Connect with us

Your Health

Formula milk companies employing powerful and insidious marketing techniques to drive up their sales

Published

on

Photo by Helena Lopes on Unsplash

BY W. GIFFORD- JONES MD & DIANA GIFFORD-JONES

The global formula milk industry is huge and growing rapidly, at about US$55 billion and projected to reach US$110B by 2026. Aggressive and deceptive marketing by manufacturers is driving this growth. The World Health Organization (WHO) is ringing alarms. It charges the industry with using new digital marketing tactics to target pregnant women and new mothers with personalized social media content that is often not recognizable as advertising.

The internet and smartphones are wonderful tools, but they can also be dangerous. Women have breastfed babies since the beginning of time. Animals thrive without Big Pharma. Human babies do too.

The WHO says the digital onslaught by industry reaches 2.47 billion people. The intention is to plant concerns in the minds of new mothers that their natural breast milk is insufficient. They set out to convince new mothers that they’re nutritionally uneducated and irresponsible if they choose traditional breast milk.

Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of the WHO Nutrition and Food Safety department, goes on the offence. He says, “The promotion of commercial milk formulas should have been terminated decades ago.”  He adds, “That formula milk companies are now employing even more powerful and insidious marketing techniques to drive up their sales is inexcusable and must be stopped.”

What are the natural benefits that breast milk has always given babies?  For one, mother’s milk transfers antibodies to build immunity against infection.

Ameae Walker, Professor of Biomedical Science at UC Riverside School of Medicine, explains that copies of these cells will provide immunity to the baby for life. Breastfeeding protects mothers as well by reducing risk of breast and ovarian cancer, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure.

Apart from conveying immunity, extensive research shows that breast milk offers increased long-term protection from a host of diseases.  Breast-fed babies have less chance of developing ear, respiratory, and urinary infections. They are more resilient against bacterial meningitis, a serious condition that can lead to death. Breastfeeding decreases the risk of obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, high blood pressure and heart disease.

While antibodies in breast milk adjust to a growing baby’s evolving needs, manufactured formula is unchanging and has no antibodies. Instead, manufacturers add ingredients designed to foster good gut bacteria. This may help protect babies from illness, but not to the same degree.

It has also been found that vitamins and minerals added to manufactured milk cause increased gas in babies and more constipation. Bottle-feeding affects mother-child bonding. And formula fed babies have an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome.

Expectant mothers have reason for confidence, not trepidation, in their abilities to breastfeed babies. At best, it should be deemed unethical to market misleading information about baby formula. At worst, given the lifelong health consequences at stake, and the duty to care for society’s youngest and most vulnerable members, such marketing should be criminal.

There are, of course, circumstances in which formula is the right choice. These mothers should be supported, not ashamed. It’s an obvious fact that many babies raised on formula have fared just fine. There are geniuses, concert pianists, gold-medal athletes, doctors, lawyers and every other professional among them.

The economics of the formula milk industry is the problem. This industry should not be allowed to profit at the expense of parental confidence and children’s health – yet profit is precisely the boardroom mandate of these companies. Looked at another way, the total cost of formula feeding is estimated to be US$900-$3,000 per year. Those funds could be better spent other ways.

It’s the WHO’s boring reports versus deceptive digital marketing. Not a good match up.

Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, MD is a graduate of the University of Toronto and the Harvard Medical School. He trained in general surgery at Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University and in Gynecology at Harvard. His storied medical career began as a general practitioner, ship’s surgeon, and hotel doctor. For more than 40 years, he specialized in gynecology, devoting his practice to the formative issues of women’s health. In 1975, he launched his weekly medical column that has been published by national and local Canadian and U.S. newspapers. Today, the readership remains over seven million. His advice contains a solid dose of common sense and he never sits on the fence with controversial issues. He is the author of nine books including, “The Healthy Barmaid”, his autobiography “You’re Going To Do What?”, “What I Learned as a Medical Journalist”, and “90+ How I Got There!” Many years ago, he was successful in a fight to legalize heroin to help ease the pain of terminal cancer patients. His foundation at that time donated $500,000 to establish the Gifford-Jones Professorship in Pain Control and Palliative Care at the University of Toronto Medical School. At 93 years of age he rappelled from the top of Toronto’s City Hall (30 stories) to raise funds for children with a life-threatening disease through the Make-a-Wish Foundation.  Diana Gifford-Jones, the daughter of W. Gifford-Jones, MD, Diana has extensive global experience in health and healthcare policy.  Diana is Special Advisor with The Aga Khan University, which operates 2 quaternary care hospitals and numerous secondary hospitals, medical centres, pharmacies, and laboratories in South Asia and Africa.  She worked for ten years in the Human Development sectors at the World Bank, including health policy and economics, nutrition, and population health. For over a decade at The Conference Board of Canada, she managed four health-related executive networks, including the Roundtable on Socio-Economic Determinants of Health, the Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, the Canadian Centre for Environmental Health, and the Centre for Health System Design and Management. Her master’s degree in public policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government included coursework at Harvard Medical School.  She is also a graduate of Wellesley College.  She has extensive experience with Canadian universities, including at Carleton University, where she was the Executive Director of the Global Academy. She lived and worked in Japan for four years and speaks Japanese fluently. Diana has the designation as a certified Chartered Director from The Directors College, a joint venture of The Conference Board of Canada and McMaster University.  She has recently published a book on the natural health philosophy of W. Gifford-Jones, called No Nonsense Health – Naturally!

