As the school year revs into gear, food allergies will weigh heavily on many parents’ minds. According to the United States Center for Disease Control, more than 3 million children enrolled in schools had a food allergy in 2007, up nearly 20 percent from a decade earlier.  Many of these food allergies are life threatening, with kids going into anaphylactic shock after unknowingly consuming peanut, milk, or soy products.

While there are many guidelines for schools, there is no wide sweeping federal mandate regarding students dealing with food allergies. Many students avoid allergic reactions by sitting at special peanut-free lunch tables or classrooms for severely allergic students. However, many parents protest segregating students because of their food allergies.  Another group of parents want to completely ensure their children’s safety, and encourage peanut-free zones in the cafeteria. Other parents want a complete ban on peanut products: unfortunately, it is very difficult to completely ban peanut butter and other related products from schools. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are often the centerpiece of a child’s lunch, as they are easy to make, nutritious, and relatively inexpensive.

Still, allergies have grown into a critical issue at many schools throughout the country. More children and adults have food allergies than ever before.  According to a study at Children’s Hospital in Boston, Mass., the number of food related allergic reactions in children doubled from 164 cases in 2001 to 391 just five years later in 2006. The study also noted an increase in anaphylaxis, one of the most dangerous types of allergic reactions. When a person goes into anaphylactic shock, they may experience sudden rash, breathing issues, dizziness, vomiting, and a dramatic blood pressure drop. More than 30,000 individuals, children and adults alike, will go to the emergency room for allergic reactions to food every year.

Nut Allergies a Rising Concern in American Schools

While some children outgrow their allergies, some still suffer from food allergies well into adulthood. Those allergic to peanuts and tree nuts suffer from more severe reactions, and they are also less likely to outgrow their allergies as they grow older. As a result, managing care for food allergies in colleges and universities has grown more important in the 21^st century.

Colleges are working hard to give students with food allergies safe food alternatives. Although an estimated 4 percent of the population has a food allergy, only a small percentage of these college students ask staff for help finding alternatives. Still, many colleges offer frozen meals and gluten free bread for such students. At Franklin and Marshall College, dining halls are completely nut free and foods like granola are clearly marked so allergic students can avoid them.  Other schools like Tufts provide online menus with clickable ingredient lists, and food cards made for every meal on the menu to ensure safety.

At the College of the Holy Cross, students have access to a wide variety of allergy free meals. Students can pre-order such meals from the campus dining hall, where staff makes meals specifically for the student.  In the case that the student forgets to order meals in advance, the dining hall boasts an allergy free kitchen stocked with supplies necessary to make a meal. This approach allows students to eat with friends despite their allergies.

While many universities across the country are working hard to improve food quality for students, there is still much to be done for younger students.  It is imperative that we make school cafeterias and mealtimes safe for our children, no matter what their age or allergy.

In the early years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, receiving an HIV diagnosis seemed like a death sentence. During the 1980s, with little scientific knowledge about the virus, doctors could not treat HIV/AIDS and AIDS deaths rose rapidly from year to year.  The AIDS death rate peaked in the mid 1990s, finally slowing down when doctors began administering highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), drugs which substantially increased the lifespan of an HIV positive person.

HIV/AIDS Drug Assistance Programs Impacted By Recession

Now, HIV positive people depend on HAART to live. Drug therapy for HIV/AIDS is incredibly expensive: one Florida man’s medications cost him over $4,500 monthly, ringing up at around $54,000 every year.  Most HIV positive people simply can’t afford the skyrocketing costs of their prescriptions. Many of these people instead rely on the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP), where they only have to pay $12,000 for their drugs.  Currently, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs serve around 170,000 who are unable to buy these mind-numbingly expensive drugs.

However, because of the recession, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs have been hit hard.  In order to balance strained budgets, many states have squeezed their ADAPs, forcing thousands of people nationwide onto waiting lists and off their prescriptions. Many states have either created more strict requirements for enrollments or trimmed their prescription drug formularies in order to keep the programs afloat. At the same time, more and more people are applying for assistance because of the high unemployment levels, squeezing the ADAP’s resources even more.

