What is the healthiest type of cookware?

What is the healthiest type of cookware?

Despite all the innovations in modern cookware, including non-stick surfaces and anodized aluminum, we believe that your healthiest cookware choices are those that use classic materials such as stainless steel and cast iron. What you want to look for when evaluating the healthfulness of cookware is whether the material that it is made from carries much toxic risk and how likely the cookware materials are to leach into the food during cooking.

Using these two criteria, we'll explore why stainless steel and cast iron are your best choices. But first, let's review why aluminum, copper, and non-stick cookware are types we choose not to use.

Cookware to avoid

Aluminum cookware

Cookware made from materials that carry with them substantial risk of toxicity, even if research shows relatively little leaching of their toxic substances, should automatically not be considered to be among your best options. We would put aluminum cookware into this category. In the past five years, we've seen over 100 studies about aluminum and disease. This metal has consistently been placed in the top 200 health-jeopardizing toxins by the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

We realize that many improvements have been made in aluminum pots and pans with the advent of anodized aluminum (in which a thicker aluminum oxide layer is created on the surface of the pan). Yet, we still recommend avoidance of aluminum cookware due to the potential toxicity of aluminum itself. (This focus on the health aspects of aluminum cookware does not even take into account environmental problems related to the mining and dressing of aluminum.)

Non-stick cookware

Pots and pans with non-stick coatings are another type of cookware we would put into this category of toxic materials risk. The non-stick coating industry started out with Teflon in 1946 but has since grown to include many other coatings including Silverstone, Tefal, Anolon, Circulon, Caphalon and others. Products like Caphalon actually combine aluminum with non-stick materials by subjecting anodized aluminum to a polymer infusion process. We do not like to use cookware with non-stick surfaces.

Copper cookware

Pots and pans made from 100% copper fall into a slightly different category. Even though it is also a metal on the ATSDR priority toxin list just like aluminum, copper is an essential mineral that is currently deficient in many U.S. diets. Its essential nutrient status makes it different from aluminum, and some people include it as a desirable cookware material for this reason.

We take a somewhat conservative approach here since we don't like the idea of cooking directly on a copper surface due to potential (however slight) risk of copper toxicity. Adults need approximately 900 micrograms of copper per day, according to the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) established by the National Academy of Sciences. The Tolerable Upper Limit (UL) for copper is about 10 times that amount, at 10,000 micrograms (the same as 10 milligrams). While you're very unlikely to get that amount of copper migration from your cookware into your food (even under highly acidic conditions that increase leaching), we prefer to avoid all possible risk.

Recommended cookware

Stainless steel

With stainless steel, you get a cooking surface that can include some less risky materials than aluminum or non-stick coatings (such as the essential minerals iron, chromium, and manganese). It is is also more stable and less prone to leaching. While some research has expressed concern about leaching of chromium from stainless steel, this mineral is both essential and currently deficient in the diets of many U.S. adults. Based on the research, we believe the health risk here is less than the risk posed by leaching of another essential mineral, copper, from the surface in a 100% copper pan.

Stainless steel pans often have an inner core of aluminum or copper (and some have a copper-clad bottom). The reason this is done is because these two metals are very efficient heat conductors. Since the aluminum or copper is sandwiched between layers of steel and neither come in contact with the food, we think that these types of stainless steel cookware are fine to use.

What some cite as a concern for stainless steel is the leaching of nickel, a potentially toxic metal fairly high up on the ATSDR list of priority toxins. Yet, because the alloy (combination of metals used) in stainless steel cookware is more stable than other cookware materials you are less likely to have any leaching, of any metal, including nickel. An exception would be stainless steel pots and pans that have been damaged by harsh scouring with an abrasive material like steel wool. Provided that you take good care of your stainless steel cookware and keep the cooking surfaces intact, we believe you are making an excellent choice in cookware with this material.

Cast iron

Cast iron is also a cookware material we really like. When properly seasoned, the surface itself is great for cooking, and when material does leach from cast iron, it's an essential mineral (iron) that many of us can easily incorporate into a healthy day of mineral intake. For some individuals, cast iron cookware can actually make a very important contribution to health. An exception would be individuals who may be at risk of iron overload. If you already have plenty of iron in your diet, in your bloodstream, and attached to storage proteins in your cells, you do not want to be adding leached iron from cast iron cookware. You may want to visit an iron disorders website like www.irondisorders.org or www.ironoverload.org to learn more about potential risk factors in this area.

The bottom line

Our favorite all-around cookware pieces are those made from stainless steel or cast iron. More than likely, the stainless steel cookware will have a core made from aluminum or copper since these metals are efficient conductors of heat. While we don't recommend cookware that features aluminum or copper as the cooking surface, stainless steel cookware with cores (or even bottoms) made from these materials are acceptable. That's because if you take care of your pots and pans and don't excessively scrub them, the copper or aluminum will not come in contact with your food.

Cast iron is another type of cookware we recommend. Even if some of the iron leaches from the cookware into your food, in most cases this is acceptable since many people can easily incorporate iron into a healthy day of mineral intake.

We like to avoid pans with non-stick coatings as well as those made from anodized aluminum.

References

Agarwal P, Srivastava S, Srivastava MM, Prakash S, Ramanamurthy M, Shrivastav R, Dass S. Studies on leaching of Cr and Ni from stainless steel utensils in certain acids and in some Indian drinks. Sci Total Environ. 1997 Jul 1;199(3):271-5.

Gramiccioni L, Ingrao G, Milana MR, Santaroni P, Tomassi G. Aluminium levels in Italian diets and in selected foods from aluminium utensils. Food Addit Contam. 1996 Oct;13(7):767-74.

Katz SA, Samitz MH. Leaching of nickel from stainless steel consumer commodities. Acta Derm Venereol. 1975;55(2):113-5.

Powley CR, Michalczyk MJ, Kaiser MA, Buxton LW. Determination of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) extractable from the surface of commercial cookware under simulated cooking conditions by LC/MS/MS. Analyst. 2005 Sep;130(9):1299-302. Epub 2005 Jul 28.

Rajwanshi P, Singh V, Gupta MK, Dass S. Leaching of aluminium for cookwares: A review. Environmental Geochemistry and Health;19 (1). 1997. 1-18.

