HealthBeat News

Category: Nutrition and Health

  • Another Chance For Stevia?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Stevia, a naturally sweet herb used safely and effectively for thousands of years by South American indigenous peoples for thousands of years, has gotten a rough ride from the FDA. Jackbooted FDA "swat teams" have raided warehouses and health food stores, confiscated products, even confiscated books that contained recipes that included stevia as a sweetener.

    Since stevia is a naturally-occurring plant it cannot be patented, and it is widely felt that the FDA’s persecution of this innocuous, sweet herb has been carried out at the direction of the artificial sweetener industry in order to protect their toxic but patentable (and profitable) offerings.

    Yes, the future has looked grim for stevia, but there may be a ray of hope on the horizon…

    You may have noticed the headline recently:

    Coke to unveil natural diet drink in U.S.: report – Yahoo! News

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/us_nm/us_cocacola

    It seems that the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico are listening to the demands of consumers for less toxic soft drinks (or perhaps heeding the advice of their corporate lawyers, who must be warning them about the possibility of class-action lawsuits – Vioxx-style), and they have begun investigating stevia as a natural alternative to toxic artificial sweeteners. But it appears that even these giants know what they are up against: they appear to realize that it will not be a simple matter of just adding a bit of herbal stevia to sweeten their offerings – oh, no!

    You see, it is highly unlikely that the FDA will ever admit that it has been wrong about stevia, or back down from their current position on the herb. Certainly not so long as it is a natural and therefore non-patentable substance!

    So, what’s a company to do? Do what the drug companies do – take a natural, harmless substance into the lab and figure out how to modify, concentrate, purify, synthesize or otherwise alter this poor harmless herb until it is un-natural, and therefore patentable!

    Once it has been transformed into a patented compound, Voila! It can be "submitted" to the FDA along with all the necessary bribes – er, fees – that will be required to obtain protection – er, approval – for this new high-tech patented sweetener.

    What will this mean for stevia? My guess is that this new sweetener, some synthesized form or modification of natural stevia, will give the FDA heartburn – because as natural Red Rice Yeast is to synthetic statin drugs, so will stevia be to Truvia or PureVia, or whatever other name some MegaCorporation decides to give their patented version of this natural substance.

    It will be obvious that the natural form of this substance is, as has been maintained all along by proponents of stevia, safe.

    If the FDA continues to declare stevia to be unsafe, then the new, modified sweetener must also be unsafe. If the new modified stevia-based substance is safe, then isn’t the natural stevia also safe? Could this be an uncomfortable "Catch-22" for the mighty FDA?

    It will be fun to watch this one unfold, and to watch the FDA wriggle and squirm as they try to satisfy Big Business’ demands for an ingredient that will satisfy their customers, while they simultaneously try to avoid admitting that they have been wrong about stevia…

  • “Organic Fish” Rules Rejected by U.S. Consumers

    Most HealthBeat News readers know that we have a high regard for Vital Choice Wild Seafood. They send us information and articles from time to time and since the shenanigans of the USDA with their "Organic" labeling is of interest to our readers we have reprinted this article for you here:

    Most Americans surveyed opposed the lax requirements proposed for a USDA Organic label on farmed fish; We find deep nutritional and eco pitfalls in the proposals

    by Craig Weatherby

    A heated battle has raged for years over the rules that would govern issuance of a USDA Organic label for qualifying farmed fish.

    We find it inherently absurd that the USDA is poised to allow an organic label on ocean-farmed fish … but not on wild fish.

    After all, most wild fish would rival or surpass any “organic” ocean-farmed fish in terms of naturalness, purity, nutritional value, and health benefits … regardless of how the battle over the regulations proposed to govern organic fish farming turns out.

    Sadly, that battle may end in compromises that deliver the worst of all possible worlds, as we’ll explain.

    Panel set to allow unsustainable “organic” fish farming

    The bad news starts with the regrettable decisions made last month by a USDA panel, which have been decried by consumer and conservation groups.

    Key Points

    • The USDA would award the organic label to ocean-farmed salmon fed organic feed … but not to sustainable wild salmon with superior nutritional profiles.

    • Proposed provisions would permit “organic” fish farming using methods proven harmful to the ocean and wild fish.

    • Feed requirements based on organic livestock rule would make “organic” ocean-farmed fish less healthful than their wild counterparts.