The effectiveness of HAART has also contributed to the ADAP crunch.  Because of drug therapy, HIV positive people are living longer because the drugs more successfully slow the progression from HIV to AIDS.  At the same time, the CDC’s HIV testing initiatives has resulted in more people knowing their status sooner, adding even more people to the ADAP pool.

Some people on the waiting list have been able to procure drugs from other resources: some pharmaceutical companies offer free or discounted drugs to qualifying patients on a temporary basis. Still, gaps in HAART can have deadly consequences for patients.  HAART most effectively suppresses HIV when used consistently: when patients are off drugs, the HIV viral load increases and can even reduce the effectiveness of those drugs.  When patients skip doses, the AIDS virus becomes resistant to that drug.

Ultimately, these programs need more funding. The government made a commitment to HIV/AIDS when it began promoting increased HIV testing and renewed the Ryan White Act, and it should thus help defray the costs of drug assistance. The states are not economically equipped to fund these programs.  The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors have requested $126 million dollars worth of funding to keep their programs afloat and patients alive, a number which dwarfs President Obama’s proposed $20 million in additional funding. Meanwhile, several Republican senators want the whole amount to be paid for from Department of Health and Human Service stimulus.

For people relying on state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, enrollment in an ADAP can mean the difference between life and death. It is imperative that the United States continue its commitment in the war against HIV by increasing funding for such crucial programming and in turn, save lives.

Medical experts have developed a new morning after pill that claims to be better than any other emergency contraceptive pill.  It is called ellaOne.  The attraction: it works for 5 days! You can take the pill for up to five days after unprotected sex and it will work as well as if you took it the morning after.  Its leading competitor, Plan B, only works for up to 3 days after unprotected sex.  This could be the answer to many unwanted pregnancies.

Will EllaOne Be Available in the US?

However, as expected, it raises the ongoing abortion debate.  This new pill, ellaOne, delays ovulation and therefore inhibits conception.  It does so by preventing the progesterone hormone, a hormone that causes females to ovulate, from being released in the female body.  Conversely, those who are on the pro-life side of the debate claim that it is an abortion pill.  They believe that the pill does not prevent this hormone from being released.  Rather, the fact that it works for five days leads them to believe that it stops the fertilized egg from being implanted in the female’s uterus; therefore killing the fertilized egg.  This being the case, then they consider it an abortion.  If the pill was used the morning after, fertilization may not have taken place.  But, by the fifth day fertilization has taken place.  Nevertheless, some assert that the pill does both: it delays ovulation and prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.  So the question is: how does it really work?

This debate has not stopped the pill from being released.  Medical experts find that there are more benefits to it than drawbacks.  No major side effects of the pill on women’s health have been found.  If you take the EllaOne Pill within this five day window, there is only a 1.8% chance of you becoming pregnant.  Whereas, with Plan B you have a 2.6% chance of becoming pregnant.

EllaOne is not yet available in the US.  There was a recent assembly in the US where the Federal advisory panel of medical experts met to discuss the potential sale of ellaOne in the US.  These 11 experts unanimously voted in approval of the emergency contraceptive pill.  Now, the FDA will take this vote into consideration as they decide whether or not to allow the sale of ellaOne in the US.  If the FDA approves the pill, it will be available in the US by prescription only; not over the counter.  However, you will need to check with your health insurance provider to see if this contraceptive pill is covered by your insurance plan.  This final decision by the FDA could take up to several months.  EllaOne is currently sold in France (where it originated) and Great Britain.

Numerous studies have proven loving (and being loved by) our pets keeps us healthy. In addition to the wonderful companionship and assistance that service animals provide for their owners such as the blind or children with autism, pet ownership has been shown to lower one’s risk for heart ailments. Some studies have even shown dogs are able to detect health problems like seizures and diabetic attacks. With these facts in mind, the New York Times Well blog recently asked readers “How does your pet keep you healthy?”

