Health Archives - Page 75 of 90

The Surprising Cause of Most ‘Spider Bites’

By Douglas Main, Staff Writer LiveScience.com

Date: 05 July 2013 Time: 09:01 AM ET

If the thought of spiders makes your skin crawl, you might find it reassuring that the chances of being bitten by a spider are smaller than you imagine, recent research shows.

Most so-called “spider bites” are not actually spider bites, according to researchers and several recent studies. Instead, “spider bites” are more likely to be bites or stings from other arthropods such as fleas, skin reactions to chemicals or infections, said Chris Buddle, an arachnologist at McGill University in Montreal.

“I’ve been handling spiders for almost 20 years, and I’ve never been bitten,” Buddle told LiveScience. “You really have to work to get bitten by a spider, because they don’t want to bite you.”

For one thing, spiders tend to avoid people, and have no reason to bite humans because they aren’t bloodsuckers and don’t feed on humans, Buddle said. “They are far more afraid of us than we are of them,” he said. “They’re not offensive.”

Not very scary

When spider bites do happen, they tend to occur because the eight-legged beasts are surprised — for example when a person reaches into a glove, shoe or nook that they are occupying at the moment, Buddle said.

Even then, however, the majority of spiders are not toxic to humans. Spiders prey on small invertebrates such as insects, so their venom is not geared toward large animals such as humans.

Many spiders aren’t even capable of piercing human flesh. Buddle said he has observed spiders “moving their fangs back and forth against his skin,” all to no avail. [Creepy, Crawly & Incredible: Photos of Spiders]

Only about a dozen of the approximately 40,000 spider species worldwide can cause serious harm to the average healthy adult human. In North America, there are only two groups of spiders that are medically important: the widow group (which includes black widows) and the recluse group (brown recluses). These spiders do bite people, and if they live in your area, you should know what they look like, Buddle said. But still, records show bites from these spiders are very infrequent.

The bite of widow spiders like the black widow is one of the only well-recognized spider bites in North America, with obvious, unmistakable symptoms, said Rick Vetter, a retired arachnologist at the University of California at Riverside. Signs can include intense pain and muscle contractions, which occur because the bite interferes with nerves in muscles.

Nowadays, deaths from the bite are rare thanks to widow spider antivenom. Before this was developed, however, treatments for black widow bites included whiskey, cocaine and nitroglycerine, according to a review Vetter published this month in the journal Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America.

Misidentified ‘bites’

Often, black widow and brown recluse spiders are misidentified, and reported in regions where they are extremely unlikely to actually live, Vetter said. For example, In South Carolina, 940 physicians responding to a survey reported a total of 478 brown recluse spider bites in the state — but only one brown recluse bite has ever been definitively confirmed in the state. Recluses are mainly found in the central and southern United States, according to Vetter’s study.

“I’ve had 100 recluse spiders running up my arm, and I’ve never been bitten by one,” Vetter told LiveScience.

The vast majority of “spider bites” are caused by something else, research shows. One study Vetter cited found that of 182 Southern California patients seeking treatment for spider bites, only 3.8 percent had actual spider bites, while 85.7 percent had infections.

And a national study found that nearly 30 percent of people with skin lesions who said they had a spider bite actually had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Other things that can cause symptoms that mimic spider bites include biting fleas or bedbugs, allergies, poison oak and poison ivy, besides various viral and bacterial infections, Vetter said.

In recent years, doctors have become better at identifying true spider bites, Vetter writes.

But spiders are still widely regarded as dangerous to humans, which is generally not the case, Buddle said.

Spiders are good at killing “nuisance insects,” which may be more likely to bite humans than spiders, Buddle added. “In the vast majority of cases, spiders are our friends.”

Email Douglas Main or follow him on Twitter or Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook orGoogle+. Article originally on LiveScience.com

School Policies Reduce Student Drinking – if They’re Perceived to be Enforced

By Doree Armstrong | University of Washington 07/09/2013 10:39:00

“Just say no” has been many a parent’s mantra when it comes to talking to their children about drugs or alcohol. Schools echo that with specific policies against illicit use on school grounds. But do those school policies work?