    • More than 90% of consumers surveyed oppose USDA’s proposed rules for ocean-based “organic” fish farms.

    On November 21, 2008, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted to approve proposed regulations that would free industrial fish farms from key principles and rules that govern production of organic meat and poultry.

    The comment period closed after a November 17 hearing, after which the NOSB approved revised regulatory proposals for organic fish farming.

    But it is not too late to influence the final regulations by writing to your congressional representatives.

    To find your congressperson and senator, and submit comments, go to the House and Senate Web sites: www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

    This article summarizes some key concerns raised by the USDA board’s ill-considered rules for certifying farmed fish as “organic”.

    The organic label implies a high standard of environmental sustainability and human healthfulness that farm-raised carnivorous fish – particularly farmed salmon – would remain very far from meeting under the proposed rules for labeling farmed fish “organic”.

    Here’s the full story.

    Proposed rules set organic principles and optimal nutrition in opposition

    Critical comments submitted to the NOSB by various environmental and consumer groups reveal a contradiction inherent in the idea of farming carnivorous fish like salmon.

    On one hand, existing U.S. organic food production law says that organically raised livestock can only be fed certified organic feed.

    The organic advocates’ stance on feed for organic farmed fish flows from the principle – written into the U.S. organic food act – that organic livestock must be raised on organic grains grown without petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.

    Organic livestock feed is presumed to be purer and more sustainably produced than conventionally grown corn and cereal grains.

    Judging by this standard, farmed fish should not be fed any wild fish, for two reasons:

    • As a practical matter, wild fish cannot be certified as “organic feed” as that term is defined in existing U.S. law.
    • Feeding wild fish to farmed fish is an inherently unsustainable practice that threatens wild fish stocks.

    Those who criticize the USDA panel’s decision to allow wild fish to make up a portion of feed given to organic farmed fish point to the contamination potential involved.

    As the USDA’s critics accurately state, conventional farmed salmon display levels of organic pollutants (e.g., dioxins and PCBs) much higher than wild salmon precisely because they are fed concentrated amounts of fatty wild fish of variable purity.

    Dioxins, PCBs, and similar organic pollutants accumulate in fish fat. However, even the relatively high levels in farmed salmon are vanishingly small, compared to those that can promote cancer in animals. The even more minuscule amounts found in wild salmon – a few parts per trillion – are considered completely safe.

    (Click here to see the relative PCB levels of various foods, including wild and farmed salmon.)

    And if, to harmonize their feed standards with those set for organic livestock, organic farmed fish were not fed wild fish or fish oil, this would compromise the animals’ own health and their nutritional value to humans.

    Let’s explore that conundrum further.

    New proposals make “organic” farmed fish less healthful than wild fish

    To mollify the critics with regard to use of wild fish in farmed fish feed, the USDA board took two steps in their revision of the recently approved regulatory draft.

    Compromise #1 – Limited proportion of wild fish in organic fish feed

    First, the recently approved draft rules would only allow the feed given to “organic” fish to contain 25 percent wild fish … and that proportion would gradually drop to a maximum of five percent wild fish 12 years after the proposed regulations become law.

    Consequently, the remaining 75 to 95 percent of feed given to organic farmed carnivorous fish like salmon would be certified-organic grains, seeds, and seed oils.

    These land-based plant foods are absent from the diets of wild fish, which evolved and thrive on marine-source diets of seaweed, aquatic plants, plan
    kton, and prey fish.

    By limiting the amount of wild fish allowed in their feed, the proposed rule would result in organic farmed fish that are as high in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids as their non-organic counterparts.

    Why is this mandated dietary distinction – one inserted to meet the objections of people who don’t want wild fish fed to farmed fish – important?

    Clinical research shows that people who eat farmed salmon raised on standard, grain-heavy chow display high levels of pro-inflammatory immune system chemicals in their blood: levels associated with higher cardiovascular risk. (See “Farmed Fish Possess Unhealthful Fat Profiles”.)

    In other words, the restriction on use of wild fish meal would make organic fish similar to standard, grain-fed beef and pork in terms of their pro-inflammatory potential in the body: hence, substantially less healthful than their wild counterparts.

    Since most people perceive the “organic” label as signaling a healthier, more natural food, allowing the organic label on fish raised largely on grain would be highly misleading.

