A crime against humanity

A Heartland Boondoggle: The World's Most Hated Commodity
By Tom Dyson

The people at the plant were so busy, they didn't have time to show me around.

I was simply told to sign myself in, grab a helmet, and look around on my own...

One year ago, I flew to Iowa and toured a large ethanol plant. It was harvest time, and farmers were bringing in the corn crop.

Ethanol plants buy millions and millions of bushels of corn at harvest time every year. They clean, thresh, dust, and store the corn in a sandbox the size of a football field. Here's a picture I took of the corn pile:

You can only see one fifth of the pile. The plants had already packed most of the corn under plastic tarpaulins to the right of the picture.

Ethanol plants turn this corn into fuel for automobiles.

At the time of my visit, ethanol was a darling. Investors loved it, farmers loved it, politicians loved it, and conservationists loved it. When people find out what I do for a living, they always ask me what I think of the current investment fad. Last year, the question was always, "So what do you think of ethanol, Tom?"

It's amazing how fast public sentiment can change:

• Last month, Jean Zigler, an expert at the United Nations, called ethanol a "crime against humanity."
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a report in September that asked if ethanol "offers a cure that is worse than the disease."
• An October 2007 report from the National Research Council says "the harm to water quality [from ethanol production] could be considerable, and water supply problems at the regional and local levels could also arise."
• A spring 2007 report from the Environmental Protection Agency says an increase in corn-based ethanol use will raise the level of ozone, especially in midwestern states.
• Nobel Prize for Chemistry winner Paul Crutzen said ethanol "might exacerbate climate change."
• Some foreign countries have slammed ethanol in the press. Mexico blames ethanol for contributing to the price of corn tortillas. China has banned new biofuel plants from using corn. Cuban President Fidel Castro says using food crops for fuel is a "sinister idea."
• Stock prices of ethanol producers have collapsed.

Here's the thing. Yesterday I received an e-mail from my Iowa farmland contact. He grows corn and raises hogs in Sioux County. He says the time is right to start investing in ethanol again. He gives four reasons:

1. No new plants are going up and producers have postponed or cancelled all their planned projects in the past few months due to the dearth of financing. The ones that are up and running are making money, even with high-priced corn.
2. Stock prices are down 50%-60% from the highs and the market has already baked in all the bad news. To make money, all things have to do is go from bad to less bad.
3. Even though petrol companies are reluctant to provide ethanol at gas stations, with e-100 "rack price" under $1.90 per gallon, someone will see the profit potential and get the product out to the consumer. Right now, consumers pay more than $3 for gasoline.
4. Average cost to produce e-100 is $1.50 per gallon, and that's before the 51-cent subsidy. Ethanol plants are profitable at current prices.

In sum, ethanol was a darling. Now the crowd hates it. Contrarian investors can take advantage of the negative sentiment and buy stock in ethanol producers.

The biggest ethanol company in the Midwest is VeraSun Energy, and you have many other candidates for this trade as well.

To be honest, I'd rather keep my money in safer, more stable industries than ethanol. But I can tell you many people who have everyday dealings with this industry are buying ethanol shares. If you choose to speculate with them, just remember: Fortunes in this industry can change very quickly.

the question is do you want cheap food or expensive energy? QJ

Oil and Health - the impact

Anyone who has followed Mcgee Health Politics programs over the last few years knows that I've done a lot of research on our most precious resource -- water -- and how it affects virtually every aspect of our lives. In the process of that research, I've learned that not everything is as it seems on the surface when it comes to our natural resources.

And now, we have a good reason to look closely at another resource: oil. The global clamor over oil is as loud as it’s ever been. From environmentalists to politicians to economists, it seems everyone has an opinion on what to do about this rapidly dwindling resource.

We know oil affects many aspects of our lives. But seldom do we discuss oil in the context of health. Is it time for us to start?

The answer is yes. Petroleum is one of the primary building blocks of human medicines – from aspirin to antibiotics. Medical supplies, such as bandages, syringes, catheters, oxygen masks, surgical instruments, radiological dyes, hearing aids and many more, consume petroleum in production.

Health workers would have difficulty getting to you, and you to them, absent petroleum to carry us along. Imagine a world in which emergency vehicles were halted and life-saving helicopters and aircraft were grounded.