My dog Lace has kept me healthy by being a great exercise buddy. When she was a puppy, Lace was the runt of her Golden Retriever litter. But by the time she was two, Lace had grown to a very portly 100 pounds – far exceeding the healthy weight for her breed. We took her to the veterinarian to make sure she was clear of all possible thyroid or other problems, and she was given a clean bill of health. The veterinarian told us that because we tended to feed Lace table scraps after dinner, she was gaining too much weight. We needed to keep her on a strict diet of diet dog food and exercise her much more regularly to ensure that her doggy obesity didn’t impact her health.

My Dog Before Our Workouts - Such a Porker!

Around this time, I had decided to sign up for a club volleyball team. To get both of us back in shape, Lace and I decided to become jogging partners. We ran around my neighborhood each day, starting out slow and eventually working up to hour-long jogs down the hilly streets of our town. Lace was even more enthusiastic about our plan than I was! Even when I saw a hill ahead and started to slow down, she just kept pushing, encouraging me to run farther. I’m happy to report that both Lace and I have managed to stay in shape by continuing our daily runs, and that she’s now a healthy 75 pounds.

This morning, President Obama spoke to the press about the Gulf Oil Spill. The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast has given us little predictability as to what the future holds for this catastrophic event.  This is the worst oil spill in US history; therefore raising many questions that have never been answered before.  With tar balls now showing up on the beaches in Galveston County Texas (some 400 miles away from the source of the spill) the consequences of this spill are very much unknown.  The health of the people in the Gulf Coast area is obviously an immediate concern.

Little research has been carried out on the long-term effects of oil spills on people’s health.  Those who are currently doing research on the potential health risks of oil presume that most of the health concerns will be short term.  However, they do fear potential long-term damage to the liver, lungs, and kidneys.  These short-term and long-term health concerns would be resultant of the oil fumes that workers are subject to while cleaning up the spill.  Other research has found that those working to clean up the oil may experience temporary DNA damage that the body will repair itself over time.

On a more positive note, physical contact with the oil does not pose many health threats.  The oil itself is potentially harmless. Although some people may experience a rash from skin contact with oil, this is only temporary skin irritation.  Health officials announce that you are not in notable danger if you touch or swallow small amounts of oil, but it is not advised to do so.

What consequences will the Gulf Oil Spill have for human health?

How we choose to manage the present circumstances of the BP Oil Spill can be controlled.  Hence, BP has organized clean-up crews in a particular manner.  Complaints have been recorded of an irrational amount of volunteers “standing around” at clean-up sights.  What they don’t realize is that this particular strategy has been arranged to prevent potential health risks to the volunteers.  The volunteers at the spill clean-up spill sites are working in near 100 degree temperatures.  Extended water breaks and shorter working periods reduces the potential of heat-related health risks, such as heatstroke and dehydration.  It also increases the clean-up efficiency of the volunteers

One health concern that has been deemed inevitable is the mental health of residents in the area of the BP Oil Spill.  Mental health issues are bound to arise because it has happened in every past oil spill.  Residents in the areas affected by the oil spill have higher rates of depression and other mental health issues as a result of the spill.  This ensues as a direct result of damages to the resident’s homes, beaches, and jobs.  People lose their jobs because tourism in the area decreases as a direct result of the damages to tourist attractions (especially beaches).  Also, those in the fishing industry lose their jobs because the oil contaminates many fish and people are more concerned with consuming fish.

While working to clean up the most disastrous Oil Spill in US history, all those involved with the Spill must take precaution.  With so much unknown about the potential health threat of oil, research could potentially find that it is toxic.  It is best to take safety measures.  The oil itself contains organic compounds, which can be carcinogenic.  Those working with oil or around oil fumes have a high risk of exposure to these carcinogens in the oil, such as benzene.

According to a recent report, Americans are not only fat, but they are getting fatter. The report, done by the Trust for America’s Health found that adult obesity increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state during the past year. Also, the report stated that childhood obesity is now at or above 30% in 30 states.