    Compromise #2 – No more than one pound of wild fish for every pound of farmed fish

    The second and more sensible compromise inserted in the newly approved proposals is that no more than one pound of wild fish could go into producing each pound of farmed fish … a so-called 1:1 feed-conversion ratio.

    Since conventional farmed fish are typically fed three pounds of wild fish for every pound they weigh at harvest, this step seems to increase the sustainability of farming carnivorous species like salmon.

    However, while the new proposed standards say that the wild fish fed to organic farmed fish must come from “sustainable” fisheries, they include no clear requirements for certifying these fisheries’ sustainability.

    The USDA also claims that a required contaminant-testing program for organic feed would cover wild fish fed to organic farmed fish.

    However, farms would only be subject to feed testing once every five years, which is clearly inadequate to catch polluted wild fish.

    And it would not prevent desperate fish farms from illegally adding prohibited pesticides and antibiotics to fish feed in order to control the parasites and infections that commonly plague salmon farms and other fish raised in offshore net pens.

    The NOSB says it would rely on conventional fishmeal production systems to self-regulate, and to separate sustainable and threatened species, but that will be very difficult to do and police.

    Can organic fish come from polluting systems?

    In a substantial shift from earlier drafts, the proposed rules would allow the use of open-water net pens and cages, whose mesh walls allow pollution, disease and parasites to flow freely into the ocean.

    Net pens are used at all salmon farms, and their inability to contain waste, drug residues, and parasites threatens wild fish and the overall health of the oceans.

    Consumers Union – the folks behind Consumer Reports magazine – criticized the permitted use of net pens for organic farmed fish as inherently incompatible with organic principles (key points underlined for emphasis):

    • “The recommendation for net pens and related management issues should be rejected altogether. The use of open net pens is not only controversial in the discussions around organic fish standards but for conventional aquaculture production.
    • “In fact, the use of open net pens is banned in California and Alaska precisely because of the widespread environmental damage from these systems.
    • “Consumers Union concurs with comments from the Coastal Aquaculture Alliance and Food and Water Watch regarding the use of open net pens as environmentally destructive.
    • “Again, our poll data shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans (more than 90%) do not want organic fish to come from polluting systems …” (CU 2008)

    We agree that raising fish in open ocean net pens violates organic and sustainability principles very seriously.

    The NOSB addresses this concern in its proposed rules, which say that open net pens would only be permitted “… in situations where water depth, current velocities and direction, stocking densities and other factors act to adequately disperse metabolic products in order to minimize any negative impacts on the environment in areas surrounding the pen locations.” 

    If enforced, this provision would mean that the only organic fish farms allowed to use net pens would be ones sited far from shore, in places where currents consistently disperse and dilute waste matter.

    But the major backers of the proposed organic fish label are multi-billion-dollar industrial salmon farm companies using net pens sited close to shore, which are relatively cheap for the producers, but emit waste and parasites that can damage the ocean environment and wild fish badly.

    The public record shows that open net salmon farms inevitably allow escapes that threaten the genetic integrity of their wild counterparts, and fuel the spread of sea lice and infectious diseases to wild fish.

    (For more on the problems linked scientifically to net pen salmon farms, search our newsletter archive for “farm”.)

    Industrial salmon farmers possess great economic and political power, and this leverage gravely undermines our confidence in the USDA’s ability to resist demands to permit problematic net pen systems at “organic” fish farms.

    Consumer survey finds American oppose organic fish rules

    A recent poll by Consumers Union > http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/foodpoll2008.pdf < revealed that most American consumers reject the lax rules proposed by the NOSB for organic fish (CFS 2008):

    • Nine in 10 respondents said that fish labeled “organic” should be produced by 100 percent certified-organic feed, like all other organic livestock.
    • Nine in 10 respondents also agreed that “organic” fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment, and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by “organic” fish farms.

