OrangeClouds115, a well-known blogger on food safety and sustainable agriculture issues, has started a community blog on these topics called La Vida Locavore (a “locavore” being a person who consumes local foods).

The blog is only a few days old, but there are already a lot of interesting posts up. I hadn’t heard that the American Nurses Association passed a resolution at their annual conference calling for “national and state laws, regulations and policies that specifically reduce the use of rBGH or rBST in milk and dairy production in the United States [….]”

Bookmark this blog and join the community if you are passionate about organic or chemical-free food, regulating corporate agriculture, food safety or related issues.

Speaking of food, Asinus Asinum Fricat wrote a good diary yesterday about the benefits of the Mediterranean diet. I learned from him that there are apparently a lot of problems with the production and storage of extra virgin olive oil imported from Europe. This affects the nutritional quality of the oil as well as the environment where it’s produced.

Click the link for details, but here is a reassuring excerpt:

However there’s no need to panic as there are numerous olive oil companies in the USA who are family owned and operate their business the old-fashioned way, that is, by pressing the olives traditionally. I’m personally fond of the Bariani brand, made in Sacramento by the Bariani family.

Here is a handy guide of US olive oil companies here.

The Des Moines Register reported on Thursday that

On the same day a new statewide smoking ban went into effect [July 1], several bar and restaurant owners filed a petition in Polk County District Court seeking to overturn the ban.

The Iowa Bar Owners Coalition, based in Clinton County; the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant Association; Froehlich Properties; and longtime smoker Ron Oveson filed the petition in Des Moines on Tuesday.

The group’s attorney, George Eichhorn, said he’s seeking a temporary injunction on the enforcement of the ban until the case can go to trial.

That’s former state Senator George Eichhorn, who last month just barely lost the Republican primary to run against U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.

Some restaurant and bar owners wanted to challenge the exemptions granted to casinos and other venues. Former Governor Tom Vilsack had expressed a willingness to take the case, as long as the lawsuit was aimed at overturning the exemptions and not at overturning the ban itself. Apparently no court anywhere in the U.S. has struck down a smoking ban.

However, some people say Iowa’s new law is more extreme than other restrictions on public smoking, to the point of being “monstrous” and “vicious” and “cruel”.

In his comments to the Register, Eichhorn suggested that was the angle he would pursue:

Eichhorn said the state adopted “radical” regulations that affect a lot of private businesses but did not take the necessary precautions to protect them. However, he said he thought the state made sure that it would still benefit monetarily.

“I think that Iowa has done some rather unusual things,” he said. “We will get some good results out of this lawsuit.”

I suspect that the people footing the bill for this lawsuit will be sorry they didn’t listen to this guy:

Randy Stanford, a Des Moines small business owner who organized Iowans for Equal Rights, said no smoking ban has ever been overturned.

“They can waste their money any way they want, but there’s only one legal issue,” he said. “I wish there was a way to challenge the entire bill and be successful, but there isn’t.”

The only option is to “get rid of the unfair exemptions that are in the bill,” he said.

I noticed that Iowans for Equal Rights was not among the groups that filed the petition in Polk County on Tuesday. Anyone know whether that group may still be planning to challenge the exemptions to the smoking ban?

Look, I understand that many Iowans are upset about the smoking ban that will go into effect tomorrow.

I agree with the Des Moines Register editorial board, which argued on Sunday that legislators should have delayed the starting date for the ban so that businesses wouldn’t have to implement it just a few days after the Iowa Department of Public Health completed the rulemaking process.

But critics lose all credibility when they rant about the “fascist state Department of Health” and claim that the “monstrous” smoking ban is “all about cruelty,” “all about viciousness,” and so on.

Not surprisingly, that post I linked to denies that secondhand smoke is a serious health problem, despite mounting research to the contrary.

You can read up on what fascism is here. You may disagree with the smoking ban, but don’t compare it to fascism.

We went to a party last night, and one of our friends told us that their next-door neighbors frequently go out on their porch to smoke. The smoke drifts onto my friends’ deck and into their house if they have the window open. She said there’s nothing she can do about it, because her neighbors are on their own property.

So take heart, angry smokers. Even after you are barred from smoking in most public places, you will still be free to pollute the air at your own home. Maybe your neighbors will get to experience your freedom as well.

With only a few days left before Iowa’s smoking ban goes into effect on July 1, the Des Moines Register reports that some business owners are finding creative ways to vent their anger:

At least one Iowa nightclub owner will raise the Soviet flag while playing the former communist country’s national anthem for his customers June 30.

[…]

Blues on Grand will officially go nonsmoking at 9 p.m. June 30 and “have a flag-raising ceremony that truly represents the direction our government is heading,” [manager Jeff] Wagner said. He has already lined up the Soviet flag and music.

As it happens, I visited the Soviet Union several times and have spent a fair amount of time in post-Soviet Russia. It’s probably the last place on earth where smoking would be banned in public. Russians still allow smoking almost everywhere, including on airplanes.

I also can’t imagine the Soviet regime caring enough about the health of ordinary citizens to pass any law to protect indoor air quality. Neither public health nor environmental protection were high priorities in the USSR.

If Wagner thinks it’s tough operating a business in Iowa’s regulatory environment, he should talk to people who have tried to do business in Russia. Between corrupt government officials demanding bribes for permits and organized crime groups that regularly extort business owners, it’s not easy to make money.

According to the Register, advocates are encouraging consumers to make a point of visiting newly smoke-free establishments next week:

Peggy Huppert of the American Cancer Society said various anti-smoking groups across the state have planned their own celebrations. Members plan to visit businesses like Blues on Grand on July 1 and tell their owners they wouldn’t have come if smoking was allowed.

Well, count this guy out:

I have been champing at the bit to finally be able to go to Blues on Grand without having to breathe the filth and stench of the smoke that filled my lungs and permeated my clothes the one and only time I went there.

However, after reading the June 22 story, “Iowa Smokers Smolder Over Ban,” in which the owner states that he plans on putting up the Soviet flag at his bar, it will be a long time before this nonsmoker walks through the door of Blues on Grand, if ever.

Why would this guy intentionally offend the majority of nonsmokers, a group of people that he is going to want and need to prosper under this new worker-safety law?

By the way, I will agree that the casino exemption must go.

– Chuck Davis, Urbandale

So do I, Mr. Davis. It’s still possible that restaurant and bar owners will file suit to challenge the casino exemption, so we may get our wish.

Heavy rains and flooding across Iowa have created a wonderful environment for mosquito populations to explode. I rode to and from Grinnell on Friday and saw field after field with huge pools of standing water, even after a solid week of sunny weather in central Iowa.

Mr. desmoinesdem heard someone from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources say on Iowa Public Radio that mosquito counts this summer are about seven times higher than they were at the same time last year.

The Des Moines Register ran two articles about mosquitoes within the past week. The good news is that the mosquitoes that thrive in puddles on saturated ground are largely “nuisance species that can’t efficiently spread West Nile virus,” according to Ann Garvey, state public health veterinarian for the Iowa Department of Public Health.

The bad news is that experts cited in the Register are still encouraging people to use DEET-based insect repellents. The Register reported that the IDPH recommends “DEET at less than 30 percent concentrations to avoid potential health problems, including neurological problems.”

Dr. Denis Reavis, an urgent care physician at Mercy North in Ankeny quoted in this Register article, said DEET is the most effective way to prevent mosquito bites. The Register added:

DEET comes in different strengths for kids and adults. Babies less than 2 months old should not come in any contact with DEET.

Having researched this issue a few years ago after my older son was born, I would not recommend that anyone, even adults, use DEET in a household with children.