On the other hand, a world with scare petroleum would mean a cleaner environment, more walking and use of bicycles, and a generally fitter population. There are clear examples of rather immediate positive health impacts with decreased auto congestion. And restrained use of petroleum would result in a greater reliance on local food production, pushing America’s diet closer to “fresh and green.”

On balance, though, the impact of scarce petroleum on overall health care – at least until we develop alternatives – is troubling. Enough so that public health leaders have begun to call for serious scenario-planning and rapid-response capabilities, similar to the exercises we’ve gone through for bird flu and terrorist attacks. At the very least, we need to look at these issues with greater concern than we have in the past.

To learn more, watch this week’s video (embedded with this blog post) or read the full transcript of this week’s program, below. And, as always, please share your own thoughts about petroleum’s impact.

Other useful elder resources

Check us out for fun and informtion

Five reasons Grandma should get online

Five reasons Grandma should get online: "5 reasons Grandma should get online

Seniors tune in to technology to connect, shop and stay informed'

This is a useful article that indicates that seniors are the fastest growing group on the net, and that the computer enhances their lifestyle by enabling them . The five reasons are 1. Social networking with their friends and family, 2. the convenience of shopping on line (freedom of virtual mobility), 3. Banking and taking care of own finances. 4. E-learning through books and free web resources 5. Keeping with it -informed, in touch,knowledgeable and worldly.

Elder sleep problems

As people age, they typically develop more diseases and suffer from aches and pains. "These things can disrupt sleep, so what they may perceive as a sleep disorder may actually relate to the effects of some of their other medical problems," Gammack noted.

Taking multiple medications, as many older people do, can also lead to fatigue and "hypersomnia," or being tired all the time, Bloom added.
Another big problem, he noted, is depression and anxiety. "Those are very commonly associated with sleep problems."

Despite the prevalence of sleep difficulties in older adults, many patients aren't getting the help they need.
"The average physician receives very little training about sleep disorders and typically does not routinely screen patients for them," said Vitiello, who serves on the board of directors of the National Sleep Foundation. This may be due to a lack of time or training or the belief that there is little that can be done to improve sleep, he explained.
As a result, problems like insomnia, restless leg syndrome, sleep apnea and circadian rhythm disorders are underdiagnosed and undertreated, Bloom said.

Where is the common Sense?

When Rules are Wrong: Border Patrol Stops Ambulance

POSTED by obserant blogger cas

NOVEMBER 18, 2007 AT 10:02 PM TO POLITICS, US, CANADA.

cas shares news of government rules and regulations rum amuck at the US-Canada border:
"An ambulance rushing a heart attack victim to Detroit from a Windsor (Ontario) hospital ill-equipped to perform life-saving surgery was stopped for secondary inspection Monday by U.S. Customs, despite the fact it carried a man fighting for his life. Rick Laporte, 49 -- who twice had been brought back to life with defibrillators -- was being rushed across the border when a U.S. border guard ignored protocol at the Detroit portion of the tunnel and forced the ambulance -- with siren and lights flashing -- to pull over." This reminds me of a story a few months back here in Virginia where a husband was pulled over and issued a reckless driving ticket for going over 80mph. The catch: he was taking his wife, who was in labor, to the hospital. It's these people's jobs to uphold the law, but come on, have half a brain and make exceptions for special circumstances!

How do we stop this? Just like Tassers which are legal but abused by "robotic" official and if used without ommon sense

Virus forces aged care centre lockdown - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The importance of having the right proedures for retirement and nursing homes is illustrated here. qj

Virus forces aged care centre lockdown - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Q-jumpers: Welome to our community

Q-jumpers: Welome to our community

backtoeden elders
sign our guest book , participate in our forums

backtoeden seniors journel
comment on seniors issues

Welome to our community

Go public, go private - 50Plus.com

Go public, go private - 50Plus.com

This is an exellent review of the current Health Care debate and includes an objective calm assesment of the situation. The question is and remains- if you are in pain or need help ,do you really care how you get it ? It is true that the political niceities of public or private medical pale the longer it takes to get the qualified professional service help you need to relieve your health pain. QJ

Many Americans Dissatisfied With Their Medical CareBy Steven ReinbergHealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Although the United States spends more than twice as much on health care as other western countries, many Americans say they are forced to forgo care because of costs, experience more medical errors, and say the health-care system needs to be overhauled, a new survey finds.

