Midtermumbrella

You may have heard recent news reports about a company that knowingly sold defective lead testing machines that tested tens of thousands of children between 2013 and 2017. Or wondered about lead in tap water after the widely reported problems with lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan. Reports like these are reminders that parents need to be aware of lead — and do everything they can to keep their children safe.

How is lead a danger to health?

Lead is poisonous to the brain and nervous system, even in small amounts. There really is no safe level of lead in the blood. We particularly worry about children under the age of 6. Not only are their brains actively developing, but young children commonly touch lots of things — and put their hands in their mouths. Children who are exposed to lead can have problems with learning, understanding, and behavior that may be permanent.

How do children get exposed to lead?

In the US, lead used to be far more ubiquitous than it is now, particularly in paint and gas. Yet children can be exposed to lead in many ways.

• Lead paint. In houses built before 1978, lead paint can sometimes be under other paint, and is most commonly found on windowsills or around doors. If there is peeling paint, children can sometimes ingest it. Dust from old paint can land on the floor or other surfaces that children touch with their hands (and then put their hands in their mouths). If there was ever lead paint on the outside of a house, it can sometimes be in the dirt around a house.
• Leaded gas. While leaded gas was outlawed in 1996, its use is still allowed in aircraft, farm equipment, racing cars, and marine engines.
• Water passing through lead pipes. Lead can be found in the water of older houses that have lead pipes.
• Other sources. Lead can also be found in some imported toys, candles, jewelry, and traditional medicines. Some parents may have exposure at work or through hobbies and bring it home on their hands or clothing. Examples include working in demolition of older houses, making things using lead solder, or having exposure to lead bullets at a firing range.

What can parents do to protect children from lead?

First, know about possible exposures.

• If you have an older home, get it inspected for lead if you haven’t done so already. (If you rent, federal law requires landlords to disclose known lead-based paint hazards when you sign a lease.) Inspection is particularly important if you are planning renovations, which often create dust and debris that increase the risk of exposure. Your local health department can give you information about how to do this testing. If there is lead in your home, don’t try to remove it yourself! It needs to be done carefully, by a qualified professional, to be safe.
• Talk to your local health department about getting the water in your house tested. Even if your house is new, there can sometimes be older pipes in the water system. Using a water filter and taking other steps can reduce or eliminate lead in tap water.
• If you have an older home and live in an urban area, there can be lead in the soil. You may want to have the soil around your house tested for lead. Don’t let your child play in bare soil, and be sure they take off their shoes before coming in the house and wash their hands after being outside.
• Learn about lead in foods, cosmetics, and traditional medications.
• Learn about lead in toys, jewelry, and plastics (yet another reason to limit your child’s exposure to plastic).

Second, talk to your pediatrician about whether your child should have a blood test to check for lead poisoning. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends:

• Assessing young children for risk of exposure at all checkups between 6 months and 6 years of age, and
• Testing children if a risk is identified, particularly at 12 and 24 months. Living in an old home, or in a community with lots of older homes, counts as a risk. Given that low levels of lead exposure that can lead to lifelong problems do not cause symptoms, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. If there is any chance that your child might have an exposure, get them tested.

How is childhood lead exposure treated?

If your child is found to have lead in their blood, the most important next step is to figure out the exposure — and get rid of it. Once the child is no longer exposed, the lead level will go down, although it does so slowly.

Iron deficiency makes the body more vulnerable to lead poisoning. If your child has an iron deficiency it should be treated, but usually medications aren’t used unless lead levels are very high. In those cases, special medications called chelators are used to help pull the lead out of the blood.

For more information, visit the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website on lead poisoning prevention.

About the Author

Claire McCarthy, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Claire McCarthy, MD, is a primary care pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. In addition to being a senior faculty editor for Harvard Health Publishing, Dr. McCarthy … See Full Bio View all posts by Claire McCarthy, MD

When I worked at Greenpeace for five years before I attended medical school, a popular slogan was, “Think globally, act locally.” As I write this blog about climate change and hay fever, I wonder if wiping off my computer that I’ve just sneezed all over due to my seasonal allergies counts as abiding by this aphorism? (Can you clean a computer screen with a tissue?)

Come to think of it, my allergies do seem to be worse in recent years. So do those of my patients. It seems as if I’m prescribing nasal steroids and antihistamines, recommending over-the-counter eye drops, and discussing ways to avoid allergens much more frequently than in the past. Are people more stressed out, working harder, sleeping less, and thus more susceptible to allergies? Or, are the allergies themselves actually worse? Could the worsening of climate change explain why the rates of allergies and asthma have been climbing steadily over the last several decades?

There’s more pollen and a longer pollen season

Seasonal allergies tend to be caused disproportionately by trees in the spring, grasses in the summer, and ragweed in the fall. The lengthening interval of “frost-free days” (the time from the last frost in the spring to the first frost in the fall) allows more time for people to become sensitized to the pollen — the first stage in developing allergies — as well as to then become allergic to it. No wonder so many more of my patients have been complaining of itchy eyes, runny nose, and wheezing.

