Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight looms

      by

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight loomsDespite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity, a similar bill that passed the House was filibustered in the Senate Bipartisan legislation introduced this week in Congress would ban PFAS “forever chemicals” in US food packaging and significantly reduce exposure to the highly toxic compounds, supporters say, but its passage is far from certain as a fight with industry allies in the Senate looms.‘Forever chemicals’: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelfRead morePFAS are a class of compounds that are used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, heat, stains and grease. The chemicals are especially common in food packaging because they repel grease and liquid, which prevents paper products from disintegrating.They get their nickname because of their immense longevity in the environment.“We cannot continue to be poisoned by these chemicals,” said Michigan Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who introduced the bill in the House. “Chemical manufacturers are going to try to get senators to stop PFAS from being banned, but there’s enough data that shows that it’s a threat to people … so we need to do something.”Researchers have found PFAS are frequently used in sandwich wrappers, paper straws, baking papers, carryout containers and molded fiber products like “clam shells”. The chemicals have been detected in products from a range of businesses, including fast food restaurants like McDonald’s, Subway and Chipotle; grocery chains like Whole Foods; and independent restaurants and grocers that use packaging products marketed as “green”.PFAS are also commonly applied to nonstick aluminum wrap and in bulk plastic containers used to store flavorings. Studies show that the chemicals can leach from packaging into food and are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney problems, decreased immunity, birth defects and other serious health problems.“People don’t realize that the chemicals are coming in contact with food that they’re eating and that’s a way that PFAS is getting into their bodies,” Dingell said.Despite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity over the last 10 years, a similar bill that passed the House last legislative session was filibustered in the Senate, though it’s unclear who killed it because Senate rules allow members to anonymously filibuster.PFAS manufacturers have spent heavily on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years, and public health advocates say industry’s efforts have paid off. Last session, chemical company allies in the GOP defeated about 100 other pieces of legislation designed to reign in the chemicals’ use, and Donald Trump had promised to veto any that made it through.“It’s the dark and invisible hand of big money in politics,” said Erik Olson, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the new proposed ban.Among industry allies who have opposed PFAS legislation is Senator Jim Inhofe, who sits on the environmental committee and has received at least $60,000 from PFAS producers, including $14,000 last session that was donated as legislation was referred to committee.Senate armed forces committee member Thom Tillis last session cast the deciding vote against legislation that would have helped hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for pollution around military bases. Chemical giants DuPont and Honeywell donated to his campaign in the days after the vote.Advocates say they expect similar opposition this time around, despite growing public pressure to act.“I don’t think the chemical or food packaging industries are retreating even though there’s mounting evidence that there’s a lot of the chemical in food packaging,” Olson said. “Clearly there’s a big problem with an evenly divided Senate and the opportunity to filibuster.”Even if Congress fails to pass the ban, similar legislation has been enacted in seven states, including in California, New York and Vermont, though most only prohibit the chemicals’ use in paper products, not plastic. Several other state legislatures are considering similar bills, which advocates say is putting pressure on industry to stop using the chemicals.Companies like Chipotle, Freshii, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Sweetgreen, Trader Joe’s, Wendy’s and Whole Foods have committed to stop using packaging with the chemicals. But Olson said PFAS in food packaging “is an issue that’s not going away”, even if legislation fails again.“Until we get toxic forever chemicals out of our food supply, there will continue to be mounting pressure to move legislation,” he said.TopicsUS CongressUS politicsHealthUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Social care architect ‘very disappointed’ and ‘uncomfortable’ with government changes to cost cap