The highest rate of obesity was found in Mississippi, with a rate of 32.5 percent for adults (and an astounding 44.4 percent rate of child obesity). Three other states join Mississippi as having obesity rates over 30 percent: Alabama at 31.2 percent, West Virginia at 31.1 percent and Tennessee at 30.2 percent. Interestingly, 8 of the 10 top states with highest adult obesity are located in the South; where as the northern state of Colorado has the lowest rate at 18.9 percent. This is the fifth year in a row where Mississippi ranked the highest for adult obesity rates.

The fact that Americans are getting fatter is a concern for the healthcare industry because with obesity comes disease and illness and higher health insurance premiums. Despite the increase in nutritional standards from four to 19 states in public schools within the past five years, it is evident that the obesity epidemic is still flourishing. More has to be done by government, families, parents and individuals in order to promote healthy eating and life-styles, exercise and appropriate nutrition.

This past fall, national pediatrician guidelines doubled the recommended amount of vitamin D for kids. There is also much more concern over vitamin D deficiency, as demand for testing has increased by 80% to 90% this year, according to the Financial Times. Vitamin D has long been thought of as important to health, but what are its real benefits? Well, this year a $20 million government-funded trial is going to study whether vitamin D and fish oil lower the risk of cancer, heart disease or stroke. The study will follow 20,000 healthy older adults for five years. At the heart of this question is whether or not vitamin D deficiency causes a higher rate of disease among African-Americans. Researchers have thought that it is harder for people with darker skin to make vitamin D from sunlight, and perhaps taking supplements will reduce the risk of some diseases. The Boston Globe points out that the goal is to have at least 25% of the participants be African-American. The results of this study should be fascinating. If the vitamin D has no effect on the participants, then I do not think vitamin D will be viewed as unimportant. Vitamin D helps maintain one’s calcium balance, regulate one’s blood pressure, and helps fight against osteoporosis. However, if the vitamin truly does help against cancer, stroke, and heart disease the effects could be remarkable. “If something as simple as taking a vitamin D pill could help lower these risks and eliminate these health disparities, that would be extraordinarily exciting,” said Dr. JoAnn Manson from Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. For millions of individuals, vitamin D could prove to be a life-saver.

The life’s DHA Index of Brain Health recently evaluated the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia on 21 brain health indicators in areas like physical health, diet, mental health and social well-being. Some of these indictors included time spent sleeping, smoking, education state rankings and consumption of DHA-fortified foods such as fish. This index is the first comprehensive state measure of the nation’s brain health.

According to the index, the nation’s top ten states with the highest brain health, listed from first to tenth are: the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington state, Vermont, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire. The five states with the lowest brain health rankings starting with the worst are: Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Tennessee.

D.C., ranked #1, has one of the highest percentages of people who read for personal interest which helps brain health and also has a high consumption of fruits and vegetables. Many of the states with high rankings exhibit people who eat fish, avoid smoking, read for pleasure, watch their weight and place a high priority on education. On the other hand, Louisiana which ranked last place has a high incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and has the lowest breastfeeding rate nationwide. Since breastfeeding naturally provides DHA, which is important for brain development in infants, this statistic contributes to Louisiana’s poor brain health.

In order to maintain good brain health, people should eat fruits and vegetables in addition to DHA omega-3 rich foods like fish. A minimum of 30 minutes of physical activity a day and playing mental games and learning new things also contribute to good brain health. Other social behavior such as involvement in religious/spiritual activities is also beneficial.

Many of you probably read my recent post on the efficacy of the Gardasil HPV vaccine in older female populations. Gardasil innoculates against the 4 most common types of human papillomavirus, 2 of which are shown to cause cervical cancer. Though the vaccine is only approved for women under 24, recent studies have shown it also works in women 26 and older. Well, there’s a new chapter in the Gardasil story, one which has been filled with concerns not only about the vaccine’s efficacy but also it’s side effects.

