removal of ovarian cysts: On March 15 [2018], medical personnel mistakenly introduced formalin instead of saline into the abdominal cavity of a 28-year-old female patient during a routine operation. After detecting what happened, doctors performed a [cleaning] of the abdominal cavity to remove the substance from the body. The next day, the woman was transferred to the Ulyanovsk Regional Clinical Hospital, then for the most effective course of treatment the patient was sent to the FGBU of the State Scientific Center of the All-Russian Medical Center named after A.I. Burnazyan FMBA of Russia. As previously reported, investigators of the regional SS of the Criminal Code initiated a criminal case of causing serious harm to human health through negligence as a result of improper performance by a person of their professional duties (Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The routine surgery took place on 15 March 2018. Early local reports contradicted the repeated claim that Fedyaeva was placed on a “formalin drip,” stating that an “unknown nurse” washed the surgical site with formalin instead of saline. Four days later, Fedyaeva was transported to Moscow where doctors worked to undo the damage caused by the administered formalin, but the patient succumbed to her injuries on 5 April 2018. Ongoing accounts published by local news sources provide a relatively clear timeline. No formalin drip was substituted for saline, nor was the patient injected with formalin. Initial English-language reports claimed Fedyaeva had been “given a drip normally infused into the veins of the dead to prevent decomposition,” suggesting that the medical mishap amounted to an accidental embalming, but according to morticians that was not even close to the case. In an assessment of the claims, mortician Caleb Wilde wrote that a “slow, intravenous drip of formalin would have ripped apart the insides of Ekaterina Fedyaeva.” Wilde repeated his skepticism that the story occurred in the manner reported, adding that “formalin has a potent smell … that burns when you breathe it in … whoever put formalin in the IV bag (and I don’t know the protocols for filling IV bags) were either without a sense of smell, extremely dense, or they did it on purpose”: This per the often unreliable tabloid The Sun, “Ekaterina Fedyaeva was said to be undergoing routine surgery at a hospital in Ulyanovsk, in the Volga Federal District of Russia, when the hospital provided her on a formalin drip, which contains formaldehyde and is used to prevent corpses from decomposing.” I’m still hoping that this is some elaborate hoax. But it doesn’t seem to be. This is a once in a billion kind of mistake that could have only been made through a confluence of poorly designed and poorly practiced medical protocols. Pure formalin is a much strong[er] solution that the embalming fluid we use on dead bodies. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring gas that is highly dissolvable in water. When it is dissolved in water, it’s called “formalin”, which is the liquid that was intravenously given to Ekaterina. Formalin is 40% formaldehyde. Embalming fluid is rated by formaldehyde index: strong embalming fluid has an index of 28% to 36%, medium fluid has an index of 19% to 27%, and weak fluid is 10% to 18% index. Even our strongest embalming fluid has less formaldehyde than pure formalin, and even much less when we mix the embalming fluid with water. After we mix the embalming fluid with water, the solution has a much lower amount of formaldehyde, often around 2%. In other words, what was injected into Ekaterina — if it was formalin with 40% formaldehyde — could have been up to 20 times stronger than the embalming fluid I would use in my prep room. With arterial fluid that is 2%, I can effectively harden and preserve most cases. This is how it happens: “Formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde fixes tissue or cells by irreversibly connecting a primary amine group in a protein molecule with a nearby nitrogen in a protein or DNA molecule through a -CH2- linkage called a Schiff base” … To put it simply: formaldehyde literally rips apart tissue on a molecular level. Formalin or formaldehyde is extremely toxic and can easily be absorbed through the skin. Intravenous (or IV) fluids are used to infuse medications or fluids into the bloodstream of a living person. This process is effective for the living because of the process of circulation. As Wilde notes, the procedures of embalming differ dramatically from those of IV administration. Although embalming fluid (which is around five percent formaldehyde) is eventually introduced via a completely different apparatus, that process takes place only after the cadaver is drained of blood and fluids. Another question posed by many readers involved presence of formalin in the operating room. It is typically used for routine histology, and it was likely intended for the preservation and analysis of tissue collected during the operation. We contacted Wilde with additional questions about that subject, and he explained: Formalin is not something that would be found in a funeral home’s prep room. There are two main types of embalming fluids that embalmers use: one is arterial fluid and the other is cavity fluid. Arterial fluid generally comes in a 16-ounce bottle that we generally dilute in water. Formalin is 40% formaldehyde. Bottled arterial fluid ranges from a weaker 10% to a stronger 38% of formaldehyde. When we’re ready to use the arterial fluid for embalming, we then dilute it in water which should result in a fluid that is somewhere between the range of 1.5% to 2% formaldehyde. This fluid is then pumped through the arterial system by means of an embalming machine. We make an incision in an artery, which is where the arterial fluid enters. And we make an incision in a vein, which is where the blood is forced out of the deceased’s body. The embalming fluid should displace the blood and dissipate throughout the entirety of the arterial system. There are some parts of the body that aren’t thoroughly reached by the arterial system, such as the abdominal and chest cavities. For those areas, we use a large syringe-like instrument called a trocar which is the tool we use to reach the cavities. That fluid is much stronger than the arterial fluid. The cavity fluid that we use at our funeral home is 20% formaldehyde. Unlike arterial fluid, we do not dilute cavity fluid with water. Although I do not use formalin, I understand that it is generally injected to preserve specimens in the same way we use a trocar, except with a smaller instrument like a syringe. Unlike arterial fluid, formalin is not injected through the arterial system but through a syringe-type instrument that is fanned throughout the entirety of the tissue. Formalin is so strong that if it were injected through the arterial system with an embalming machine, I would imagine that the strength of the fluid would make distribution difficult. It’s likely that formalin would in effect cauterize the capillaries and render the embalming incomplete, resulting in some of the tissue being unreached by the fluid and more susceptible to decomposition. Fedyaeva’s death remains under investigation, but initial reports indicated that a nurse mistakenly used formalin instead of saline to wash a surgical site. The patient was eventually transported to Moscow in efforts to reverse the damage, but she died a few days later. It appears that reports about inadvertent substitution of formalin for saline was correct, but the rest of the tragic medical mishap was misrepresented in many news accounts.


Beer brewers toast Australian gluten-free barley.

Explanation: Australian scientists say they have developed the world’s first WHO-approved “gluten-free” barley, a breakthrough for global beer manufacturers which have had to use alternatives to barley such as rice and sorghum to brew gluten-free beer.

Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) said on Friday it had sold 70 tonnes of the new Kebari barley to Germany’s largest brewer Radeberger, which has produced a beer to be sold in local supermarkets. “Gluten-free barley will be highly sought after, with European brewers particularly interested,” said John O’Brien, a brewer of gluten-free beer in Melbourne. Gluten-free is one of the world’s fastest growing consumer trends with the market expected to grow more than 10 percent a year until 2020 to be worth $7.59 billion, a 2015 report by MarketsandMarket estimated. European drinkers, already among the world’s largest consumers of beer per capita, have embraced gluten-free more than other regions, brewers said, with several large manufacturers releasing gluten-free brands.One of the problems brewers have faced in making gluten-free beer without barley, or barley with the gluten stripped out, is that beer drinkers often complain it doesn’t taste like traditionally brewed beer. “A true gluten-free barley variety is a true game changer, there is going to be a massive market for the product,” said Phin Ziebell, an agribusiness economist at National Australia Bank. While the new “gluten-free” Kebari barley actually contains minute amounts of gluten, the CSIRO said it had 10,000 times less gluten than traditional strains, or about 5 parts of gluten per million, well below the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 20 parts per million for classification as a gluten-free grain. Barley is primarily used for animal feed and alcohol production and the development of a “gluten-free” barley is expected to boost Australia’s ability to capitalize on the growing global gluten-free market. “As it expands, certainly some growers will benefit, this will be a premium grain,” said Phil Larkin, research manager for healthy cereals at CSIRO. The new “gluten-free” barley is part of Australia’s push to become Asia’s delicatessen, supplying premium agricultural products like finger limes, olive oil, honey, wagyu beef and organic baby food to the region’s growing middle class. While the diagnosis of gluten-related disorders such as coeliac disease has increased, the majority of consumer growth in the sector has come from non suffers. However, gluten-free beer has seen only small gains, curbed by differing global standards of what is considered gluten-free. The United States plans to tighten requirements on manufacturers of gluten-free beer to prove their claims. Kebari barley is not a product of genetically modified farming, but a decades program of breeding out the gluten by cross-breeding low gluten barley varieties, said the CSIRO. Production of the new strain of barley, which has been patented by CSIRO, will be strictly controlled within Australia, limiting farmer access to seeds, in order to prevent cross contamination, said the government-funded scientific body.


FDA warns of asbestos in Claire’s makeup; company disputes.

Explanation: U.S. regulators on Tuesday warned people not to use certain Claire’s makeup products after samples tested positive for asbestos, but the retailer disputed the findings.

The Food and Drug Administraiton said it issued the warning because it said Claire’s refused to comply with its request for a recall, and that the agency doesn’t have the power to force one. In a statement, Claire’s noted that it removed the three products identified by the FDA from its stores “out of an abundance of caution,” and that it’s also removing any remaining talc-based cosmetics. But the company said the FDA’s test results mischaracterize fibers as asbestos. It said it tried to discuss the matter with the FDA, but the agency moved ahead with its warning. The FDA conducted the tests after learning of reports of asbestos in products sold by retailers Claire’s and Justice in 2017. A Justice representative noted that it quickly recalled products in 2017. Justice said one set of its tests showed no evidence of asbestos, while a second round of testing showed trace amounts. Claire’s removed products from stores but didn’t issue a recall. The FDA said Tuesday its tests, conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and AMA Analytical Services, confirmed asbestos in three Claire’s products and one Justice product. The FDA said the three products people shouldn’t use are Claire’s Eye Shadows, batch/lot No: 08/17; Claire’s Compact Powder, batch/lot No. : 07/15; and Claire’s Contour Palette, batch/lot No. : 04/17. The agency said it was not aware of anyone being sickened by the makeup. Asbestos fibers can get stuck in the lungs and it can cause cancer, but the greatest risk is to people with frequent, long term exposure to it. Cosmetics do not have to be reviewed or approved by the FDA. On Tuesday, the agency said it plans to collect information on how companies ensure the talc they use is free from asbestos. The FDA also asked companies to register their products and ingredient lists on its website, but noted that doing so is not required.