In many places in the United States, due to climate change, spring is now starting earlier and fall is ending later, which, yearly, allows more time for plants and trees to grow, flower, and produce pollen. This leads to a longer allergy season. According to a study at Rutgers University, from the 1990s until 2010, pollen season started in the contiguous United States on average three days earlier, and there was a 40% increase in the annual total of daily airborne pollen. More recent research in North America shows rising concentrations of sneeze-inducing pollens and lengthening pollen seasons from 1990 to 2018, largely driven by climate change.

Climate change is increasing the potency of pollen

In addition to longer allergy seasons, allergy sufferers have other things to fret about with climate change. When exposed to increased levels of carbon dioxide, plants grow to a larger size and produce more pollen. Some studies have shown that ragweed pollen, a main culprit of allergies for many people, becomes up to 1.7 times more potent under conditions of higher carbon dioxide. With warming climates, the geographic distribution of pollen-producing plants is expanding as well; for example, due to warmer temperatures, ragweed species can now inhabit climates that were formerly inhospitable.

Other unfortunate consequences of climate change, which we are already witnessing, include coastal flooding as the arctic ice sheets melt, causing the sea levels to rise; and more extreme weather, such as storms and droughts. With the increased coastal flooding, mold outbreaks are more common, which can trigger or worsen allergic reactions and asthma. More extreme weather events, such as thunderstorms, are associated with an increase in emergency department visits for asthma attacks. (It is unclear why this is the case, but one theory suggests that the winds associated with thunderstorms kick up a tremendous amount of pollen.) Allergies and asthma are closely associated, with many people, this author included, having “allergic asthma” that is likely to worsen as climate change progresses.

So what can an allergy sufferer do?

Even as the allergic environment changes in conjunction with our climate, there are steps you can take to manage the impact of seasonal allergies and reduce sneezing and itchy eyes.

• Work with your doctor to treat your allergies with medications such as antihistamines, nasal steroids, eye drops, and asthma medications if needed. If you take other medications that may interact with over-the-counter allergy medications such as Benadryl or Sudafed, let your doctor know.
• Discuss with your doctor whether you would benefit from allergy testing, a referral to an allergist, or prevention methods like allergy injections or sublingual immunotherapy, which, by exposing your body in a controlled manner, slowly conditions your immune system not to respond to environmental allergens.
• Track the local pollen count and avoid extended outdoor activities during peak pollen season, on peak pollen days. However, most doctors would agree that it isn’t healthy to cut back on exercise, hobbies, or time in nature, so this is a less than satisfying solution at best. You could plan for an indoor exercise program on high-pollen days.
• Wash clothing and bathe or shower after being outdoors to remove pollen.
• Close windows during peak allergy season or on windy days.
• Wear a mask when outdoors during high pollen days, and keep car windows rolled up when driving.
• If your house has been flooded, be on the lookout for mold. There are services that you can hire that will inspect your home for mold, and remove the mold if it is thought to be harmful.
• Have as small a carbon footprint as possible and plant trees. Even though they are responsible for some of the pollen that many of us choke and gag on each spring, summer, and fall, trees contribute to their environment by taking in carbon dioxide and producing the oxygen we breathe, thereby improving air quality. We have to protect and plant trees, even as allergy sufferers, as climate change is arguably the biggest threat that we, as a species, now face.

About the Author

Peter Grinspoon, MD, Contributor

Dr. Peter Grinspoon is a primary care physician, educator, and cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital; an instructor at Harvard Medical School; and a certified health and wellness coach. He is the author of the forthcoming book Seeing … See Full Bio View all posts by Peter Grinspoon, MD

Scientific advances have brought us scores of new drugs in recent years. In the US, one major agency — the FDA — is responsible for making sure that the drugs they approve are safe and effective. Yet there were more than 14,000 drug recalls in the last 10 years, according to FDA statistics. That averages out to nearly four drug recalls a day!

Why are drug recalls so common, and how can you maximize safety when taking the medicines you need?

Why do so many drug recalls occur?

The FDA approves prescription drugs if research shows a medicine is safe and effective. Usually the risks are well known by the time approval is granted. For over-the-counter drugs, the bar is lower: proof that they work is not required, but the FDA still maintains oversight for safety.

Drug recalls are common because:

• Rare side effects may be missed in clinical trials. Studies leading to drug approval might have hundreds or thousands of study subjects. But a rare problem may not be detected until tens of thousands of people have taken a drug.
• Study subjects tend to be healthier than the general population. When you’re trying to figure out if a drug works, the chances of success are higher and reliability of results is greater if study subjects are healthy. Once a drug is approved, people taking it may be older, less healthy, or taking multiple drugs for health issues.
• Problems during or after manufacturing can make a safe drug harmful. Examples include bacterial contamination, incorrect labeling, and improper storage.
• Bad behavior by drug makers may affect drug safety. For example, multiple over-the-counter supplements marketed for male sexual performance were recalled in recent years because they were laced with prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Are most drug recalls high-risk?