U.S. patients also have the highest out-of-pocket costs and the most difficulty paying medical bills, according to the survey of seven countries conducted by The Commonwealth Fund.
And U.S. and Canadians are least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their doctors and are more likely to go to emergency rooms for immediate care, the survey found.
"It's easy to say that we have the best health system in the world, but it's really important to look at the evidence to see what the data show," Karen Davis, Commonwealth Fund president, said during a teleconference Wednesday.

"We are certainly the most expensive health-care system," Davis said. "What these surveys have shown year after year is that patients in the U.S. experience more problems with access to care because of costs," she said.
The report, Toward Higher Performance Health Systems: Adults' Views and Experiences With Primary Care, Care Coordination and Safety in Seven Countries, 2007, is published in the Nov. 1 online issue of Health Affairs.

For the survey, Commonwealth Fund researchers were led by Cathy Schoen, fund vice president and research director of its Commission on a High Performance Health System. They surveyed 12,000 adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their health-care systems.
"Despite spending that leads the world, U.S. adults, for the most part, are likely to go without needed care because of costs, to report medical errors when sick, and to encounter high out-of-pocket costs and struggle to pay their medical bills," Schoen said during the teleconference.
Schoen's team found that one third of U.S. adults said the health-care system needed rebuilding, which was the highest rate in any country. In addition to costs, U.S. patients said they received more fragmented and inefficient care, including medical record and test delays, and more time wasted on paperwork, compared with patients in other countries. "Both low- and high-income patients expressed these views," Schoen said.

U.S. patients also said they had the highest rates of lab test errors and some of the highest rates of medical or medication errors. These errors were highest among patients seeing multiple doctors or with multiple chronic illnesses, Schoen said. In the United States, one-third of patients who had chronic conditions reported a medical, medication, or test error in the last two years.

Many U.S. adults also said they were likely to go without care because of costs. Thirty-seven percent of all U.S. adults and 42 percent of those with chronic conditions said cost had kept them from taking prescribed medications, seeing a doctor when sick, or receiving recommended care last year. These rates were far higher than all other countries, Schoen noted.
Patients in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom rarely reported not getting needed medical care because of costs, the survey found.
"The Netherlands stands out for strong positive endorsement of their health-care system -- confidence in care, quality and safety, and access to the latest technology," Schoen said. "The Netherlands also stands out with low concern with access due to cost, as do Canada and the U.K.," she added.

Moreover, one-fifth of patients in the United States said they had serious problems paying medical bills. That was more than double the rate in the next highest country. In addition, 30 percent of American patients spent more than $1,000 in the last year on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The survey also found that patients gave the highest grades to health-care systems in which people had one doctor in charge of their medical care. But, across all the countries surveyed, only 45 percent to 61 percent of adults said they had a primary source of care, sometimes called a "medical home." In the United States, only 26 percent of uninsured patients had a medical home, compared with 53 percent of insured adults under 65, the researchers found.
One expert said the survey revealed -- once again -- the shortcomings of the U.S. health-care system.

"Comparing the U.S. health-care system to other industrialized countries is not for the faint of heart. The deficiencies in the U.S. system are painfully evident in every such study, and this one is no exception," said Dr. David Katz, director of Yale University School of Medicine's Prevention Research Center. "We manage to spend more on less efficient health care than any country in the world."
The real message from this survey is not about countries or health-care systems, but people, Katz said.
"What seems to predict better care, better outcomes, and more patient satisfaction is the most fundamental aspect of care there is -- a caring relationship. Patients with a health-care provider they know and trust and can rely on and call their own have a better health-care experience," he said.

SOURCES: Oct. 31, 2007, teleconference with Karen Davis, president, The Commonwealth Fund, and Cathy Schoen, vice president and research director, Commission on a High Performance Health System, The Commonwealth Fund, New York City; David Katz, M.D., M.P.H., director, Prevention Research Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.; Nov. 1, 2007, Health Affairs, online
Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.

Medical error a leading cause of death

8:55 AM 11/6/2007
Medical Interventions a Leading Cause of Death

Not long ago I read a report that made the astonishing claim that the leading cause of death in the US is the American medical system. Medicare's recent announcement that it will no longer reimburse hospitals for the cost of treating certain "serious preventable events," such as an object left in a patient's body after an operation or giving a patient the wrong kind of blood, and particular infections amounts to a frightening acknowledgement of how bad things have gotten in mainstream health care.
 
