Health Spectator

A study recently published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention found an apparent link between consumption of sugary soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. Performed by Mark Pereira and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, the study followed 60,524 participants of the Singapore Chinese Health Study for up to 14 years. Like most such epidemiological studies, however, the study suffers from some inherent flaws and will need to be backed by further research.

This was a first attempt to link consumption of soft drinks and fruit juices—both abundant sources of dietary sugar—to pancreatic cancer in a population of non-European descent. The first 14 years of following the cohort yielded a cumulative 648,387 person-years and 140 pancreatic cancer cases. Individuals who consumed two or more soft drinks per week showed an 87-percent increased risk of pancreatic cancer, the researchers said. Those who consumed fruit juices alone showed no statistically greater risk.

The actual numbers involved are low enough, however, to cast some doubt on their validity. Of the 140 pancreatic cancer cases experienced by the cohort, 18 cases occurred in patients who consumed large quantities of soda, 12 occurred in those who drank soda occasionally, and 110 occurred in non-consumers of the beverage. Thus the claim of an 87% increase in risk of pancreatic cancer through consumption of sugar-sweetened soda is based on slim data.

The data do, however, support the popular theory that sugar feeds cancer cells and encourages formation of cancer tumors.

• Fluoride still not safe, despite tooth-decay data
• Fitness more important than slimness for aged?
• Formaldehyde linked to various cancers
• Elizabeth Edwards' cancer reminds us all of our mortality
• Worst type of drug-resistant TB appears in U.S.

• Is Rapid Weight Loss What You Are Looking For?
• Compound Interest Week: An Introduction
• MonaVie, LLC Tries to Hide that their Juice Hurts Babies
• The Healthiest Day?
• Breakfast - The First Step to Breaking a Sugar Addiction

Just when vitamin D was beginning to look like the cure-all where cancer is concerned—many studies have proclaimed it instrumental in preventing or slowing cancers of the skin, colon, breast, and prostate, to name a few—a new study announced by the U.S. National Cancer Institute says increased vitamin D consumption does not correlate with reduced cancer mortality. The one exception, according to the study’s authors, may be cancer of the colon.

The study did not involve new research. Rather, it analyzed data for 16,818 subjects who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which inducted participants between 1988 and 1994 and followed them through 2000. Participants were given blood tests to establish a baseline at the beginning of their enrollment; it was from these blood tests that the level of vitamin D (as 25-hydroxyvitamin D) was tested against decreased cancer mortality and found to be lacking. In the case of colorectal cancer, however, the study found a 72 percent reduced risk of death when vitamin D levels were sufficiently high.

The study, authored by D. Michal Freedman, Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues, was published in this month’s Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The authors believe it is the first study to test vitamin D blood levels—as opposed to supplement consumption—against cancer mortality.

• New study vindicates meat eaters
• Study links sugar consumption with cancer
• Elizabeth Edwards' cancer reminds us all of our mortality
• Of vaccines, mercury, autism and Julie Gerberding
• The number one killer

• Is Your Sunscreen Making You Sick Instead Of Protecting You?
• Basics of Alzheimer's Disease
• Congress can codify sensible National Institutes of Health research rules
• Intriguing BCS matchups add sizzle to uninspiring college bowl season
• A Bitingly Sarcastic Look at Useless Supplements and Worthless Training Equipment

(Source: Environmental Working Group) – From baby shampoo to diaper wipes, children are exposed every day to products containing chemicals that have not been assessed for their hazards to children, according to an investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) of children’s personal-care products. In an online survey of more than 3,300 parents, EWG found that the average child is exposed through body-care products to 27 chemicals a day that have not been found safe for children, including some associated with cancer, brain and nervous system damage, allergies and hormone disruption.

In fact, these chemicals are common ingredients in baby shampoo, lotion, diaper cream, sunscreen, and other body care products sold for use by chidren. “Children are more at risk than adults from many chemical hazards, but we have no special standards to protect them,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research.

Children are typically more vulnerable to chemicals than adults. A child’s skin is 30 percent thinner than an adult’s, and can absorb greater amounts of chemicals from the skin surface. Children breathe in more air (and air pollution) relative to their weight than adults, and the blood-brain barrier that helps block chemicals from penetrating brain tissue is not fully formed until a baby is six months old. Even then, many chemicals cross this barrier and target developing brain tissue, with potential life-long harmful effects.