Fewer than one in 10 poses a serious health risk. The FDA grades risk severity for recalls as follows:

• Class I is dangerous and poses a serious health risk (a hand sanitizer contaminated with methanol)
• Class II might cause a temporary or slight risk of serious harm (a diabetes medicine stored at the wrong temperature)
• Class III is unlikely to cause any harm to health, but there is a violation of FDA requirements (an ointment for dermatitis in damaged tubes).

Between 80% and 90% of drug recalls are Class II.

In 2022, 6% of recalls were Class 1, 86% were Class II, and 7% were Class III.

How do drug recalls happen?

The FDA inspects drug manufacturing facilities every two to three years. The agency also tests thousands of drugs each year.

Problems spotted during inspections, concerns identified by drug makers, or problems reported by patients or health care professionals can prompt a recall. The FDA then assigns a risk classification, supervises actions taken by the drug maker to remedy the problem, and monitors the product to make sure the problem is eliminated.

Drug recalls in the US are almost always voluntary. That means the drug maker acknowledges the problem and takes corrective action rather than waiting for a possible mandate from the FDA.

How can you stay informed about medicines you use?

Here are some practical measures to take:

• Sign up to receive texts or emails about recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts from the FDA.
• When filling prescriptions, take a good look at your medicine. Pills should not be discolored or crumbling, or have an unusual odor. If your prescription hasn’t changed, a refill should look similar to what you’ve taken in the past. If you suspect a problem, contact your pharmacist or the health care professional who prescribed it. And if you do confirm a problem, you can report it to the FDA.
• If you learn of a recall for a drug you take, check the lot number on the package to see if your medication is affected. If the risk is classified as high (Class I), contact your doctor right away for advice. For many recalled drugs, there are safe and effective alternatives.
• A recall notice will tell you if the medicine can be replaced or if you can be reimbursed. If you are instructed to dispose of medication, do so safely.

Another way to limit your potential exposure to recalled drugs is to take fewer drugs. Review your medication list with your doctor regularly and take only what you truly need.

The bottom line

News on drug recalls may not inspire confidence. It might make you wonder if the drugs you take are safe. In general, yes: the vast majority of medicines on the market have an excellent safety profile. But with more than 1,000 drug recalls every year, there’s plenty of room for improvement by drug makers and good reason to encourage better regulation of the industry.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

For people with obesity, weight-loss surgery can reverse or greatly improve many serious health issues, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and pain. But these procedures also change how the body metabolizes alcohol, leaving people more likely to develop an alcohol use disorder. A new study finds that one type of surgery, gastric bypass, may increase the dangers of drinking much more than other weight-loss strategies.

“Alcohol-related problems after weight-loss surgery are a known risk. That’s one reason we require people to abstain from alcohol for at least six months — and preferably a full year — before any weight-loss surgery,” says Dr. Chika Anekwe, an obesity medicine specialist at the Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center. The new findings are interesting and make sense from a biological perspective, given the differences in the surgeries, she adds.

How does weight loss surgery affect alcohol absorption?

Weight-loss surgeries dramatically reduce the size of the stomach.

• For a sleeve gastrectomy, the most common procedure, the surgeon removes about 80% of the stomach, leaving a banana-shaped tube.
• For a gastric bypass, a surgeon converts the upper stomach into an egg-sized pouch. This procedure is called a bypass because most of the stomach, the valve that separates the stomach from the small intestine (the pylorus), and the first part of the small intestine are bypassed.

The lining of the stomach contains alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme that breaks down alcohol. After weight-loss surgery, people have less of this enzyme available. So drinking wine, beer, or liquor will expose them to a higher dose of unmetabolized alcohol. Some alcohol is absorbed directly from the stomach, but most moves into the small intestine before being absorbed into the bloodstream.

After a sleeve gastrectomy, the pyloric valve continues to slow down the passage of alcohol from the downsized stomach to the small intestine. But with a gastric bypass, the surgeon reroutes the small intestine and attaches it to the small stomach pouch, bypassing the pyloric valve entirely. As a result, drinking alcohol after a gastric bypass can lead to extra-high blood alcohol levels. That makes people feel intoxicated more quickly and may put them at a higher risk of alcohol use disorders, says Dr. Anekwe.

Findings from the study on weight loss surgery and alcohol

The study included nearly 7,700 people (mostly men) from 127 Veterans Health Administration centers who were treated for obesity between 2008 and 2021. About half received a sleeve gastrectomy. Nearly a quarter underwent gastric bypass. Another 18% were referred to MOVE!, a program that encourages increased physical activity and healthy eating.

