The theme of the December 6 issue of Newsweek magazine is “Health for Life” and the cover lists several articles about health, but who cares? The real action is in the ads. The “book,” as they say in the business, is 98 pages long and contains 15 full-page ads for pharmaceutical drugs. Promotions include treatments for Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, chemotherapy-related anemia and Crohn’s disease. There are ads for prescription-strength antacids, nicotine patches, cholesterol fighters and Botox.

Less noticeable are ads for “dietary supplements,” which do not share the sophistication of the pharmaceutical ads. The ads seem low budget and designed to catch the eye of the senior citizen. The high end of this genre promises healthy bones, lower cholesterol and more energy. Moving swiftly downhill, a product promising relief from Irritable Bowel Syndrome screams “Feel the ADVANTAGE!” The ad for “Colon Cleanse” features a photo of a toilet and plunger and touts “a better way to unclog.” For the truly clogged, the same vendor makes “Super Colon Cleanse.”

A pitch for “Mane ’n Tail Hoofmaker” sports images of both horses and a pretty girl. Closer examination reveals the product is a cuticle-enhancing cream, “available at Walgreens.” One full-pager promotes both “Veromax Male Performance Enhancer” and “Sensuest Menopausal Sensual Balance.” The ad makes claims for both products and carries the disclaimer, “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

There were more, but you get the picture — the folks at Newsweek accept ads for everything but snake oil as long as the buyer can get the Benjamins up front.

The most egregious display is a full-page ad in the center of the book, paid for by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The ad shows three walnut shells labeled “Canada,” “Belize” and “China.” The headline reads: “Take a wild guess where your ‘Canadian’ medicine is actually coming from.”

Smaller copy says, “Drug importation is a game where no one wins. And if new laws pass, drugs that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have a green light to start pouring into the U.S.” Funny GSK should mention the FDA, since it was FDA that took the arthritis drug Vioxx off the market only after it was shown to have strong links to strokes and heart attacks. It was the same FDA that engaged in character assassination of David Graham, associate director of the Office of Drug Safety after he told Congress FDA is incapable of protecting the public’s interests because it is too cozy with pharmaceutical companies – like GlaxoSmithKline. Next claim?

“The World Health Organization estimates that 10 percent of the world’s drug supply is counterfeit, and as high as 60 percent in some countries.” The 10 percent figure is accurate. For comparison, the W.H.O. says five to eight percent of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. are counterfeit. The line about “some countries” sounds ominous, though. “Some countries” like – Canada?

No, “some countries” like Cambodia. The PR folks at GSK dug up a W.H.O.- referenced study from 1999 which estimated that 60 percent of the anti-malarial drugs then in Cambodia were counterfeit. The outdated, nearly irrelevant number was thrown into the ad as a scare tactic.

“The FDA has said that if Congress opens the floodgates to importation, even the entire U.S. Army would not be big enough to carry out the inspections and take the other steps necessary to protect the public against drugs that are not safe or effective.” This sentence starts with the pharma-cronies at FDA, moves on to the fear-appealing image of “open floodgates” and then invokes the U.S. Army which is, as we know, stretched pretty thin already.

However much GlaxoSmithKline spends to tell you otherwise, drugs imported from Canada are safe. They’re safe because Canadian regulators do a better job of ensuring drug safety than their American counterparts at the Food and Drug Administration and because the Canadians are effective regulators, they don’t let pharmaceutical companies like GSK price-gouge the way the FDA does. That’s why people import drugs from Canada in the first place.

© Mark Floegel, 2004

Sharing a meal is the oldest of rituals; the first hominids to share food with those beyond their family group took the first – and probably largest – step on the path toward civilization. What a transcendent act it must have been, 20,000 years ago, to give away food. It’s not surprising that eating or fasting or offerings of food are at the center of the human religious experience.

We Americans like to apply cultural chauvinism and declare our food holiday to be uniquely American, but it’s not. Late-autumn harvest festivals have been common throughout the northern hemisphere for centuries and for good reason: there was more food available then than at any other time of year.

Aside from the table creaking with its burden of food, we sit today with a millennia’s accretion of cultural baggage, to say nothing of familial or social tension. Given that, is it any wonder we’re apt to see the following people at today’s meal?

The Host and Hostess – They pre-emptively invite the whole clan “over to our place” every year or reluctantly agreed, “OK, we’ll do it at our place” four weeks ago; either way, you’re living in their world today. Sure you’re bringing a pie or a salad, but they’re cooking the bird and the stuffing, so just set whatever you’ve got on the counter over there and stay out of the way until they’ve got something for you to do. Why don’t you go into the den and feel guilty about never having Thanksgiving at your house? Nibbling cheese and crackers might calm your nerves, but don’t, because once you’re at the table, The Host and Hostess will be hectoring you into second and third platefuls. “C’mon, c’mon, clean this up! Get rid of it!” It’s the gastronomic equivalent of schoolyard whoop-ass. You can either eat it now or take it home in aluminum foil later.