According to EWG findings,

• 82% of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients with the potential to harm the brain and nervous system.
• 69% of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients that may disrupt the hormone system, and 3.6% of children are exposed to ingredients with strong data linking them to cancer, including chemicals classified as known or probable human carcinogens.
• 80% of children’s products marked as gentle and non-irritating contain ingredients linked to allergies and skin or eye irritation according to government and industry sources.

The safety of baby products falls under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, unlike the situation for drugs and food additives, the FDA has no power to require that cosmetics be tested for safety before they are sold. And due to other loopholes in the law, manufacturers are free to make any claims they wish, such as “safe” and “ultra mild,” without proof, and many do just that.

“In the absence of adequate regulation, the manufacturers of children’s products should take responsibility to inform and protect their customers,” said Michael Passoff, associate director of the As You Sow Foundation, which supported the study. As You Sow represents shareholders in engaging publicly held companies to adopt more progressive social and environmental policies

“Something shouldn’t be marketed to kids if it’s not proven safe for them,” said Passoff.

Concerned parents should consult EWG’s comprehensive Safety Guide to Children’s Personal Care Products.

• And we think we've got it bad!
• Fluoride message still not getting through
• Honor Earth Day year 'round by eating your way to health
• Tylenol, Motrin, St. Joseph's aspirin recalled
• Bisphenol-A poses major health risks

• Ten things you really dont want to buy.
• Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals Found in Teenage Girls.
• Top 10 Ways To Green Your Children.
• EarthTalk: On Eco-Friendly Fireplace Products.
• Quick Green Reads For The Weekend Volume Seventy Six.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) recently released updated results of a study that has followed over 25,000 workers since the 1980s. The report, which will appear May 20 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found that workers employed at plants that used or produced formaldehyde had an increased risk of dying from blood and lymphatic cancers. In fact, those with the greatest exposure to formaldehyde had a 37% increased risk of death from such cancers compared to those with the least exposure. (more…)

• Elizabeth Edwards' cancer reminds us all of our mortality
• New cancer research examines role of chemo and radiation in spreading tumors
• Ban on toxic toys gets Senate nod
• Children exposed daily to untested personal-care products
• How hog farming has changed North Carolina

• Review: Green Design: A Healthy Home Handbook by Alan Berman
• Solar-Powered Air Conditioner Ready For Prime Time?
• Top 20 best free iPhone apps- Essential free apps for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
• 10 Money-Saving Home Repairs
• How to Fix Your Furniture Before it Breaks: Prevention

We reported more than a year ago on a study that claimed to show a link between consumption of red meat and various cancers, including breast and colorectal cancers. That study came from the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) in collaboration with its parent institution, the World Cancer Research Fund, and was controversial because of its findings.

Now, a new study based on the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study shows no correlations between consumption of meat and postmenopausal breast cancer. (more…)

• National Cancer Institute: vitamin D does not prevent cancer deaths
• Honor Earth Day year 'round by eating your way to health
• Fluoride still not safe, despite tooth-decay data
• Study links sugar consumption with cancer
• Bisphenol-A poses major health risks

• Breast cancer awareness jewelry
• Treatment of Breast Cancer
• pH Miracle Diet
• Sugar, The Other White Drug
• Breast Cancer Awareness and Prevention

There is evidence that the polyphenols found in green tea may slow the progression of prostate cancer, according to a study published recently in Cancer Prevention Research,¹ a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

According to researcher James A. Cardelli, PhD, professor and director of basic and translational research in the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, men with prostate cancer who consumed the active compounds in green tea demonstrated a significant reduction in serum markers predictive of prostate cancer progression.
(more…)

• Formaldehyde linked to various cancers
• Elizabeth Edwards' cancer reminds us all of our mortality
• Fitness more important than slimness for aged?
• Study shows children need more than 9 hours of sleep
• New cancer research examines role of chemo and radiation in spreading tumors

• Food For Thought... and Health
• Kenzo Tokyo Cologne for Men Review
• Does Green Tea Increase Metabolism?
• Arizona Diet Green Tea with Ginseng Review
• Could Research Show That People Are Not Interested In Green Homes?