Your Health

An Argument for In-Person Mental Health Treatment over Online Therapy

Published

on

By Rob at AERCs 

One of the many biproducts of the Covid-19 pandemic, which we all lived through, was the rise of online therapy providers. The recent health crisis will forever be remembered because of our governments’ stay-at-home orders, social distancing, masking, increased hospitalizations, and the deaths of millions of people worldwide. These challenges also created uncertainty in the marketplace, contributing to increased unemployment, housing insecurity, and loneliness. These stressors have helped create a mental health crises in our general population.   

How do people generally react to life-changing government mandates?

Evidence suggests thousands of Canadians adopted unhealthy coping mechanisms to deal with increased stress, anxiety, sadness, and uncertainty the epidemic brought. Increased rates of eating disorders, depression, substance use, suicide, and domestic violence have all been attributed to the coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, there are dozens more online mental health service providers who offer therapy over virtual meeting platforms.

Is in-person therapy better than virtual counselling?

Are the two treatment formats even the same thing? AERCs Therapy offers both but takes the position that in-person meetings are more comfortable, personalized, and meaningful.

AERCs Therapy offers in-person therapy at any of three different locations across the greater Toronto area with one being downtown at Yonge and Davisville. In person treatment has many advantages over online therapy and some factors include the ability to accommodate individual preferences regarding the specific issues being addressed, and the level of comfort the patient may have with technology, and most importantly, the patient’s ability to form a meaningful connection with the therapist. Therapy is an emotional exchange, and the screen is a barrier.

Advantages of In-Person Psychotherapy and Social Work

There are plenty of reasons why people should choose to meet in-person with mental health workers.

Nonverbal Cues: Therapists and counsellors at AERCs read body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions in real-time during their in-person sessions. How patients sit in their chairs and what they do with their hands and feet can offer clues to their thought processes. This extra layer of information can paint a more complete picture of a patient’s emotional state and can assist in more accurate diagnosis and treatment planning.

Personal Connection: Some people find it easier to establish a therapeutic relationship when interacting with someone face-to-face, as opposed to through a screen.

Focus and Attention: In-person sessions may offer fewer distractions, making it easier for both the client and therapist to concentrate on the conversation.

Technical Issues: With in-person therapy, there’s no need to worry about internet connectivity problems, software issues, or other technical glitches that can interrupt online sessions.

Privacy: In a dedicated office setting, you may have a greater assurance of privacy and confidentiality than in an online format, where the security of the connection may be uncertain.

Access to Tools and Techniques: Certain therapeutic techniques, such as art therapy and play therapy may be more readily available or effective in an in-person setting.

Immediate Response: In case of a crisis or a significant emotional breakdown, an in-person therapist can respond more quickly and has more resources at hand to manage the situation.

 

Argument for Online Therapy

To be fair, online therapy also has some merits.

Accessibility: Online therapy is available to those who may have difficulty attending in-person sessions due to geographic location, physical disabilities, or other logistical challenges.

Convenience: Online sessions can be more easily scheduled and attended, offering greater flexibility.

Comfort: Some people find it easier to open up when they are in the comfort of their own home.

Anonymity: The perceived distance that comes with online interaction may allow some people to discuss stigmatized or embarrassing issues more freely.

Ultimately, the choice between in-person and online therapy will depend on individual circumstances, treatment goals, and personal preferences. AERCs Therapy like others in the marketplace offers a hybrid model where they provide both in-person and online sessions to accommodate the diverse needs and preferences of their clients.

Continue Reading

Your Health

Ecosystem biodiversity important to human health and nutrition

Published

on

Photo Credit: Mikhail Nilov

BY W. GIFFORD- JONES MD & DIANA GIFFORD-JONES

The routine of modern-day life for most of us involves regular trips to the grocery store and three meals a day. The regular patterns of our diet can be a source of comfort or a rushed necessity, but is eating the same familiar foods – often the same recipes, products, brands, over and over, day by day – good for us?

As nutritious as a “well-balanced” diet may be, there are good reasons to strive for a more diverse diet.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the acclaimed Nigerian writer, was not referring to plant and animal ecosystems when she wrote, “Diversity is not about feeling included, it’s about feeling valued.” Yet, she’d surely agree. Unless biodiversity is valued, it will lose ground, quite literally.

Now, new research is showing that valuing diversity in the natural world has important implications for human health.

A study in the journal PNAS examines the relationship between aquatic biodiversity and human health. Researchers found that aquatic ecosystems, such as: rivers, lakes, and oceans, provide a wide range of nutritional benefits to human populations.

According to the study, consuming a diet that includes a variety of fish, seaweed, and other aquatic foods can help prevent chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Additionally, these foods are rich in important nutrients such as: omega-3 fatty acids, iodine, and iron, which are essential for human health.