After adjusting for participants’ body mass index and alcohol use, researchers found that participants who had gastric bypass were 98% more likely to be hospitalized for alcohol-related reasons than those who had sleeve gastrectomy, and 70% more likely than those who did the MOVE! program. The rate of alcohol-related hospitalizations did not differ between people who had sleeve gastrectomy and those who did the MOVE! program.

The health harms of alcohol use disorder

Alcohol use disorder can lead to numerous health problems. Some require hospitalization, including alcoholic gastritis, alcohol-related hepatitis, alcohol-induced pancreatitis, and alcoholic cardiomyopathy. As the study authors note, people who had gastric bypass surgery had a higher risk of being hospitalized for an alcohol use disorder, even though they drank the least amount of alcohol compared with the other study participants. This suggests that change in alcohol metabolism resulting from the surgery likely explains the findings.

Advice on alcohol if you’ve had weight-loss surgery or are considering it

“We recommend that people avoid alcohol completely after any type of weight-loss surgery,” says Dr. Anekwe. A year after the surgery, an occasional drink is acceptable, she adds, noting that most patients she sees don’t have a problem with this restriction.

People who undergo weight-loss surgeries have to be careful about everything they consume to ensure they get adequate amounts of important nutrients. Like sugary drinks, alcohol is devoid of nutrients — yet another reason to steer clear of it.

Gastric bypass has become less popular than sleeve gastrectomy over the past decade, mostly because it’s more invasive and slightly riskier. While the new study suggests yet another downside of gastric bypass, Dr. Anekwe says it can still be a viable option for people with severe obesity, as bypass leads to more weight loss and better control of blood sugar than the sleeve procedure.

About the Author

Julie Corliss, Executive Editor, Harvard Heart Letter

Julie Corliss is the executive editor of the Harvard Heart Letter. Before working at Harvard, she was a medical writer and editor at HealthNews, a consumer newsletter affiliated with The New England Journal of Medicine. She … See Full Bio View all posts by Julie Corliss

Prostate cancer progresses slowly, but for how long is it possible to put off treatment? Most newly diagnosed men have low-risk or favorable types of intermediate-risk prostate cancer that doctors can watch and treat only if the disease is found to be at higher risk of progression. This approach, called active surveillance, allows men to delay — or in some cases, outlive — the need for aggressive treatment, which has challenging side effects.

In 1999, British researchers launched a clinical trial comparing outcomes among 1,643 men who were either treated immediately for their cancer or followed on active surveillance (then called active monitoring). The men’s average age at enrollment was 62, and they all had low- to intermediate risk tumors with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels ranging from 3.0 to 18.9 nanograms per milliliter.

Long-term results from the study, which were published in March, show that prostate cancer death rates were low regardless of the therapeutic strategy. “This hugely important study shows quite clearly that there is no urgency to treat men with low- and even favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” says Dr. Anthony Zietman, a professor of radiation oncology who was involved in the research and is a member of the Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board. “They give up nothing in terms of 15-year survival.”

What the results showed

During the study, called the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, researchers randomized 545 men to active monitoring, 533 men to surgical removal of the prostate, and 545 men to radiation.

After 15 years, 356 men had died from any cause, including 45 men who died from prostate cancer specifically: 17 from the active monitoring group, 12 from the surgery group, and 16 from the radiation group. Men in the active surveillance group did have higher rates of cancer progression than the treated men did. More of them were eventually treated with drugs that suppress testosterone, a hormone that fuels prostate cancer growth.

In all, 51 men from the active surveillance group developed metastatic prostate cancer, which is roughly twice the number of those treated with surgery or radiation. But 133 men in the active surveillance group also avoided any treatment and were still alive when the follow-up concluded.

Experts weigh in

In a press release, the study’s lead author, Dr. Freddie Hamdy of the University of Oxford, claims that while cancer progression and the need for hormonal therapy were more limited in the treatment groups, “those reductions did not translate into differences in mortality.” The findings suggest that for some men, aggressive therapy “results in more harm than good,” Dr. Hamdy says.

Dr. Zietman agrees, adding that active surveillance protocols today are even safer than those used when ProtecT was initiated. Unlike in the past, for instance, active surveillance protocols now make more use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans that detect cancer progression in the prostate with high resolution.

Dr. Boris Gershman, a surgeon who specializes in urology at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and is also an Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board member, cautions that the twofold higher risk of developing metastasis among men on active surveillance may eventually translate into a mortality difference at 20-plus years.

“It’s important to not extend the data beyond their meaning,” says Dr. Gershman, who was not involved in the study. “These results should not be used to infer that all prostate cancer should not be treated, or that there is no benefit to treatment for men with more aggressive disease.” Still, ProtecT is a landmark study in urology, Dr. Gershman says, that “serves to reinforce active surveillance as the preferred management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer and some men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Marc B. Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and editor in chief of the Annual Report, points out that nearly all the enrolled subjects provided follow-up data for the study’s duration, which is highly unusual for large clinical trials with long follow-up. The authors had initially predicted that patients from the active monitoring group who developed metastases at 10 years would have shortened survival at 15 years, “but this was not the case,” Dr. Garnick says. “As with many earlier PSA screening studies, the impact of local therapy on long-term survival for this class of prostate cancer — whether it be radiation or surgery — was again brought into question,” he says.