Rajwanshi P, Singh V, Gupta MK, Kumari V, Shrivastav R, Ramanamurthy M, Dass S. Studies on aluminium leaching from cookware in tea and coffee and estimation of aluminium content in toothpaste, baking powder and paan masala. Sci Total Environ. 1997 Jan 30;193(3):243-9.

Takagi Y, Matsuda S, Imai S, Ohmori Y, Masuda T, Vinson JA, Mehra MC, Puri BK, Kaniewski A. Survey of trace elements in human nails: an international comparison. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1988 Nov;41(5):690-5.

St. John's wort

Overview

St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) has a history of being used as a medicine dating back to ancient Greece, where it was used for a range of illnesses, including various "nervous disorders." St. John's wort also has antibacterial and antiviral properties. Because of its anti-inflammatory properties, it has been applied to the skin to help heal wounds and burns. St. John's wort is one of the most commonly purchased herbal products in the United States.

In recent years, St. John’s wort has been studied extensively as a treatment for depression. Most studies show that St. John's wort may help treat mild-to-moderate depression, and has fewer side effects than most other prescription antidepressants. But it interacts with a number of medications, so it should be taken only under the guidance of a health care provider.

You shouldn’t try to treat severe depression -- where you may not be able to function day to day, or have thoughts of harming yourself or others -- with herbs. Always see a doctor if your depression is making it hard for you to function (See "Precautions" section).

Depression

There is good evidence that St. John's wort may reduce symptoms in people with mild-to-moderate but not severe (or major) depression. In many studies it seems to work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a popular type of antidepressant that doctors often prescribe first to treat depression. They include fluoxetine (Prozac), citalopram (Celexa), and sertraline (Zoloft). In addition, St. John’s wort doesn’t seem to have one of the most common side effects of antidepressants, which is loss of sex drive.

St. John's wort contains several chemicals, including hypericin, hyperforin, and flavonoids. Researchers aren't exactly sure how St. John's wort works. Some have suggested that the herb acts similar to an SSRI, making more of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine available. These neurotransmitters help improve one's mood. Scientists thought that hypericin was responsible, but now they believe that other chemicals in St. John's wort may help.

Not all studies agree, however. In one study, St. John's wort was found to be no more effective than placebo for treating depression. But these studies should be weighed against the majority that have found St. John’s wort helps depression. For example, in the same study, Zoloft also failed to show any benefit in treating depression. Many other studies have compared St. John's wort to Prozac, Celexa, paroxetine (Paxil), and Zoloft, and found that the herb works as well as the drug. Other studies are ongoing.

Other Uses

St. John's wort has also shown promise in treating the following conditions, a few of which are related to depression.

• Premenstrual syndrome (PMS): An early study suggests that St. John's wort may help relieve physical and emotional symptoms of PMS in some women, including cramps, irritability, food cravings, and breast tenderness.
• Menopause: Two studies suggest that St. John's wort, combined with black cohosh, helps improve mood and anxiety during menopause.
• Seasonal affective disorder (SAD): Used alone, St. John's wort has improved mood in people with SAD, a type of depression that occurs during the winter months because of lack of sunlight. SAD is usually treated with light therapy, and there is some evidence that using St. John's wort together with phototherapy works even better.
• Eczema, wounds, minor burns, hemorrhoids: St. John's wort has antibacterial properties and may also help fight inflammation. Applied topically (to the skin), it may relieve symptoms associated with minor wounds and skin irritation.
• Obsessive compulsive disorder, social phobia: One early open-label study found that taking St. John's wort 450 mg two times a day for 12 weeks improved OCD symptoms. But two other studies found that St. John’s wort didn’t help OCD.

Plant Description

St. John's wort is a shrubby plant with clusters of yellow flowers that have oval, elongated petals. Scientists believe it is native to Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, and the western United States. The plant gets its name because it is often in full bloom around June 24, the day traditionally celebrated as the birthday of John the Baptist. Both the flowers and leaves are used as medicine.

What's It Made Of?

The best-studied active components are hypericin and pseudohypericin, found in both the leaves and flowers. Researchers now think that these components may not be responsible for St. John’s wort’s healing properties. Scientists are now studying St. John's wort's essential oils and flavonoids.

Available Forms

St. John's wort can be obtained in many forms: capsules, tablets, tinctures, teas, and oil-based skin lotions. Chopped or powdered forms of the dried herb are also available. Most products are standardized to contain 0.3% hypericin.

How to Take It

Pediatric

Most studies on St. John's wort have been conducted in adults. However, one study (more than 100 children under age 12) indicated that St. John's wort may be a safe and effective way of treating mild-to-moderate symptoms of depression in children. Never give your child St. John’s wort without medical supervision. Children being treated with St. John's wort should be carefully monitored for side effects, such as allergic reactions or upset stomach. You should not try to treat depression in a child without a doctor’s help, because depression can be a serious illness.

Adult

• Dry herb (in capsules or tablets): The usual dose for mild depression and mood disorders is 300 mg (standardized to 0.3% hypericin extract), 3 times per day, with meals. St. John's wort is available in time-release capsules.
• St. John’s Wort is also available as a liquid extract or a tea. Ask your doctor to help you find the right dose.

It may take 3 - 4 weeks to feel any effects from St. John's wort.

Don’t stop taking St. John’s wort all at once, because that may cause unpleasant side effects. Gradually lower the dose before stopping.

Precautions

The use of herbs is a time-honored approach to strengthening the body and treating disease. Herbs, however, can trigger side effects and can interact with other herbs, supplements, or medications. For these reasons, you should take herbs with care, under the supervision of a health care provider.

St. John's wort is often used to treat depression. If your depression is causing problems with your daily life or you are having thoughts of suicide or of harming yourself or others, you need to see a doctor immediately. St. John's wort should not be used to treat severe depression.

You should see a doctor to make sure you have the right diagnosis before taking St. John's wort. Your doctor can help you determine the right dose and make sure you are not taking any other medications that might interact with St. John's wort.

Side effects from St. John's wort are generally mild and include stomach upset, hives or other skin rashes, fatigue, restlessness, headache, dry mouth, and feelings of dizziness or mental confusion. St. John's wort can also make the skin overly sensitive to sunlight, called photodermatitis. If you have light skin and are taking St. John's wort, wear long sleeves and a hat when in the sun, and use a sunscreen with at least SPF 15 or higher. Avoid sunlamps, tanning booths, and tanning beds.

