Many Americans, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products - and government policies still promote them - despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks.

Osteoporosis

Milk's main selling point is calcium, and milk-drinking is touted for building strong bones in children and preventing osteoporosis in older persons. However, clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.[1] Similarly, the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, [2] which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. While calcium is important for bone health, studies show that increasing consumption beyond approximately 600 mg per day - amounts that are easily achieved without dairy products or calcium supplements - does not improve bone integrity.[2]

In studies of children and adults, exercise has been found to have a major effect on bone density.[3-5]

Bacon - The world's greatest & healthiest pleasure food.

Bacon is not unhealthy for us. It's not a superfood either. Or is it?

It depends on how you look at it. Bacon is not nutrient rich and is not loaded with antioxidants. But when a bacon lover enjoys bacon alone or with other foods then they are put in an incredibly happy place.

When you eat bacon you come alive. You feel great and don't think about all the stressors in the world. If you love bacon and eat it often then you should feel zero guilt when you consume it. Bacon is to be enjoyed as a compliment to other foods. The most common is eggs but we are known to wrap every damn food on the planet in bacon. Jim Gaffigan says...

To improve other foods they wrap it in bacon. If it weren't for bacon we wouldn't even know what a water chestnut is. Thank you bacon, sincerely water chestnut the third.

This is so true. Bacon does make other foods awesome. Liver is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. Its not palatable to most but if you wrap it in a bunch of bacon then it becomes delicious.

On to the reasons...

Before we dive into a discussion of epidural analgesia I'd like to clarify my intention in writing this series in light of some of the comments on previous articles.

The purpose of this series on natural childbirth is to demonstrate that homebirth is as safe - if not safer - than hospital birth for low risk pregnancies, and that medical interventions commonly used in hospital births such as epidurals, induction with synthetic oxytocin and cesarean sections have risks and complications that are often not communicated to pregnant women.

Currently fewer than 1% of births happen at home in the U.S., and I believe this is largely due to misconceptions about its safety. My intention here is to correct those misconceptions.

The purpose of this series is not to condemn the use of these interventions in all circumstances. All of them have their place, and can be very helpful and even life-saving (for mothers and babies) when used appropriately. In fact, I said the following in bold text at the end of the first article in this series:

I want to be clear: no matter where birth takes place, complications may arise that require medical intervention and I am 100% in support of it in these cases.

There is still much we don't understand about birth, and even more we don't have direct control over. In some cases, despite a woman's best efforts to have a natural, undisturbed birth, complications arise that require medical attention (and transfer to a hospital if she started laboring at home). In these circumstances, I absolutely endorse taking advantage of whatever interventions may protect the health and safety of both the mother and baby. At the end of the day, that is far, far more important than the method by which the baby was born.

I also want to be clear that I am not judging women who choose to have hospital births, receive epidurals, induce with Pitocin or end up having a cesarean section. I respect the right of women to choose a method of childbirth that feels safe and comfortable for them.

My purpose, instead, is to tell the side of the story that women are often not told, and to raise awareness of the risks associated with these procedures so that when it comes time to make their own decision, women are adequately educated and informed to do so.

Every year, pharmaceutical companies spend billions to get doctors to prescribe drugs to children. Johnson & Johnson even distributes tons of Legos that advertise its latest anti-psychotic, which causes diabetes, weight gain, and even breasts in boys and girls who take it.

In the past decade, America's pharmaceutical industry has knowingly marketed dozens of dangerous drugs to millions of children, a group that executives apparently view as a lucrative, untapped market for their products. Most kids have no one to look out for their interests except anxious parents who put their trust in doctors. As it turns out, that trust is often misplaced. Big Pharma spends massive amounts to entertain physicians, send them on luxury vacations and ply them with an endless supply of free products. As a result, hundreds of thousands of American kids - some as young as three years old - have become dependent on amphetamines like Adderall and a pharmacopeia of other drugs that allegedly treat depression, insomnia, aggression and other mental health disorders.

The fact that none of these powerful mood-altering medications have been approved by the FDA to treat children under 10 has posed no obstacle to the industry's marketing masterminds. They've waved off objections by some some doctors who wonder how these complex drugs will affect the vulnerable brains and bodies of their young patients. Other experts have warned that children exposed to this multi-molecular barrage on their central nervous systems could potentially be at much higher risk of becoming adults who are addicted to chemicals, prescription and otherwise. But thanks to a billion-dollar advertising campaign, millions of kids across the nation are now taking pills to control a long litany of "behavioral problems."

Foods that have "gluten-free" on their label may actually contain significant amounts of gluten -- enough to cause gastrointestinal symptoms in those with celiac disease who have an intolerance to the wheat protein. That's because the US Food and Drug Administration never established a standard for the label, leaving it up to manufacturers to define what they mean by gluten-free.

