Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids
November 6, 2008AHA Recommendation
Omega-3 fatty acids benefit the heart of healthy people, and those at high risk of — or who have — cardiovascular disease.
We recommend eating fish (particularly fatty fish) at least two times a week. Fish is a good source of protein and doesn’t have the high saturated fat that fatty meat products do. Fatty fish like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon are high in two kinds of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
To learn about omega-3 levels for different types of fish — as well as mercury levels, which can be a concern — see our Encyclopedia entry on Fish, Levels of Mercury and Omega-3 Fatty Acids.
We also recommend eating tofu and other forms of soybeans, canola, walnut and flaxseed, and their oils. These contain alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), which can become omega-3 fatty acid in the body. The extent of this modification is modest and controversial, however. More studies are needed to show a cause-and-effect relationship between alpha-linolenic acid and heart disease.
The table below is a good guide to use for consuming omega-3 fatty acids.
Summary of Recommendations for Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake
Population
Recommendation
Patients without documented coronary heart disease (CHD)
Eat a variety of (preferably fatty) fish at least twice a week. Include oils and foods rich in alpha-linolenic acid (flaxseed, canola and soybean oils; flaxseed and walnuts).
Patients with documented CHD
Consume about 1 g of EPA+DHA per day, preferably from fatty fish. EPA+DHA in capsule form could be considered in consultation with the physician.
Patients who need to lower triglycerides
2 to 4 grams of EPA+DHA per day provided as capsules under a physician’s care.
Patients taking more than 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids from capsules should do so only under a physician’s care. High intakes could cause excessive bleeding in some people.
Background
In 2002, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement, “Fish Consumption, Fish Oil, Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease,” on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on heart function (including antiarrhythmic effects), hemodynamics (cardiac mechanics) and arterial endothelial function. The link between omega-3 fatty acids and CVD risk reduction are still being studied, but research has shown that omega-3 fatty acids
- decrease risk of arrhythmias, which can lead to sudden cardiac death
- decrease triglyceride levels
- decrease growth rate of atherosclerotic plaque
- lower blood pressure (slightly)
What do epidemiological and observational studies show?
Epidemiologic and clinical trials have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce CVD incidence. Large-scale epidemiologic studies suggest that people at risk for coronary heart disease benefit from consuming omega-3 fatty acids from plants and marine sources.
The ideal amount to take isn’t clear. Evidence from prospective secondary prevention studies suggests that taking EPA+DHA ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 grams per day (either as fatty fish or supplements) significantly reduces deaths from heart disease and all causes. For alpha-linolenic acid, a total intake of 1.5–3 grams per day seems beneficial.
Randomized clinical trials have shown that omega-3 fatty acid supplements can reduce cardiovascular events (death, non-fatal heart attacks, non-fatal strokes). They can also slow the progression of atherosclerosis in coronary patients. However, more studies are needed to confirm and further define the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplements for preventing a first or subsequent cardiovascular event. For example, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials are needed to document the safety and efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplements in high-risk patients (those with type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension and smokers) and coronary patients on drug therapy. Mechanistic studies on their apparent effects on sudden death also are needed.
Increasing omega-3 fatty acid intake through foods is preferable. However, coronary artery disease patients may not be able to get enough omega-3 by diet alone. These people may want to talk to their doctor about taking a supplement. Supplements also could help people with high triglycerides, who need even larger doses. The availability of high-quality omega-3 fatty acid supplements, free of contaminants, is an important prerequisite to their use.
Detailed Research
Environmental Protection Agency’s National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
Food and Drug Administration’s list of mercury content of selected fish
Obama’s victory met with tears and traffic jams
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crowds danced in the streets, wept, lifted their voices in prayer and brought traffic to a standstill. From the nation’s capital to Atlanta to Los Angeles, Americans celebrated Barack Obama’s victory and marveled that they lived to see the day that a black man was elected president.
Jubilation stretched into the early morning Wednesday in Washington, where a large crowd paraded on Pennsylvania Avenue with drums, balloons and a life-size cutout of Obama.
