The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Texas Abortion Law

In a surprise ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas abortion access law (see this blog March 2, 2016) that severely restricted access to abortions in that state. The decision was a surprise because the court currently has only eight members, and it was widely believed that the court would be deadlocked on the issue until a ninth justice could be appointed after the presidential election.

Ever since Roe v. Wade, anti-abortionists have introduced legislation in many states designed to restrict access to abortion or make it more difficult. By striking down Texas's law, the court is signaling the states that they cannot restrict access to abortion simply by putting unnecessary obstacles in the way. In the majority opinion, Justice Breyer wrote, "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits to women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."

This new Supreme Court sets a fairly high bar for anti-abortion legislation; it must not introduce an "undue burden" on what is clearly a constitutional right.

Incorporating CO2 Into Solid Rock

Burning fossil fuels for energy releases CO2 gas into the atmosphere. Most of this CO2 stays in the atmosphere, where (as a greenhouse gas) it contributes to global warming and climate change. Some of it dissolves into the oceans, where it contributes to increased ocean acidity. These problems could be mitigated if the extra CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere somehow, but so far on one method has proven to be sufficiently cheap and effective. The most promising method so far has been to store the CO2 deep underground, in the hope that it will stay buried and not leak again to the Earth’s surface.

But now new research suggests that it may be possible to incorporate CO2 into minerals within solid rock, thereby sequestering it permanently. In a pilot study in Iceland, British researchers pumped 175 tons of CO2 into formations of basalt, a volcanic type of rock loaded with minerals that can combine readily with CO2. They found that within two years, 95% of the CO2 combined with these elements to become part of the rock itself. A larger study is underway to mineralize 10,000 tons of CO2.

One problem with this method is that so far it has only been shown to be effective in basalt. Although there are areas of basalt rock on Earth’s land surface, most of it is found on the ocean floor. At present, then, sequestering CO2 permanently in basalt may be too expensive to be the method of choice in most places. Still, if we ever finally have the will to do something about rising atmospheric CO2 levels, it’ll be nice to know that there’s a way.

Should Cigarette Pack Labels Include Grotesque Images?

One way to get smokers to quit smoking, according to authorities in Australia, is to make cigarette packaging as unattractive as possible. In 2012, Australia commissioned a market research company to find the most unattractive color. Today, cigarette packs in Australia are a green-brown color known as “color 448c”. The packs are emblazoned with photos of the potential damage caused by smoking, along with messages such as “smoking kills” and “smoking doubles your risk of a stroke” displayed in letters larger than the brand names themselves. According to Australian authorities, the new packaging (new since 2012) is at least partly responsible for a steady decline in smoking in Australia. Other countries, including France and Britain, have taken note of Australia’s success and are planning to do develop their own similar rules for cigarette pack labels.

Attempts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require large warning labels and grotesque images on cigarette packs in the U.S have been blocked by lawsuits brought by tobacco companies. The tobacco companies argue that under the First Amendment right to free speech, they have a right to advertise their products without having the government use the companies’ packaging to carry the government’s anti-smoking message. In this country at least, our First Amendment rights to free speech trump the government’s interest in changing behaviour. The FDA is working on new cigarette pack labelling requirements that will pass muster with the courts, but that will take some time.

What do you think? Should cigarette packs in the U.S. carry prominent, grotesque images?

Cell Phones and Cancer (Yet Again)

A recent study by government scientists again raises the possibility that radiation emitted by cell phones could cause cancer. In the study, rats were exposed to radiation of the type emitted by cell phones for 9 hours a day for their entire life span; a dose never approached by human use of cell phones. There was a barely significant increase in two types of cancer (of the heart and brain), but only in male (not female) rats. The 74-page report is labeled 'preliminary' and was not peer-reviewed, meaning that it has not yet been reviewed by other independent scientists in the same field. That's generally a no-no in terms of establishing a paper's scientific validity.