Now, though, the agency is moving forward with a new standard that manufacturers will be required to meet before they can slap on the gluten-free label. Federal officials are proposing that cookies, bread, and other wheat products making this claim can contain no more that 20 parts per million of gluten, a level below which gluten can't be detected by standard lab tests.

It's the current standard in European Union countries and has been widely accepted by researchers as a safe level for those with celiac disease, which affects nearly 3 million Americans. Those with the condition suffer damage to their small intestine when their immune system attacks healthy tissue whenever it detects gluten -- found in rye and barley as well as wheat.

I have recently spent more time in drugs stores than I would like helping my sister on her journey through (and hopefully to the other side of) cancer. Rite Aid, CVS and Walgreens all had large diabetes sections offering support for a "diabetes lifestyle" - glucose monitors, lancets, blood pressure cuffs, medications, supplements and pharmacy magazines heavily supported by pharmaceutical advertising. Patients are encouraged to get their eye check ups, monitor their blood pressure, track their blood sugars, have foot exams and see their doctor regularly for better management of their blood sugars - all apparently sensible advice for diabetics.

But what if Type 2 diabetes could be completely reversed? What if it weren't, as we believe, an inexorable, progressive disease that has to be better "managed" by our health care system with better drugs, surgery and coordination of care? What if intensive lifestyle and dietary changes could completely reverse diabetes?

A ground breaking new study in Diabetologia proved that, indeed, Type 2 diabetes can be reversed through diet changes, and, the study showed, this can happen quickly: in one to eight weeks. That turns our perspective on diabetes upside down. Diabetes is not a one-way street.

We used to believe that once cells in your pancreas that make insulin (beta cells) poop out there was no reviving them and your only hope was more medication or insulin. We now know that is not so.

Food safety advocates say this latest outbreak shows how budget cuts have hampered the ability of federal and state health agencies to effectively protect public health.

AMY GOODMAN: In one of the largest meat recalls in U.S. history, this week the food giant Cargill ordered the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey. The recall comes after at least one person has died of Salmonella, and another 76 have fallen ill. The turkey products were traced to Cargill's processing plant in Springdale, Arkansas. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Salmonella outbreak involves a strain of the bacteria known as Salmonella Heidelberg, which is resistant to many commonly prescribed antibiotics.

Although it was announced this week, the outbreak began in March. According to the CDC, Salmonella cases then spiked in May and early June. Three thousand people die a year from food poisoning in the United States; 50 million people get sick. Food safety advocates say this latest outbreak shows how budget cuts have hampered the ability of federal and state health agencies to effectively protect public health.

For more, we go to Washington, D.C., to Patty Lovera, assistant director of the food safety group Food & Water Watch.

Patty, welcome to Democracy Now! Describe the origins of this latest Salmonella outbreak.

As the U.S. and Canada enter into a heat wave, I get a lot of questions about how heat impacts human behavior and our moods. So three years ago, I wrote a blog entry that reviews the research about weather affects our moods and behavior. It's still a good overview of the research in this area and worth the read.

But it's nice to highlight a few points from that article, as well as other research, that demonstrates how the weather - and especially hot weather, in this case - can impact our mood. Does a heat wave lead to more violence? Do we have more or less energy during high humidity? What about depression and anxiety?

Read on for the answers.

A new study has shown that too much social media time on websites such as Facebook may be bad for children.

Larry Rosen, a psychologist at Cal State Dominguez Hills, has been studying the effect of technology on people for more than 25 years. And recently, he has done several studies on how social networking sites such as Facebook affect children.

Speaking Saturday at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in Washington, D.C., Rosen said teens who spend more time using the Internet and playing video games tended to have more stomach aches, sleeping issues, anxiety, and depression.

Rosen also found in his study that teens who logged onto Facebook constantly were more narcissistic since social networking is exactly what the narcissist seeks out. They can share themselves constantly on their terms using social networking.

"While nobody can deny that Facebook has altered the landscape of social interaction, particularly among young people, we are just now starting to see solid psychological research demonstrating both the positives and the negatives," Rosen said.

The study: "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids," shows both the negative and positive effects social networks have on today's youth and adults.

Antidepressants became the third most commonly prescribed class of medications in the United States thanks in part to non-psychiatrist providers prescribing the drugs to individuals without any psychiatric diagnosis, according to a new study led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

"We've seen a marked increase in antidepressant use among individuals with no psychiatric diagnosis. Nearly four out of every five antidepressant prescriptions are written by non-psychiatrist providers," said Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH. He was lead author of the study and an associate professor with the Bloomberg School's Department of Mental Health.

"Between 1996 and 2007, the number of visits where individuals were prescribed antidepressants with no psychiatric diagnoses increased from 59.5 percent to 72.7 percent and the share of providers who prescribed antidepressants without a concurrent psychiatric diagnosis increased from 30 percent of all non-psychiatrist physicians in 1996 to 55.4 percent in 2007."

The results are featured in the August 2011 issue of Health Affairs.