By 4 a.m., a few young revelers lingered among the reviewing stands being built for January’s presidential inauguration.
“I heard that he won and I instinctively came here,” said Hollis Gentry, 45, who lives about six blocks away. “I came down here to make a prayer … that we’ll be able to change the nation and the world.”
In New York City’s Harlem neighborhood, Thomasina Wright started Wednesday with a smile. “I’m way happy,” she said. “It means that I can tell my seven grandchildren that they have a chance to be president.”
“I have hope for several reasons. I hope for everybody including my nephews. They can have a higher rank in America,” souvenir vendor and Senegalese immigrant Ibrahim Sisse said Wednesday, as he was laying out his wares on a Harlem street. “I hope for America, changing.”
Earlier in Detroit, carloads of celebrants rolled past the bronze sculpture of prizefighter Joe Louis’ fist, blaring their horns and chanting “Obama!” out of open windows.
“The history, the struggle, it’s been a long time,” said Cheryl Stephenson, 48. “People are hurting, not just black people. I think we’re ready to take a chance.
“We went from `Yes, we can’ to `Yes, we did.’”
Sarah Geels wept big, slow tears at an Obama victory celebration in St. Louis.
“It’s overwhelming,” said Geels, 32, a community college librarian. “I just can’t believe it. It’s too good to be true. There soon will be a drastic improvement in this country.”
In Philadelphia, thousands of blacks and whites converged at City Hall shortly after Obama was declared the winner. Under light rain, they danced to the music blaring from car radios. Drivers stopped in the middle of the street, opened their car doors and broadcast Obama’s acceptance speech.
“Barack is in the house!” shouted Pamela Williams, 46. “This is very important to me. Change is about to happen.”
At Sadiki’s restaurant in Philadelphia, the celebration poured out onto the sidewalk.
“Our parents left this planet thinking that we would never, ever see this day, when an African-American could be elected by all the people to the highest seat in the land,” said Bernard Smalley Sr. His wife, Jacquelyn, wept.
The celebrations were both large big and small, but the sentiment was the same - pure joy over how far the country has come. People honked horns, high-fived each other and embraced.
“I was born in the civil rights time. To see this happening is unbelievable. We’ve got the first black president. A black president!” said Mike Louis, a 53-year-old black man who got teary-eyed as he watched the election results on a giant video board in Cincinnati’s Fountain Square. “It’s not cured now, but this is a step to curing this country of racism. This is a big, giant step toward getting this country together.”
Elsewhere, some Americans were wary, but hopeful. In Iowa, Sam Gipple, 60, said he voted for John McCain because he worries Obama lacks the experience he needs to be an effective leader.
“I’d give him a chance, and hope he keeps some of the good promises he made,” said Gipple, the transportation director for Iowa County.
Raymond Stroud, 63, of Little Rock, Ark., considers himself a conservative and supported McCain - barely. He called the Republican “probably the lesser of two evils.”
But in Cleveland, Obama supporters were ready to celebrate. Some gathered at a house party and held champagne flutes above their heads for a toast. “To the first African-American president in the history of the United States!” they shouted.
In Chicago, Obama’s hometown, an estimated 125,000 people gathered in unusually warm weather to greet the senator at a delirious victory rally at Grant Park.
“It’s fantastic,” said Hulon Johnson, 71, a retired Chicago public school principal. “I’ve always told my kids this was possible; now they’ll have to believe me.”
LaKeisha Williams, a 27-year-old laid-off school nurse, watched Obama’s victory on a TV in a downtown Kansas City concert hall.
“People actually have finally come together and realized that no matter what his race is, he was the right person for the job,” she said. “I think it was destiny for him to win. But now we still have to come together to make sure things work.”
In Miami’s predominantly black Liberty City neighborhood, Otoria Pitts, 30, suggested the significance of Obama’s victory goes beyond race.
“His election speaks volumes for a bunch of people,” she said. “Children of single mothers, people who put themselves through college. It says, you can do it, you can do it.”