Authors of the report on causes of death, published in Life Extension magazine, attributed nearly 800,000 deaths each year to medical interventions, in contrast to approximately 650,000 deaths from heart disease and 550,000 from cancer. The methodology they used to calculate that number didn't stand up to our analysis, so I don't think the numbers are quite so high. However, it did get my attention since the figures came from credible sources including peer-reviewed medical journals, citing for instance, 106,000 deaths annually from adverse drug reactions, 98,000 from medical errors and 88,000 from infections. This compares with 160,000 deaths from lung cancer anticipated for 2007, for instance. Death can't be held off forever, of course -- but preventable deaths from hospital-acquired infections, especially if due to poor hygiene such as those transmitted by not washing hands, are particularly egregious.
 
For greater insight into the risks we face, I spoke with David J. Sherer, MD, a board-certified anesthesiologist in Falls Church, Virginia, and the coauthor of Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe and Comfortable (Claren). He said that although this report is controversial and somewhat alarmist, it has elements of truth. Numbers can always be crunched and interpreted in different ways, but the indisputable point here is that medical errors and complications or adverse effects from medical interventions have reached a crisis point in this country -- one that needs to be addressed. That's beginning to happen.
Dr. Sherer and I discussed what's behind this alarming trend and how we can protect ourselves.
 
BEHIND THE RISE IN MEDICAL-RELATED DEATHS
First of all, the problem is not that medical practitioners have suddenly and inexplicably become sloppy and careless. That's far too simplistic an explanation. Instead, Dr. Sherer chalks up the alarming statistics to a number of different factors:
The American public is getting older and sicker. Growing numbers of graying baby boomers are developing the diseases of aging -- heart disease, diabetes, orthopedic problems, etc. In the meantime, in people of all ages, ballooning rates of obesity contribute to these same health challenges. More sick people mean more medical interventions... and in hard numbers, that adds up to more mistakes or complications.
In a kind of medical "perfect storm," just as more Americans are developing serious health problems, we're struggling with a shortage of medical support personnel including nurses, which decreases the attention paid to patient needs and details of treatment. Also, managed care has meant doctors have less time to devote to patients during office visits and, as a result, are less likely to know the particulars of their history. Dr. Sherer warns that this sets up a system ripe for errors.
Americans today take more medications than anyone else in the world -- and drug companies are working hard to get us to take even more. Spending on direct-to-consumer drug advertising has increased over 300% in nearly a decade, to $4.2 billion in 2005 from $1.1 billion in 1997. With that much money aimed at advertising drugs not just to save lives, but to enhance mood or correct erectile dysfunction or alleviate restless legs syndrome, Dr. Sherer points out that drugs are often being taken by people who don't need them. More drugs mean more drug reactions and interactions to juggle than ever before... again, many more opportunities for errors.
We're paying closer attention to medical errors and preventable complications and -- paradoxically, the harder we look for them, the more we find. This makes the numbers look terrible in the short run, but in the long run this increased vigilance and accountability should result in improved care.
HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF
 
Forewarned is forearmed: There are many proactive steps you can take to shield yourself and your loved ones from this epidemic of deaths related to medical interventions. At the doctor's office or in the hospital, Dr. Sherer recommends...
Bring an up-to-date list of all medications you take. Make sure that you list not only prescription drugs, but also over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies, vitamins and other dietary supplements. These can all react with one another. Also list the condition for which you take each drug.
 
Include correct name, spelling, usage and dosage. Dr. Sherer cautions that many drugs -- for example, Xanax (for anxiety) and Zantac (to treat ulcers) -- sound similar. A comprehensive and accurate list that includes the condition for which a drug or supplement has been prescribed will help ward off confusion and errors. This is especially important when dealing with health-care professionals who don't speak English as their first language.
Tell practitioners about any drug allergies or sensitivities and all pre-existing conditions. For example, perhaps you are allergic to penicillin. While this information should appear on your chart, don't take for granted that it does. Reminding health-care providers of your medical history, including drug allergies, is a simple and effective way to avoid potentially life-threatening medical errors.
 
