Main | October 2008 »

Think Twice Before You Vote and Drive

September 30, 2008 4:01 PM

By Audrey Grayson, ABC News Medical Unit

Every New Year’s Eve I transform into Driving Miss Daisy out of the sheer awareness that my chances of getting in a car wreck are much higher than usual. From now on, I’ll undergo the same transformation every presidential Election Day as well ... and you may want to do the same.

Driving fatalities in this country rise dramatically during presidential elections, according to a research letter released in today’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. And the increase in the number of these fatalities on Election Day even overshadows the increase in driving fatalities seen on holidays, such as New Year’s Eve and during other dangerous driving times, such as after the Super Bowl.

To make this determination, researchers from the University of Toronto examined government records of fatal car crashes from 1975 to 2006. They compared the number of fatal car crashes on U.S. presidential election Tuesdays (from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to George W. Bush in 2004) with driving fatalities from the Tuesday before election day and the Tuesday of the following week.

They found that on election Tuesdays, the U.S. averaged 13 fatalities per hour  compared with 11 fatalities per hour during nonelection Tuesdays. This accounted for an overall 18 percent increase in the number of fatal car crashes on election Tuesdays.

According to Dr. Donald Redelmeier, director of the clinical epidemiology unit at the University of Toronto, the increase in driving fatalities seen on U.S. presidential election days “greatly exceeded the risk of New Year’s Eve and Super Bowl Sunday.”

“The average Super Bowl is associated with an increase of seven more people in fatal motor vehicle crashes, so that makes election days about three times more dangerous than the Super Bowl,” Redelmeier explained.

Comparatively, New Year’s Eve is only associated with about three more fatal crashes than the national average.

There are several reasons Redelmeier suspects presidential election days could be more dangerous for drivers than holidays and big game days. For one, he posits that the public is simply less aware of the potential for added danger.

“This shows that public attitudes and awareness can really influence road safety,” Redelmeier said.

In addition, because of our heightened awareness of roadside safety on holidays such as New Year’s, the number of police officers patrolling the roads for drunken or reckless drivers increases exponentially. The same is not so on our election Tuesdays.

But we can all say from experience that adding even just one extra responsibility to our already loaded schedules can lead to speeding or other distractions.

Redelmeier also points out in his report that many of us are traveling to unfamiliar areas in order to cast our votes. This simple change in routine can lead to increased distractions and even heightened anxiety while driving, all of which could be contributing factors to the increase of fatal car crashes.

Although there are a few simple changes that might help bring down the number of fatal crashes during election days -- such as increased presence of police officers and roadside patrolling, or the establishment of more automatic enforcement technologies such as video cameras at stop lights and photo radar -- I think the one thing we can all do to help curb this phenomenon is to be aware of it.

With that said, this news won’t discourage me from showing up at the polls this year -- but it might take me some extra time to (slowly, calmly) drive there. And I hope the same for you.

September 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (18)

'I'm High Fructose Corn Syrup, and I Approve This Message'

September 26, 2008 1:39 PM

By Dan Childs, Health Page Producer, ABCNews.com

Presidential candidates aren't the only ones banking on television ads to prop up their public images. A recently launched ad campaign for high-fructose corn syrup is looking to salvage the embattled reputation of the ubiquitous sweetener.

The ad, if you have not seen it, can be viewed here. And it is as much a lesson in intra-neighborhood passive aggressiveness as it is a lesson in nutrition.

"Wow, you really don't care what the kids eat, huh?" says one mother to another at a child's birthday party.

"Excuse me?" asks the other mom, who is pouring a glass of punch for her child.

"That has high-fructose corn syrup in it... You know what they say about it."

"What?" smirks punch-mom.

Obviously realizing that she has not brought her guns to this fight, the fructose-phobic mom balks, giving punch-mom the opportunity to extol the virtues of high fructose corn syrup -- namely, that it is natural, made from corn, and, "like sugar, it's fine in moderation."

ZING!

Mom No. 1, visibly cowed, compliments mom No. 2's blouse. She silently vows never to question the corn industry again. Fade to black.

The ad is brought to us by the Corn Refiners Association; you can check out the official Web site of the campaign here. At a time when one in three school-aged children are overweight or obese, the effort to spruce up the sweetener's image may come not a moment too soon.

But is it enough? Many nutrition experts continue to assail the ingredient, which is present in everything from breakfast cereal to spaghetti sauce.

High fructose corn syrup producers pull out most, if not all of the stops on their site -- including tip sheets that provide bullet points on how not-so-bad their product is.

"The American Medical Association (AMA) recently concluded that 'high-fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners,'" the site says.

But isn't this really a bit like saying your car's flat tires contributed no more than did its lack of gasoline, bad brakes and cracked radiator to your having to take the bus to work in the morning? Nutrition expert Dr. Darwin Deen of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York thinks so.

"I am profoundly upset about these ads," he says. "There are no foods that can't be consumed as part of a healthy diet, but high-fructose corn syrup needs to be on the list of foods to limit to whatever extent possible."

Even if it is true that high fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar, that means it still offers four calories per gram. This may not sound like a lot. But if the punch that mom is pouring in the televised ad is anything like one popular brand of fruit drink for which water and high fructose corn syrup are the two main ingredients, that eight-ounce glass she's pouring for her kid contains about 120 calories. For kids 9 to 13 years old, the total amount of daily calories recommended by the American Heart Association tops out at between 1,600 and 1,800.

So if her kid finishes that glass and goes back for a single refill, he or she has guzzled down 13 to 15 percent of the calories needed in a given day in two drinks alone.