About the Author

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD

Turns out that when your mother told you to stop sitting near the TV or you might need glasses, she was onto something.

Myopia, or nearsightedness, is a growing problem worldwide. While a nearsighted child can see close objects clearly, more distant objects look blurry. Part of this growing problem, according to experts, is that children are spending too much time indoors looking at things close to them rather than going outside and looking at things that are far away.

What is nearsightedness?

Nearsightedness is very common, affecting about 5% of preschoolers, 9% of school-age children, and 30% of teens. But what worries experts is that over the last few decades its global prevalence has doubled — and during the pandemic, eye doctors have noticed an increase in myopia.

Nearsightedness happens when the eyeball is too large from front to back. Genes play a big role, but growing research shows that there are developmental factors. The stereotype of the nerd wearing glasses actually bears out; research shows that the more years one spends in school, the higher the risk of myopia. Studies also show, even more reliably, that spending time outdoors can decrease a child’s risk of developing myopia.

Why would outdoor time make a difference in nearsightedness?

While surprising, this actually makes some sense. As children grow and change, their lifestyles affect their bodies. A child who is undernourished, for example, may not grow as tall as they might have if they had better nourishment. A child who develops obesity during childhood is far more likely to have lifelong obesity. And the eyes of a child who is always looking at things close to him or her might adjust to this — and lose some ability to see far away.

Nearsightedness has real consequences. Not only can it cause problems with everyday tasks that require you to see more than a few feet away, such as school or driving, but people with myopia are at higher risk of blindness and retinal detachment. The problems can’t always be fixed with a pair of glasses.

What can parents do?

• Make sure your child spends time outdoors regularly — every day, if possible. That’s the best way to be sure that they look at things far away. It’s also a great way to get them to be more active, get enough Vitamin D, and learn some important life skills.
• Try to limit the amount of time your child spends close to a screen. These days, a lot of schoolwork is on screens, but children are also spending far too much of their playtime on devices rather than playing with toys, drawing, or other activities. Have some ground rules. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours of entertainment media a day, and has a great Family Media Plan to help families make this happen.
• Have your child’s vision checked regularly. Most pediatricians do regular vision screening, but it is important to remember that basic screening can miss vision problems. It’s a good idea for your child to have a full vision examination from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist by kindergarten.
• Call your pediatrician or child’s eye doctor if you notice signs of a possible vision problem, such as
  • sitting close to the television or holding devices close to the face
  • squinting or complaining of any difficulty seeing
  • not being able to identify objects far away (when you go for walks, play I Spy and point to some far-away things!)
  • avoiding or disliking activities that involve looking close, like doing puzzles or looking at books, which can be a sign of hyperopia (farsightedness)
  • tilting their head to look at things
  • covering or rubbing an eye
  • one eye that turns inward or outward.

If you have any questions or concerns about your child’s vision, talk to your pediatrician.

Follow me on Twitter @drClaire

About the Author

Claire McCarthy, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Claire McCarthy, MD, is a primary care pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. In addition to being a senior faculty editor for Harvard Health Publishing, Dr. McCarthy … See Full Bio View all posts by Claire McCarthy, MD

Driving along the freeway recently, a billboard caught my eye. In bold letters it proclaimed:

Milk hydrates better than water.

Wait, could this be true? And if so, should I be rehydrating with milk after a workout? And should we all have milk, rather than water, in our water bottles?

What’s behind the claim?

Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. The website supporting this ad cites three small studies dating back more than a decade:

• A 2007 study enrolled 11 volunteers (five men, six women) who exercised until they were markedly dehydrated on several occasions. Each time they rehydrated with a different drink, and their urine output was measured over the following five hours. After drinking milk, the study volunteers produced less urine (and therefore retained more fluid) than with water or a sports drink (Powerade). Therefore, milk was considered to provide better hydration.
• A study published in 2016 described seven men with marked dehydration following exercise who drank fat-free milk, water, or Powerade. The results were similar.
• A 2016 study enrolled 72 healthy, well-hydrated men who drank various fluids and then had their urine production measured over the next four hours. The drinks used in this study were water, whole milk, skim milk, beer, Dioralyte (an oral rehydration solution used after fluid loss from diarrhea), tea, coffee, diet cola, regular cola, orange juice, and Powerade. The researchers found that fluid retention was best after drinking either type of milk or the oral rehydration solution; results for the other drinks were similar to water.

Sounds like milk is a winner, right? Maybe. But there are other things to consider.