      by

      A leading architect of the government’s social care reforms said he is “very disappointed” and “uncomfortable” with watered-down proposals for the social care cap that hit less affluent households.Sir Andrew Dilnot told MPs that changes to the Social Care Act, due to be voted on next week, would mean the poorest households in the country will not actually benefit from the cap.He told the House of Commons treasury committee on Thursday that the changes will mean pensioners “will be much less protected against catastrophic risk.”“A very large proportion of the population needing care will find itself materially less protected by the proposals the government has announced then they would’ve been,” he said. Those with less valuable houses but facing significant care journeys will be much less protected against catastrophic risk and the sale of their house if this amendment were made”.Sir Andrew, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said there is likely to be a north-south divide as “people living in northern and other less high house prices are likely to be harder hit.”In 2019 Prime Minsiter, Boris Johnson promised “no one would have to sell their house” to pay for social care. However the new proposals will mean some pensioners will have to use up 80 per cent of their wealth to cover care costs before the threshold kicks in.Sir Andrew said: “That would mean you certainly would have to sell your house.” However, he said that while the current financial settlement for social care was “inadequate,” it would nonetheless “deliver a significant increase in long line spending in social care.”He added: “Now, there is a whole set of areas — particularly yesterday’s announcement — on which I feel very uncomfortable, but it is striking is that it’s the first time it’s happened.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rights

      by

      Abortion‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rightsSpecial rapporteur Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng argues in brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US Jessica Glenza@JessicaGlenzaMon 8 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Mon 8 Nov 2021 12.50 ESTThe United Nations special rapporteur on the right to health has called on the US supreme court to uphold the right to abortion in America or risk undermining international human rights law and threatening that right elsewhere in the world.The special rapporteur, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, is one of just a handful of global observers whose mandate is to travel the world defending human rights.Mofokeng has argued in a brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US, including the convention against torture, should women be forced to carry pregnancies to term.In an interview, Mofokeng told the Guardian she could have filed a brief on abortion rights, “in any other court, in any other abortion case,” globally. However, she chose the US courts because of the direct threat posed to abortion rights in the supreme court’s upcoming session.“We have this joke among us that when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a [cold],” said Mofokeng. “So we know that politically that what happens in the United States… does have an impact in precedents elsewhere in the world.”Mofokeng’s brief was filed ahead of oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case advocates fear will undermine abortion rights nationally. Dobbs poses a direct threat to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a Constitutional right to abortion based in privacy.Roe invalidated dozens of state abortion bans and restrictions, and allowed people to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, generally understood to be about 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks.“If that gets overturned, it has catastrophic implications, not just for the US,” said Mofokeng, who said she feared overturning Roe would embolden global attacks on reproductive rights.Mofokeng is also a practicing doctor and well-known sex-positive author in South Africa. Most often, she goes by “Dr T”, an informal title which underscores the empathy in her academic analysis. Her most recent UN report outlined the challenges Covid-19 posed to reproductive rights, and how colonialism continues to affect global policies on reproduction, from sterilization to abortion bans.“It means that even those people who are conservative, who are anti-rights, in any country in the world, will actually now start referencing the US court as an example of jurisprudence that should be followed,” said Mofokeng. “And this is why this is so dangerous”.In Dobbs, the court will consider whether Mississippi can ban abortion at 15 weeks gestation. For the court to uphold Mississippi’s law, it would require the court to rewrite standards that determine whether abortion restrictions are constitutional. Advocates fear that could once again allow states to severely restrict or ban abortion.A majority of the court’s nine justices would need to agree to rewrite such standards. Conservative justices hold a 6-3 supermajority on the court. Many observers view the court’s decision to take the Mississippi case as an ominous sign. About six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases”.“If Roe … [were] overturned, many US states will implement bans or near-bans on abortion access that will make individual state laws irreconcilable with international human rights law,” the brief argued. “This would cause irreparable harm to women and girls in violation of the United States’ obligations under the human rights treaties it has signed and ratified.”While the US has not ratified several United Nations treaties, it has ratified the convention against torture, which Mofokeng’s brief argued would be violated if states were allowed to ban abortion.“The denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill treatment,” Mofokeng’s brief said, citing a 2016 report by the rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Conversely, Mofokeng’s brief argued, contrary to Mississippi’s assertions, that “the right to life emanating from human rights treaties does not apply prenatally,” and that the “overwhelming trend for the past half-century has been toward the liberalization of abortion laws worldwide”.Further, since the court has accepted the Dobbs case, it also allowed a six-week abortion ban to go into effect in Texas in September, effectively allowing the nation’s second largest state to nullify Roe within its borders. Experts estimate that if Roe were overturned, roughly two dozen US states mostly in the south and midwest would immediately ban abortion.Such bans would have immediate and direct consequences for women and people seeking abortions.In one recent analysis, the Guttmacher Institute found 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion should Roe be overturned. In just one example, that would require a woman seeking a legal abortion in Louisiana to travel to Kansas to access care.“The rise in global anti-gender and anti-women’s rights is such that people will grasp at anything that seems to make their case solid,” said Mofokeng. And, she said, the case before the supreme court now relies on “non-medical, non-scientific” misinformation.“It means we have a risk of now having global jurisprudence – or at least influences in the global world – using jurisprudence that’s ill-informed. And that’s very dangerous,” said Mofokeng. “To undo the court’s decisions takes decades, sometimes a lifetime – and that’s why it’s dangerous.”TopicsAbortionUnited NationsHealthUS politicsUS supreme courtfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in UK Politics