"It's true that overall, the evidence suggests it is not demonstrably better or worse for health than sucrose," says Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale Prevention Research Center. "However, because of corn subsidies, HFCS is added in copious amounts to the food supply, and in places cane sugar is not -- from pasta sauce and salad dressing, to chips. It is the aggregate dose above all that makes HFCS [harmful]."

Also, to call high fructose corn syrup "natural" is a bit of a stretch. True, it's made from corn. But don't think for a moment that a laboratory or processing plant isn't involved. Farmer Brown cannot pluck an ear of corn from his field, squeeze it, and make high fructose corn syrup trickle out. It's just not that simple.

All of this being said, the commercial does have its merits. Specifically, it strikes at the heart of the growing trend of demonizing certain foods for what they contain, rather than what they actually are. Perhaps we've become so obsessed with cholesterol, saturated fat, sodium and the other invisible components of our food that we cannot see what is right in front of us.

"Basically, the ads are simple and true," says Carla Wolper of the Obesity Research Center at St. Luke's Hospital in New York. "No food should be demonized... Obesity is a result of too many calories, not too much HFCS."

Nor is bad health, by extension, the result of any one ingredient. Say, for example, you are at your favorite fast-food joint. You read the posted nutritional information about the meal you're preparing to enjoy. "This fried chicken has trans fat in it!" you might realize.

You know what else that fried chicken has in it? Fried chicken.

So maybe the mom doling out the high-fructose corn syrup in the commercial was right after all.

Then again, we never do get to see how chunky her kid is.

September 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (9)

Cell Phones: A Possible Cancer Risk for Your Head, or Just a Big Pain in the Rear?

September 25, 2008 4:08 PM

By Joanna Schaffhausen, Associate Medical Producer

I have a confession to make: I hate cell phones.

We take them everywhere with us now, these little cellular parasites. They come with us to work, on dates, in our cars…even to the restroom. “Hello?” said the woman in the stall next to mine.

“Hello?” I answered, thinking she might need emergency toilet paper.

“Do you mind?” she snapped back. “I’m on the phone.”

I miss the old days when it was okay to be out-of-touch, at least long enough to take a bathroom break. So you’ll understand why a secret part of me wishes there were proof that cell phones cause cancer. People would stop using them so much!

Based on growing concern among certain scientists, the government is holding a meeting today to address the issue. The House Government Reform Committee hearing is entitled “Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says” and experts will be testifying on both sides of the issue.

I already know what the science says. It is my job to read all of the studies so that ABC News can stay informed of the latest data.

And that’s why I think we won’t be returning to peace and quiet any time soon.

Between 1996 and 2005, cell phone use in the United States has exploded in popularity. During this period, the rate of cancerous brain tumors has actually decreased. This suggests that the phones are hardly causing an epidemic.

The American Cancer Society says that cell phones are unlikely to cause cancer because they emit weak radiation that does not have the power to alter DNA.

The real danger of cell phones appears to be the increased risk of motor vehicle accidents. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that drivers on cell phones were four times as likely to get into car crashes serious enough to cause injury, and the risk didn't change for hands-free devices.

But medical research comparing brain tumor patients to healthy controls has found mixed results, causing some doctors concern. A few studies suggest that heavy cell phone users are more likely to experience brain tumors, while many other studies have found no link.

Until we can know one hundred percent for sure that the phones are safe, say some experts, we need to be careful. Cell phones are still a pretty recent phenomenon, and no one knows what the effects of long-term use will be on today’s children.

I expect today’s children will be fine in terms of cancer risk. But I’m fine if Mom and Dad want to take away their phones, and if Americans in general want to cut back on the constant gab.

Just think of the benefits. Movies won’t be interrupted by ring tones. Restaurant patrons will actually converse with the people sitting at their tables, rather than the ones the phone. Our streets will be safer. And maybe, just maybe, I can once again visit the restroom in peace.

What do you think? Will cell phones & brain tumors turn out to be like tobacco, where the dangers weren’t appreciated for years? Or will it be more like the unfounded fears from the 1970s that microwave ovens would kill us all?

September 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (4)

The Morning Meeting

September 25, 2008 4:04 PM

"How new is this?"

"Have we heard it before?"

"Is anyone going to care?"

Such was the chorus on Thursday morning at the daily Medical Unit morning meeting -- and once again it was a dangerous place to be a study. If medical studies were well-heeled tourists, the Med Unit would be a bit like the dark alley in which they are stripped down and searched for any valuables they might be carrying. Some make it out, while others are never seen again.

It turns out that the true workings of how medical news gets made are a stark diversion from the childhood fantasy of the magic of medical research -- musings that inevitably involve women and men in white coats pouring colored liquids from beaker to beaker, casting bespectacled eyes at the results and announcing their successful findings to a barrage of handshakes and the strobe of camera flashes.

Pull back the curtain, and we're really about a dozen people sitting in a circle, some with coffee, looking for a piece of research that shows at least a 95 percent chance of something happening that we didn't know about before.

Still, comparing the reality of medical news against the fantasy, it's hard to say that one bit of news is any more exciting than the other. From where we're sitting, this is the leading edge of what the public learns about medical research -- a field that touches each and every one of our lives in ways that we might not often think about.

Through the Health Insider blog, we are offering you the chance to pull up a chair and join us as we root through the medical news of the day and offer our reflections, backed by our network of more than 14,000 medical experts in more than 200 specialty areas -- as well as the views of ABC News medical editor Dr. Tim Johnson.

We welcome your comments, criticisms, observations and efforts to tell us things we may not know. It is our pleasure to invite you into the Med Unit, and we hope you will enjoy our blog, learn from it and engage it.

September 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (6)