Do your homework. If you are scheduled to take a new drug or undergo a test or procedure, first research it at reliable government, hospital or university-based Web sites such as www.medlineplus.gov or www.mayoclinic.com or www.jhu.edu (Johns Hopkins). Peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (jama.ama-assn.org) and the New England Journal of Medicine (content.nejm.org) can also be excellent sources of information. An objective non-biased drug assessment database is available through both print and on-line subscription (www.factsandcomparisons.com/) -- ask your health-care provider and/or pharmacist whether they use it.
 
Speak up. Ask your doctor the right questions. Why do I need this drug/test/procedure? What are the risks versus benefits? Is this the best drug/test/procedure for my condition? What about side effects? In the case of tests, are the results typically straightforward or subject to interpretation? How often is this test/procedure performed at your facility? How often does the surgeon or other medical practitioner perform it? In both cases, the more often, the better. Will there be pain or discomfort? If your physician can't or won't take the time to answer your questions, it's time to get a new physician.
Designate a friend or family member to be your advocate. When you're ill, it's all too easy to become nervous and forget the questions you want to ask, or fail to recall your physician's advice. It's not only comforting to have a trusted advocate by your side at such moments, it also contributes to a better understanding of the situation on your part, and more accountability on the part of your caregivers. If you're in the hospital, try to have someone with you or visiting frequently so that they can get help/nurse's attention if need be.
 
Take personal responsibility. In the long run, you remain in charge of your own health. Responsibility includes not just your interactions with medical practitioners, but also making lifestyle changes that reduce your risk of illness.
No doubt we will continue to hear more about this vitally important health topic -- and I'll continue to cover it in upcoming issues of Daily Health News. Given that hospitals will now have to absorb the costs of their mistakes due to Medicare's refusal to provide coverage for "serious preventable events," with a stipulation that prevents billing patients for them, too, it's clear that they will focus intently on reducing these events, which can only be good news. And meanwhile, Medicare's new hospital inpatient provisions will result not only in an estimated savings for the government of more than $20 million annually -- but, we can only hope, the saving of many lives as well.

Source(s):

---

Have fun while connecting on Messenger! Click here to learn more.

natural cures for the mind -use it or lose it

makes sense to use it
 

Hollecrest & Associates Inc.  Business Solutions  

 

Pro-active Rants     Political news &  comments                      

Q-jumpers              Health dialoque & comments 

Venusian issues      Dialoque  Family help tips

---

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

rear end health- less invasive screening

...and another thing

Here's some comforting news for anyone who has had a colonoscopy and received a clean bill of health or had non-cancerous polyps removed: It appears that your risk of developing colorectal cancer in the future is quite low.

That's according to a new study from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. When S-K researchers analyzed data collected from a national study of colon cancer rates following first-time colonoscopies, results showed that those original colonoscopies were far more significant than follow-up screenings in the prevention of colon cancer.

Lead author of the study, Ann G. Zauber, told HealthDay News, "The initial colonoscopy has a major impact – a huge, huge effect – on reducing colon cancer deaths."

Of course, this doesn't mean that follow-up screenings should be avoided. Zauber noted that with each passing year the importance of a follow-up colonoscopy rises. And patients who are at high-risk of colon cancer should have colonoscopies every three to five years.

You can find more information about colonoscopy and "virtual" colonoscopy (a relatively less invasive screening method) in the e-Alert "YouTubing" (10/17/07), at this link:

http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200710/ea20071017a.html

---

R U Ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5? Try it today!

nutrition sells

Can Good Nutrition Sell?
A Look at the "Guiding Stars" Rating System

There’s a war going on in America’s fast-food nation and consumers will determine who wins. The battle was originally engaged around portion sizes, brought to a head by the film, “Super Size Me” in 2004.1 That battle line remains drawn and active with outlets like TGI Friday’s attracting customers to its new “right size” menu.2 McDonald’s, on the other hand, remains nutritionally schizophrenic, pushing salads on the one hand and a new 89-cent, 410-calorie, 42-ounce drink called “Hugo” on the other.3

