Consult Internal Manual Medicine

Think of omega-3s as the oils that keep our brains and hearts from getting rusty. Hundreds of studies show that these essential fatty acids can help prevent cardiovascular disease and some scientists believe they are also beneficial for the brain and nervous system. But not all omega-3s are created equal. The ones with the biggest health benefits are found in fish like salmon and mackerel, which have the two long chain fatty acids docosahexaenoic (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic (EPA). Plant-derived omega-3s — the fatty acids found in flax seeds, olive oil and some leafy greens — don't contain these specific fatty acid chains. While they're also thought to be good for the heart, they don't have quite the same effect on the body as their fish-derived cousins.

"Both types of omega-3s are essential for our health because the body cannot make them on its own. [But] people who regularly consume fish have less chance of dying from heart disease. For plant-derived omega-3s, the suggestive evidence is unconvincing and more research needs to be done to make stronger claims," says Dariush Mozaffarian, an assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School. (See the top 10 food trends of 2008.)

The difference between the two groups of omega-3s is now at the heart of a debate in the European Union. In 2007, the European Parliament passed a law allowing companies to tout the health benefits of omega-3s on their food products without having to differentiate between the plant-derived and fish-derived kinds. With the trial period due to expire in January 2010, the European Commission, the body that recommends which legislation will go before the Parliament, approved a proposal in October to make the statute permanent. The Parliament will decide on the issue in January.

Some experts are wary of the proposal, though. A group of 20 scientists from seven countries who specialize in fatty acids have warned it could allow food manufacturers to deceive consumers. They say that without clear labels, companies can use plant-derived omega-3s in their products and pass them off as the superior, fish-derived omega-3s. "They would be able to pour in cheap plant oils, but imply that they deliver the same health benefits as fish oils," says John Stein, a neurophysiology professor at Oxford University and one of the scientists urging the European Parliament to vote against the proposal and instead set up a scientific committee to advise on omega-3 food labeling. (See nine kid foods to avoid.)

Thanks to a love affair with French fries and cheeseburgers — not fish and vegetables — most Westerners' diets don't contain enough omega-3s. On top of that, we eat too many processed foods, which contain another fatty acid that hinders the body's ability to absorb omega-3s. This is one reason why food manufacturers have started putting more omega-3s into foods like margarine, mayonnaise and eggs in recent years.

Unilever, which sells margarine containing omega-3s, insists that its labels are accurate. The Anglo-Dutch company makes two different types of margarine, both of which it says are healthy. It produces margarine with omega-3 plant oils for vegetarians and margarine with omega-3 fish oils for people who eat fish, clearly stating on the labels which type of fatty acids are in each spread. "It's not a competition between these different omega-3s — all are essential for the diet, " says Anne Heughan, Unilever's director of external affairs for Europe. Moreover, she says, Unilever is within the guidelines set by the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) on nutritional labeling. (See a special report on the science of appetite.)

But the scientists say the EFSA guidelines only deal with a product's health claims about omega-3s, not its nutritional content. "We've got two types of claims in play at the same time. Health claims are about the effect on the eater, nutrition claims are about what is in the food. Pointing to the health claims alone is technically legal, but substantively misleading," says Jack Winkler, a professor at the Metropolitan University of London and another of the scientists who is against the E.U. law.

The debate hasn't reached the same level of specificity in the U.S. The Food and Drug Administration has given food companies the freedom to tout the health benefits of omega-3s without differentiating between the plant-derived and fish-derived kinds. Instead of worrying about food labels, scientists there are questioning whether the omega-3 benefits of fish consumption outweigh the risks of getting too much mercury. The FDA has taken a tough stance, advising women who are pregnant, nursing mothers and young children to avoid eating fish that is high in mercury, such as swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish, and to limit consumption of albacore tuna to six ounces per week. (Read: "The Hunt for Tuna: A Tough Catch.")

The decision is now left to the European Parliament to decide what people across the continent will see on their tubs of margarine in the morning. Chances are, many people are probably unaware that their margarine even has health benefits. There's still the small matter of educating the public about the health benefits of omega-3s in the first place.

Read: "Eat Your Heart Out."

See TIME's health and medicine covers.