    The NOSB proposals were criticized in comments submitted by Urvashi Rangan, PhD, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, “It’s a disservice to the organic program and to consumers that the NOSB is ready to undermine the organic marketplace which relies on a higher bar for environmental health practices being met.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    “These recommendations do not meet the same bar for other organic livestock production practice and in fact lower the bar, which if enacted will compromise organic quality, value, and undermine consumer confidence–not only in the organic fish that they buy but in organic foods on the whole.” (CU 2008)

    Collectively, Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety, and Food & Water Watch gathered nearly 30,000 signatures in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

    “Consumer trust in the integrity of the organic label is at stake,” said Patty Lovera of Food & Water Watch. “But unfortunately, the NOSB wants to allow the farmed salmon industry to cash in on the organic label without meeting the basic tenets of organic production.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    Conservation groups reject organic fish rules

    Last year, a broad coalition of concerned advocates from 44 organizations –collectively representing more than one million stakeholders and concerned citizens – voiced urgent concern that the NOSB not weaken the standards embodied in the laws governi
    ng organic food production.

    The co-signing organizations concluded that only one kind of fish farming – onshore farming of herbivorous (plant-eating) finfish in enclosed containment ponds – could meet existing organic livestock standards.

    But they all agreed that the farming of carnivorous finfish – such as salmon – in open net cage systems is inherently incompatible with current organic standards and the principles upon which they are based.

    “Allowing net pens to be used on fish farms certified as ‘organic’ weakens the incentive for producers to use innovative technologies like closed containment”, said Shauna MacKinnon of Living Oceans Society, a member of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. “The industry needs technology that controls impacts, not standards that endorse the status quo.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    We agree that the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board should limit the organic label to fish that eat 100% organic feed and are produced in closed, controlled production systems where waste is not flushed into the environment.

    Otherwise, the Board should recommend that farmed fish and seafood cannot meet the current bar for organic standards and are therefore ineligible for an “organic” label.

    Given the power of the aquaculture industry, it will take steady public pressure on Congress to reverse the USDA’s unwise moves.

    Organic-fish rules may preclude non-native species

    Depending on how you read the rather vague language in the regulations the NOSB approved last month, it could effectively disqualify non-native species raised in open ocean net pens.

    That means the overwhelming majority of fish produced by salmon farmers in British Columbia and Chile would not qualify for the USDA’s organic label.

    Atlantic salmon account for most of the salmon produced in Western Canada’s $350-million aquaculture industry, and 90 percent of those fish are shipped to the United States.

    Atlantic salmon are alien to the Pacific Ocean, and were brought to the West Coast only because they have proven cheaper and easier to grow in captivity than indigenous species such as King (Chinook) and Silver (Coho) salmon.

    Sockeye Salmon have so far proved impossible to farm-raise successfully.

     

    Sources

    • Center for Food Safety (CFS). New poll reveals that proposed organic standards for fish will fail to meet consumer expectations. November 13, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/NOSBaquaPR11_13_08.cfm
    • Consumers Union (CU). Comment to National Organic Standards Board on Aquaculture Recommendations; Submitted by Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst, on behalf of Consumers Union, non-profit publisher Consumer Reports. November 18, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/Public%20Comment%20Submission%20to%20National%20Organic%20Standards%20Board%20on%20Aquaculture%20Recommendations.pdf
    • Consumers Union (CU). New Poll Reveals That Proposed "Organic" Standards for Fish Will Fail to Meet Consumer Expectations. November 13, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/006297.html
    • Living on Earth/World Media Foundation. Down on the (Organic) Fish Farm.  Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00047&segmentID=4
    • National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Livestock Committee. Proposed organic aquaculture standards: Net Pens and Related Management Issues. September 28, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5072722
    • Simpson S. Organic label may elude B.C. salmon farmers. Vancouver Sun. Saturday, November 22, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=2f6c02d3-c224-4a59-8c17-c95601841f54 

  • 7 Simple Ways to Decrease Your Cancer Risk:

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

    7 Simple Ways to Decrease Your Cancer Risk

    Modern medical science knows a lot about the causes of cancer — much more, in fact, than we know about its cure. "Carcinogens," or factors that cause cancer, abound in the environment. Avoiding them is one way to prevent cancer. Other factors are protective, helping shield us from getting cancer.

    Here are seven simple steps you can take to greatly reduce your cancer risk.

    1. Take a hike. Even modest amounts of weekly activity have been associated with decreased risk of breast, colon, prostate, kidney, esophageal and perhaps other types of cancers. So get out those walking shoes and take a brisk walk — or any other form of your favorite activity that gets your blood pumping — for at least 30 minutes, three times a week.