The researchers also found that consuming a diverse range of aquatic foods can have positive impacts on the environment. By promoting the consumption of a wider range of fish and other aquatic foods, fisheries and aquaculture can diversify their operations and reduce pressure on overfished species.

Protecting the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems is essential for continued access to nutritional benefits. Yet, climate change and human activities have already impacted the health of the world’s water. Conservation and sustainable use simply haven’t been the priority.

Land surfaces, where humans live, haven’t fared any better. Scientists are concerned about the health of the: soil, grasses, and forbs that many animal species depend on for their dietary nutrition.

Dr. Forest Isbell, professor of ecology at the University of Minnesota, notes, “Land use changes and overexploitation are driving changes in biodiversity and ecosystems in many parts of the world.”

Isbell has closely read the research published in PNAS and thinks the findings are likely to be replicated in other ecosystems. He’s involved in studies that test the effects of biodiversity in grasslands that provide essential forage for grazing livestock. “It’s an important question,” he says. “Due to widespread farming and overgrazing by livestock, we have seen significant biodiversity loss in many grasslands. Just as people benefit from a diverse diet, so too do our livestock. By studying how biodiversity of grasses affects nutritional content of forage for herd animals, for example, we will be better able to inform policies and practices designed to protect land-based ecosystems.”

Human health depends on a diverse diet that delivers vitamins, minerals, protein, fats, water, and carbohydrates. It’s essential to place high value on the availability and quality of these components, as demonstrated by growing evidence of a vital relationship between ecosystem biodiversity and human health.

Sadly, a study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that 95% of the calories consumed worldwide come from a mere 30 species. Farmers cultivate only about 150 of the 30,000 edible plant species, and 90% of the food from domesticated livestock comes from only 14 animals.

What can health-conscious consumers do? On the next trip to the grocery store, think about the choices and try picking out a diverse range of foods, including from aquatic sources.

Continue Reading

Your Health

Don’t let food safety in the kitchen lapse: 10 ways to ensure you are eating safely

Published

on

Photo Credit: Wendy Wei

BY W. GIFFORD- JONES MD & DIANA GIFFORD-JONES

It’s an age-old problem, but not one that should come with age. Yet, compared to younger culinary novices, elderly people may be more prone to making mistakes in food preparation that can lead to food poisoning.

Kitchens can be a dangerous place. So there is no harm in having a refresher to make sure food safety in the kitchen doesn’t lapse. You know why? Recall that occasion when it seemed like a good meal – until later, when cramps, nausea and diarrhea had you vowing never to eat again.  Unless you’ve been visiting uncared for places or you are a victim to an outbreak of foodborne illness, there’s no excuse for food poisoning other than an unfortunate mistake.

Unfortunately, mistakes happen, and with some frequency in the kitchens of seniors. For example, a study published in the Journal of Food Protection found that older adults were less likely to use food thermometers when cooking meat, increasing the risk of undercooked meat.

Another study found that elderly people were more likely to store food at unsafe temperatures, such as leaving perishable foods out at room temperature for too long or storing them in the refrigerator at temperatures above 40°F (4°C). This could increase the risk of bacterial growth.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that older adults are more likely to develop severe complications from foodborne illnesses, such as kidney failure or sepsis, due to age-related changes in the immune system and underlying health conditions.

The World Health Organization (WHO) claims that contaminated food is one of the most serious health problems in the world. It’s usually due to an organism called E. coli, and for: infants, pregnant women and the elderly the consequences of consuming it can be fatal.

The good news is that food safety in the kitchen is straightforward and largely unchanging.

  • Wash your hands repeatedly. Your fingers are excellent at transmitting infection.
  • Keep kitchen surfaces meticulously clean. Bacteria always win if you become careless.
  • Protect food from insects and rodents in cupboards and drawers. Animals often carry pathogenic organisms that cause foodborne disease. Store food in closed containers.
  • Many foods such as fruits and vegetables are better in their natural state. But others are not safe unless they’re processed. For instance, lettuce needs thorough washing and pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk.
  • Cook food thoroughly. Many raw foods such as poultry, meats and eggs may be contaminated with disease causing organisms. Thorough cooking will kill the pathogens, so if cooked chicken is raw near the bone put it back in the oven until it’s done.
  • Eat cooked foods immediately. When cooked foods cool to room temperature, bacteria begin to multiply; the longer the wait the greater the risk.
  • Store cooked foods carefully. A common error is putting too large a quantity of warm food in the refrigerator. In an overburdened refrigerator, food remains warm too long allowing bacteria to proliferate.
  • Reheat cooked foods thoroughly. This is your best protection against bacteria that may have developed during storage.
  • Avoid contact between raw foods and cooked foods. For instance, safely cooked foods can become contaminated by even the slightest contact with raw food. So don’t prepare a raw chicken and then use the same unwashed cutting board and knife to carve a cooked bird.
  • Add a pinch of common sense. If something seems “off,” don’t eat it. If food is past its expiry date, throw it out.

Continue Reading

Trending