SIGG's trendy aluminum water bottles have scored a lot of free advertising in recent years. In Touch Weekly raved about how Madonna's kids sipped from the lightweight, eco-conscious and super-cute bottles. Julia Roberts was photographed with one. Jennifer Garner was too. The Swiss brand became the must-have accessory as consumers rushed to find alternatives to plastic bottles that contained bisphenol-A (BPA), a controversial chemical used to harden plastics, which some studies have linked to diabetes, premature puberty in girls and reduced sperm count in men. SIGG's reusable aluminum bottles seemed the perfect antidote, a one-two punch protecting both our health and the environment.

But many consumers are feeling deceived now that the company has been outed for failing to tell the public that its bottles were not BPA-free, at least not the ones that were manufactured before August 2008. The company had boasted that its proprietary plastic liner didn't leach BPA into liquid like other bottles did. What it neglected to divulge was that the bottles contained the substance at all. While there's no evidence that the first-generation SIGGs did in fact leach BPA, there's still plenty of grumbling at the company's lack of disclosure. The news is especially troubling since the company internally acknowledged the chemical's questionable safety record as early as 2006, when it quietly decided to formulate a new, BPA-free liner. (Read about reassessing the dangers of BPA in plastics.)

"SIGG was one of the companies that profited from all the bad publicity over BPA," says Elaine Shannon, editor in chief of the Environmental Working Group, an environmental science research and advocacy group in Washington. Shannon's group urged SIGG last month to offer customers full refunds; SIGG declined. (See a quick guide to FDA regulations.)

To placate the masses, SIGG has agreed to exchange those older, BPA-laden bottles for new ones through Oct. 31, but I'm still feeling betrayed. Like many parents I know, a couple years ago I tossed all the baby bottles I had — and any suspect sippies too — and invested in SIGGs, which cost about $20 each.

The blogosphere is full of people like me who hopped on board the environmental, health-conscious bandwagon, only to find out we were going in the wrong direction. "I'm feeling kind of like I did when I found out that John Edwards cheated on his wife," Kellie Sloan Brown wrote on her blog, GreenHab: The Browns Go Green. "It isn't the worst thing to ever happen in this world, but I still feel really disappointed because I thought SIGG to be a genuinely green company."

SIGG has been around for more than 100 years, but it's been fairly recently that its bottles have popped up everywhere, with everyone. Much of its popularity can be traced to research publicized in 2007 about BPA's questionable safety. Since then, Chicago, Connecticut and Michigan have restricted the chemical, and more than 20 states are considering similar bans. The Environmental Protection Agency has placed BPA on a priority review list.

Nena Baker feels particularly duped; she switched to SIGG while researching her book The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-Being. After having given the bottles as gifts to friends and family, Baker, whose book came out last year, is now accusing SIGG of "greenwashing."(Read "Going Green Just Got More Cost-Effective.")

The consumer uproar has been eye-opening for SIGG CEO Steve Wasik. He thought going green just meant being good to the earth; he didn't realize it meant fessing up too. "Being a green company also means being held to the highest degree of corporate transparency," he wrote in an e-mail. "I fully expect that SIGG will not let consumers down in the future."

So how can you tell which lining you've got? Peer inside your bottle. If it's a shiny coppery-bronze, it's the old, BPA-infused liner. If it's a pale matte yellow, you've got the EcoCare liner, a new powder-based, co-polyester, water-based liner that SIGG says is 100% BPA- and phthalate-free.

Question is, do we believe the company this time?

See 10 ideas that are changing the world right now.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

With the future of the space agency up in the air, NASA can certainly use the good p.r. that will flow from Wednesday's picture-perfect test launch of its Ares I-X prototype rocket, which is being designed to replace the aging space shuttle and ignite a new era in human space exploration. Mission managers took quick advantage of changing weather conditions to blast the rocket through a small hole in upper-level clouds that passed briefly over Launch Pad 39B.

