Enjoy the latest research on health care and healthy living:

American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) Says No to Antibiotics in Animal Feed

Feeding livestock antibiotics to artificially boost growth is big business and America's Pediatricians are finally saying that's enough. MedPage reported on the AAP's announcement discouraging use of antibiotics in animal fed due to the potential harm for children. While 7.25 million pounds of these drugs are sold for use in humans, more than 32.2 million pounds are sold for use in animals -- animals that often have no active infection.

The overuse of antibiotic medication in children was also briefly addressed: "Clinicians bear some responsibility for this problem because we ourselves are not always prudent in our use of antibiotics...Unfortunately, too many people still prescribe antibiotics for colds or sore throats without having an appropriate bacterial diagnosis. So, since clinicians are part of the problem, they can be part of the solution."

For your family's safety, choose meat that has been raised without antibiotics or other chemicals. And avoid antibiotic use for common colds, runny noses, and sore throats that are caused by viruses that cannot be killed with antibiotics.

Medical Errors Still Alarmingly High

Forbes recently reported: "A disturbing new study, published in the October 2015 issue of Anesthesiology, found that medication errors occurred in nearly half of all surgical procedures. Additionally, the study found that one-third of all errors resulted in adverse drug events or harm to patients." The study reviewed surgeries performed at a Harvard-affiliated hospital "considered a leader in patient safety." Clinicians weighing in on the study felt this actually underestimates the number of medical errors.

This follows research estimating deaths due to preventable medical errors at 400,000 per year in the United States. Furthermore, these estimates seem to only consider hospitalized medical care, not accounting for other medical treatment. It's always important to recognize the significant risks associated with even "non-invasive" or "minor" medical care, utilizing safer conservative care first whenever possible.

Now Some Good News: Americans Are Eating Better And Reducing Disease

Don't let us mislead you, researchers still conclude the diet of Americans is "poor". However, an analysis of diet trends (from 1999-2012) found small signs of improvement with a big payoff: 1.1 million fewer premature deaths, 8.6% fewer cardiovascular disease cases, 1.3% fewer cancer cases, and 12.6% fewer type 2 diabetes cases. Good job Americans - now keep going!

You're apparently drinking fewer sugary beverages and eating more fruit, but you haven't increased your veggies. Get those veggies in and keep cutting the sweets and carbs. Eat real unprocessed food and get moving!

Still think your sugar-sweetened beverage won't hurt you? It may kill you based a recent study published in Circulation Journal. Put down the pop and toss the sweet tea.

Researchers looked at studies linking sugar consumption and various chronic diseases to make the best estimate of annual deaths related to sugar-sweetened beverages. Here's what they calculated for those drinking sugar-sweetened beverages:

• 133,000 annual deaths from diabetes
• 45,000 annual deaths from cardiovascular disease
• 6,450 annual deaths from cancer

These conditions cover only a fraction of the health problems linked to sugar consumption, and include only beverages not sugary foods. They also excluded store-bought fruit juice, which has been found to cause harmful effects comparable to soda. These numbers likely underestimate the harm from sugar.

While Americans have been told to focus on cutting fat, we've largely overlooked the bigger problem - sugar. Start reducing your sugar intake today and don't think artificially sweetened beverages are any better for you. Don't let sugar-sweetened beverages kill you.

Doctors from the Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson Cancer Center have taken a close look at why cancer drugs are so expensive for Americans, and it's not because of the reasons drug companies report.

Consider:
In the United States, the average price of cancer drugs for about a year of therapy increased from $5000 to $10,000 before 2000 to more than $100,000 by 2012.

Americans with cancer pay 50% to 100% more for the same patented drug than patients in other countries.

The doctors studied four common reasons given for high cancer drug costs, and found them to be little more than myths that allow drug companies to increase their profits from cancer patients.

Myth #1 - High Cost of Research & Drug Development
The $1 billion price tag often quoted to research and develop a new drug has been found to be overinflated, with costs actually as low as 10% of that number. In reality, 85% of cancer basic research is funded through taxpayers’ money, not drug company money.

Myth #2 - High Cost is Due to Great Benefit
"A cost-benefit analysis reveals no correlation between price and benefits when measured by objective criteria such as survival or quality of life. One drug may prolong life by years and another by days, yet both carry similar price tags."

Myth #3 - Competition Between Drug Companies Will Lead to Reasonable Prices
With so few cancer drugs available from only a handful of companies, drug companies have avoided competing with lower prices. Instead they all keep prices artificially high, so all companies benefit. This creates a virtual monopoly. "Further, in many instances, patients may need to be treated with each of the approved drugs sequentially because many cancers are still incurable and each drug stops working after a period of time."

Myth #4 - Controlling Prices Stifles Innovation
"High profits are often channeled toward higher salaries and bonuses of drug companies’ CEOs, not invested back into cancer research. In a Forbes editorial, Peter Bach outlined how high drug prices may in fact stifle innovation. Sovaldi, the new hepatitis C drug, was estimated by Pharmasset, Inc, the original company that developed it, to sell at about $34,000 for a course of treatment. This was the price of the innovation. Gilead Sciences, Inc bought Pharmasset at an 89% premium, figuring they could charge any price they wished for Sovaldi, regardless of the consequences to patients. Gilead now charges $80,000 to $160,000 for a 3- to 6-month course of the drug. The added premium price is money diverted from innovation (investing in future research) as a result of distorted market mentality. The cost of drug production for a treatment course is only $138; outside the United States (India, Egypt, Spain), the price of a course of treatment is $900."

The doctors gave several recommendations to reduce cancer drug costs, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, allowing experts to consider the efficacy of various drugs when determining their value, eliminate drug companies' ability to pay competitors not to produce a similar drug, allow importation of cancer drugs from other countries, and others. They also recommend drug companies be held to a mission of helping patients, not just maximizing profits.

Experts (including doctors) have long told Americans not to worry about being harmed by the chemical cocktails of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides used to grow our produce bigger, faster, and blemish-free.

However, research has now shown that Americans, including newborns, have surprising levels of pesticides accumulating in their bodies. Now that research has linked these chemical to health problems, scientists and medical organizations are finally starting to sound the alarm.

American Academy of Pediatrics Recommends Reducing Pesticide Exposure

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a new policy statement describing the harmful effects of pesticides and how to reduce exposure. Here are highlights of the AAP statement on pesticides: