Do you have (m)any regrets?

Do you have (m)any regrets?

It’s no surprise.  People on their deathbed were asked to share regrets, and of course they had a few.

But I wonder.  I wonder if these deathbed regrets (I’ve compiled over 100) accurately reflect a sustained lifetime of regret, or simply capture a moment.  In other words, might people close to death share thoughts that don’t necessarily reflect their experiences over a lifetime?

Perhaps.

Wonder aside, research reveals that regrets – if reflected upon – hold the power to reshape our lives, to alter, in some small way, the choices that we make today, and tomorrow. Consider the classic refrain:

“Nobody’s last words were ever ‘I should have spent more time in the office.’ ”

When we hear regrets such as these, it leads us to pause, to re-evaluate.  To that end, I’ve compiled a list of popular regrets, grouped into seven categories for easy viewing.

Which ones have meaning for you?

Relationships

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not saying “I love you” more often;

·         Not building new relationships;

·         Holding grudges;

·         Not spending more time with the kids; and

·         Staying in a relationship for too long.

Skills

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not earning a college degree;

·         Not trusting their intuition;

·         Not standing up for themselves, both in school and in life;

·         Not taking a big risk;

·         Not learning a second language;

·         Not pursuing a career in the arts; and

·         Not performing in front of others.

Experiencing Life

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not spending enough time smelling the roses (that is, appreciating the moment);

·         Not volunteering more;

·         Not spending more time listening to their favorite musicians; and

·         Not traveling more.

Career

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not pursuing that dream job;

·         Sticking too long in the same job;

·         Not saving more money; and

·         Not working harder early in their career.

Health

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not wearing sunscreen on a regular basis;

·         Neglecting their teeth; and

·         Not exercising more.

Mental health

People say that they regret . . .

·         Not accepting themselves more, not realizing how beautiful they are, not letting themselves be happy;

·         Not having more courage to express their feelings;

·         Caring too much about what other people think;

·         Being afraid to do new things; and

·         Worrying too much.

One regret I'm happy to share: not writing this column earlier.

##

Journalism without a license?

Journalism without a license?

Social media continues to change our communication landscape.  And while this new-age media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) offers a host of benefits – opportunities to connect, share, enthuse and support – it also carries with it unintended consequences.  Such as figuring out who, and what, to trust. 

Now that individuals – not just news organizations – can go “one-to-many,” it significantly changes our ability to discern.

Witness the upcoming election. 

I don’t know about you, but it’s been a bit unsettling to listen to the charges and accusations leveled via social media this fall. On one level, I suppose, it’s simply (political) business as usual – that is, criticize the opposition, regardless of the facts, and that will enhance your candidate’s chances of winning.  It’s a familiar song.   

But another significant factor is now in play – social media now allows individuals, and not just news organizations, to communicate with the masses.  It’s a fundamental shift in how we receive information. 

Back in the day (think: 20^th century) we received the bulk of our “information” from news organizations – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines (e.g., Time and Newsweek).  And in those days, when journalism was truly journalism, the goal was to deliver valuable, timely and unbiased information. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers knew this, they knew that an informed citizenry was the key to a strong democracy and that journalists played a key role. And the reason is simple. Journalists are fact checkers – they don’t take statements or accusations at face value. They run it down, ferret out the truth, and write it up – in an unbiased and direct way – for you to digest and assess. 

Granted, journalism in the late 20^th century and early 21^st century is not at its finest. Entertainment and bias have taken center stage, which is why I found it nearly impossible to listen to both CNBC and Fox News in the last presidential election – both were shaping the news to favor their candidate. Not particularly helpful, not when your job is to deliver information in an even handed way.

Enter social media, where individuals now have the ability to communicate with the masses – without an editor to hold them accountable (years ago, when I was a reporter in the nation’s capital, covering the White House, my editor made certain I had verification for every detail of my story).    

Now what?  How do you decide who to trust? We now have individuals sharing information that is totally unvetted – no filter, no editor over the shoulder, no screen whatsoever. 

It’s a bit unnerving.  And there’s nothing on the horizon to indicate that things will improve in the near future. 

So, as you consider who to vote for in next week’s election, consider the source of your information, and weigh it carefully.  It’s probably best to spend more time listening to the candidates, and reading their answers to pointed questions, than relying on Facebook or Twitter accounts to help you make an informed decision. 

It’s a no-holes-barred world out there, and we have to recognize that much of the information we’re reading, or hearing, has not been reviewed, edited, analyzed or fairly considered. 

So be careful, and prudent. And when you can, qualify your sources.

##

Organic foods: are they safer?

Organic foods: are they safer?

The logic is compelling.  Food grown without the use of pesticides and insecticides should be healthier, and more nutritious.  And it makes sense that we pay a little more for them.  But the question remains: are organic foods safer than conventional foods?  And if so, how significant is the difference?

In a report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a team led by Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler analyzed 240 studies that compared organic and conventional foods (17 studies dealt with human subjects, 223 measured nutrient and contaminant levels). Their conclusion:

“Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this perception. Of the nutrients evaluated, only one comparison, the phosphorus* content in produce, demonstrated the superiority of organic foods.”

The report added:

“The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The analysis was prompted by the explosive growth in the sale of organic foods. Said the report: “Between 1997 and 2010, U.S. sales of organic** foods increased from $3.6 billion to $26.7 billion.” They added: “Although prices vary, consumers can pay up to twice as much for organic than conventional foods.” (Author’s note: on a morning shop at Publix, I took note that a 9 oz. bag of conventional baby spinach cost $2.49 (26.7 cents per ounce) while a 5 oz. bag of organic baby spinach cost $3.69 (73.8 cents per ounce).

Before we turn to the report’s specifics – on allergies, nutrients, contamination and bacteria-resistance – it’s worth reflecting on two points made by Edward, a cashier at the Daniel Island Publix. At a recent visit, I shared the findings of the report, after which Edward quickly posed these two pointed questions: 1. “Who funded the study?” (I explained that it wasn’t a singular study but instead was an analysis of relevant studies to date – with no outside funding); and 2. “What are the long-term effects?” The short answer is that we simply don’t know. Acknowledged the authors: “There have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food, controlling for socioeconomic factors.”

That said, here are the report’s chief findings:

1.       Vitamin content. “We did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products.”

2.       Allergies, food-poisoning: The authors noted that only three of the 17 human studies examined clinical outcomes, but of those three they found “no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection” (known more commonly as food poisoning).

3.       Pesticide levels:  “Conventional produce has a 30% higher risk for pesticide contamination than organic produce,” said the report. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear because the difference in risk for contamination with pesticide residue exceeding maximum allowed limits may be small.”

4.       Pathogenic bacteria. “We found no difference in the risk for contamination of produce or animal products with pathogenic bacteria. Both organic and conventional animal products were commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter species. . . .”

5.       Bacteria-resistance. “We found that conventional chicken and pork have a higher risk for contamination with bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than were organic alternatives. This increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance may be related to the routine use of antibiotics in conventional animal husbandry.  However, the extent to which antibiotic use of livestock contributes to antibiotic-resistance pathogens in humans continues to be debated because inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans is the major cause of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans.”

*The authors added: “Higher levels of phosphorus in organic produce than in conventional produce is consistent with previous reviews . . . although it is unlikely to be clinically significant because near-total starvation is needed to produce dietary phosphorus deficiency.”

**USDA’s definition of organic agriculture: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.”

##