U.S. Government-Subsidized Meat Killing Native Americans

By Kelly Grens

United States - Native Americans who often ate processed meat in a can, generically known as "spam" and a common food on reservations, one subsidized by the government -- had a two-fold increased risk of developing diabetes over those who ate little or none, according to a U.S. study.
Native Americans are at especially high risk of developing diabetes, with nearly half having the condition by age 55.

Researchers writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition surveyed 2,000 Native Americans from Arizona, Oklahoma and North and South Dakota to look into potential reasons for the high rate.
"A lot of communities in this study are in very rural areas with limited access to grocery stores... and they want to eat foods that have a long shelf life," said Amanda Fretts, the lead author and a researcher at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

None of the survey participants, whose average age was 35, had diabetes at the start of the study when they answered questions about diet and other health and lifestyle factors.

After five years, a follow-up survey found that 243 people had developed diabetes.
Among the 500 people in the original study group who ate the most canned processed meat, 85 developed diabetes. In contrast, among the 500 people who ate the least amount of "spam," just 44 developed the disease.

Though Spam is a brand-name pork product, the lower-case term is also used to describe any kind of processed, canned meat, Fretts said. Canned meat is available freely to many Native Americans on reservations as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food assistance program.

Fretts and her colleagues found that unprocessed meat did not have the same relationship with diabetes, with people equally likely to develop diabetes regardless of how much hamburger or cuts of pork or beef they ate.

"I think what this study indicates is processed meats should be a priority for reduction (in the diet), especially among American Indians where they can go to food assistance programs and they can get discounted spam," said Dariush Mozaffarian, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was not involved in the study.

Mozaffarian and his colleagues two years ago conducted an analysis that found that processed meats were tied to a 19 percent higher diabetes risk, while unprocessed meats were neutral.

"I think the biggest difference between processed and unprocessed meats is sodium," he said, though he added that there is no clear explanation for the link of processed meats and diabetes.

Fretts and her colleagues noted that the people who ate the most processed meats tended also to be heavier, with larger waistlines, raising the possibility that processed meats contribute to obesity, which raises the risk of diabetes.

In an emailed statement to Reuters Health, The American Meat Institute, which represents companies that process meat, said that "processed meats are a safe and nutritious part of a balanced diet."

Fretts said the study could not prove that eating processed meats was to blame for the increased risk of diabetes.
"I think there needs to be more follow-up," she said.

U.S. Navy Sued Over Possible Effect of Sonar on Whales

United States - Conservationists and Native American tribes are suing over the U.S. navy's expanded use of sonar in training exercises off the country's west coast, saying the noise can harass and kill whales and other marine life.

In a lawsuit being filed Thursday by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defence Council and other groups claim the National Marine Fisheries Service was wrong to approve the navy's plan for the expanded training.

They said regulators should have considered the effects repeated sonar use can have on those species over many years and should have restricted where the navy could conduct sonar and other loud activities to protect orcas, humpbacks and other whales, as well as seals, sea lions and dolphins.

Instead, the navy is required to look around and see if sea mammals are present before they conduct the training.

Balance training needs with environmental stewardship, says lawyer

Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice, said it's the job of the fisheries service to balance the needs of the navy with measures to protect marine life.

"But it can't be possible that it's no-holds-barred."

In 2010, the fisheries service approved the navy's five-year plan for operations in the Northwest Training Range Complex, an area roughly the size of California that stretches from the waters off California to the Canadian border. The navy has conducted exercises there for 60 years but in recent years proposed increased weapons testing and submarine training.

The environmental groups want the permit granted to the navy to be invalidated. They are asking the court to order the fisheries service to study the long-term effects of sonar on marine mammals, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

Regulators determined that while sonar use by navies has been associated with the deaths of whales around the world, including the beaching of 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2005, there was little chance of that happening in the U.S. Northwest. The short duration of the sonar use, typically 90 minutes at a time by a single surface vessel, and reduced intensity would help prevent whale deaths, they said.

Regulators required the navy to shut down sonar operations if whales, sea lions, dolphins or other marine mammals were spotted nearby.

Lawsuit says sonar can impact marine life and habitat

The lawsuit, being filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims that the navy's sonar use in the Northwest might be strong enough to kill the animals outright. But even if it doesn't, it claims, the repeated use of sonar in certain critical habitats, such as breeding or feeding grounds, over many years could drive those species away, making it more difficult for them to eat or reproduce. The fisheries service should have ordered the navy to keep out of such areas, at least seasonally, the environmental groups said.

A spokeswoman for the navy declined to comment on Wednesday, saying she had not seen the lawsuit, and the fisheries service did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The plaintiffs include People for Puget Sound, a Seattle-based non-profit, and the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which represents 10 Northern California American Indian tribes.