The Environmental Protection Agency does not permit DEET products to be labeled “child safe” and requires labels directing parents not to allow children to handle the product. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Environmental Protection Agency both recommend precautions when applying DEET to children, such as washing skin treated with DEET as well as treated clothing when children return inside. Few families find it practical to bathe their children and wash their clothing every time they come in from outside during the summer.

Kids Health for Parents, a web site published by the Nemours Foundation, recommends that repellents containing DEET be used “sparingly” on children between the ages of 2 and 12 and not put on their faces or hands, because children so frequently put their hands in their mouths.

The Lyme Disease Foundation has this advice for keeping ticks away: “On skin, use a repellent containing DEET. But don’t overdo it. Too much bug spray can cause breathing difficulty, especially in children.”

In any event, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that “picaridin and the oil of lemon eucalyptus provide the same level of protection [from mosquitoes] as DEET.”

I’ve tried several of the natural bug repellents mentioned in this piece, including Buzz Away, Buzz Away Extreme and Bug Ease. They all seem to work equally well. The main difference between them and DEET is that you have to reapply the natural repellents more frequently, about every one to two hours. Usually that’s no problem for me, because I only need it when I walk the dog or take the kids to the park for an hour or two.

I recently received a fundraising letter from Senator Staci Appel (Senate district 37), and it contains the following paragraph:

As a freshman legislator, I also had the great opportunity to manage House File 2212 (The Healthy Indoor Clean Air Act) when it came before the Iowa Senate. I was happy to work in a bipartisan effort to pass this important piece of legislation. This legislation will protect workers and individuals all across Iowa.

I’ve been writing posts supporting the smoking ban all year, but I never thought to refer to it only as “The Healthy Indoor Clean Air Act.” Many people might not even realize Appel is talking about the smoking ban. Who’s against healthy, indoor clean air?

This kind of thing is what separates the pros from the amateurs.

Earlier this month the Iowa Department of Public Health released draft regulations for implementing the smoking ban that will go into effect on July 1. You can view the draft regulations here.

The Des Moines Register reported a few days ago that the people who have always opposed the smoking ban are furious about the IDPH’s draft rules:

“In my mind and in the minds of just about every single legislator I’ve talked with in the past week – and that’s about 20 or so – this is an absolute perversion of the legislative intent. Period,” said Rep. McKinley Bailey, a Webster City Democrat who voted against the bill in April.

The state’s administrative rules are intended to help clarify and implement laws and spell out details of enforcement. The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed the proposed rules for the smoking ban Wednesday.

The Legislature this year approved a ban on smoking, effective July 1, in almost all indoor public places, including bars and restaurants. One provision in the law allows bar owners to permit smoking in their outdoor patio areas but prohibits restaurants from allowing outdoor smoking.

The rules, also effective July 1, say that bar food is limited to ice, pre-packaged snacks, popcorn, peanuts and the reheating of commercially prepared foods that do not require assembly, such as frozen pizza.

Under that definition, bars that have a grill and serve a burger, for example, would be considered a restaurant.

McKinley Bailey is a good Democrat, but I think he’s wrong on this issue. A restaurant is commonly understood to mean “a place where meals are served to the public.” I looked that up in several dictionaries.

If you look up definitions of “bar,” you will find that it refers to a counter or an establishment where beverages, especially alcoholic beverages, are served. Some of the definitions mention that food may be served at bars as well. The IDPH draft regulations account for this, by explaining the types of food that a bar may serve.

If you allowed every establishment that serves drinks to evade the smoking ban, you’d have hundreds of restaurant owners placing a few tables outside and declaring themselves to be “bars.”

It seems reasonable to say that if a business is serving the public food cooked to order, that establishment is a restaurant subject to the smoking ban.

I want to address this part of the Register article as well:

“This is a clear case where a state agency is going beyond the scope of the intended legislation,” said Tom Baldwin, owner of Drink, a Clive bar.

