US Government Not Promoting Healthy Living Says Cancer Panel
Featured ArticleMain Category: Public Health
Also Included In: Nutrition / Diet; Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 17 Aug 2007 - 3:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4.55 (53 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.08 (13 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
The US government should be doing more to promote healthy living says a new report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) out this week.
Cancer kills more than half a million Americans every year, and nearly three times that number are diagnosed annually with the disease.
Two thirds of cancer deaths and thosands of new cases could be avoided by changing the lifestyle of Americans: tobacco use and passive smoking account for nearly one third, and unhealthy diets account for another third of all cancer deaths in America today says the PCP.
The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) has three members: Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and campaigner and cycling champion, Dr Margaret L. Kripke, chief academic officer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr LaSalle D. Leffall Jr, professor of surgery at Howard University in Washington, who chairs the panel.
The PCP was set up in 1971 and meets four times a year to review progress across the nation in the fight to eradicate cancer.
Previous reports from the PCP have looked at one particular theme on cancer, this time the panel has taken a deep look at the "macroenvironment" of people's daily lives and the opportunity that government has to make changes that would have a significant impact on the nation's cancer burden.
The report says that most federal funding for cancer research is for projects targeted at genetic and biological intervention, looking for ways to interrupt the progress of the disease at the cellular level. However, while acknowledging the importance of this work and saying that it should be supported, the report criticizes the fact that:
"It ignores the macroenvironment and the physical, social, and cultural contexts within which food choices, opportunities for physical activity, and tobacco use and smoke exposure occur."
Also, the benefits of the currently sponsored research will not be felt by the population at large for decades, while the opportunity to effect social, behavioural and environmental change through policy intervention is here and now. This would make a considerable impact, sooner, in reducing the nation's burden of lung and many other cancers, says the report, especially by focusing more on preventing disease as well as treating it.
As an example of how the health system is geared more toward treatment than prevention, the report points out that doctors are trained to treat illness and not prevent it. The health care system is a sick care system and not a well care system. Doctors don't spend enough time with patients helping them to make changes in their lifestyle that would stop them having to visit the doctor so frequently, they only have time to treat the symptoms, resulting in a vicious cycle. The system needs to change to place more emphasis on prevention.
The medical insurance system suffers from a similar malaise, says the report. While it covers treatment for acute conditions, other services that offer interventions that promote "wellness or prevent disease, such as counseling, education, outreach, and behavioral or psychosocial interventions" are not covered.
Nearly two thirds of Americans are overweight, half of whom are obese. By 2010, this figure is set to be three quarters of the population overweight and one half obese. Obesity is the second leading cause of premature death in the US, tobacco is the first, says the report.
Research shows that overall cancer death rates are 50 per cent higher among obese men compared to normal weight men, and more than 60 per cent higher among obese women.
In a way these statistics are not surprising, because government policies at all levels have helped to create an environment that makes it hard for Americans to make the right choices, be it in food (healthy food is expensive), exercise (physical education in schools is at an all time low), and as already discussed, the health care system.
Poor and ineffective policies, together with insufficient regulation in the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages have "spawned a culture that struggles to make healthy choices" says the report.
Targetting obesity and tobacco are the two main action points the report makes. It suggests a number of opportunities to make changes that would promote a culture of wellness. For instance, changing the way that food is marketed to children, where currently too much junk food is promoted and not enough healthy foods. Another avenue of opportunity is school meals, where breakfasts and lunches are not geared toward healthy eating.
Another area where government intervention could make a big difference is to coordinate public health policy with agricultural policy. An example of how this is not currently working to promote healthy living is the heavy subsidizing of food such as corn and soy that are then processed into high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated corn and soybean oils, and other foods known to contribute to obesity and related chronic diseases such as cancer. Where are the subsidies for the healthy food products?
An opportunity to "strongly increase support for fruit and vegetable farmers, improve the national food supply, and enhance the health of participants in the national school lunch, food stamp, and Women, Infant, and Children food assistance programs" is about to present itself to the government in the form of the upcoming reauthorization of the Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002).
The report makes a number of other recommendations, including one that may be at odds with President Bush's own views: to increase the tax on tobacco.
One of the panel members is reported to have said in a telephone interview with Reuters news agency that perhaps America does not have the political will to protect the health of its citizens.
In delivering the report, the panel has urged the President to use the power of his office to empower Americans to make healthy choices and seize this moral obligation to protect the health of the nation.
Click here to read the full PCP report (PDF reader required).
Written by: Catharine Paddock
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79928.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79928.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Great Outlook
posted by J. Cadman on 17 Aug 2007 at 5:10 amI totally advocate the thoughts suggested by this article. My husband and I used to support the "American eating lifestyle," and (we believe as a result) he developed a very severe case of Crohn's disease. However, he is now off meds and completely symptom-free simply by changing his diet to a healthier lifestyle. I am a full time college student, and we do feel the pressure of the more expensive healthy lifestyle. However, we strongly believe that by investing in our health now, we are saving thousands (maybe millions) of dollars later that we might have spent recovering from obesity-related health problems, or other medical issues, such as a colectomy for him.
We try to promote these views among our friends and family, but most people are unable (due to finances, time constraints, or cafeteria availability) or unwilling to pursue healthy living. For example, at my university, all on campus students (except married ones) MUST have a meal plan, and spend a great deal of money for it (avg. of $6/meal). However, when searching the cafeteria for a source of fresh food, one merely finds old, dried-out oranges, rubbery green beans, and a salad bar. There is rarely a non-fried meat, there is a plethora of soda and sugary drinks daily, and food quality is often so poor (due to budgeting) that students can only find a tasty meal in a hamburger and fries. Government subsidization of farming (other than corn and soy) and laws which support small, local farms would be most beneficial, as we have many friends who have small family farms and can hardly earn a living without some other source of income. And wouldn't it benefit insurance companies MORE to help pay for gym memberships and veggies than it would to offer even 20% payment of $1000's for medical care for middle-aged people, who really wouldn't have had many health problems at all?
Boy, do I look forward to the day!
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.