Joined by her sister, Susan, and niece, Akira, the three women bought a few rockets from a fireworks stand and lit up the night sky with color.
On the other side of the country, others were thinking how Obama’s election could change their lives.
“I’m ecstatic,” said Jason Samm, a 33-year-old business owner who was celebrating in South Los Angeles. “I have three kids, which means a lot of doors opening up for them.”
Obama’s victory also brought back memories of hard-fought battles of generations past.
At Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. preached, Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights hero, said he was hardly able to believe that 40 years after he was left beaten and bloody on an Alabama bridge as he marched for the right for blacks to vote, he had cast a ballot for Obama.
“This is a great night,” he said. “It is an unbelievable night. It is a night of thanksgiving.”
As the news of a projected Obama victory flashed across a TV screen, men in the nearly all-black crowd pumped their fists and bowed their heads. Women wept and embraced their children. Screams of “Thank you, Lord!” were heard throughout the sanctuary.
Surveying the scene, Mattie Bridgewater whispered from her seat, “I just can’t believe it. Not in my lifetime.”
The teacher said she went to the same elementary school as Emmett Till, the boy from Chicago whose murder in Mississippi was one of the catalysts of the civil rights movement. Both she and her 92-year-old mother voted for Obama.
“I’m sitting here in awe,” she said. “This is a moment in history that I just thank my God I was allowed to live long enough to see. Now, when I tell my students they can be anything they want to be, that includes president of the United States.”
—
EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom Withers in Cleveland; David Caruso and Verena Dobnik in New York; Kathy Matheson in Philadelphia; Errin Haines in Atlanta; Corey Williams in Detroit; Christina Hoag in Los Angeles; Joe Kay in Cincinnati; Andale Gross in Kansas City; Ron Powers, Brian Westley, and Kamala Lane in Washington; and Tamara Lush in Miami contributed to this story.
(This version CORRECTS Corrects attribution in 6th graf. AP Video.)
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Greenpeace vs Vista, media vs the PR machine
I DIDN’T go to the Vista consumer launch over the weekend, partly because I had other things to do with my family, partly because all the hoopla that Microsoft is trying to whip up over Vista is starting to smack of desperation.
If Microsoft is really convinced that consumers have very good reasons to upgrade to Vista, then why waste all this money and try to ram it down our throats (and get us to buy more RAM, heh) that Vista is something we should love. Now, I’m not going to say that Vista sucks until I try it out — read the articles of our reporters Erwin Oliva and Alex Villafania for their coverage of the Vista consumer launch — but I really doubt that I’ll upgrade to Vista.
Why? Because even now I hate the bloatware that Microsoft saddles us with, which is why I use the open source app Firefox instead of that ton of bricks masquerading as a web browser Internet Explorer 7, and rely on Gmail instead of Outlook or, good lord, Hotmail.
This doesn’t mean I’m a Microsoft hater. I’m technology-agnostic, and if the technology works for me and I like the solution, I don’t care which company provides it. But somehow, the only products from Microsoft I love are the original Xbox (and even that’s with some reservations, heh) and the Xbox 360, which is why I bought them. I’m on Windows 
Give me lightweight apps and widgets that get the job done and let me mash different services together, instead of trying to do everything with an OS that gets bloated and bloated with every new version. Time to stop milking that cow, Bill, it’s already blood that’s coming out whenever you squeeze.
Greenpeace also has an interesting statement on Microsoft’s attempt to get everyone to upgrade to Vista. The statement came out online in INQUIRER.net’s Infotech section, and I also got a copy via e-mail from Greenpeace Southeast Asia media campaigner Lea Guerrero.
Here’s an excerpt from the statement of Greenpeace Southeast Asia toxics campaigner Beau Baconguis:
“With Vista, Microsoft could effectively hasten the obsolescence of half the world’s PCs, especially in the absence of fully-functioning global take back systems for PCs…
“We maintain that the useful lives of existing electronic and computer equipment should be prolonged as much as possible. In the end, this is about social responsibility. The idea that software innovation would result in more mountains of computer scrap ending up in the dumps of Asia and Africa, contaminating the environment, and affecting the health of communities, is both offensive and intolerable.”