Roughly 3 percent of Drink’s sales are from food. But because of the proposed rules, the facility would be considered a restaurant for the purposes of enforcement of the statewide smoking ban, he told the rules committee Wednesday.

Baldwin has a simple choice to make. If he thinks that his business depends on letting patrons smoke, he can stop serving meals cooked to order and serve pre-packaged food instead. By his own admission, food accounts for only about 3 percent of his business’s sales.

Or, if he feels that cooking food for customers is vital for his business, he can go smoke-free.

Either way, I don’t think his argument about legislative intent holds water.

As I’ve written before, the research on smoking bans suggests that they do not hurt the bottom line. This report is worth reading in full, but here is the main conclusion:

A significant body of scientific research has been accumulated on the economic impact of smoking bans on hospitality business, particularly bars and restaurants. The only research that shows any long-term negative effect on bar or restaurant sales is unscientific research that has been sponsored by the tobacco companies.

All independent published studies conducted in the US and Canada that used tax data in the analysis concluded that “smoking restrictions do not impact negatively on hospitality sales, employment, or tourism activity in the long run.”

The current economic climate, with rising costs for food and transportation hitting restaurants and forcing many consumers to reduce their discretionary spending, is a genuine threat to the hospitality industry. In contrast, restaurant and bar owners’ anger over the new smoking ban is misplaced.  

I learned from Representative Tyler Olson today that the Iowa Department of Public Health has released draft regulations to implement the public smoking ban set to go into effect on July 1. Go to www.iowasmokefreeair.gov to read and comment on the regulations.

I was tough on the House Democrats earlier this year for putting so many exemptions in the smoking ban, but I understand that those were necessary to get the bill through the lower chamber.

Legislators removed some of the exceptions when the House and Senate versions were reconciled in conference. My hope is that a court may strike down some of the exemptions that remained in the final version of the bill.

For those who are still bent out of shape about the new law, I again offer my 10 suggestions to help smokers stop whining about the smoking ban.

The press release I got today from Representative Tyler Olson is after the jump.

Over at Daily Kos, nyceve put up another shocking diary about the practices of for-profit insurance companies in the U.S.

Today she links to this article from the New York Times about women facing higher insurance premiums, or even being denied insurance coverage, after giving birth by cesarean:

Insurers’ rules on prior Caesareans vary by company and also by state, since the states regulate insurers, said Susan Pisano of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some companies ignore the surgery, she said, but others treat it like a pre-existing condition.

“Sometimes the coverage will come with a rider saying that coverage for a Caesarean delivery is excluded for a period of time,” Ms. Pisano said. Sometimes, she said, applicants with prior Caesareans are charged higher premiums or deductibles.

This problem could affect millions of American women:

In 2006, more than 1.2 million Caesareans were performed in the United States, and researchers estimate that each year, half a million women giving birth have had previous Caesareans.

“Obstetricians are rendering large numbers of women uninsurable by overusing this surgery,” said Pamela Udy, president of the International Caesarean Awareness Network, a group whose mission is to prevent unnecessary Caesareans.

Although many women who have had a Caesarean can safely have a normal birth later, something that Ms. Udy’s group advocates, in recent years many doctors and hospitals have refused to allow such births, because they carry a small risk of a potentially fatal complication, uterine rupture. Now, Ms. Udy says, insurers are adding insult to injury. Not only are women feeling pressure to have Caesareans that they do not want and may not need, but they may also be denied coverage for the surgery.

The New York Times piece also mentions one woman who was rejected for coverage by the Golden Rule Insurance Company:

She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.

Great news–all she has to do to get health insurance coverage is be sterilized!

Seriously, we need a national health care policy that prohibits insurance companies from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Until that happens, women would be advised to do whatever they can to reduce their risk of having a c-section.

Some surgical births are unavoidable, and in those cases it is a lifesaving procedure. However, there are ways to reduce the risk of having an unnecessary cesarean.

