Women's Health

WOMEN'S HEALTH
I believe that we, along with everything else in this world, are connected. Nowhere is there more evidence of this reality than in the issues facing environmental conservation and our health. As isolated as we may be, what with our air conditioned homes and fresh produce sections in grocery stores, sooner than later that herbicide we used on our lawn last week will kill more than the dandelions plaguing our picture perfect green.
But ever more alarming is the realization that we, consciously or unconsciously, are poisoning ourselves on a daily basis. Ironically it is in our attempt to better ourselves in terms of looks, that we are subjecting ourselves to certain chemicals which are hazardous to our health. As women, whether or not the media’s distortion of healthy body image is to blame, our exposure is greater. When put into perspective, the unsettling truth is that us women use more products which are very likely to contain such toxins. And the consequences for us are more dire for they directly affect our reproductive health and that of our babies.
One such chemical, produced worldwide at an alarming rate of one billion pounds per year, is the industrial plasticizer called phthalate. This industrial compound is found in most anything that is plastic, soft or gel like, even certain oils used in perfumes. The health effects produced by such chemicals are due to the fact that it may act as a hormone inhibitor. In young girls, this can lead to early breast development, and in the long run, infertility.
Manufacturing companies claim that because products contain these chemicals in minimal amounts, the health risks are very unlikely. However, no one uses just one product containing these contaminants. When you add up your shampoo, your make-up, toothpaste, plus all the plastic containers, utensils, and objects of everyday use, we are no longer talking about minimal exposure.
Who is responsible and who should take action? Under the democratic society we live in, if dictated by the true meaning of democracy, all policies made by our government officials should be in order with the well being of the majority of the population.
Our government needs to force companies to search for alternatives in product manufacturing. The unfortunate truth is that companies are looking out for nothing more than their economic prosperity and chemical testing is not a profitable investment. The fact that currently, regulation is left up to the companies explains why only 10% of the more than 82,000 synthetic chemicals registered for use in the manufacturing industry have been tested for their effects on consumers’ health.
We should pressure our government to change industrial policy so that chemical testing is not in the hands of manufacturers who might use hazardous chemicals if it means fewer production costs and greater profits. If we manage to completely halt the production and incorporation of this and other chemicals known to be hazardous, not only will we be safer in the shower washing our hair, but we will also breath air which is not tainted with the residue of such chemical production. When we put into perspective the possible sequence of events brought about by a population aggravated by health problems stemming from environmental toxins, one might realize that there is more gain in making products safer.
-Adriana Orozco, Class of 2008

Pictured above is Ana Suarez and Britney McFarland leading the march at Planned Parenthood's Capitol Day, April 2008. The FLA advocated for women's health and medi-cal access and against the proposed budget cuts in Sacramento.

CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET AND THE PROPOSED CUTS
In 2007, Gov. Schwarzenegger decided that in order to combat California's $14.5 billion budget deficit, the state must cut its spending by 10 percent across the board. A seemingly small number, 10 percent will in fact be devastating to the multiple programs that rely on government support.

One that will be particularly hard hit is Medi-Cal. Many recognize Medi-Cal as a health insurance program designed to make health care affordable to low-income families.
In Tulare County, reputed to be one of the most impoverished counties in California, the 10 percent budget cut would force many doctors to turn down Medi-Cal patients. Beyond denying individuals and families their right to affordable health care, the shortsighted budget cut would also cost California money.
Every dollar California spends on Medi-Cal is reimbursed by the federal government, and in the case of family planning services, the government matches each dollar California spends with $9. A 10 percent cut to Medi-Cal would also cause turned-away patients to fill California's already overcrowded emergency rooms. This would not only create a longer wait, but also cost hospitals more money than Medi-Cal programs would. Medi-Cal cuts will be implemented July 1 unless the Legislature invalidates the plan. In order to fight this bill, residents of Tulare County can contact their local representatives through letters or emails, or by visiting them in person.
JORDYN KRUSE, Class of 2006 & 2008


Aspartame: not as sweet as you think
Think that when you hand your child a diet drink, you’re doing something positive for his or her health? You might want to think twice before drinking diet soda, and three times before handing it to your child. New science suggests that drinking diet soda may actually be linked to weight gain and obesity, and there are ongoing concerns about aspartame (brand name: NutraSweet) causing cancer and brain damage. Peer-reviewed studies by aspartame researcher Dr. Ralph Walton suggest that aspartame is also a factor in the alarming rise of juvenile diabetes, obesity, and behavior problems in children.

The San Antonio Heart Study, a 26-year epidemiologic study conducted by the University of Texas, paradoxically suggested that diet soda may lead to weight gain rather than weight loss. Researchers found that those who drank diet sodas were more likely to become overweight than those who drank equal amounts of regular soda.

Aspartame has had a controversial history as a food additive. Despite efforts starting in 1973, aspartame was not approved for use in dry foods until 1981. Prior to that, the FDA would not approve it due to seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab animals. It was not until President Reagan took office and replaced the FDA Commissioner with Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes that aspartame was approved. Even then, so much opposition remained that a Board of Inquiry was put together. The Board said: "Do not approve aspartame". However, Dr. Hayes overruled the Board. Shortly thereafter, Hayes left the FDA for a position with Searle, the pharmaceutical company that created aspartame.

Critics of aspartame note that when digested, it breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol) which then converts to formaldehyde (used to embalm dead tissue). Formaldehyde in the body gradually causes damage to the neurological system and immune system, even in low doses.

The official FDA website discourages pregnant women from consuming aspartame. It is important that people are made aware of the harmful effects that aspartame can have on health, especially the health of children. What is the use of aspartame if it does not prevent weight gain and it can be detrimental to one’s health?

By Maggie Boles, Class of 2007