Although some media duly reported (yet again) that cell phones may cause cancer, this report just isn't very convincing. For a critique of the report, see the article in the New York Times. For an extensive and sometimes humorous analysis, see this commentary.

If You're Healthy, You Don't Need Probiotics

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines probiotics as live bacteria that are "similar to beneficial organisms found in the gut." They're found in yogurt, fermented milk, soy products and some juices, as well as (these days) in probiotic capsules, pills, and powders. Many people make sure to get plenty of probiotics in the belief that a healthier population of gut bacteria makes for a healthier individual. It's a trend strongly encouraged by the rapidly growing probiotics dietary supplements industry.

The idea that probiotics may be good for you comes from the reports that patients with certain gastrointestinal conditions can benefit from taking probiotics. For example, patients with ulcerative colitis or who have diarrhea due either to antibiotics or to a particularly bad gut bacterium called Clostridium difficile may benefit from taking probiotics to more quickly restore their gut microbiota to normal.

What if you're healthy and just want to stay that way - should you spend your hard-earned money on probiotics? The answer, according to the latest research, is "no". The authors of the research reviewed the findings of seven studies that specifically identified the composition of gut bacteria in healthy people, before and after they took probiotics. They report that in healthy people, probiotics had essentially no effect on the final composition (in terms of both variety and number) of gut bacteria. In other words, healthy people develop and maintain a healthy steady-state population of gut bacteria naturally, on their own. Taking probiotics is only likely to be helpful when the gut's normal microbiota have been severely disrupted by antibiotics or disease.

Probiotics probably won't do you any harm, mind you; it's just that if you're healthy, they're unnecessary.

California's End-Of-Life Law Takes Effect

Last Fall the California legislature passed a bill called the End-Of-Life Option Act (see this blog, Sept. 17, 2015). Following the signature of governor Jerry Brown in October, the new law went into full effect on June 9th. The new law gives terminally ill patients the option of terminating their lives at a time and place of their own choosing. The law was inspired by the plight of Brittany Maynard, a terminally ill young Californian who chose to move to Oregon in 2014 to take advantage of a similar law already in effect there.

The new law is not "assisted suicide". Patients who might choose to take advantage of the law will die soon anyway. The new law simply allows them to choose a more gentle way of dying, at a time and place of their choosing. The preferred term is "death with dignity" or "aid in dying".

In order to request a prescription for life-ending medication in California, the patient must be a California resident at least 18 years of age who is mentally capable of making an informed decision and who has been diagnosed by at least two physicians with a disease that will result in their death within six months. In addition, there's a long list of requirements that must be met before a prescription for life-ending medications is approved, as well as certain restrictions on how the drugs can be used (the patient must self-administer the drugs, for example). The experience of the only other states with similar laws (Washington, Oregon, and Vermont) is that only about half of all patients who are issued prescriptions for life-ending medications actually use them.

What Is an "All-Natural" Food Product?

What does the term "all natural" mean to you? Some people favor foods with a "natural" or "all-natural" label because they think it means that they are better for you. It's a feel-good term that influences consumers, for sure. But legally it means absolutely nothing.

More than a hundred class-action lawsuits have been filed against food manufacturers who have used the terms "natural" or "all-natural" on foods containing all sorts of things, including pesticides, hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and artificial ingredients. All of the lawsuits have failed in court. The basic problem is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency charged with regulating our food industry, has never adequately defined the terms. And without a definition, judges have been reluctant to rule against food manufacturers who use the terms lightly.

That may change soon. For two years the FDA has been receiving comments from the public on what they think "natural" means. The agency is now reviewing the 7,600 comments it received and may issue a final definition of the term later this year. One possible definition might be "foods not made by humans and subjected to little or no processing", such as ground nuts, whole grain flours, and foods processed by traditional techniques such as roasting, drying, fermenting, and smoking.

Once the FDA has officially defined "natural", the makers of food products will either have to comply with the new definition or face lawsuits that they may actually lose.