I advise women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant to strongly consider using a midwife for your prenatal care, labor and delivery. Most midwives have a far lower cesarean rate in their practices than obstetricians.

One New Jersey hospital that has a thriving midwifery program has the second-lowest rate of c-sections in that state, “despite serving a low-income urban patient population that is more likely to have high-risk pregnancies.”

Hiring a certified doula to help the mother during labor and delivery has been shown to reduce the rate of cesarean births as well. You can have a doula assist you whether you are under the care of a midwife, an obstetrician or a family doctor, whether you give birth in a hospital, a birth center or at home.

You should also seek information about the c-section rates of the hospitals and birth centers in your area, if you have a choice. As I mentioned  in this post on cesarean births in Iowa, the percentage of babies born by c-section can vary widely from hospital to hospital.

For more information on cesarean births and the benefits of having a doula, click here.

Sobering news about the long-term effects of fine particulate matter in the air:

As many as 24,000 deaths annually in California are linked to chronic exposure to fine particulate pollution, triple the previous official estimate of 8,200, according to state researchers. The revised figures are based on a review of new research across the nation about the hazards posed by microscopic particles, which sink deep into the lungs.

“Our report concludes these particles are 70% more dangerous than previously thought, based on several major studies that have occurred in the last five years,” said Bart Croes, chief researcher for the California Air Resources Board. Croes will present his findings at a board meeting in Fresno this morning.

The studies, including one by USC tracking 23,000 people in greater Los Angeles, and another by the American Cancer Society monitoring 300,000 people across the United States, have found rates of heart attacks, strokes and other serious disease increase exponentially after exposure to even slightly higher amounts of metal or dust. It is difficult to attribute individual deaths to particulate pollution, Croes conceded, but he said long-term studies that account for smoking, obesity and other risks have increasingly zeroed in on fine particulate pollution as a killer.

What are the primary sources of fine particulate pollution? According to the World Health Organization:

“Short-term epidemiological studies suggest that a number of source types are associated with health effects, especially motor vehicle emissions, and also coal combustion. These sources produce primary as well as secondary particles, both of which have been associated with adverse health effects. One European cohort study focused on traffic-related air pollution specifically, and suggested the importance of this source of PM. Toxicological studies have shown that particles originating from internal combustion engines, coal burning, residual oil combustion and wood burning have strong inflammatory potential.

Translation: we now have even more compelling health reasons to reduce vehicle-miles traveled by car and not build any new coal-fired power plants in Iowa.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has more information about fine particulate levels in our state.

The Des Moines Register reported on Monday that a group of business owners is raising money to challenge the smoking ban that is slated to go into effect on July 1.

They have not yet retained an attorney, in part because they have not reached a consensus about the right legal angle. Some want to challenge the law’s exemptions, recognizing that there is little hope of getting the whole bill overturned:

Randy Stanford, a Des Moines small business owner who organized Iowans for Equal Rights, said no smoking ban has ever been overturned.

“They can waste their money any way they want, but there’s only one legal issue,” he said. “I wish there was a way to challenge the entire bill and be successful, but there isn’t.”

The only option is to “get rid of the unfair exemptions that are in the bill,” he said.

Stanford said the exemptions give some over-21 entertainment venues a financial advantage over others. “How can they say it won’t hurt the other small businesses when they say it’ll hurt the casinos?” he asked.

As for exactly which exemptions would be targeted, Stanford said: “That would be up to the judge. I have no clue what they would strike.”

The Register reported that some of the businesses want to retain former Governor Tom Vilsack, who said he would be open to taking the case if it focuses on overturning the law’s exemptions:

“It would be sort of reinforcing the law,” he said. “The Constitution requires you to treat people equally. … I think we have a legitimate argument.”

Vilsack said he has not yet been officially asked to represent anyone, but if he is asked, his law firm would first have to ensure there would be no potential conflicts.