Credit goes to the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services, which rang the alarms in 2001 and 2002 that obesity, particularly among children, was epidemic.4,5 Over the prior three decades, the percentage of U.S. children between six and eleven years old with obesity had risen from 4 percent to 13 percent, and the rate in 12 to 19 year olds from 5 percent to 14 percent.4,5 These government agencies made it clear that being obese did not make you a bad person, but it did virtually guarantee bad health, with higher than normal rates of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, strokes, arthritis, gallbladder disease, and some cancers.6

While portions were an early focus in the battle, it was well understood by most that the problem in the United States was more fundamental than that. It wasn’t just quantity, it was quality as well. The debate over the past three years has moved from the question, “how much should I eat?” to “what should I eat?” – and more importantly, “what’s in my food?” A landmark work in 2006 by New York Times columnist Michael Pollan, revealed that our grain and meat based, factory-built modern American diet, trumpeted in the center aisles of most super markets, had been infiltrated and dominated by high calorie corn. In both our solid and liquid diets, without our knowledge, we were essentially, in a variety of disguised shapes, sizes, and colors, “eating corn, and washing it down with more corn.”7

Our lack of knowledge was not simply a function of our rushed, out-of-balance, multi-tasking culture which encourages “eating on the run,” nor simply the result of our own disinterest and passivity when it comes to food and health. Rather, it was driven, to a large extent, by misinformation, and massive marketing that hijacked the words “health,” “balance,” “light” and “good for you,” and aligned them with products that clearly were making us ill.8
The government responded with better labels, and earnest efforts, but in truth, they were outgunned by manufacturers, who managed to maintain enough confusion and complexity to keep American families in the dark – at least until now.

This month a grocery store chain, started by Arthur Hannaford 125 years ago in Maine, declared success.9 One year ago, the Hannaford Brothers Company, with 155 stores in the northeast and 26,000 employees, said “enough is enough.” As the region’s largest certified organic supermarket, and a U.S Environmental Protection Agency Merit Award winner, it believed its customers deserved better nutritional support and that the food packaging confused more than it helped.10 So the company put together an advisory committee made up of top-notch academic experts from Dartmouth, Tufts, Harvard, University of North Carolina, University of California and the University of Southern Maine and charged them to create a grading system for food that was trustworthy and easy to use.10
The result was “Guiding Stars,” a “rating formula that credits a food’s score for the presence of vitamins, minerals, fiber and whole grains and debits a food’s score for the presence of trans or saturated fats, cholesterol, added sugar and added sodium.”10 The more positive the attributes, the more stars, with three being the top rating. The next step? Hannaford rated 25,500 products and found that only 28% received one star or more. Many products marketed by manufacturers as “healthy” received no stars. The chain then set about educating their customers about the system. One year later, 81% are aware of the program, and over half use it regularly.9

But did the system change purchasing behavior? Kelly Brownell, a nutrition expert at Yale, said thinking you could succeed with good consumers would be optimistic since you are “competing in an environment that provides massive inducement to unhealthy foods.”9 But advisory board member Lisa Sutherland, an assistant professor of pediatrics and nutrition science, says the results of the first year of data “were pretty much what I would have expected with an objective system that wasn’t designed to promote or negate one food or another.”9
In short, the system worked. Here are the results of the changes in buying habits of Hannaford customers over a 12-month span.9

1) Customers bought leaner cuts of meat. Sales of ground beef with stars increased 7% and beef without stars declined 5%. Starred chicken was up 5%, unstarred declined 3%.

2) Three star fat-free milk increased 1% while no-star whole milk declined 4%.

3) The greatest shifts in behavior were in the center aisle packaged goods. Those with stars grew at 2 ½ times the pace of those without stars. Breakfast cereals with stars increased 3 ½ times those without, and starred frozen dinners outpaced un-starred sales by 4 ½ times. Company spokeswoman Caren Epstein was especially pleased with packaged aisle results. As she said, “People already know that fruits and vegetables are good for them. When you are looking at 100 different cereals, that’s where you need help.”9

A patent is pending on the Guiding Star System and hopefully it will soon be in a supermarket near you. Until then, here are two things to remember. First, the problem with our American diet involves both quantity and quality. Second, just because PepsiCo names something “Smart Spot” or Kraft labels an item “Sensible Solution” doesn’t guarantee that these products are good for you. We consumers need to use our brains, being both smart and sensible. And the companies who are pushing the stuff the hardest aren’t necessarily the ones to choose as your “nutritional best friends.”