This is another dimension that we should certainly consider. In the first place, many Filipinos don’t even have access to a basic PC, let alone one powerful enough to run Windows Vista. And to me, what’s worse is that this “forced upgrade” that could have a negative impact on the environment is not even the result of software innovation. We can already do many of the things Vista is touted to do with Windows XP and the service packs and patches that are already taking up a lot of space on my PC. I don’t think that our problem with bloatware can be solved by upgrading to new bloatware.
Many of us have dutifully upgraded with every new OS, even when we had doubts that it was worth the hassle. Isn’t it about time we learned to say no?
* * *
Let me begin this the way I ended my most recent CNET Asia blog post, “We want the news, not the PR spin,” where I said that I would elaborate on the point in this column piece:
“I really don’t get why society needs a stupid press release. Oh, OK, I guess we need to pre-write stories for bloggers and journalists since they can’t write their own opinions or reports down, right? Sigh.”
That’s an excerpt from a blog post by arguably the world’s best-known blogger, Robert Scoble, formerly of Microsoft and now VP for Media Development of podcasting startup PodTech.net. I don’t always agree with what Scoble says, but here he nailed it.
I don’t know if this is a fair statement, but just the other day I was telling INQUIRER.net executive editor and Infotech editor Leo Magno how I feel that IT press conferences nowadays seem to be becoming more and more stage-managed. I quipped that we belong to the “bad boys era” of tech journalism, and maybe it’s time to shake things up again.
I’m not generalizing against PR firms, but now more than ever I see the need for media to assert itself and break down the PR machinery. How many of us have our time wasted by going to press conferences where, really, the speakers have nothing new to say, or where they don’t want to answer questions which are not part of the press release? Not that this stops us who are covering for INQUIRER.net, and in fact, I’d rather go straight to the executives and interview them, rather than attending press conferences where the PR people try their best to keep things non-controversial and deflect any flak.
I think the problem is that some PR firms have perfected the art of wining and dining, and think that this is what PR is all about — never mind actually bothering to learn the product and service of your clients, or making sure that your clients can competently answer the questions of tech journalists.
At the same time, we as tech journalists (sorry, I can’t speak for the other “beats,” though I’m sure the same principles of journalism should apply) should also ask ourselves hard questions. Are you just going to a press conference because you want to win in the raffle? Are you just content rewriting press releases and then slapping your byline on it (heck, I remember a case years back when a journalist actually took a press release verbatim and had it come out with her byline)? Do you just view foreign trips as junkets and a reward for you faithfully covering that company’s events?
I’m not being holier-than-thou. Who doesn’t enjoy occasional perks like having the opportunity to travel abroad when you cover international events, or winning raffle prizes? But the point is that this isn’t the be-all and end-all, and they certainly shouldn’t be your main motivation as a journalist. If you win in a raffle, fine, but if you lose, that should also be OK. We became journalists because we want to share news with our readers and bring them the truth, not because we feel entitled to rewards.
Just recently, I told the organizer of a certain international event to go take a hike, after this person asked me to do something for their major sponsor, as this company would be the one sending me abroad and would not feel too happy if I didn’t grant their request. Well, the world is full of unhappy people. I’ve done my best all these years to stick to my principles, which is why it pisses me off when some people assume that every journalist can be bought, or that it’s a padrino system of favors.
To be fair, from what I’ve heard of other beats, tech journalists (well, the real ones) are relatively clean, so let’s keep it that way. Yet let’s also be aware of the other ways vendors and PR firms try to manipulate us, such as those who use foreign trips as some sort of carrot for tech journalists, or who fluff up half-assed press conferences and news announcements by relying on bread and circuses.
In fact, as Leo told me when I was still starting out as a tech reporter in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and as we now tell our reporters, don’t go to a press conference without a clear story in mind. As much as possible, don’t even read the press release.