      Top Sage expert Jeremy Farrar quits amid ‘concerning’ Covid-19 rates

      by

      Sir Jeremy Farrar has revealed he quit the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) last month, warning of “concerning high levels of transmission” in Britain and vowing to focus on his role as a clinical scientist. The director of the Wellcome Trust was a leading member of the government’s Covid-19 advisory body during the pandemic.He was reportedly pushing for ministers to enforce a so-called “vaccine plus” strategy that includes measures such as mask wearing, ventilation and continued testing, according to Sky News.However, the government has so far declined to enforce stricter measures – which it refers to as plan B – and is sticking with its current, more relaxed guidance. In a statement released on Tuesday night, Sir Jeremy appeared to issue a coded criticism of the government’s stance, warning that “the Covid-19 crisis is a long way from over”.He said he was confident he had “stepped down as a Sage participant knowing ministers had been provided with most of the key science advice needed over the winter months”.“At the end of October 2021, after careful consideration, I stepped down [from Sage],” the statement read.“My focus now must be on our work at Wellcome. This includes supporting the international research effort to end the pandemic, ensuring the world is better prepared for inevitable future infectious disease threats, and making the case so the full potential of science is realised to inform and drive change against all the urgent health threats we face globally.”Sir Jeremy added that throughout the pandemic, Sage has provided “vital evidence and independent, expert, transparent advice to support the UK response, often under huge pressure”. He also said it had been “an honour to have joined the hundreds of scientists who have contributed”, before thanking “[chief scientific adviser to the government] Patrick Vallance and [chief medical officer for England] Chris Whitty for their outstanding leadership”.“I remain, as always, available where I may offer help as a clinical scientist or as director of Wellcome,” he concluded.The Government Office for Science said in a statement: “We can confirm that Sir Jeremy has stood down from the Covid Sage activation, and thank him for his contribution from the very start of the activation. Sage continues to provide government with independent expert scientific and technical advice.”In an earlier message on his personal Twitter, Sir Jeremy said he was taking “a few days break, time away from work, off social media etc”.“Holidays & time off [are] so important for everyone,” he added.In July, he revealed he had “seriously considered resigning” from Sage almost a year before, after Boris Johnson’s government chose not to introduce a lockdown in September 2020. It was this decision that ultimately led to the cancelling of Christmas, when the prime minister advised the British public to refrain from seeing loves ones and staying overnight at their family homes, as normal, over the festive period.Senior ministers, including health secretary Sajid Javid and business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, have gone on record in recent weeks as saying the government will stand by its commitment to refrain from enforcing lockdown measures over Christmas this year.This is despite the number of lab-confirmed Covid infections and deaths in the UK rising substantially in the last few weeks. Though a peak seen around two weeks ago, when figures returned to levels last seen in March 2020, has since levelled off.On Tuesday, the latest government data showed there had been a further 33,865 Covid cases in the UK within the last 24-hour period. There were also an additional 293 deaths – but this number includes data from NHS England which was not provided in time for Monday’s figures, officials noted. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Families of epileptic children to protest outside parliament seeking greater access to medicinal cannabis