Pencil-thin and taller than any other working rocket in the world, Ares I-X — a simulated version of what the Ares I and its Orion crew capsule will look like; for testing purposes, it's made up mostly of spare shuttle parts and a mock segments — lifted off at 11:30 a.m. The rocket's first and upper stages separated on schedule, approximately two minutes into the flight. And early indications are that the more than 700 onboard sensors did their job by streaming back to Earth a treasure trove of data to validate Ares computer models, information to be used in tweaking the final design. Ares I-X got off the ground just 30 minutes before the launch window closed for the second day in a row. (See pictures of celestial bodies.)

The lead-up to the launch had already produced a YouTube moment. On Tuesday, in the minutes before the expected takeoff, engineers were scheduled to pull on a lanyard to yank off a little red sock protecting a probe atop the rocket's nose. The yank cleared the probe, but the sock caught on something at the top of the rocket, something an amused NASA spokesman later insisted hadn't occurred in 500 practice runs. It took nine minutes of mostly close-up, viral-video-quality tugging before the dangling sock released, even as engineers debated whether the snafu amounted to a launch-canceling problem. (See pictures from the Mars space lander.)

Wednesday's launch marked the first time in more than 40 years that NASA has tested a prototype of a new rocket system to take passengers beyond Earth orbit. Ares I is part of a family of new rockets in NASA's Constellation program, which was propelled by former President George W. Bush's 2005 space initiative to go to Mars or back to the moon. Ares would be equipped to fill in for the aging space shuttle — which is planned for retirement in 2010, although scheduled shuttle flights are likely to extend into 2011 — on missions to the International Space Station.

Regardless of the success of the $445 million flight test, the significance of the 327-ft. rocket is uncertain. A report delivered to the White House on Oct. 22 from the Human Space Flights Plan Committee said the Constellation program's goals were underfunded. The committee, headed by Norman Augustine, retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., concluded that NASA needs another $3 billion a year to pursue meaningful human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Facing a $1.4 trillion federal deficit, even NASA's most ardent supporters in Congress, who represent some of the 60,000 jobs associated with the agency, acknowledge that additional funding will be hard to come by.

Alternatives offered up by the Augustine committee include stimulating a competitive commercial space industry in hopes that it might eventually result in lower launch costs. In deciding which direction to go, the Augustine committee warned of "perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."

That ground was covered by earlier Administrations, from which sprang the inherently dangerous design of the space shuttle in the 1970s. Budget cuts and compromises led to the critical mistake of designing the shuttle to fly horizontally but launch vertically, leaving the ship helpless and without any abort option right after launch if something went wrong.

The Ares, with its Orion capsule sitting atop a rocket, returns NASA to the Apollo model, which went into retirement in the 1970s having never lost a capsule crew in flight. (The program did have its disasters, though: the Apollo 1 crew perished in a launch-pad fire and Apollo 13 suffered an oxygen-tank explosion and power failure on its way to the moon.) Shaped like the Apollo capsule but three times larger, the Orion can be reused up to 10 times. The Ares I and V, vertically stacked launch vehicles, make use of reusable solid rocket boosters.

The Ares' Orion crew capsule includes a launch abort system, which is scheduled to undergo the first of three tests next year. The abort system involves three separate motors to pull the capsule away from the rocket, to provide directional control and to separate and jettison the entire launch abort system so the capsule can parachute back to Earth.

Critics are calling it a two-tier health system — one for the politically well connected, another for the hoi polloi. As Germany launched its mass-vaccination program against the H1N1 flu virus on Monday, the government found itself fending off accusations of favoritism because it was offering one vaccine believed to have fewer side effects to civil servants, politicians and soldiers, and another, potentially riskier vaccine to everyone else. The government had hoped that Germans would rush to health clinics to receive vaccinations against the rapidly spreading disease, but now rising anger over the different drugs may cause many people to shy away.

Amid growing fears of a possible global flu pandemic, the German government prepared for its mass-vaccination campaign earlier this year by ordering 50 million doses of the Pandemrix vaccine, enough for a double dose for 25 million people, about a third of the population. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, contains an immunity-enhancing chemical compound, known as an adjuvant, whose side effects are not yet entirely known. Then, after a report was leaked to the German media last week, the Interior Ministry confirmed that it had ordered a different vaccine, Celvapan, for government officials and the military. Celvapan, which is made by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Baxter, does not contain an adjuvant and is believed to have fewer side effects than Pandemrix. (See how not to get the H1N1 flu.)