University of Washington professor of social work Richard Catalano and colleagues studied whether anti-alcohol policies in public and private schools in Washington state and Australia’s Victoria state were effective for eighth- and ninth-graders.

What they found was that each school’s particular policy mattered less than the students’ perceived enforcement of it. So, even if a school had a suspension or expulsion policy, if students felt the school didn’t enforce it then they were more likely to drink on campus. But, even if a school’s policy was less harsh – such as requiring counseling – students were less likely to drink at school if they believed school officials would enforce it.

“Whatever your school policy is, lax enforcement is related to more drinking,” Catalano said.

The study was published recently in the journal Health Education Research.

The results were similar in Washington, where the legal drinking age is 21 and schools tend to have a zero-tolerance approach, and Victoria, Australia, where the legal drinking age is 18 and policies are more about minimizing harm.

In the study, 44 percent of Victoria eighth-graders and 22 percent of Washington eighth-graders reported drinking alcohol. Victoria students also reported higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol-related harms.

Apart from perceptions about enforcement, harmful behaviors in both states were reduced when students believed policy violators would likely be counseled by a teacher on the dangers of alcohol use, rather than expelled or suspended.

“Schools should focus on zero tolerance and abstinence in primary and early middle school, but sometime between middle school and high school they have to blend in zero tolerance with harm minimization,” said Catalano, director of the Social Development Research Group at the UWSchool of Social Work and principal investigator for the International Youth Development Study. “By the time they get into high school they need new strategies.”

Those strategies could include talking to a teacher or being referred to treatment. The likelihood of binge drinking was reduced if students received an abstinence alcohol message or a harm minimization message, and if they believed teachers would talk to them about the dangers of alcohol. Catalano said such remediation policies are an important predictor of less alcohol use among ninth-graders.

He said the study shows harsh punishment for drinking on school grounds, such as calling the police or expelling the student, doesn’t inhibit alcohol use on campus. Instead, long-term negative impacts of expulsion mean students feel disconnected from school and may subsequently drink more. Calling the police, which gives the student a police record, appears to make things even worse.

“What we’ve seen in other studies from this sample is suspension policies actually worsen the behavior problem,” Catalano said. “What that says to me is, although you want policies and you want enforcement of policies, there are other ways of responding than suspension, expulsion and calling the police: Getting a student to talk to a teacher about how alcohol might be harmful, or a session with the school counselor.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, and Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. Co-authors are Todd Herrenkohl of the UW, lead author Tracy Evans-Whipp and Stephanie Plenty ofRoyal Children’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, and John Toumbourou of Deakin University in Australia.

Source: University of Washington

Alcohol in the Movies: Parents Need to Talk to Children about Consequences of Drinking

Source: Native News Network

WASHINGTON – Given huge problems in and out of the American Indian community with alcohol abuse, it is unfortunate that its usage is glamorized by Hollywood in feature movies.

Movies rated for teen audiences are showing more alcohol.

A recently released study indicates movies rated for teen audiences are showing more alcohol. Elaina Bergamini of Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire looked at data on hit movies from 1996 through 2009. She says appearances of branded alcohol in movies rated G, PG and PG-13 rose from 80 to 145 a year.

Bergamini says there are controls on tobacco appearances, and they were not rising, but alcohol lacks similar controls.

She says parents should talk with their children:

“Talk about drinking. Talk about binge drinking. And talk about the consequences of drinking especially in light of the fact that those consequences are not sufficiently represented in the movies.”

The study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

The Basics

Talk to your child about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. Knowing the facts will help your child make healthy choices.

Parents, what do you need to say when you talk about tobacco, alcohol, and drugs?

Here are some tips that may be useful:

Teach your child the facts
Give your child clear rules
Find out what your child already knows
Be prepared to answer your child’s questions
Talk with your child about how to say “no”

Diet soda won’t save you from obesity or diabetes

By John Upton, Grist

Bad news for everybody who drinks diet sodas instead of the sugary varieties to help stay healthy.