      by

      Families of children with severe epilepsy are set to protest outside parliament in a call for greater access to medicinal cannabis.Specialist doctors have been allowed to prescribe medicinal cannabis to patients since 2018, when the government changed its rules over the treatment.But the End Our Pain campaign group says patients are facing an “almost total block” on access to NHS prescriptions and families were being forced to go private. The group said they understand only three children with severe epilepsy have been prescribed whole plant extract medicinal cannabis – which has been hailed as “life-transforming” treatment for paediatric epilepsy – on the NHS since it was legalised. Families are planning to gather outside parliament on Tuesday to call for more accessible treatment, with a digital poster van showing physical changes in children taking medicinal cannabis. Parents are also set to stand outside Department for Health and visit No10 to deliver a petition in the day of action. “Our families are at the end of their tether. We have done everything we can possibly do,” Joanne Griffiths, whose son Ben has not been able to get an NHS prescription, said.“We have marched, petitioned, lobbied parliament and met with health ministers countless times, yet three years on we still cannot access the NHS prescriptions for the medicine our children are reliant on. “The mother said she thought their “problems were solved” in 2018, when it was announced cannabis health products would be made available to patients. “Yet here we are in 2021 struggling both financially and emotionally and continuing to be passed from pillar to post by both the government and the NHS,” Ms Griffithsadded. Hannah Deacon says every child with severe intractable epilepsy deserves access to the same treatment as her son Alfie Dingley.“My son is lucky enough to be one of only three children in the UK with an NHS prescription for the type of whole plant extract medical cannabis that has been life transforming in cases of paediatric epilepsy,” she said. “From having up to 150 life-threatening seizures a week, he has now gone over 500 days without a single serious seizure.”Alfie, who has a rare form of epilepsy, was the UK’s first patient to get a permanent license to be prescribed medicinal cannabis on the NHS when he received one several years ago.Ms Deacon added: “It is a total injustice that three children have access to this medicine, while others do not know when their money will run out.”Alfie’s mother wrote to Boris Johnson this summer, urging him to “make access to medicinal cannabis products on the NHS a reality”.A Deparment for Health and Social Care (DHSC) spokesperson said: “Our sympathies are with all patients and families dealing with rare and hard to treat conditions. The government has already changed the law to allow specialist doctors to prescribe cannabis-based products, where clinically appropriate and in the best interests of patients.”They added: “Licensed cannabis-based medicines are funded by the NHS where there is clear evidence of their quality, safety and effectiveness.”No10 has been approached for comment. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Wait before Covid booster jabs ‘could be cut to five months’ to speed up rollout

      by

      The delay between a second dose of the Covid-19 vaccine and a booster could be cut from six months to five under plans reportedly being considered to speed up the rollout of third doses. Boris Johnson said the time period between jabs was an “extremely important point” and stressed the need to “keep going as fast as possible” to deliver booster vaccines.A media blitz is to be launched to encourage people to take up the booster shots, which ministers hope will drive up demand which has so far failed to match the enthusiasm of the initial vaccination programme.Government officials and ministers said the time interval between doses was a matter for the experts on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).But The Guardian said Downing Street sources confirmed the option was being examined, while The Daily Telegraph said the JCVI was showing an interest in the idea of giving booster doses a month early.Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “Does it really matter when it’s only nine weeks until the Christmas holidays if someone has their booster jab after five months?“And should we not look at whether there should be flexibility in that decision so we can get more people in more quickly for their booster jabs?”During a visit to Northern Ireland, the prime minister said: “On the issue of timing, all I will say is I think we just need to keep going as fast as possible.”Mr Johnson stressed that, unlike the early stages of the vaccine rollout, there were no problems with supply of doses, instead “it’s a demand issue”.Speaking on Friday, the care minister told Sky News: “The JCVI look at all the data. They’ve advised us six months. Of course they continually look at the data but they are the only people who can really answer this question.“If they advise us, our job then would be to get ready to do whatever they say. But at the moment it is six months. It is not unknown, the JCVI have changed over periods of time and have reacted.”In a sign that demand may be picking up, Health Secretary Sajid Javid said a record 234,000 booster vaccine bookings were made on Wednesday.“Getting your booster when offered is vital to keep you protected from Covid-19 over winter,” he said. “I urge everyone to book theirs as soon as eligible.”A booster shot of the vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech has a dramatic effect, the firms claimed after a trial.In the trial, a booster dose given to patients who had the initial two jabs showing a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6 per cent when compared to those who did not receive a booster.The Prime Minister said the findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were “great results”.The push to encourage vaccine take-up came as the daily number of cases reported in the UK surpassed 50,000 for the first time since mid-July.But Mr Johnson is continuing to resist calls from health leaders for tighter Covid restrictions despite the rising levels of infections.The Prime Minister acknowledged the numbers were “high” but said they were “within the parameters” forecast by scientists advising the Government.His comments followed calls from the NHS Confederation and the British Medical Association (BMA) for ministers to activate their winter Plan B for England amid fears the health service could be overwhelmed.BMA council chair Dr Chaand Nagpaul said the refusal to introduce supplementary measures – including Covid passports, mask-wearing in crowded public spaces and a return to working from home – amounted to “wilful negligence”. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Bill Clinton says he is ‘glad to be home’ after hospital admission