In fact, in my opinion, if a PR has constantly been guilty of being unprofessional, holding half-assed press conferences, or treating media people as if we’re for sale, then we should stop going to their press events. The point is that the PR is not and should not be the source of news — we can go directly to the company and get the story by interviewing them on our own.
At the end of the day, the readers care about the quality of our stories and the truth, not the massaged message that some PRs try to pass of as the news. We may have friends who work for vendors and PR firms — heck, some of them are former journalists — but what I’m saying is that when it comes to news, there should be no friends.
After all, part of the job of vendors and PR firms is to make sure no bad news comes out about their company, while our job as journalists is to bring the news to our readers, to give them the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
No matter who might get hurt along the way.
E-mail the author at joeyalarilla@gmail.com and visit his blog at www.babelmachine.com.
Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill
 Ernesto M. Pernia, Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, Maria Joy V. Abrenica, Ruperto P. Alonzo, Agustin L. Arcenas, Arsenio M. Balisacan, Dante B. Canlas, Joseph J. Capuno, Ramon L. Clarete, Rolando A. Danao, Emmanuel S. de Dios, Aleli dela Paz-Kraft, Benjamin E. Diokno, Emmanuel F. Esguerra, Raul V. Fabella, Maria Socorro Gochoco-Bautista, Teresa J. Ho, Dennis Claire S. Mapa, Felipe M. Medalla, Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza, Solita C. Monsod, Toby Melissa C. Monsod, Fidelina Natividad-Carlos, Cayetano W. Paderanga, Gerardo P. Sicat, Orville C. Solon, Edita A. Tan, and Gwendolyn R. Tecson The population issue has long been dead and buried in developed and most developing countries, including historically Catholic countries. That it continues to be debated heatedly in our country merely testifies to the lack of progress in policy and action. The Catholic Church hierarchy has maintained its traditional stance against modern family planning (FP) methods, particularly modern (also referred to as “artificial”) contraceptives. On the other hand, the State acknowledges the difficulties posed for development by rapid population growth, especially among the poorest Filipinos. But it has been immobilized from effectively addressing the issue by the Catholic hierarchy’s hard-line stance, as well as the tendency of some politicians to cater to the demands of well-organised and impassioned single-issue groups for the sake of expediency. Caught between a hard Church and a soft State are the overwhelming majority of Filipinos who affirm the importance of helping women and couples control the size of their families and the need for government to give budgetary support for modern FP methods. Renewed impetus to the debate has been given by the public and political interest in the pending bill (HB No. 5043) on “Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development” (RH Bill, for short). Unfortunately, serious discussion has been hampered by the lack of reliable information and the proclivity of some parties in the debate to use epithets that label the bill as “pro-abortion”, “anti-life”, and “immoral”. There are a few aspects of the bill to which some groups have expressed strong objections, which we can understand. Among these are whether the State should subsidize family planning by the unmarried; whether reproductive health and sex education in public schools should be compulsory, and at what grade-level it should start. Moreover, the notion of two children being the “ideal family size” (Section 16 of the RH Bill) may be difficult to defend. But the main thrust of the bill – “enabl(ing) couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions” – is something we strongly and unequivocally support. In what follows, we explain why. The real score on population and poverty Second, at the micro level, family size is closely associated with poverty incidence, as consistently borne out by household survey data. In short, poor families are heavily burdened when they end up with more children than they themselves desire. The latest data show that poverty incidence is less than 10% for a family with one child; but it rises steadily with the number of children to 57% for a family with nine or more children (NDHS 2003). Larger families also make less investments in human capital per child – investments that are crucial in breaking the chain of intergenerational poverty. Average annual spending on education per student falls from P5,558 for a one-child family to P682 for a family with nine or more children, and average health spending per capita drops correspondingly from P1,700 to P150 (FIES 2003). Third, there is evidence that the poor prefer smaller families, except that they are unable to achieve their preference. On the average, among the poorest 10% of women of reproductive age, 44% of pregnancies are unwanted (FPS 2006). Unwanted births represent a considerable unmet need1 for family planning services. Among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method (FPS 2006). Contraceptive