“I feel very strongly about this. This is significant and important,” Vilsack said. “When we craft laws, even though there may be political reasons for exemptions, the Constitution may not recognize those exemptions.”

From my perspective, this is all good. The exemptions were needed to get the smoking ban through the Iowa House. Now that it has been signed into law, I would be pleased to see a court strike them down. That would protect even more Iowa workers and their children from the many health hazards associated with secondhand smoke.

While the casino owners and their lobbyists would fume, research suggests that their anger would be unfounded. Contrary to what many business owners in the hospitality industry believe, smoking bans do not hurt the bottom line. On the contrary, smoking bans often lead to increased sales, as well as other economic benefits for businesses. Many people will go back to places they’ve been avoiding because of the smoke.

Not long ago I posted about a poorly-researched and poorly-written article by the Associated Press on the rising rate of cesarean births in Iowa.

Lisa Houchins, a mom in Des Moines who is also education director for the International Cesarean Awareness Network, responded to the same article with this letter to the editor that the Register published earlier this week:

Regarding, “More U.S. Women Delivering Babies by Caesarean Section” (March 29): According to the World Health Organization, more than half of all Caesareans in the United States could be avoided. When used properly, a Caesarean can be a life-saving procedure. When used indiscriminately, C-sections introduce unnecessary risks to mothers and infants.

Women who deliver by Caesarean are more likely to have complications, including increased pain and recovery time, infection or death. Babies delivered by Caesarean are also more likely to suffer complications.

Women with Caesareans are at increased risk for miscarriage, infertility and complications in later pregnancies. Also, their future birthing choices can be severely limited. Some hospitals (including many in Iowa) and doctors are attempting to ban vaginal births after Caesareans.

Caesareans may be safer than they were 20 years ago, but that does not make them safer than a vaginal birth. C-sections are major surgery, and they should be reserved for times when there is a true medical indication. I encourage all pregnant women to educate themselves on how to avoid a Caesarean and how to have the safest and most satisfying birth possible.

April is Cesarean Awareness Month, and the ICAN website notes:

What is Cesarean Awareness Month? An internationally recognized month of awareness about the impact of cesarean sections on mothers, babies, and families worldwide. It’s about educating yourself to the pros and cons of major abdominal surgery and the possibilities for healthy birth afterwards as well as educating yourself for prevention of cesarean section.

Cesarean awareness is for mothers who are expecting or who might choose to be in the future. It’s for daughters who don’t realize what choices are being taken away from them. It’s for scientists studying the effects of cesareans and how birth impacts our lives. It’s for grandmothers who won’t be having more children but are questioning the abdominal pains and adhesions causing damage 30 years after their cesareans.

CESAREANS are serious. There is no need for a ‘catchy phrase’ to tell us that this is a mainstream problem. It affects everyone. One in three American women every year have surgery to bring their babies into the world. These women have lifelong health effects, impacting the families that are helping them in their healing, impacting other families through healthcare costs and policies, and bringing back those same lifelong health effects to the children they bring into this world.

Be aware. Read. Learn. Ask questions. Get informed consent. Be your own advocate for the information you need to know.

There is lots of information on the ICAN website, so if you or your partner or your friend is pregnant, I encourage you to check it out. C-sections can be lifesaving procedures, but it makes sense to take reasonable steps to avoid having unnecessary surgery.

The ICAN of Central Iowa website has statistics comparing c-section rates in the largest Iowa counties and hospitals.

If you want to avoid a cesarean birth unless it is medically necessary, ask about c-section rates when you are choosing a provider.

Don’t induce labor without medical need (for instance, because you hit your due date, or because you don’t want to go into labor over a weekend), because trying to induce a cervix that isn’t ripe is more likely to lead to “failure to progress” and a resulting c-section.

Consider getting a certified doula to help with childbirth education during pregnancy and to support the mother during labor. The website of Doulas of North America explains the benefits of having a doula:

Women have complex needs during childbirth and the weeks that follow. In addition to medical care and the love and companionship provided by their partners, women need consistent, continuous reassurance, comfort, encouragement and respect. They need individualized care based on their circumstances and preferences.