      by

      Bill ClintonBill Clinton says he is ‘glad to be home’ after hospital admissionFormer US president releases video thanking staff at California hospital where he was treated for infection01:08Associated PressThu 21 Oct 2021 06.21 EDTFirst published on Thu 21 Oct 2021 06.18 EDTBill Clinton has released a video saying he is on the road to recovery after being hospitalised in southern California for six days to treat an infection unrelated to Covid-19.Clinton, 75, who arrived home in New York on Sunday, said he was glad to be back and that he was “so touched by the outpouring of support” he had received while in hospital last week.An aide to the former US president said he had a urological infection that spread to his bloodstream but was on the mend and never went into septic shock, a potentially life-threatening condition.Clinton thanked the doctors and nurses at the University of California, Irvine medical center.Clinton has faced health scares in the years since he left the White House in 2001. In 2004, he had quadruple bypass surgery after experiencing prolonged chest pains and shortness of breath. He returned to hospital for surgery for a partially collapsed lung in 2005, and in 2010 he had a pair of stents fitted in a coronary artery.He responded by embracing a largely vegan diet that resulted in him losing weight and reporting improved health.TopicsBill ClintonCaliforniaUS politicsHealthnews More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in UK Politics

      Covid: What could a ‘Plan C’ involve?

      by

      Ministers are reportedly considering additional Covid measures that could amount to a “Plan C”, as England prepares for another winter during the Covid pandemic.While the government has so far resisted calls to implement new Covid measures, the health secretary has warned restrictions could return in England in the run-up to Christmas. According toThe Telegraph, Cabinet Office ministers are discussing proposals which could potentially form a “Plan C” involving even tougher measures than the existing “Plan B”. The newspaper reported this extra contigency plan could see a ban on household mixing. But Edward Argar, health minister, denied on Thursday there was a Plan C being considered by the government which would ban the mixing of households at Christmas.Asked about reports on Sky News, he said he was “not aware” of such plans. “That is not a story with foundation,” Mr Argar added. “Of course as a government you look at, as we have done with our Plan B, alternatives and ways that you might – if you needed to – start easing that pressure”, the health minister said.Mr Argar said limiting household mixing was not something being “actively considered”. The government has so far resisted calls from NHS bosses to implement its “Plan B” to tackle coronavirus, amid a surge in cases and fears of a winter crisis.The series of tighter measures has been drawn up as a contingency plan if the NHS comes under unsustainable pressure.It includes the reintroduction of some social distancing measures, compulsory face masks in some settings and an appeal for the public to work from home, as well as the use of vaccine passports.The health secretary said on Wednesday there were no plans to put these contigency measures into place “at the moment”, saying pressures on the NHS were not yet “unsustainable”. More