The study details matter

The findings of these studies aren’t definitive. As with all research, there are important limitations. For example:

• The small number of participants in these studies means that just a few people could have an outsized impact on the results.
• Two of the three studies involved significant dehydration by intensely exercising in a warm environment, leading to several pounds of fluid loss. Therefore, the results may not apply to people engaged in more typical daily activities or workouts. In addition, the studies equated better hydration with less urine production in the hours after drinking various fluids. This is only one way to define hydration, and not clearly the best one.
• The advantage of milk reported in these studies may be too small or too temporary to matter much. For example, in the study of 72 people, milk drinkers produced about 37 ounces of urine over four hours while water drinkers produced 47 ounces. Does the 10-ounce difference have a meaningful health impact? If the study participants had been monitored for a longer period, would this difference disappear?
• The amount of milk consumed in the study of seven men would contain more than 1,000 calories. That may be acceptable for an elite athlete after hours of intensive exercise in the heat, but counterproductive and costly for someone working out for 30 minutes to help maintain or lose weight. Tap water is free and has no calories!

Hyping hydration: Many claims, little evidence

The billboard promoting milk reflects our relatively recent focus on hydration for health. This is promoted — or perhaps created — by advertisers selling sports drinks, energy drinks and, yes, water bottles. But does drinking “plenty of water” translate to weight loss, athletic performance, and glowing appearance? Does monitoring urine color (darker could indicate dehydration) and downing the oft-recommended eight glasses of water daily make a difference in our health? On the strength of evidence offered so far, I’m not convinced.

But wait, there’s more! Emotional support water bottles, a trend popularized recently in Australia, offer one part public expression of your commitment to health and one part security blanket. (Yes, it’s a thing: #emotionalsupportwaterbottle has more than 80 million views on TikTok.) And then there’s intravenous hydration on demand for healthy (and often wealthy) people convinced that intravenous fluids will improve their looks, relieve their hangovers, help with jet lag, or remedy and prevent an assortment of other ailments.

Is this focus on hydration actually helpful?

Before water bottles were everywhere and monitoring fluid intake became commonplace, medically important dehydration wasn’t a problem for most healthy people who were not rapidly losing fluids due to heat, intense exercise, diarrhea, or the like.

The fact is, drinking when thirsty is a sound strategy for most of us. And while there are important exceptions noted below, you probably don’t need fluids at hand at all times or to closely monitor daily fluid intake to be healthy. There are far more important health concerns than whether you drink eight glasses of water each day.

When is dehydration a serious problem?

Weather, exercise, or illness can make dehydration a major problem. Particularly susceptible are people who work or exercise outside in hot and humid environments, those at the extremes of age, people experiencing significant fluid loss (as with a diarrheal illness), and those without reliable access to fluids. If significant dehydration occurs, replacing lost fluids is critically important, and may even require a medical setting where intravenous fluids can be provided quickly.

The bottom line

Despite the claims of milk ads and the iffy studies justifying them, the idea of replacing water with milk for rehydration may not convince everyone: the taste, consistency, and extra calories of milk may be hard to get past.

As for me, until there’s more convincing evidence of an actual health advantage of milk over water for routine hydration, I’ll stick with water. But I’ll forego the water bottle.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Snuff is a smokeless tobacco similar to chewing tobacco. It rarely makes headlines. But it certainly did when the FDA authorized a brand of snuff to market its products as having a major health advantage over cigarettes. Could this be true? Is it safe to use snuff?

What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?

Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:

If you smoke, consider this: switching completely to this product from cigarettes reduces risk of lung cancer.

While the statement is true, this FDA action — and the marketing that’s likely to follow — might suggest snuff is a safe product. It’s not. Let’s talk about the rest of the story.

What is snuff, anyway?

Snuff is a form of tobacco that’s finely ground. There are two types:

• Moist snuff. Users place a pinch or a pouch of tobacco behind their upper or lower lips or between their cheek and gum. They must repeatedly spit out or swallow the tobacco juice that accumulates. After a few minutes, they remove or spit out the tobacco as well. This recent FDA action applies to a brand of moist snuff.
• Dry snuff. This type is snorted (inhaled through the nose) and is less common in the US.

Both types are available in an array of scents and flavors. Users absorb nicotine and other chemicals into the bloodstream through the lining of the mouth. Blood levels of nicotine are similar between smokers and snuff users. But nicotine stays in the blood for a longer time with snuff users.

Why is snuff popular?

According to CDC statistics, 5.7 million adults in the US regularly use smokeless tobacco products — that’s about 2% of the adult population. A similar percentage (1.6%) of high school students use it as well. That’s despite restrictions on youth marketing and sales.

What accounts for its popularity?

• Snuff may be allowed in places that prohibit smoking.
• It tends to cost less than cigarettes: $300 to $1,000 a year versus several thousand dollars a year paid by some smokers.
• It doesn’t require inhaling smoke into the lungs, or exposing others to secondhand smoke.
• Snuff is safer than cigarettes in at least one way — it is less likely to cause lung cancer.
• It may help some cigarette smokers quit.