DONA International doulas are educated and experienced in childbirth and the postpartum period. We are prepared to provide physical (non-medical), emotional and informational support to women and their partners during labor and birth, as well as to families in the weeks following childbirth. We offer a loving touch, positioning and comfort measures that make childbearing women and families feel nurtured and cared for.

Numerous clinical studies have found that a doula’s presence at birth

   * tends to result in shorter labors with fewer complications

   * reduces negative feelings about one’s childbirth experience

   * reduces the need for pitocin (a labor-inducing drug), forceps or vacuum extraction and cesareans

   * reduces the mother’s request for pain medication and/or epidurals

Research shows parents who receive support can:

   * Feel more secure and cared for

   * Are more successful in adapting to new family dynamics

   * Have greater success with breastfeeding

   * Have greater self-confidence

   * Have less postpartum depression

   * Have lower incidence of abuse

Click through to find links to some research. Dads, don’t worry about the doula trying to take your place during labor. My husband is a huge advocate for doulas. She doesn’t do your job–she just helps the mother with practical advice based on training and the experience of attending many births. She will not freak out to see the mother in pain, and she will be able to reassure both parents if panic sets in while labor is progressing normally.

I know women who would have ended up with c-sections if not for their doulas. In one case, the baby was presenting with the cheek rather than with the crown of the head. The medical staff were convinced a c-section was the only way to get that baby out, but the doula encouraged the mother to try leaning and squatting in some different positions during and between contractions. After a few tries, the baby shifted, and the rest of the labor was over in less than 20 minutes.

When I was in college nearly 20 years ago, I remember reading an article in the Des Moines Register about the rising rate of births by cesarian-sections in Iowa. At some rural hospitals, the rate was approaching 25 percent, and that was alarming to some doctors.

Now almost a third of all births in Iowa are by c-section, and in some counties that figure is above 40 percent.

During the past week, the Des Moines Register, Cedar Rapids Gazette and several other newspapers  published this piece from the Associated Press about the rising rate of cesarean births, which quotes several women in Linn County and Johnson County.

Unfortunately, the article does a poor job of assessing the causes of the this trend and ignores the most significant problems associated with unnecessary c-sections. I explain why after the jump.

Who, besides smokers themselves, is most harmed by smoking in public places?

People who work in very smoky rooms in restaurants, bars and casinos. If you work a 40-hour week in one of those places, you might as well be a pack-a-day smoker yourself.

So it’s disappointing to see that the Iowa House substantially changed the proposed ban on smoking in most public places, according to the Des Moines Register:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Smoking opponents called the new version of the bill a devastating blow to an earlier proposal that would have prohibited smoking at an estimated 99 percent of Iowa’s public places. They said the exemption approved by the House would weaken current law because, in some cases, special nonsmoking sections of restaurants would be unnecessary.

Advertisement

“It’s not very much good at all,” said Dan Ramsey, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association of Iowa. “It’s pretty much useless at this point.”

It sets up a showdown with the Iowa Senate, which has approved a widespread smoking ban that would include casinos, as well as nearly all bars and restaurants.

Some laws address problems, and some are intended to give the appearance of addressing a problem. The House version of the smoking ban is clearly the latter. It would do little to help the Iowans who are most at risk of falling ill because of exposure to second-hand smoke.

I sometimes take my kids to the Waveland, a classic old-fashioned diner in Des Moines. Last year I was stunned when the owner made that restaurant smoke-free. He said he had noticed over time that families were less likely to come because they didn’t want their kids around the smoke.

I would have thought the Waveland regulars would have rioted over a smoking ban, but the waitresses there told me everything went great with the transition. It’s a much more pleasant place to eat now, and the employees are not exposed to second-hand smoke all day long.