Other potential concerns about St. John’s wort are that it may interfere with getting pregnant or make infertility worse; that it may make symptoms of ADD and ADHD worse, especially among people taking methylphenidate; that it may increase the risk of psychosis in people with schizophrenia; and that it may contribute to dementia in people with Alzheimer’s. More study is needed, however.

Since St. John's wort can interact with medications used during surgery, you should stop taking it at least 5 days or more before surgery. Make sure your doctor and surgeon know you are taking St. John's wort.

Do not take St. John's wort if you have bipolar disorder There is concern that people with major depression taking St. John’s wort may be at a higher risk for mania.

Women who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or breastfeeding should not take St. John’s wort.

Possible Interactions

St. John's wort interacts with a large number of medications. In most cases, St. John's wort makes the medication less effective. In other cases, however, St. John's wort may make the effects of a medication stronger.

If you are being treated with any medications, you should not use St. John's wort without first talking to your doctor. St. John’s wort may interact with these medications:

Antidepressants -- St. John's wort may interact with medications used to treat depression or other mood disorders, including tricyclic antidepressants, SSRIs, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs). Taking St. John's wort with these medications tends to increase side effects, and could lead to a dangerous condition called serotonin syndrome. Do not take St. John's wort with other antidepressants, including:

• SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft)
• Tricyclics: Amitriptyline (Elavil), nortryptyline (Pamelor), imipramine (Tofranil)
• MAOIs: Phenelzine, (Nardil), tranylcypromine (Parnate)
• Nefazodone (Serzone)

Allergy drugs (antihistamines) -- St. John's wort may reduce levels of these drugs in the body, making them less effective:

• Loratadine (Claritin)
• Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
• Fexofenadine (Allegra)

Clopidogrel (Plavix) -- Theoretically, taking St. John’s wort along with clopidogrel may increase the risk of bleeding.

Dextromethorphan (cough medicine) -- Taking St. John’s wort at the same time as dextromethorphan, a cough suppressant found in many over-the-counter cough and cold medicines, can increase the risk of side effects, including serotonin syndrome.

Digoxin -- St. John's wort may lower levels of the medication and make it less effective. Do not take St. John's wort if you take digoxin.

Drugs that suppress the immune system -- St. John's wort can reduce the effectiveness of these medications, which are taken after organ transplant or to control autoimmune diseases. There have been many reports of cyclosporin blood levels dropping in those with a heart or kidney transplant, even leading to rejection of the transplanted organ.

• Adalimumab (Humira)
• Azathioprine (Imuran)
• Cyclosporine
• Etanercept (Enbrel)
• Methotrexate
• Mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept)
• Tacrolimus (Prograf)

Drugs to fight HIV -- St. John's wort appears to interact with at least two kinds of medications used to treat HIV and AIDS: protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The Food and Drug Administration recommends that St. John's wort not be used with any type of antiretroviral medication used to treat HIV or AIDS.

Birth control pills -- There have been reports of breakthrough bleeding in women on birth control pills who were also taking St. John's wort. It is possible that the herb might make birth control pills less effective, leading to unplanned pregnancies.

Aminolevulinic acid -- a medication that makes your skin more sensitive to sunlight. St. John’s wort also increases skin sensitivity to light. Together the two may have a dangerous impact on skin sensitivity to the sun.

Reserpine -- Based on animal studies, St. John's wort may interfere with reserpine's ability to treat high blood pressure.

Sedatives -- St. John's wort can increase the effect of drugs that have a sedating effect, including:

• Anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin (Dilantin) and valproic acid (Depakote)
• Barbiturates
• Benzodiazepines, such as diazepam (Valium)
• Drugs to treat insomnia, such as zolpidem (Ambien), zaleplon (Sonata), eszopiclone (Lunesta), and ramelteon (Rozerem)
• Tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline (Elavil)
• Alcohol

Alprazolam (Xanax) -- St. John’s wort may speed up the breakdown of Xanax in the body, making it less effective.

Theophylline -- St. John's wort can lower levels of this medication in the blood. Theophylline is used to open the airways in people with asthma, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis.

Triptans (used to treat migraines) -- St. John's wort can increase the risk of side effects, including serotonin syndrome, when taken with these medications:

• Naratriptan (Amerge)
• Rizatriptan (Maxalt)
• Sumatriptan (Imitrex)
• Zolmitriptan (Zomig)

Warfarin (Coumadin) -- St. John's wort reduces the effectiveness of warfarin, an anticoagulant (blood-thinner).

Other drugs -- Because St. John's wort is broken down by certain liver enzymes, it may interact with other drugs that are broken down by the same enzymes. Those drugs may include:

• Antifungal drugs, such as ketoconazole (Nizoral), itraconazole (Sporanox), fluconazole (Diflucan)
• Statins (drugs taken to lower cholesterol), including atorvastatin (Lipitor), lovastatin (Mevacor), and simvastatin (Zocor)
• Imatinib (Gleevac) -- St. John’s wort may make Gleevac less effective.
• Irinotecan (Camptosar) -- St. John’s wort may speed up the rate that Camptosar is broken down by the body, making it less effective.
• Some calcium channel blockers (taken to lower blood pressure)
• Any medication broken down by the liver

Supporting Research

Ang-Lee MK, Moss J, Yuan CS. Herbal medicines and perioperative care. JAMA. 2001;286(2):208-216.

Beaubrun G, Gray GE. A review of herbal medicines for psychiatric disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(9):1130-1134.

Biffignandi PM, Bilia AR. The growing knowledge of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatumL) drug interactions and their clinical significance. Curr Ther Res. 2000;61(70):389-394.

Blumenthal M, Goldberg A, Brinckmann J. Herbal Medicine: Expanded Commission E Monographs. Newton, MA: Integrative Medicine Communications; 2000:359-366.

Breidenbach T, Hoffmann MW, Becker T, Schlitt H, Klempnauer J. Drug interaction with St. John's wort with cyclosporin. Lancet. 2000;355:576-577.

Breidenbach T, Kliem V, Burg M, Radermacher J, Hoffman MW, Klempnauer J. Profound drop of cyclosporin A whole blood trough levels caused by St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) [letter]. Transplantation. 2000;69(10):2229-2230.

Brenner R, Azbel V, Madhusoodanan S, Pawlowska M. Comparison of an extract of hypericum (LI 160) and sertraline in the treatment of depression: a double-blind, randomized pilot study. Clin Ther. 2000;22(4):411-419.