In an opinion piece [PDF] in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, Purdue University professor Susan Swithers writes that drinks containing such chemicals as aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin have been found to contribute to excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Her piece summarizes studies on the health effects of artificial sweeteners:

Recent data from humans and rodent models have provided little support for ASB [artificially sweetened beverages] in promoting weight loss or preventing negative health outcomes such as [type 2 diabetes], metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular events. Instead, a number of studies suggest people who regularly consume ASB are at increased risk compared with those that do not.

How is this possible? Swithers describes a number of theories, some of them relating to the effects of such sweeteners on metabolism. “Sweet tastes are known to evoke numerous physiological responses,” she writes. “By weakening the validity of sweet taste as a signal for caloric post-ingestive outcomes, consumption of artiﬁcial sweeteners could impair energy and body weight regulation.”

NPR’s Alison Aubrey put Swithers’ piece into some context:

Not everyone is convinced that diet soda is so bad.

For instance, a study I reported on last year by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital found that overweight teens did well when they switched from sugar-laden drinks to zero-calorie options such as diet soda.

But it’s also hard to ignore the gathering body of evidence that points to potentially bad outcomes associated with a diet soda habit.

One example: the findings of the San Antonio Heart Study, which pointed to a strong link between diet soda consumption and weight gain over time.

“On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years” said Sharon Fowler, in a release announcing the findings several years back.

Another bit of evidence: A multi-ethnic study, which included some 5,000 men and women, found that diet soda consumption was linked to a significantly increased risk of both type-2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

If you’re choosing between a diet soda and a regular soda, then it’s probably healthier to go for the former. But these studies are a reminder that such a choice won’t keep you healthy.

It’s also worth remembering that some scientists have found that artificial sweeteners can be toxic. Some countries even require health warnings on drinks containing such products, such as this one on a can of Diet Coke sold in India:

Warning on a can of Diet Coke sold in India — John Upton

Diabetes Day, July 16

The Tulalip diabetes team is pleased to provide an opportunity for receiving a wide range of diabetic services at one time. Our team is dedicated to assisting you with improving your health thru education, healthy foods, screenings and by having activities available for you to enjoy. If you have access to our services at the health clinic, please arrange to come anytime from 9-1pm. We will have breakfast and snacks available plus some quality incentive items for your participation.

Quinoa Fever: Superfood’s Soaring Popularity is Killing South American Growers

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

The burgeoning global demand for quinoa may be negatively impacting the people who grow it, reports columnist Joanna Blythman for The Guardian.

Until recently, the ancient seed was primarily eaten by the rural poor of Bolivia and Peru. Now the superfood indigenous to the Andes mountain range of South America is showing up in restaurants and grocery stories across the U.S. and in recipes all over the web. It is commonly recommended as a compliment to fish or lamb, or to bolster the heartiness of a fresh salad or pan-seared greens.

Indian Country Today Media Network’s food columnist Dale Carson, Abenaki, has likewise written about the healthy pasta substitute—rich in iron, protein, fiber, potassium, zinc and essential amino acids.

“[T]he Inca called quinoa chisa mama, ‘mother of all grain…,’” she writes, offering recipe suggestions for quinoa and beans, as well as a quinoa salad with avocado.

But this sudden championing of quinoa has its drawbacks. The price is soaring, and the Peruvians and Bolivians who have subsisted on it for centuries can no longer afford it.

The New York Times reported in 2011 that increased demand for quinoa had driven up the price three-fold in the past five years. Meanwhile, Bolivia’s consumption fell by 34 percent over the same period.

Costs have shot so high that now in Bolivia and Peru, “imported junk food is cheaper,” writes Blythman. “In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.” And even more devastating, climbing quinoa prices have been blamed for a rise in malnutrition among children in quinoa-growing regions.

There’s no denying the seed is nutritious and widely touted. The United Nations even declared 2013 the Year of Quinoa, and Bolivia’s President Evo Morales attended the U.N. ceremony on February 20.

But given its ability to cripple food security among South America’s poor, enthusiasm for the seed “looks increasingly misplaced,” Blythman writes.

On the flipside, capitalism buffs like Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail have contended the economic boost from quinoa exports is reviving the impoverished communities of Bolivia and Peru.