use remains extremely low among poor couples because they lack information about and access to them. For instance, among the poorest 20% of women, over half do not use /any method/ of family planning whatsoever, while less than a third use /modern/ methods (FPS 2006). Among the poorest women who want to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any contraceptive method because they lack information.2 Fourth, lack of access to contraception has important health implications. Maternal mortality is currently a high 162 per 100,000 live births and is unlikely to fall to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of 52 by 2015. Having too many and too closely-spaced children raises the risk of illness and premature deaths (for mother and child alike). Ten women die daily owing to pregnancy and causes associated with childbirth (NDHS 2003). Moreover, many unwanted pregnancies result in induced and illegal abortions, numbering nearly half a million annually, as estimated from reported cases in 2000 (Juarez et al. 2005). Fifth, the health risks associated with mistimed and unwanted pregnancies are higher for adolescent mothers, as they are more likely to have complications during labor (FPS 2006). Almost a fourth of uneducated teenagers have already begun childbearing compared with only three percent of those who have attended college or higher (FPS 2006). Sixth, there are unintended social costs (negative externalities) arising from mistimed and unplanned pregnancies. Parents who are able to space their children and achieve their desired number are also more likely to fully bear the cost of raising and educating them. By contrast, poor families having more children than desired are constrained to rely more on public education and health services and other publicly provided goods and services. In short, in a situation where government is already hard pressed in financing even the most basic items of public spending, having no national population policy is tantamount to burying one’s head in the sand.3 Moreover, women who have children sooner than planned are rarely in the best of health during pregnancy and are more likely to seek medical treatment. And poor women are more likely to utilize public than private health care facilities. Public education and health facilities are already congested, and decongesting them would entail increased taxation. Providing facilities for planning and spacing pregnancies is one way of alleviating the tax burden. Teen pregnancies also impose a social cost. Since teen mothers are more likely to drop out of school, they are also less able to internalize the cost of rearing their children and more likely to shift this burden to the government. Seventh, ensuring access to the full range of modern (“artificial”) FP methods /cum/ appropriate information raises the success rate of achieving the desired family size. Limiting FP options to “natural family planning (NFP) methods only” fails to address the private and social costs of mistimed and unwanted pregnancies. NFP methods – which include the basal body temperature method, the cervical mucus or ovulation method, the calendar method and the sympto-thermal method – have a theoretical or perfect-use failure rate ranging from 2% to 9% depending on the specific method. But perfect use is hardly achieved, so that NFP methods typically have 24% failure rates (Ponzetti and Hoefler 1988) – meaning that if 100 women adopt NFP, 24 of them would typically become pregnant in a year. Data from 1973 to 2006 highlight the importance of full information and access to the whole range of modern methods, rather than NFP only. The chart (see above) shows a close association between the reduction in the average number of children a woman bears, use of modern methods and, to some extent, reduced utilization of traditional methods. The RH Bill addresses both the private and social costs of uninformed, unplanned and unprotected reproductive health behaviour. A notable weakness of the bill, however, is that it fails to explicitly identify the poor and the uneducated as its target population, which could have implications for the cost-effectiveness of the program. Moreover, while the integration of education on sexual health and rights in the curriculum of public and private schools flows naturally out of what we observe on the ground, there could be logistical, design, and private-rights issues that need to be sorted out. For instance, parents who for religious reasons believe that their children should not go through the school system’s education in sexual and reproductive health should be given the room to opt out. Another weakness of the bill is that it reduces the autonomy of local governments by obliging them to spend on reproductive health care services half of the 20-percent of the IRA allotted to local development projects. If reproductive health is really high on the national government’s priorities, the funding must come from the national government itself. And if national government wants LGUs to spend more on reproductive health, it should give incentives for them to do so, rather than tell them how much to spend. Nevertheless, these and other shortcomings of the bill