Briese V, Stammwitz U, Friede M, Henneicke-von Zepelin HH. Black cohosh with or without St. John's wort for symptom-specific climacteric treatment -- results of a large-scale, controlled, observational study. Maturitas. 2007;57(4):405-14.

Carai MAM, Agabio R, Bombardelli E, et al. Potential use of medicinal plants in the treatment of alcoholism. Fitoterapia. 2000;71:538-542.

Caraci F, Crupi R, Drago F, Spina E. Metabolic Drug Interactions between Antidepressants and Anticancer Drugs: Focus on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Hypericum Extract. Curr Drug Metab. 2011 Mar 14. [Epub ahead of print]

Carpenter DJ. St. John's wort and S-adenosyl methionine as "natural" alternatives to conventional antidepressants in the era of the suicidality boxed warning: what is the evidence for clinically relevant benefit? Altern Med Rev. 2011 Mar;16(1):17-39.

Chung DJ, et al. Black cohosh and St. John's wort (GYNO-Plus) for climacteric symptoms.Yonsei Med J. 2007;48(2):289-94.

De Smet P, Touw D. Safety of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) [letter]. Lancet. 2000;355:575-576.

Food and Drug Administration. Risk of Drug Interactions with St John's Wort and Indinavir and Other Drugs. Rockville, Md: National Press Office; February 10, 2000. Public Health Advisory.

Gaster B, Holroyd J. St. John's wort for depression. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:152-156.

Geller SE, Studee L. Botanical and dietary supplements for mood and anxiety in menopausal women. Menopause. 2007;14(3 Pt 1):541-9.

Harrer G. Hypericum and phototherapy. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 2000 Dec 14;89(50):2123-9. Review.

Hubner W-D, Kirste T. Experience with St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) in children under 12 years with symptoms of depression and psychovegetative disturbances. Phytother Res. 2001;15:367-370.

Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group. Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort) in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1807-1814.

Kasper S, Anghelescu IG, Szegedi A, Dienel A, Kieser M. Superior efficacy of St John's wort extract WS 5570 compared to placebo in patients with major depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial. BMC Med. 2006 Jun 23;4:14.

Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Bystritsky A, Kohlenberg CJ, Greist JH, Tucker P, et al. St John's wort versus placebo in obsessive-compulsive disorder: results from a double-blind study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005 Nov;20(6):299-304.

Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Warner G, Futterer R. St. John's wort versus placebo in social phobia: results from a placebo-controlled pilot study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005 Feb;25(1):51-8.

Kumar A, Singh A. Protective effect of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) extract on 72-hour sleep deprivation-induced anxiety-like behavior and oxidative damage in mice. Planta Med. 2007;73(13):1358-64.

Linde K, Mulrow CD. St. John's wort for depression (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2000. Oxford: Update Software.

Mischoulon D. Update and critique of natural remedies as antidepressant treatments.Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2007 Mar;30(1):51-68.

Morelli V, Zoorob RJ. Alternative therapies: Part 1. Depression, diabetes, obesity. Am Fam Phys. 2000;62(5):1051-1060.

Obach RS. Inhibition of human cytochrome P450 enzymes by constituents of St. John's wort, an herbal preparation in the treatment of depression. J Pharmacol Exp Ther.2000;294(1):88-95.

Piscitelli S, Burstein AH, Chaitt D, et al. Indinavir concentrations and St. John's wort [letter].Lancet. 2000;355:547-548.

Rakel D. Rakel: Integrative Medicine, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008;55.

Rotblatt M, Ziment I. Evidence-Based Herbal Medicine. Philadelphia, Penn:Hanley & Belfus, Inc. 2002:315-321.

Ruschitzka F, Meier PJ, Turina M, et al. Acute heart transplant rejection due to Saint John's wort [letter]. Lancet. 2000,355.

Sarino LV, Dang KH, Dianat N, Djihanian H, Natanian N, Hudmon KS, Ambrose PJ. Drug interaction between oral contraceptives and St. John's wort: appropriateness of advice received from community pharmacists and health food store clerks. J Am Pharm Assoc.2007;47(1):42-7.

Sarrell EM, Mandelberg A, Cohen HA. Efficacy of naturopathic extracts in the management of ear pain associated with acute otitis media. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:796-799.

Schempp CM, Winghofer B, Ludtke R, Simon-Haarhaus B, Shopp E, Simon JC. Topical application of St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L) and of its metabolite hyperforin inhibits the allostimulatory capacity of epidermal cells. Br J Derm. 2000;142:979-984.

Schrader E. Equivalence of St John's wort extract (Ze 117) and fluoxetine: a randomized, controlled study in mild-moderate depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000;15(2):61-68.

Shelton RC, Keller MB, Gelenberg A, et al. Effectiveness of St. John's wort in major depression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1978-1986.

Sood A, Sood R, Brinker FJ, Mann R, Loehrer LL, Wahner-Roedler DL. Potential for interactions between dietary supplements and prescription medications. Am J Med.2008;121(3):207-11.

Stevinson C, Ernst E. A pilot study of Hypericum perforatum for the treatment of premenstrual syndrome. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2000;107:870-876.

Volz HP, Laux P. Potential treatment for subthreshold and mild depression: a comparison of St. John's wort extracts and fluoxetine. Comp Psych. 2000;41(2 Suppl 1):133-137.

Woelk H, for the Remotiv/Imipramine Study Group. Comparison of St. John's wort and imipramine for treating depression: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2000;321:536-539.

Yue Q, Bergquist C, Gerden B. Safety of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) [letter].Lancet. 2000;355:576-577.

Alternative Names

Hypericum perforatum; Klamathweed

Version Info

• Last Reviewed on 05/01/2011
• Steven D. Ehrlich, NMD, Solutions Acupuncture, a private practice specializing in complementary and alternative medicine, Phoenix, AZ. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.

A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is an independent audit to verify that A.D.A.M. follows rigorous standards of quality and accountability. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial policy, editorial process and privacy policy. A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch)

The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed medical professional should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. © 1997- 2013 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.