And Edouard Rollet, co-founder and president of Alter Eco—a company that has spearheaded the fair trade and organic quinoa markets—proposes another perspective. The issue at hand, he says, is not whether or not to develop the quinoa market—it is how it is done:

“Giving the poorest of the poor in Latin America—farmers that grow quinoa—access to income or ‘protecting’ this region from globalization, is a false choice,” he said in a recent conference call, reported Mother Nature Network’s Sami Grover. “It’s up to everyone involved, especially companies, to determine if they will operate in a way that fairly benefits those at quinoa’s origin—or if they will operate business as usual.”

Fixing The Great American Health Care Mistake

Mark Trahant, Indian Country Today Media Network

The Obama administration’s decision last week to delay a mandate for large employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine is both meaningless and significant.

It’s meaningless because it impacts such a small number of employers. Nearly all employers with more than 50 employees already provide health insurance. And those that do not, are unlikely to change course because of the penalty (even at $2,000 per full-time employee that costs far less than insurance).

But it’s significant because it highlights The Great American Health Care Mistake. This country should have never forged health care to work. It was an accident, a way to avoid wage controls during World War II. No other country in the world has such a crazy system. And it makes no sense to let our employers make decisions about our health care. All the basic stuff: What kind of coverage we buy, what should be covered, or even our provider networks and, therefore our doctors.

Mark Trahant

This mistake let Americans “pretend” that health insurance did not have a cost. It was a quiet part of our compensation, but because it’s not measured by the employee (although that will change soon), it wasn’t something we were willing to spend money on ourselves.

But employer-sponsored insurance is declining. It’s a trend that began before federal health care reform. The percentage of Americans who receive health insurance through employers dropped from 69.7 percent in 2000 to just 59.5 percent in 2011, according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

And even when company insurance is offered, more employees are saying, “no thanks.” In 2000, 81.8 percent of employees who were offered coverage enrolled. A decade later, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study reported, only 76.3 percent did.

The reason for the decline in both employer and employee participation is simple: Insurance costs are out-of-sight. The study said the premium for employee-only coverage doubled from 2000 to 2011, increasing from $2,490 to $5,081. Family premiums went up by 125 percent, from $6,415 to copy4,447, during the same time period.

Across the country, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study did not find a single state where employee-sponsored insurance actually increased, and 22 states saw decreases of 10 percent or more.

And Indian country? Only about four-in-ten workers and their families have employer-sponsored health care. Remember that many tribes and tribal enterprises are large employers that offer competitive benefit packages.

So what does all of this mean? Sure, the U.S. made a huge mistake linking health care insurance and work. Ideally we would have fixed that with health care reform, but that was politically impossible. So we came up with a sort of dual track, encouraging employer sponsored plans (including the large employer penalty that will now begin in 2015) and giving consumers a choice through state exchanges.

It is those exchanges that should be the focus now. In just a few weeks, people can sign up for insurance through an exchange if it’s not offered by an employer or if a policy costs too much. Starting next year there will be good health insurance coverage available with many subsidies for low and moderate income families. (Considering the demographics of Indian country, buying health insurance through an exchange will likely be either free or a really good deal. More on that later.)

Critics say that the Obama administration’s delay of the employer mandate shows that ObamaCare is unraveling. I think the opposite is true. It’s far more significant that both state and the federal exchanges seem to be moving forward and that individuals can sign up beginning in October with insurance options starting in 2014.

It’s true that the Affordable Care Act doesn’t fix The Great American Health Care Mistake. But it least it opens an alternative route.

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He lives in Fort Hall, Idaho, and is a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Join the discussion about austerity. Comment on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/IndianCountryAusterity.

Young Diné on front lines of battling, curing Type I diabetes

(Courtesy photo)Fallon Blackbull will join 150 other young people from across the country in Washington, D.C. as the group will urge lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue funding Type 1 diabetes research. — (Courtesy photo)
Fallon Blackbull will join 150 other young people from across the country in Washington, D.C. as the group will urge lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue funding Type 1 diabetes research.

Alysa Landry, Navajo Times

Thirteen-year-old Fallon Blackbull has a busy schedule.