are not fundamental and should be dealt with through the proper amendments. But all things considered, the RH Bill, even if it becomes law in its entirety, is definitely better than the status quo. Conceptual and factual distortions Second, the bill’s main thrust is to promote full information on, and provide access to and choice from among the whole range of traditional, modern, and “natural” family planning methods for contraception. The bill is, in fact, unequivocally and explicitly against abortion – thus, “abortion shall remain penalized under the Revised Penal Code and relevant jurisprudence” (Pangalangan 2008). Some objectors to the RH Bill have further argued that the bill will only lead to promiscuity, the break-up of families, decay of moral values, and hedonism. But this is pure ideological conjecture – an assertion sans logic and empirical basis. Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Sadly, the current administration has contributed to the confusion. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the General Assembly of the United Nations in its 60th session on 15 September 2005 asserted that natural family planning technology was found “effective compared to artificial contraceptives” by the World Health Organization. She added that: “the Population Council of New York has found that artificial contraception contributes only 2.0% to the decline of birth rates while the combination of improving the economic condition of the family, urbanization, and breastfeeding contributes 98%”. When asked for their reactions, however, both the WHO and the Population Council categorically disavowed President Arroyo’s statements. More misinformation was contained in the president’s most recent SONA (28 July 2008). She asserted that her policy of natural family planning (NFP) combined with female education has reduced population growth to 2.04% during her administration compared with 2.36% when “artificial” birth control techniques were pushed. At best, the president’s statement was disingenuous, since it is well-known that more educated females are more likely to use modern (“artificial”) contraceptive methods. On the other hand, how could the use of “modern-NFP” have contributed to the fall in population growth when its use rate among married women of reproductive age (15-49) actually /dropped/ from 0.5% to 0.3% in 2001-2006? By contrast, their use of modern (“artificial”) contraceptives rose from 33 % to 36 % during the same period. This actually implies that it was modern (“artificial”) contraceptive use that rose as women became more educated, and thus was more likely to be associated with the decline in the population growth rate. Conclusion An unambiguous and consistent national population policy is long overdue in our country (UPSE 2004). It is an integral part of development and poverty reduction strategy. Once passed, the RH Bill can be a good instrument of national population policy. We, therefore, strongly support the RH Bill and urge the national leadership to be fully and unequivocally behind it. Espousing “natural family planning only” is a position inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the bill and reflects a lack of seriousness in pursuing long-term economic development and poverty reduction. It is in this spirit of debate that we express our own opinion. We say – based on serious evidence – that the RH Bill is pro-poor and /authentically/ pro-life and pro-family. __________ Notes 2 The fact that only three percent of the poorest complained of the cost of contraceptives and inconvenience of use is itself alarming – it implies that many of them are not even aware of the availability of contraceptives from either public or private sources. 3 Spending on social services has chronically suffered, owing largely to poor revenue collection. Government’s tax collection now amounts to only 14% of GNP, even including the expanded and increased VAT, which many who oppose the RH Bill also want scrapped. Recent reports that 17 % of elementary school-age children are not in school – a figure up from 10 % just ten years ago – is depressing, indeed. 4 Even here, as in the case of the so-called “morning-after pill,” there are many opinions as to whether any intervention made shortly after sexual intercourse can be considered abortion. National Statistics Office. 2006. Family Planning Survey (FPS) 2006: Final Report. ____________________. 2003. National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2003: Final Report. ____________________. 2003. Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) 2003: Final Report. Pangalangan, Raul C. 2008. “Separating Church and State, fact from fiction,” Op-ed column, Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 25, p. A12. UP School of Economics (UPSE: R. P. Alonzo, A. M. Balisacan, D. B. Canlas, J. J. Capuno, R. L. Clarete, R. A. Danao, E. S. de Dios, B. E. Diokno, E. F. Esguerra, R. V. Fabella, M. S. Gochoco-Bautista, A. P. Kraft, F. M. Medalla, N. F. Mendoza, S. C. Monsod, C. W. Paderanga, E. M. Pernia, S. A. Quimbo, G. P. Sicat, O. C. Solon, E. A. Tan, and G. R. Tecson). 2004. “Population and Poverty: The Real Score,” Discussion Paper No. 0415 (December). |