The Dishwasher – This task is claimed by the person who feels most guilty for not hosting and The Host and Hostess’s urgings of “C’mon, clean this up!” are now answered with “You go sit down! Haven’t you’ve done enough already?” (This sounds vaguely like recrimination.) Other non-hosting guests may be dragooned into assisting The Dishwasher, whose reign in the post-meal kitchen is every bit as tyrannical as The Host and Hostess’s pre-meal administration.

The Loafer – Neurotic though the first two categories might be, they’re preferable to The Loafer – usually male – who brings no contribution to the meal and helps with neither preparation nor cleanup. Instead, he drinks too much, monopolizes the television’s remote control and offends other guests with his eructations.

The Vegetarian – This person, usually young, throws cold water on The Host and Hostess’s “C’mon! Eat!” exhortations by passing on the turkey, the star of the show. This is holiday jujitsu and The Host and Hostess, having been thrown, may attempt to regain equilibrium by piling even more squash and cranberry sauce on the abstainer’s plate. Do not push this guest too far, or you run the risk of a mealtime discourse on the ethics of consuming animal flesh. Some of these vegetarians will maintain their beliefs into adulthood and some will make so bold as to volunteer to host Thanksgiving dinner at their house. You know what they say about paybacks; just be glad they’re not vegans.

The Dieter – It’s sad to report that the waves of foul temper generated by The Loafer and The Vegetarian often break violently on the plates of these poor souls who are – let’s admit it – often the most sensible people in the room. “It’s only one day a year!”? The Host and Hostess scream, serving spoons loaded and cocked. One day a year, followed by six weeks of butter cookies and eggnog. Three centuries ago, the harvest feast was an efficient means of converting perishable food into a belt of body fat sustain one through long winter months in poorly-heated houses. Those days are gone; now we have mere gluttony.

We here at markfloegel.org present the above guide as a holiday service to help identify your fellow diners. Whichever category they fall into, cut ’em some slack – and have a happy holiday.

© Mark Floegel, 2004

Today is the 11th of November; when I was a child, people still called this “Armistice Day,” in commemoration of the cease-fire that ended the First World War. Maybe it’s a good day to call an armistice in America’s red-vs.-blue civil war. Maybe not.

Presidential advisor Karl Rove was quoted in Wednesday’s New York Times as saying “moral values” swung the election to George Bush. The current edition of Newsweek says one of five voters cited moral values as their top criterion in the election and 79 percent of them voted for Mr. Bush. Any number of pixels has been devoted to Mr. Bush’s proximity or distance from moral values in the past four years and there seems no end in sight, so let’s look at the morals of last week’s voters.

Given that so many Bush supporters have morality on their minds, one would expect that states that went for Mr. Bush (“red” states) are demonstrably more moral than states that went for John Kerry (“blue” states). With that expectation firmly in place, would you care to guess which state, according to the U.S. Census, has the lowest divorce rate? It is, of course, Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry’s home state, which has 2.4 divorced people per thousand of the population. Texas, by contrast, has 4.1 per thousand. Overall, the highest rates of divorce are in the southeast Bible Belt and the lowest divorce rates are in the liberal northeast, where same-sex couples can enter into marriage or civil union in Massachusetts and Vermont, respectively. Based on this evidence, we would have to conclude that gays and lesbians are not a threat to the sanctity of “traditional marriage” but country music is. Perhaps Mr. Bush will soon support an amendment to the Constitution outlawing The Nashville Network.

That’s just one statistic; we shouldn’t look at one factor and blow it out of proportion. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seven of the 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2003 were Bush states; six of the 10 states with the lowest murder rates were Kerry states.

A week after the election, the United Health Foundation released its annual summary of health statistics. The UHF was founded by the insurance industry examine statistics used in setting premiums. The UHF considers factors such as prevalence of smoking, obesity, high school graduation rates, occupational fatalities, per capita public health spending, prenatal care, children in poverty and infant mortality. All measures of health to be sure, but also measures of morality, giving us insight into how well we care for our children, our poor, our pregnant women and our employees on the job. The healthiest state in America is Minnesota, followed by New Hampshire, Vermont and Hawaii – all blue. In all, eight of the 10 healthiest states are blue – all ten of the least healthy states are red.

Finally, there’s the issue of taxes – at the core of George Bush’s agenda – and the moral agenda, in terms of greed. Eight of the top 10 states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits are blue states; eight of the top 10 states whose federal benefits exceed federal taxes paid are red states.

The conclusion we’re left to draw is that American voters are becoming like the politicians they elect – you can’t believe them when they start to preach about morality.

© Mark Floegel, 2004