The incoming freshman at Rebohoth Christian School splits her time among varsity track, soccer and 4-H activities, including competitive archery and showing lambs in the county fair.

But Blackbull’s daily routine also includes waking up at 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. to check her blood sugar.

Blackbull, of Hosta Butte, N.M., was 10 years old when she learned she had Type 1 diabetes and that she’d be pricking her finger a dozen times a day for the rest of her life.

“I hate living with diabetes,” she said during a phone interview. “It’s a lot of work, a lot of extra things put into my day.”

Blackbull on Monday will join 150 other young people from across the country in Washington, D.C., where they will urge lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue funding Type 1 diabetes research. It’s part of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s Children’s Congress, an event that happens every other year and allows children and teens with Type 1 diabetes to interface directly with senators and representatives.

This year’s Children’s Congress also includes young delegates from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, said Cindy Adams, executive director of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

“We’re asking Congress for support so we can find a cure,” Adams said. “Our goal is to cure, treat and prevent Type 1 diabetes.”

Type 1 diabetes, previously known as juvenile diabetes, usually is diagnosed in children and young adults. Only 5 percent of people with diabetes have this form, which occurs when the body does not produce insulin, or the hormone needed to convert sugar into energy.

The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?

Nathanael Johnson, Grist

I’ve lingered at the fringes of the debate over genetically modified foods since the ’90s, hoping that some solid fact would filter out and show me clearly who was in the right. But that hasn’t happened. Every shred of information, it seems, is contested, and all this turbulence keeps the water muddy.

Now the debate is coming to a head again. Britain is reconsidering its restrictive position. Here in the U.S., bills to require the labeling of GM foods were introduced to the legislatures in 28 states this year. Now that I’m writing on food for Grist, I can’t keep waiting on the sidelines for someone else to clear this up. I’m going to have to figure it out for myself.

A project like this requires humility. Many people — including, I’m sure, many of you — may have greater expertise in this area than I do. If so, let me know where you think I should be pointing the searchlight. Or, if you’re like me, and just want to get reliable information from someone who’s not bent on convincing you one way or the other, well, come along for the ride.

My goal here is to get past the rhetoric, fully understand the science, and take the high ground in this debate — in the same way that greens have taken the high ground in talking about climate. It’s hard to make the case that we should trust science and act to stem global warming, while at the same time we are scoffing at the statements [PDF] of *snort* scientists on genetic modification.

Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us. I’m going to look at the science critically, and take into account the efforts of agricultural corporations to cant the evidence. When Mark Lynas made his speech saying that he’d changed his mind about genetic engineering, I was unconvinced, because he didn’t dig into the evidence (he provides a little more of this, though not much, in his book). Lynas did, however, make one important point: There are parallels between opposition to GM crops and other embarrassingly unscientific conspiracy theories. If there are grounds to oppose genetic engineering, they will have to be carefully considered grounds, supported by science.

Of course people who are concerned about genetic engineering don’t have a monopoly on error and overstatement. As the journal Nature put it in a special issue in on transgenic crops:

People are positively swimming in information about GM technologies. Much of it is wrong — on both sides of the debate. But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude. (With GM crops, a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.)

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of pieces, attempting to highlight legitimate concerns and identify the arguments that should be taken out back and … retired. In the courtroom, a judge will often work with both sides to determine a set of facts that all can agree upon, before moving on to argue about how the law should apply to those facts. I’d like to do something similar here: sort out established facts, and gain a sense for what the bulk of the science indicates.

I’m going to start with the most politicized issue: Is there any evidence that genetically modified food is directly harmful to people who eat it? There’s a one-word answer to this: no.

If you aren’t prepared to take my word for it (especially that particular word), things get a bit more complicated. The most persuasive evidence is that millions of people have been eating genetically modified foods for the past 20 years without any obvious ill effects. If anyone exhibited acute symptoms after eating GM food, we would have seen it.

At the same time, the absence of evidence of harm does not prove safety. If the effects were subtle and chronic, and showed up in only a small subset of the population, it’s possible that we could have missed something. And we don’t know what to look for.