Anger at the news was widespread in Germany. "If mass vaccination is considered to be necessary, then everyone should be treated the same way," says Birgitt Bender, health spokeswoman for the Green Party. Ulrike Mascher, head of the VdK social-welfare association, says giving government officials a vaccine that's different from that given to the rest of the population sent the "wrong signal" and gives many people "the impression that they are second-class patients." A story on the front page of the mass-circulation Bild newspaper accused the government of giving "second-class medicine" to regular Germans.

Doctors and medical experts are divided over the safety of Pandemrix. While some say it's the best vaccine available, others have serious misgivings about it. "The Pandemrix vaccine can't be recommended for pregnant women or young children because it has an increased risk of side effects. Pandemrix has an adjuvant which hasn't been tested sufficiently up until now," Alexander Kekulé, a virologist at the University of Halle, tells TIME. "Celvapan is a whole-virus vaccine, which has fewer side effects than Pandemrix, but it leads more often to fever or local swelling when compared with the normal seasonal-flu vaccine," he adds. Although Kekulé calls the government's handling of the vaccination program a "scandal," he says government officials and soldiers are not necessarily getting a better deal with Celvapan. "Neither Celvapan nor Pandemrix are ideal," he says. (See what you need to know about the H1N1 vaccine.)

The Interior Ministry hit back at suggestions of preferential treatment, saying it had ordered about 200,000 doses of the Celvapan vaccine from Baxter before the differences between the two vaccines were documented, and the government was bound by the terms of its contract. The government also points out that both Pandemrix and Celvapan have been approved by the European Union and that other countries, such as Britain and Sweden, are using the Pandemrix vaccine. In an attempt to put a lid on the simmering controversy, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, said the German leader would consult with her doctor in the next few days, and if she decided to receive a jab, it would be Pandemrix. (See pictures of thermal scanners hunting for swine flu.)

At least 26,000 people have been infected with swine flu in Germany, resulting in three deaths. Although the majority of patients have experienced only mild flulike symptoms, a steady increase in the number of cases of H1N1 in recent months has raised alarm across the nation. In its latest report, the Robert Koch Institute, the federal agency for infectious diseases, said new cases in Germany have jumped to about 1,600 each week, double the 700 to 800 weekly cases reported in early autumn. With the onset of winter, when seasonal-flu infections typically peak, many experts are concerned that H1N1 infections will spike dramatically. Klaus Osterrieder, a virologist at the Free University of Berlin, now fears that with the worries over the possible risks associated with Pandemrix, many people will avoid getting a vaccine altogether. According to a survey conducted on Oct. 23 by the Emnid Institute, only 13% of Germans said they wanted to receive a swine-flu vaccine this winter. (Read "Child-Care Centers and Parents Brace for Flu Season.")

"The public debate is bad because it raises questions about the whole vaccination program," Osterrieder says. If the government doesn't find some way to remedy the current public relations disaster and clear up the confusion over the different swine-flu vaccines, it could be faced with an even greater emergency, especially if the country's hospital wards start overflowing with flu patients in the coming months.

Read "Side Effects of 1918 Flu Seen Decades Later."

See how to prevent illness at any age.

The image of an old wooden junk with orange sails is ubiquitous in Hong Kong lore. It's on matchbooks, advertisements and postcards in this famous port city, but the traditional wind-powered Chinese boat cruising Victoria Harbor is a rare site these days. The reality is a bit less picturesque: the second busiest port in the world is filled with diesel-powered ships, ferries and fishing boats that belch toxins into the infamously polluted Hong Kong skyline.

That could be changing. Early next year, four new solar hybrid ferries will set sail in the Hong Kong harbor, using solar collectors to power an electric engine that will shuttle Hong Kong Jockey Club members to the Kau Sai Chau Public Golf Course. It's a modest start to cleaning up the city's smog, but if the ferries' owners at the Jockey Club, a nonprofit that holds a monopoly on gambling in Hong Kong and runs the golf course, demonstrate that the solar-powered ferries actually save the organization money, private businesses are likely to jump on board. The Australian company Solar Sailor, which designed the new ferries, claims that if oil prices remain high, the boats will start saving the Jockey Club money in only two years. (See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.)

