Note to the Feds: Stop underwriting the poor-health epidemic
The latest report from the President's Cancer Panel states that protecting the public health is a moral obligation. If only that mattered to enough people, we might get somewhere in our fight against cancer. It would be an epic battle between altruistic intentions and corporate greed, and I don't hold out much hope.
However, that was the overarching theme and tone of this 145-page report that took a look at the greatest influencing factors on the cancer rate in this country. And maybe these highlighted issues will serve to shame some officials into action.
The role of the Cancer Panel is to look at the "state of the union" in terms of cancer prevalence in the U.S. And while the panel acknowledged that cancer rates went down last year, it estimated that more than 500,000 Americans will still die from cancer this year. Worse, nearly two-thirds of those impending cancer deaths could have been prevented had lifestyle changes been adopted earlier.
In their report, the panel members issued a plea to the government to "cease being a purveyor of unhealthy foods." Specifically, they want the practice of subsidizing certain crops—such as corn and soybeans—to be reconsidered. Subsidization of these crops has come at the expense of other, healthier crops, such as fruits and vegetables.
And while those subsidized crops aren't in and of themselves unhealthy, it's the products that are created from them that are contributing to so many of our health issues. These crops are subsidized because their byproducts are cheap and are added to all types of foods, making those foods easy to mass-produce and ship.
Hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup are examples of some of these byproducts, and there hardly seems to be a packaged product on grocery-store shelves that doesn't contain one or the other, and in many cases both, of these as main ingredients. So, in essence, the government is subsidizing cancer-causing products.
The panel report points out that these subsidization policies have served to make these unhealthy foods easy on the pocketbook of consumers, while putting healthier options out of their reach. The financial tradeoff, however, has been steeper health costs, thanks to the chronic diseases these nutritionally inferior products contribute so heavily to. And just remember, some of every dollar you earn goes to the government, which is then spent on these subsidies. That really gets my goat!
And the panel didn't limit its criticisms to the subject of crop subsidization. It also attacked an overall flawed system that has moved physical education out of the schools while at the same time allowing junk foods to appear in cafeterias and vending machines. These moves have contributed to the problem of child obesity and to the alarming rates of chronic disease developing in our children. Overall, it's estimated that one-third of all cancers are due to obesity and physical inactivity.
The odds have certainly been stacked against consumers making healthy choices, but adding to the problem are the health insurance companies. Their ridiculous conveyor-belt requirements have doctors busy watching the clock instead of counseling their patients regarding behavioral habits that can lead to cancer.
Mainstream doctors are actually penalized because of this conveyor-belt system for not seeing enough patients. (I'm glad I don't have to "step to it" as a part of this crazed system that passes for medical "care" these days.) This time management has translated into patient mismanagement. The result? Patients are being shortchanged left and right. They're not getting the nutritional counseling they need to make healthy choices and are not having truly in-depth discussions with their doctors about their current levels of physical activity and about a plan for physical fitness.
Unfortunately, too many mainstream doctors have been forced to become little more than oil-change "specialists." They get you in and get you out, but not much is reviewed past the oil stick.
Maybe if health insurance companies allowed doctors a little leeway, those doctors could work on continuing education and bring their patients the best and latest in medical advice. But that might make too much sense—and result in a lot fewer sick people for the drug companies to bring into their fold.
The Cancer Panel report also recommended that the food and beverage industry be regulated—especially their advertising practices—and that stricter control be imposed on the tobacco industry. Tobacco has led to another one-third of cancers that occur, and most assuredly the tobacco industry must continue to be challenged on a consistent basis.
And I'm sure the panelists' hearts were in the right place when they suggested that the FDA be given the authority to regulate tobacco. My, but the FDA has been doing such a bang-up job of cozying up to the drug companies, I can't imagine how its energies might be exhausted with another megalith industry to befriend.
Citizen action groups might be a better way to go. There have been some terrific advertisements that have come out in recent years about the dangers of tobacco use.
I think the first step in preventing cancer is to bring awareness of these very issues—just as this report has tried to do. You need to be aware of the reason behind some of the policies in place—and it always comes down to profits. Then, you need to devise a plan for avoiding products that were created for the sole purpose of making money and offer no other value. You shouldn't let your health suffer and die prematurely just so some people can make a buck.
And by all means—don't wait on the government to take the moral high road.