Sincerity in Spending on others

And they give food, inspite of their love for it (or for the love of Him), to Miskin (poor), the orphan, and the captive, (Al-Insan 76:8)

(Saying): "We feed you seeking Allâh's Countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you. (Al-Insan 76:9)

"Trained to Kill" - Desensitizing the Mind to Violence

"Trained to Kill" By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Christianity Today, August 10, 1998 Are we training our children to kill? I am from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I travel the world training medical, law enforcement, and U.S. military personnel about the realities of warfare. I try to make those who carry deadly force keenly aware of the magnitude of killing. Too many law enforcement and military personnel act like "cowboys," never stopping to think about who they are and what they are called to do. I hope I am able to give them a reality check. So here I am, a world traveler and an expert in the field of "killology," and the largest school massacre in American history happens in my hometown of Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was the March 24, 1999, schoolyard shooting deaths of four girls and a teacher. Ten others were injured, and two boys, ages 11 and 13, are in jail, charged with murder. My son goes to one of the middle schools in town, so my aunt in Florida called us that day and asked, "Was that Joe's school?" And we said, "We haven't heard about it." My aunt in Florida knew about the shootings before we did! We turned on the television and discovered the shootings took place down the road from us but, thank goodness, not at Joe's school. I'm sure almost all parents in Jonesboro that night hugged their children and said, "Thank God it wasn't you," as they tucked them into bed. But there was also a lot of guilt because some parents in Jonesboro couldn't say that. I spent the first three days after the tragedy at Westside Middle School, where the shootings took place, working with the counselors, teachers, students, and parents. None of us had ever done anything like this before. I train people how to react to trauma in the military; but how do you do it with kids after a massacre in their school? I was the lead trainer for the counselors and clergy the night after the shootings, and the following day we debriefed the teachers in groups. Then the counselors and clergy, working with the teachers, debriefed the students, allowing them to work through everything that had happened. Only people who share a trauma can give each other the understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness needed to understand what happened, and then they can begin the long process of trying to understand why it happened. Virus of Violence To understand the why behind Jonesboro and Springfield and Pearl and Paducah, and all the other outbreaks of this "virus of violence," we need to understand first the magnitude of the problem. The per capita murder rate doubled in this country between 1957 when the FBI started keeping track of the data--and 1992. A fuller picture of the problem, however, is indicated by the rate people are attempting to kill one another--the aggravated assault rate. That rate in America has gone from around 60 per 100,000 in 1957 to over 440 per 100,000 by the middle of this decade. As bad as this is, it would be much worse were it not for two major factors. First is the increase in the imprisonment rate of violent offenders. The prison population in America nearly quadrupled between 1975 and 1992. According to criminologist John J. DiIulio, "dozens of credible empirical analyses . . . leave no doubt that the increased use of prisons averted millions of serious crimes." If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher. Children don't naturally kill; they learn it from violence in the home and most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, movies, and interactive video games. The second factor keeping the murder rate from being any worse is medical technology. According to the US Army Medical Service Corps, a wound that would have killed nine out of ten soldiers in World War II, nine out of ten could have survived in Vietnam. Thus, by a very conservative estimate, if we had 1940-level medical technology today, the murder rate would be ten times higher than it is. The magnitude of the problem has been held down by the development of sophisticated lifesaving skills and techniques, such as helicopter medivacs, 911 operators, paramedics, CPR, trauma centers, and medicines. However, the crime rate is still at a phenomenally high level, and this is true worldwide. In Canada, according to their Center for Justice, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993, attempted murder increased nearly sevenfold, and murders doubled. Similar trends can be seen in other countries in the per capita violent crime rates reported to Interpol between 1977 and 1993. In Australia and New Zealand, the assault rate increased approximately fourfold, and the murder rate nearly doubled in both nations. The assault rate tripled in Sweden, and approximately doubled in Belgium, Denmark, England-Wales, France, Hungary, Netherlands, and Scotland, while all these nations had an associated (but smaller) increase in murder. This virus of violence is occurring worldwide. The explanation for it has to be some new factor that is occurring in all of these countries. There are many factors involved, and none should be discounted: for example, the prevalence of guns in our society. But violence is rising in many nations with draconian gun laws. And though we should never downplay child abuse, poverty, or racism, there is only one new variable present in each of these countries, bearing the exact same fruit: media violence presented as entertainment for children. Killing is Unnatural Before retiring from the military, I spent almost a quarter of a century as an army infantry officer and a psychologist, learning and studying how to enable people to kill. Believe me, we are very good at it. But it does not come naturally; you have to be taught to kill. And just as the army is conditioning people to kill, we are indiscriminately doing the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards. After the Jonesboro killings, the head of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Juvenile Violence came to town and said that children don't naturally kill. It is a learned skill. And they learn it from abuse and violence in the home and, most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, the movies, and interactive video games. Killing requires training because there is a built-in aversion to killing one's own kind. I can best illustrate this from drawing on my own work in studying killing in the military. We all know that you can't have an argument or a discussion with a frightened or angry human being. Vasoconstriction, the narrowing of the blood vessels, has literally closed down the forebrain--that great gob of gray matter that makes you a human being and distinguishes you from a dog. When those neurons close down, the midbrain takes over and your thought processes and reflexes are indistinguishable from your dog's. If you've worked with animals, you have some understanding in the realm of midbrain responses. Within the midbrain there is a powerful, God-given resistance to killing your own kind. Every species, with a few exceptions, has a hardwired resistance to killing its own kind in territorial and mating battles. When animals with antlers and horns fight one another, they head butt in a harmless fashion. But when they fight any other species, they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranhas will turn their fangs on anything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes will bite anything, but they wrestle one another. Almost every species has this hardwired resistance to killing its own kind. When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear, we slam head-on into that midbrain resistance that generally prevents us from killing. Only sociopaths--who by definition don't have that resistance--lack this innate violence immune system. Throughout human history, when humans fight each other, there is a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission. Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit when one side was fleeing. In more modern times, the average firing rate was incredibly low in Civil War battles. Paddy Griffith demonstrates that the killing potential of the average Civil War regiment was anywhere from five hundred to a thousand men per minute. The actual killing rate was only one or two men per minute per regiment (The Battle Tactics of the American Civil War). At the Battle of Gettysburg, of the 27,000 muskets picked up from the dead and dying after the battle, 90 percent were loaded. This is an anomaly, because it took 95 percent of their time to load muskets and only 5 percent to fire. But even more amazingly, of the thousands of loaded muskets, over half had multiple loads in the barrel--one with 23 loads in the barrel. In reality, the average man would load his musket and bring it to his shoulder, but he could not bring himself to kill. He would be brave, he would stand shoulder to shoulder, he would do what he was trained to do; but at the moment of truth, he could not bring himself to pull the trigger. So, he lowered the weapon and loaded it again. Of those who did fire, only a tiny percentage fired to hit. The vast majority fired over the enemy's head. During World War II, US Army Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall had a team of researchers study what soldiers did in battle. For the first time in history, they asked individual soldiers what they did in battle. They discovered that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier. That is the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are able and willing to participate. Men are willing to die, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation; but they are not willing to kill. It is a phenomenal insight into human nature; but when the military became aware of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this "problem." From the military perspective, a 15 percent firing rate among riflemen is like a 15 percent literacy rate among librarians. And fix it the military did. By the Korean War, around 55 percent of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill. And by Vietnam, the rate rose to over 90 percent. The Methods in this Madness: Desensitization How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive, because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain these in the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture. Brutalization and desensitization are what happen at boot camp. From the moment you step off the bus you are physically and verbally abused: countless pushups, endless hours at attention or running with heavy loads, while carefully trained professionals take turns screaming at you. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked and dressed alike, losing all individuality. This brutalization is designed to break down your existing mores and norms and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world. Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening to our children through violence in the media--but instead of 18-year-olds, it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what is happening on television. At that age, a child can watch something happening on television and mimic that action. But it isn't until children are six or seven years old that the part of the brain kicks in that lets them understand where information comes from. Even though young children have some understanding of what it means to pretend, they are developmentally unable to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality. When young children see somebody shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded, or murdered on TV, to them it is as though it were actually happening. To have a child of three, four, or five watch a "splatter" movie, learning to relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30 minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a friend, letting her play with that friend, and then butchering that friend in front of your child's eyes. And this happens to our children hundreds upon hundreds of times. Sure, they are told: "Hey, it's all for fun. Look, this isn't real, it's just TV." And they nod their little heads and say, "okay." But they can't tell the difference. Can you remember a point in your life or in your children's lives when dreams, reality, and television were all jumbled together? That's what it is like to be at that level of psychological development. That's what the media is doing to them. The Journal of the American Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the impact of TV violence. The research demonstrated what happened in numerous nations after television made its appearance as compared to nations and regions without TV. The two nations or regions being compared are demographically and ethnically identical; only one variable is different: the presence of television. In every nation, region, or city with television, there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That is how long it takes for the brutalization of a three-to five-year-old to reach the "prime crime age." That is how long it takes for you to reap what you have sown when you brutalize and desensitize a three-year-old. Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media. The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "the introduction of television in the 1950's caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually." The article went on to say that ". . . if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (June 10, 1992). Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning is like the famous case of Pavlov's dogs you learned about in Psychology 101: The dogs learned to associate the ringing of the bell with food, and, once conditioned, the dogs could not hear the bell without salivating. The Japanese were masters at using classical conditioning with their soldiers. Early in World War II, Chinese prisoners were placed in a ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind them. And one by one, a select few Japanese soldiers would go into the ditch and bayonet "their" prisoner to death. This is a horrific way to kill another human being. Up on the bank, countless other young soldiers would cheer them on in their violence. Comparatively few soldiers actually killed in these situations, but by making the others watch and cheer, the Japanese were able to use these kinds of atrocities to classically condition a very large audience to associate pleasure with human death and suffering. Immediately afterwards, the soldiers who had been spectators were treated to sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls. The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure. The Japanese found these kinds of techniques to be extraordinarily effective at quickly enabling very large numbers of soldiers to commit atrocities in the years to come. Operant conditioning (which we will look at shortly) teaches you to kill, but classical conditioning is a subtle but powerful mechanism that teaches you to like it. This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern US military training; but there are some clear-cut examples of it being done by the media to our children. What is happening to our children is the reverse of the aversion therapy portrayed in the movie A Clockwork Orange. In A Clockwork Orange, a brutal sociopath, a mass murderer, is strapped to a chair and forced to watch violent movies while he is injected with a drug that nauseates him. So he sits and gags and retches as he watches the movies. After hundreds of repetitions of this, he associates violence with nausea, and it limits his ability to be violent. Every time a child plays an interactive video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex skills as a soldier or police officer in training. We are doing the exact opposite: Our children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, learning to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume. After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Coliseum. The result is a phenomenon that functions much like AIDS, which I call AVIDS--Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS has never killed anybody. It destroys your immune system, and then other diseases that shouldn't kill you become fatal. Television violence by itself does not kill you. It destroys your violence immune system and conditions you to derive pleasure from violence. And once you are at close range with another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger, Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome can destroy your midbrain resistance. Operant Conditioning The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a very powerful procedure of stimulus-response, stimulus-response. A benign example is the use of flight simulators to train pilots. An airline pilot in training sits in front of a flight simulator for endless hours; when a particular warning light goes on, he is taught to react in a certain way. When another warning light goes on, a different reaction is required. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response. One day the pilot is actually flying a jumbo jet; the plane is going down, and 300 people are screaming behind him. He is wetting his seat cushion, and he is scared out of his wits; but he does the right thing. Why? Because he has been conditioned to respond reflexively to this particular crisis. When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been conditioned to do. In fire drills, children learn to file out of the school in orderly fashion. One day there is a real fire, and they are frightened out of their wits; but they do exactly what they have been conditioned to do, and it saves their lives. The military and law enforcement community have made killing a conditioned response. This has substantially raised the firing rate on the modern battlefield. Whereas infantry training in World War II used bull's-eye targets, now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop into their field of view. That is the stimulus. The trainees have only a split second to engage the target. The conditioned response is to shoot the target, and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response--soldiers or police officers experience hundreds of repetitions. Later, when soldiers are on the battlefield or a police officer is walking a beat and somebody pops up with a gun, they will shoot reflexively and shoot to kill. We know that 75 to 80 percent of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of stimulus-response training. Now, if you're a little troubled by that, how much more should we be troubled by the fact that every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor skills. I was an expert witness in a murder case in South Carolina offering mitigation for a kid who was facing the death penalty. I tried to explain to the jury that interactive video games had conditioned him to shoot a gun to kill. He had spent hundreds of dollars on video games learning to point and shoot, point and shoot. One day he and his buddy decided it would be fun to rob the local convenience store. They walked in, and he pointed a snub-nosed .38 pistol at the clerk's head. The clerk turned to look at him, and the defendant shot reflexively from about six feet. The bullet hit the clerk right between the eyes--which is a pretty remarkable shot with that weapon at that range--and killed this father of two. Afterward, we asked the boy what happened and why he did it. It clearly was not part of the plan to kill the guy--it was being videotaped from six different directions. He said, "I don't know. It was a mistake. It wasn't supposed to happen." In the military and law-enforcement worlds, the right option is often not to shoot. But you never, never put your quarter in that video machine with the intention of not shooting. There is always some stimulus that sets you off. And when he was excited, and his heart rate went up, and vasoconstriction closed his forebrain down, this young man did exactly what he was conditioned to do: he reflexively pulled the trigger, shooting accurately just like all those times he played video games. This process is extraordinarily powerful and frightening. The result is ever more homemade pseudo-sociopaths who kill reflexively and show no remorse. Our children are learning to kill and learning to like it; and then we have the audacity to say, "Oh my goodness, what's wrong?" One of the boys allegedly involved in the Jonesboro shootings (and they are just boys) had a fair amount of experience shooting real guns. The other one was a nonshooter and, to the best of our knowledge, had almost no experience shooting. Between them, those two boys fired 27 shots from a range of over 100 yards, and they hit 15 people. That's pretty remarkable shooting. We run into these situations often--kids who have never picked up a gun in their lives pick up a real gun and are incredibly accurate. Why? Video Games Role models In the military, you are immediately confronted with a role model: your drill sergeant. He personifies violence and aggression. Along with military heroes, these violent role models have always been used to influence young, impressionable minds. Today the media are providing our children with role models. This can be seen not just in the lawless sociopaths in movies and TV shows, but it can also be seen in the media-inspired, copycat aspects of the Jonesboro murders. This is the part of these juvenile crimes that the TV networks would much rather not talk about. Research in the 1970s demonstrated the existence of "cluster suicides" in which the local TV reporting of teen suicides directly caused numerous copycat suicides of impressionable teenagers. Somewhere in every population there are potentially suicidal kids who will say to themselves, "Well, I'll show all those people who have been mean to me. I know how to get my picture on TV, too." Because of this research, television stations today generally do not cover suicides. But when the pictures of teenage killers appear on TV, the effect is the same: Somewhere there is a potentially violent little boy who says to himself, "Well, I'll show all those people who have been mean to me. I know how to get my picture on TV too." Thus we get copycat, cluster murders that work their way across America like a virus spread by the six o'clock news. No matter what someone has done, if you put his picture on TV, you have made him a celebrity, and someone, somewhere, will emulate him. The lineage of the Jonesboro shootings began at Pearl, Mississippi, fewer than six months before. In Pearl, a 16-year-old boy was accused of killing his mother and then going to his school and shooting nine students, two of whom died, including his ex-girlfriend. Two months later, this virus spread to Paducah, Kentucky, where a 14-year-old boy was arrested for killing three students and wounding five others. A very important step in the spread of this copycat crime virus occurred in Stamps, Arkansas, 15 days after Pearl and just a little over 90 days before Jonesboro. In Stamps, a 14-year-old boy, who was angry at his schoolmates, hid in the woods and fired at children as they came out of school. Sound familiar? Only two children were injured in this crime, so most of the world didn't hear about it; but it got great regional coverage on TV, and two little boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas, probably did hear about it. And then there was Springfield, Oregon, and so many others. Is this a reasonable price to pay for the TV networks' "right" to turn juvenile defendants into celebrities and role models by playing up their pictures on TV? Our society needs to be informed about these crimes, but when the images of the young killers are broadcast on television, they become role models. The average preschooler in America watches 27 hours of television a week. The average child gets more one-on-one communication from TV than from all her parents and teachers combined. The ultimate achievement for our children is to get their picture on TV. The solution is simple, and it comes straight out of the suicidology literature: The media have every right and responsibility to tell the story, but they have no right to glorify the killers by presenting their images on TV. Reality Check: Sixty percent of men on TV are involved in violence; 11 percent are killers. Unlike actual rates, in the media the majority of homicide victims are women. (Gerbner 1994) In a Canadian town in which TV was first introduced in 1973, a 160 percent increase in aggression, hitting, shoving, and biting was documented in first- and second-grade students after exposure, with no change in behavior in children in two control communities. (Centerwall 1992) Fifteen years after the introduction of TV, homicides, rapes and assaults doubled in the United States. (American Medical Association) Twenty percent of suburban high schoolers endorse shooting someone "who has stolen something from you." (Toch and Silver 1993) In the United States, approximately two million teenagers carry knives, guns, clubs or razors. As many as 135,000 take them to school. (America by the Numbers) Americans spend over $100 million on toy guns every year. What Counts: The Complete Harper's Index © 1991) Unlearning Violence What is the road home from the dark and lonely place to which we have traveled? One route infringes on civil liberties. The city of New York has made remarkable progress in recent years in bringing down crime rates, but they may have done so at the expense of some civil liberties. People who are fearful say that is a price they are willing to pay. Another route would be to "just turn it off"; if you don't like what is on television, use the "off" button. Yet, if all the parents of the 15 shooting victims in Jonesboro had protected their children from TV violence, it wouldn't have done a bit of good. Because somewhere there were two little boys whose parents didn't "just turn it off." On the night of the Jonesboro shootings, clergy and counselors were working in small groups in the hospital waiting room, comforting the groups of relatives and friends of the victims. Then they noticed one woman sitting alone silently. A counselor went over to the woman and discovered that she was the mother of one of the girls who had been killed. She had no friends, no husband, no family with her as she sat in the hospital, stunned by her loss. "I just came to find out how to get my little girl's body back," she said. But the body had been taken to Little Rock, 100 miles away, for an autopsy. Her very next concern was, "I just don't know how I'm going to pay for the funeral. I don't know how I can afford it." That little girl was truly all she had in all the world. Come to Jonesboro, friend, and tell this mother she should "just turn it off." Ten