The serious health risks of snuff

While the risk of lung cancer is lower compared with cigarettes, snuff has plenty of other health risks, including

• higher risk of cancers of the mouth (such as the tongue, gums, and cheek), esophagus, and pancreas
• higher risk of heart disease and stroke
• harm to the developing teenage brain
• dental problems, such as discoloration of teeth, gum disease, tooth damage, bone loss around the teeth, tooth loosening or loss
• higher risk of premature birth and stillbirth among pregnant users.

And because nicotine is addictive, using any tobacco product can quickly become a habit that’s hard to break.

There are also the “ick” factors: bad breath and having to repeatedly spit out tobacco juice.

Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?

Perhaps, if many smokers switch to snuff and give up smoking. That could reduce the number of people who develop smoking-related lung cancer. It might even reduce harms related to secondhand smoke.

But it’s also possible the new marketing message will attract nonsmokers, including teens, who weren’t previously using snuff. A bigger market for snuff products might boost health risks for many people, rather than lowering them.

The new FDA action is approved for a five-year period, and the company must monitor its impact. Is snuff an effective way to help smokers quit? Is a lower rate of lung cancer canceled out by a rise in other health risks? We don’t know yet. If the new evidence shows more overall health risks than benefits for snuff users compared with smokers, this new marketing authorization may be reversed.

The bottom line

If you smoke, concerns you have about lung cancer or other smoking-related health problems are justified. But snuff should not be the first choice to help break the smoking habit. Commit to quit using safer options that don’t involve tobacco, such as nicotine gum or patches, counseling, and medications.

While the FDA’s decision generated news headlines that framed snuff as safer than smoking, it’s important to note that the FDA did not endorse the use of snuff — or even suggest that snuff is a safe product. Whether smoked or smokeless, tobacco creates enormous health burdens and suffering. Clearly, it’s best not to use any tobacco product.

Until we have a better understanding of its impact, I think any new marketing of this sort should also make clear that using snuff comes with other important health risks — even if lung cancer isn’t the biggest one.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

You may be familiar with Lyme disease, a bacterial infection from the bite of an infected black-legged tick. While Lyme disease is the most commonly reported tick-borne illness in the United States, another is on the rise: babesiosis. A March 2023 CDC report shows that babesiosis now has a foothold in 10 states in the Northeast and Midwest.

What is babesiosis?

Babesiosis is an illness caused by a parasite (typically Babesia microti) that infects red blood cells. It is spread by infected black-legged ticks (deer ticks). In most cases, the tick must be attached to a person for at least 36 hours to transmit the parasite.

What are the signs and symptoms of babesiosis?

“You may or may not see the tick bite mark on your skin, so your symptoms may be the earliest sign of an infection,” says Dr. Nancy A. Shadick, a rheumatologist and director of the Lyme Disease Prevention Program at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Some people with babesiosis experience no symptoms, but the most common symptoms are a combination of

• severe flulike symptoms such as a high fever (up to 104° F), chills, and sweats, particularly night sweats
• general discomfort or feeling unwell
• intense headache
• muscle and joint pain
• loss of appetite
• nausea
• fatigue.

These symptoms can appear within one to nine weeks, or even several months after a person has been infected.

Less often, babesiosis causes hemolytic anemia. In this form of anemia, red blood cells are destroyed faster than the body can replace them. Signs and symptoms include

• fatigue
• dizziness
• weakness
• dark urine
• yellowing skin and whites of the eyes.

Babesiosis can be a severe, life-threatening disease, particularly for adults over age 65 and people with weakened immune systems, such as people without a spleen and those receiving biological therapy or chemotherapy.

Why are cases of babesiosis rising?

Until recently, babesiosis was endemic (consistently present) in seven states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

However, the CDC report added three more Northeastern states to the list — Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont — where case rates between 2011 and 2019 matched or even surpassed the other seven states. Vermont cases rose from two to 34, Maine cases from nine to 138, and New Hampshire cases from 13 to 78. The trend is worrisome.

There are several reasons for the rise in babesiosis. “One is warming temperatures driven by climate change, which cause ticks to be more active earlier in the spring and later in the fall,” says Dr. Shadick. Other contributors are an increase in the number of whitetail deer and a rise in housing construction in wooded areas.

How is this tick-borne illness diagnosed and treated?

Babesiosis is diagnosed by a blood test.

It may be treated with specific antibiotics (different than those used for Lyme disease), or with an antibiotic and antimalarial medication. While treatment usually takes seven to 10 days, a longer course may be recommended for people who are immunocompromised.

Can you get Lyme disease and babesiosis?

Yes, though you may also get either one by itself. Some black-legged ticks that carry the Lyme bacterium (Borrelia burgdorferi) also may carry the Babesia parasite, according to Dr. Shadick. “Lyme disease also shares similar symptoms with babesiosis, such as fever, headache, and fatigue,” she says.

How can you prevent tick-borne illnesses?

Tick exposure can occur year-round, but ticks are most active during warmer months. Most cases of babesiosis occur from late spring through early autumn.