With a dense population near the city's ports, the problem of shipping-related emissions is particularly acute in Hong Kong, where 60% of people say they've suffered health problems because of air pollution. But anyone living near a shipping lane is at risk. An estimated 60,000 people die annually from global shipping emissions, according James Corbett, a professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, who along with five others calculated the concentration of pollutants due to ships and then estimated the number of extra deaths caused by the additional exposure. If nothing is done to reduce emissions, that number could rise to 87,000 as soon as 2012, according to a 2009 report co-written by Corbett. Since six of the seven busiest ports in the world are in Asia, the health burden falls largely on port cities like Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Though shipping is still the most resource-efficient way to move containers, large ships use some of the dirtiest fuel on the planet. Ships' bunker fuel is a thick, black sludge leftover from the refining process and has about 2,000 times the sulfur of regular diesel fuel. When bunker fuel burns, it releases a host of toxins, including sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, that can lead to respiratory problems and acid rain. Now a better understanding of the health impact of shipping and commercial boats — combined with high oil prices and tighter general pollution restrictions — is sparking what could be the biggest revolution in industrial boating since the introduction of the marine diesel engine in 1903. In October 2008, the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization (IMO) introduced a gradual phase-in of emissions restrictions, lowering individual boats' sulfur oxide emissions, which contribute to respiratory illnesses and exacerbate existing heart and lung problems, near coastlines 900% by 2020. Industry insiders expect the IMO will also cap greenhouse-gas emissions. "If the shipping industry was a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases," says Fanta Kamakate, a program director at the International Council on Clean Transportation. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

Hong Kong is not the first city to have green ships. Captain Cook Cruises in Sydney's harbor has been running a hybrid Solar Sailor ship since 2000. In Berlin, the mayor christened a solar ferry in July, and Shanghai will have its own Solar Sailor ferry by the start of the 2010 World Expo. Founded in 1999, the company's innovative designs won the Australian Design Award of the Year, and Solar Sailor became the first Australian company recognized by the prestigious Tech Museum Awards. The inspiration for the solar sails, says Robert Dane, CEO of Solar Sailor, was ancient arthropods. "Insects first evolved wings as solar collectors," Dane says, but the primitive wings could also catch the wind and blow them away from predators.

Large container ships are also beginning to utilize the sun to help power them across the world's oceans. Cosco, China's biggest shipping company, has inked an agreement with Solar Sailor for giant solar sails to be retrofitted on some of Cosco's tanker ships. The solar wings would be almost 115 ft. long, and Solar Sailor expects the wings to start saving Cosco money after only four years. The Japanese company NYK Line launched the M/V Auriga Leader in 2008, the world's first cargo ship partly run on solar power. With 328 solar panels covering its upper deck, the ship produces enough electricity to continuously power 10 homes and can be used to transport 6,400 cars at a time. Though the ship still primarily relies on bunker fuel, it's a step toward the company's goal of zero emissions by 2050. NYK Line already has its next green transport in mind: the Super Eco Ship 2030, a concept ship that uses solar sails to lower CO2 emissions 69%.

Even the U.S. Navy is making greener warships. On Oct. 24, the U.S.S. Makin Island — dubbed the Navy's Prius — was formally commissioned. It was built with a gas turbine that drives an electric generator, and the Navy says these engine advances will save nearly $250 million in fuel costs over the vessel's lifetime. On its first trip from Mississippi to California, it consumed 900,000 gallons less fuel than a conventional warship.

When it comes to shipping pollution, the world is all in the same boat — and right now that boat runs on toxic sludge — but with continued innovation and tighter regulations, the planet's blue seas could soon be filled with green ships. Corbett predicts that if the new IMO standards are implemented, then the shipping industry could avoid contributing to more than 40,000 deaths in a single year. It would be a dramatic drop, but the ship engines would still be allowed to emit more sulfur dioxide than trucks and cars in the U.S. Solar Sailor's Dane sees the shipping industry's evolution away from oil as inevitable — even obvious: "Why go back to the land to refuel a boat when the energy is out there in the waves, sun and wind?"

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.