Nonviolent Video Games The following list of nonviolent video games has been developed by The Games Project (1999). These games are ranked high for their social and play value and technical merit. Bust a Move Tetris Theme Park Absolute Pinball Myst NASCAR SimCity The Incredible Machine Front Page Sports: Golf Earthworm Jim Fighting back We need to make progress in the fight against child abuse, racism, and poverty, and in rebuilding our families. No one is denying that the breakdown of the family is a factor. But nations without our divorce rates are also having increases in violence. Besides, research demonstrates that one major source of harm associated with single-parent families occurs when the TV becomes both the nanny and the second parent. Work is needed in all these areas, but there is a new front--taking on the producers and purveyors of media violence. Simply put, we ought to work toward legislation that outlaws violent video games for children. There is no constitutional right for a child to play an interactive video game that teaches him weapons-handling skills or that simulates destruction of God's creatures. The day may also be coming when we are able to seat juries in America who are willing to sock it to the networks in the only place they really understand--their wallets. After the Jonesboro shootings, Time magazine said: "As for media violence, the debate there is fast approaching the same point that discussions about the health impact of tobacco reached some time ago--it's over. Few researchers bother any longer to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an effect on kids who witness it" (April 6, 1998). Most of all, the American people need to learn the lesson of Jonesboro: Violence is not a game; it's not fun, it's not something that we do for entertainment. Violence kills. Every parent in America desperately needs to be warned of the impact of TV and other violent media on children, just as we would warn them of some widespread carcinogen. The problem is that the TV networks, which use the public airwaves we have licensed to them, are our key means of public education in America. And they are stonewalling. In the days after the Jonesboro shootings, I was interviewed on Canadian national TV, the British Broadcasting Company, and many US and international radio shows and newspapers. But the American television networks simply would not touch this aspect of the story. Never in my experience as a historian and a psychologist have I seen any institution in America so clearly responsible for so very many deaths, and so clearly abusing their publicly licensed authority and power to cover up their guilt. Time after time, idealistic young network producers contacted me from one of the networks, fascinated by the irony that an expert in the field of violence and aggression was living in Jonesboro and was at the school almost from the beginning. But unlike all the other media, these network news stories always died a sudden, silent death when the network's powers-that-be said, "Yeah, we need this story like we need a hole in the head." Many times since the shooting I have been asked, "Why weren't you on TV talking about the stuff in your book?" And every time my answer had to be, "The TV networks are burying this story. They know they are guilty, and they want to delay the retribution as long as they can." As an author and expert on killing, I believe I have spoken on the subject at every Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions Club in a 50-mile radius of Jonesboro. So when the plague of satellite dishes descended upon us like huge locusts, many people here were aware of the scientific data linking TV violence and violent crime. The networks will stick their lenses anywhere and courageously expose anything. Like flies on open wounds, they find nothing too private or shameful for their probing lenses--except themselves, and their share of guilt in the terrible, tragic crime that happened here A CBS executive told me his plan. He knows all about the link between media and violence. His own in-house people have advised him to protect his child from the poison his industry is bringing to America's children. He is not going to expose his child to TV until she's old enough to learn how to read. And then he will select very carefully what she sees. He and his wife plan to send her to a daycare center that has no television, and he plans to show her only age-appropriate videos. That should be the bare minimum with children: Show them only age-appropriate videos, and think hard about what is age appropriate. The most benign product you are going to get from the networks are 22-minute sitcoms or cartoons providing instant solutions for all of life's problems, interlaced with commercials telling you what a slug you are if you don't ingest the right sugary substances and don't wear the right shoes. The worst product your child is going to get from the networks is represented by one TV commentator who told me, "Well, we only have one really violent show on our network, and that is NYPD Blue. I'll admit that that is bad, but it is only one night a week." I wondered at the time how she would feel if someone said, "Well, I only beat my wife in front of the kids one night a week." The effect is the same. "You're not supposed to know who I am!" said NYPD Blue star Kim Delaney, in response to young children who recognized her from her role on that show. According to USA Weekend, she was shocked that underage viewers watch her show, which is rated TV-14 for gruesome crimes, raw language, and explicit sex scenes. But they do watch, don't they? Education about media and violence does make a difference. I was on a radio call-in show in San Antonio, Texas. A woman called and said, "I would never have had the courage to do this two years ago. But let me tell you what happened. You tell me if I was right. "My 13-year-old boy spent the night with a neighbor boy. After that night, he started having nightmares. I got him to admit what the nightmares were about. While he was at the neighbor's house, they watched splatter movies all night: people cutting people up with chainsaws and stuff like that. "Every parent in America desperately needs to be warned of the impact of TV and other violent media on children. But the TV networks--our key means of public education in America--are stonewalling." "I called the neighbors and told them, 'Listen: you are sick people. I wouldn't feel any different about you if you had given my son pornography or alcohol. And I'm not going to have anything further to do with you or your son--and neither is anybody else in this neighborhood, if I have anything to do with it--until you stop what you're doing.' " That's powerful. That's censure, not censorship. We ought to have the moral courage to censure people who think that violence is legitimate entertainment. One of the most effective ways for Christians to be salt and light is by simply confronting the culture of violence as entertainment. A friend of mine, a retired army officer who teaches at a nearby middle school, uses the movie Gettysburg to teach his students about the Civil War. A scene in that movie very dramatically depicts the tragedy of Pickett's Charge. As the Confederate troops charge into the Union lines, the cannons fire into their masses at point-blank range, and there is nothing but a red mist that comes up from the smoke and flames. He told me that when he first showed this heart-wrenching, tragic scene to his students, they laughed. He began to confront this behavior ahead of time by saying: "In the past, students have laughed at this scene, and I want to tell you that this is completely unacceptable behavior. This movie depicts a tragedy in American history, a tragedy that happened to our ancestors, and I will not tolerate any laughing." From then on, when he played that scene to his students, over the years, he says there was no laughter. Instead, many of them wept. What the media teach is unnatural, and if confronted in love and assurance, the house they have built on the sand will crumble. But our house is built on the rock. If we don't actively present our values, then the media will most assuredly inflict theirs on our children, and the children, like those in that class watching Gettysburg, simply won't know any better. There are many other things that the Christian community can do to help change our culture. Youth activities can provide alternatives to television, and churches can lead the way in providing alternative locations for latchkey children. Fellowship groups can provide guidance and support to young parents as they strive to raise their children without the destructive influences of the media. Mentoring programs can pair mature, educated adults with young parents, helping them through the preschool ages without using the TV as a babysitter. And most of all, the churches can provide the clarion call of decency and love and peace as an alternative to death and destruction--not just for the sake of the church, but for the transformation of our culture.