That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops.

“People need to understand how hard it is to use the scientific method to address the issue of, ‘Is genetic engineering safe?’” she said.

The problem: It’s not a yes or no question.

“It does not appear,” Mellon said, “that there’s any risk that applies across the board to all genetically engineered food and to all people. Each plant is different, each gene insertion is different, each person’s response is different.”

In other words, every GM food could be wonderfully healthy until one particular gene insertion causes things to go awry in just such a way that it messes with the immune system of one particular person. How do you deal with this?

“You need to make a list of all the things that might be potential problems and analyze each of these risks in a wide variety of genetically engineered products,” Mellon said.

Dozens of scientific advisory panels have done this sort of brainstorming. The World Health Organization [PDF], for example, reached the fairly common conclusion that the problems in genetically engineered foods are fundamentally the same as the dangers that arise naturally in plant breeding. Each relies on mutations randomly mixing up the genome. Each sometimes provides unexpected outcomes — try to make corn disease-resistant, end up with too many toxins in the kernels. In both GM and conventional breeding, scientists rely on screening to weed out the bad cobs.

However, researchers generally acknowledge that there’s something a little different about genetic engineering. The United Kingdom’s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review [PDF], led by David King, puts it this way: “By virtue of the different processes involved, there will be some sources of uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge that are more salient with respect to GM food production techniques.”

If you have no idea what that means, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. Sure, King is saying, there’s something unusual about transferring a firefly gene into a tomato — that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often in nature. (Although it does happen, amazingly– scientists have found examples of genes moving between different species.) But we don’t know what that difference implies. The report goes on to say that the science so far suggests that those implications have amounted to nothing so far. All the same, this unique technique does create “uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge.”

The quest for greater certainty on genetic engineering leaves you chasing shadows: When you’re dealing with gaps in knowledge, rather than hard data, it’s hard to tell what’s an outlandish hypothetical, and what’s the legitimate danger. Anything, of course, is possible, but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by unknown risks, or we’ll end up huddled in our basements wearing tinfoil hats. Exhibit A:

There’s no way to completely eliminate risk. The real question is, have we thought through the realistic potential for problems, and put regulatory safety nets out to protect ourselves?

Trying to answer that opens another can of worms. Critics like Mellon say that, right now, the producers of GM crops aren’t required to do any testing at all. GM boosters say that regulations are so onerous they stifle innovation. Clearly, someone is wrong here. I’ll take that up in my next post.

Pepsi: Cancer for a new generation?

John Upton, Grist

Please don’t take this as an endorsement. But when it comes to avoiding cancer while you gulp down a sugar-blasting brand-name cola, Coke is it.

Pepsi has been lagging behind its main competitor in removing carcinogenic meth from its flagship cola product. Well, 4-methylimidazole, to be precise.

The chemical can form in trace amounts when caramel coloring used in cola is cooked. It has been found to cause cancer in rats.

Everybody who drinks corporate soda has been drinking the stuff for years. That was supposed to come to an end after California began requiring cancer warnings on products containing elevated levels of 4-methylimidazole. The new regulations prompted Coke and Pepsi to announce early last year that they would take steps to remove the chemical from their products nationwide.

But the Center for Environmental Health tested colas and found that while Californians are drinking safer sodas than they were before, some of the colas sold outside of California still contain high levels of the substance. From the nonprofit’s website:

If you live in California, Coke and Pepsi products are made without 4-MEI, a chemical known to cause cancer. But in testing of cola products from ten states, CEH found high levels of 4-MEI in ALL Pepsi cola products, while 9 out of ten Coke products were found without 4-MEI problems.

Pepsi swears it’s on it. From the AP:

Pepsi said its caramel coloring suppliers are changing their manufacturing process to cut the amount of 4-Mel in its caramel. That process is complete in California and will be finished in February 2014 in the rest of the country. Pepsi said it will also be taken out globally, but did not indicate a timeline.

You know, Pepsi and Coke, you could also just stop using caramel food coloring in your colas. But, then, clear cola would just be caffeinated sugar water. And that would be much harder to market as a sexy elixir.