When the vaccine first premiered, concerns were raised that in the long-term it could lead to infertility issues. Now, the shot’s maker, Merck, has been ordered by the FDA to include a revised label on the vaccine’s packaging and new warnings for its commercials. The new label informs readers of possible side-effects including syncope (fainting). It goes on to note that these fainting spells may sometimes include tonic-clonic (jerking) movements and seizure-like activity. This description is nearly identical to the one the Epilepsy Foundation uses to describe Grand Mal seizures. As it turns out, the label change is the result of many young girls vaccinated with Gardasil soon afterwards being diagnosed with epilepsy due to seizures. Tying these seizures or fainting with seizure-like symptoms is particularly concerning. It should also be noted that Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck, is also the maker of Vioxx.

Check out my previous post on Gardasil here: HPV/Cervical Cancer Vaccine Protects Teens AND Older Women

Everyone nowadays is aware that the Gardasil vaccine administered widely to young girls can protect against four strains of the human papillomavirus, a sexually-transmitted disease which can lead to cervical cancer. But what about older women? A new study argues the vaccine is indeed effective in protecting women ages 24 to 45 from HPV.

About 3 out of 4 sexually active women get HPV at some point in their lives. Though there are more than 100 HPV strains , most are harmless and disappear on their own without treatment. Gardasil protects against four of the strains of the virus that, when untreated, do bear serious medical risks: two which cause genital warts (strains 6 and 11) and two which can lead to cervical cancer (strains 16 and 18). Gardasil is only approved for girls ages 9 to 24, but a rising population of older women (24 to 45) are at risk of HPV infection. This is because more and more women are reentering the dating scene in middle age after a period of monogamy, such as after a divorce.

The ongoing multicenter, parallel, randomized, controlled, double-blind study tested the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in 3819 Colombian women ages 24 to 45, none of whom had a history of genital warts or cervical disease. 1911 women received the vaccine, and the other 1908 were given a placebo. The researchers found that among the per protocol population (3222 women), the vaccine had a 90.5% efficacy rate against all strains of the virus. There were only 4 instances of infection in the vaccine group compared with 41 in the control group. The vaccine had an 83.1% efficacy rate against the two most common strains (HPV 16 and 18). Only four cases appeared in the vaccine group versus 23 in the control group. Researchers also looked at the intention-to-treat population, which included women who had not received all 3 installments of the vaccine or who did have a pre-existing HPV infection. When these subjects were included in the calculations, vaccine efficacy against all 4 types of HPV was 31%; against strains 16 and 18 was 24%. Because Gardasil will not protect women who were infected by HPV before they received the vaccine, the lower efficacy in the above mixed population suggests the “public health effect of vaccinating women ages 25 to 45 will be smaller than that recorded after vaccinating susceptible adolescents,” said researchers. Therefore, the maximum effect of vaccinating older women will be seen only in those who were susceptible to infection (engaging actively with new sex partners) and had not been previously exposed to HPV. However, most of the women in the study who were or had been HPV-positive were positive to only one strain of the virus. This means that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine could still be beneficial in protecting older women against the HPV strains they had NOT been infected with.

Though these findings are encouraging, some scientists are not as optimistic that the Gardasil vaccine will be effective in the older female population. They claim the new study is simply too small and that the vaccine’s true efficacy in the study group won’t be seen for several more years; the study has only followed the women for about 2.2 years.

Even if longer-term and larger-scale studies confirm the efficacy of the vaccine for older women, the problem for many women who believe they could be at risk of HPV infection is that the vaccine is currently only approved for girls 9 to 24. This means that right now insurers will not cover vaccination for older women until the shots are proven effective and approved for the older population. The fact that the vaccine’s three shots cost about $375 (not counting fees the doctor may charge for the visits) means that though these study results are encouraging, few older women will pursue vaccination until insurance companies begin covering it for them.

Regardless of whether women at any age receive the Gardasil vaccine, all women should still receive routine Pap smears, which check for cancerous or precancerous changes in cervix cells. Pap smears are almost always covered by private insurance as part of a woman’s routine gynecological exams.