Ticks live in grassy, brushy, or wooded areas. Almost any outdoor activity can expose you or your pets to infected ticks, such as camping, walking your dog, and gardening.

To avoid babesiosis and other tick-borne diseases, the CDC offers these tips:

• Use insect repellents recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) containing DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE), para-menthane-diol (PMD), or 2-undecanone. Treat clothing and gear with products containing 0.5% permethrin. Permethrin can treat boots, clothing, and camping gear and remain protective through several washings.
• Wear light-colored pants and long-sleeved shirts and a hat during outdoor activities.
• Try to avoid wooded and brushy areas with high grass and leaf litter. Walk in the center of trails.
• Check clothing, pets, backpacks, and gear for ticks after spending time outdoors.
• When you come indoors, remove shoes and put clothes in the dryer on high heat for 10 minutes to kill ticks.
• To remove a tick, use fine-tipped tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin’s surface as possible. Pull upward with steady, even pressure. Don’t twist or jerk the tick, as this can cause the mouth-parts to break off and remain in the skin. Clean the bite area with rubbing alcohol or soap and water. Shower within two hours after coming indoors to help remove any unattached ticks. Use the opportunity for a full-body tick check.

For in-depth information about preventing, treating, and living with a tick-borne illness like Lyme disease or babesiosis, see the Lyme Wellness Initiative at Harvard Health Publishing.

About the Author

Matthew Solan, Executive Editor, Harvard Men's Health Watch

Matthew Solan is the executive editor of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. He previously served as executive editor for UCLA Health’s Healthy Years and as a contributor to Duke Medicine’s Health News and Weill Cornell Medical College’s … See Full Bio View all posts by Matthew Solan

About the Reviewer

Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Howard LeWine, M.D., is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD

Everything is connected. You’ve probably heard that before, but it bears repeating. Below are five ways to boost both your individual health and the health of our planet — a combination that environmentalists call co-benefits.

How your health and planetary health intersect

Back in 1970, Earth Day was founded as a day of awareness about environmental issues. Never has awareness of our environment seemed more important than now. The impacts of climate change on Earth — fires, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, species extinction, and more — directly or indirectly threaten our well-being, especially for those most vulnerable. For example, air pollution from fossil fuels and fires contributes to lung problems and hospitalizations. Geographic and seasonal boundaries for ticks and mosquitoes, which are carriers of infectious diseases, expand as regions warm.

The concept of planetary health acknowledges that the ecosystem and our health are inextricably intertwined. Actions and events have complex downstream effects: some are expected, others are surprising, and many are likely unrecognized. While individual efforts may seem small, collectively they can move the needle — even ever so slightly — in the right direction.

Five ways to improve personal and planetary health

Adopt plant-forward eating.

This means increasing plant-based foods in your diet while minimizing meat. Making these types of choices lowers the risks of heart disease, stroke, obesity, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and many cancers. Compared to meat-based meals, plant-based meals also have many beneficial effects for the planet. For example, for the same amount of protein, plant-based meals have a lower carbon footprint and use fewer natural resources like land and water.

Remember, not all plants are equal.

Plant foods also vary greatly, both in terms of their nutritional content and in their environmental impact. Learning to read labels can help you determine the nutritional value of foods. It’s a bit harder to learn about the environmental impact of specific foods, since there are regional factors. But to get a general sense, Our World in Data has a collection of eye-opening interactive graphs about various environmental impacts of different foods.

Favor active transportation.

Choose an alternative to driving such as walking, biking, or using public transportation when possible. Current health recommendations encourage adults to get 150 minutes each week of moderate-intensity physical activity, and two sessions of muscle strengthening activity. Regular physical activity improves mental health, bone health, and weight management. It also reduces risks of heart disease, some cancers, and falls in older adults. Fewer miles driven in gas-powered vehicles means cleaner air, decreased carbon emissions contributing to climate change, and less air pollution (known to cause asthma exacerbations and many other diseases).

Start where you are and work up to your level of discomfort.

Changes that work for one person may not work for another. Maybe you will pledge to eat one vegan meal each week, or maybe you will pledge to limit beef to once a week. Maybe you will try out taking the bus to work, or maybe you will bike to work when it’s not winter. Set goals for yourself that are achievable but are also a challenge.

Talk about it.

It might feel as though these actions are small, and it might feel daunting for any one individual trying to make a difference. Sharing your thoughts about what matters to you and about what you are doing might make you feel less isolated and help build community. Building community contributes to well-being and resilience.

Plus, if you share your pledges and aims with one person, and that person does the same, then your actions are amplified. Who knows, maybe one of those folks along the way might be the employee who decides what our children eat from school menus, or a city planner for pedestrian walkways and bike lanes!

About the Author

Wynne Armand, MD, Contributor

Dr. Wynne Armand is a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), where she provides primary care; an assistant professor in medicine at Harvard Medical School; and associate director of the MGH Center for the Environment and … See Full Bio View all posts by Wynne Armand, MD