    2. Spice up your life. Many common spices have proven anti-cancer benefits. Liberal use of herbs and spices, especially turmeric, garlic and onions, cayenne pepper, ginger, caraway, orange and lemon zest (grated orange or lemon peel), basil, rosemary and mint will not only add more flavor to food, but also help keep cancer away.

    3. Let the sun shine in. Rates of skin cancer (malignant melanoma) are rising 7% per years in the U.S. Yet for thousands of years "B.S." (before sunscreen), skin cancer was not a major problem. Skin cancers are NOT caused by moderate sun exposure. In fact, the vitamin D created in our bodies in response to sunlight is highly cancer-protective. For those who have trouble getting sufficient sunlight to manufacture a healthy dose of vitamin D (about 12 minutes of sunlight per day), vitamin D supplements appear to be nearly as protective. The recommended supplemental dose is 2,000-3,000IU of vitamin D3 per day.

    4. Kick butt. That’s right, don’t smoke (or chew) tobacco. Tobacco smoke (cigarettes, cigars, pipes) is associated with a LONG list of cancers, including oral cavity/pharynx, larynx, esophagus, bladder, bowel, stomach, pancreatic, cervical and uterine cancer — oh yes, and lung cancer. (See Smoking: Just the Facts on the Wellness Club website or page 26 of your Holistic Health Handbook for a complete list of problems caused by exposure to tobacco smoke). Tobacco in any form (smoked, chewed) is a proven risk factor for cancer. Even second-hand smoke appears to increase risk of some cancers. Kick butt while the kickin’ is good.

    5. Stay "lean and keen." Maintain a normal weight. Statistics released April 2003 by the American Cancer Society estimate that at least 90,000 cancer deaths annually are attributable to overweight and obesity. Cancers known to be associated with increased body (fat) weight include: breast, prostate, colon, endometrial, and multiple myeloma.

    6. Don’t over-expose yourself. (Avoid environmental exposure to carcinogens).

      Environmental exposure: cancer-causing agents are all around us; most are man-made but some are naturally occurring. Evaluate your surroundings for these known cancer-causing substances:

      A.) Radon: a naturally occurring, odorless gas that comes out of the ground and can infiltrate a house through the basement. If you have a basement in your home, inexpensive tests will tell you if your level is above 4 picocuries per liter (the minimum safe level). Correction is as easy as ensuring adequate ventilation. Radon causes lung cancer.

      B.) Asbestos: Homes built before 1980 may have asbestos insulation. Either leave it alone or have it removed by a qualified contractor. Asbestos causes lung cancer.

      C.) Workplace hazards: If you work with chemicals, including construction materials (paints, thinners, etc.), be sure to wear protective masks, gloves and other clothing. If you are unsure of your exposure, find out what chemicals you are handling and take appropriate precautions.

      D.) Water. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: water is a common source of carcinogens and other disease-causing contaminants. Check your water report yearly. If you use city-supplied water, ask for a water report that will be provided for free. If you use well water, have your water tested annually. Go to www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/sco.html to find a local lab for water testing or use the service that we use: E-watertest provides easy and accurate water quality testing This service is convenient, inexpensive and well (!) worth the cost!

      E.) Cosmetics: from shampoo to deodorant to face powder, cosmetics contain a wide array of cancer-causing substances. Even BABY SHAMPOOS and creams contain known carcinogens! Evaluate your cosmetic ingredients at this link: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php?nothanks=1

      F.) Minimize "food hazards," including antibiotics and hormones in meat and dairy (organic is preferred). "Buy organic" for those fruits and vegetables on "The Dirty Dozen" list (produce that is highest in insecticides, herbicides and other carcinogenic chemicals). Review THE DIRTY DOZEN fruits and vegetables here: http://www.foodnews.org

    7. Eat "Super Foods." Some foods are healthy, but others are super-healthy. Vegetables including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, onion and garlic contain potent anti-cancer substances. Pacific (wild) salmon and flax seed (and oil) are high in Omega-3 fatty acids. Flax seed also contains an anti-cancer form of fiber called lignin. Concentrated tomato products are high in lycopene, a protective carotene. Add these foods to your daily "must have" list of cancer prevention foods.

    Estimates suggest that 70-90% of all cancers are preventable by making these few lifestyle changes and taking precautions.

    References

    Exercise:
    A.) Physical activity in the prevention of cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Jan-Mar;7(1):11-21.
    B.) Weight control and physical activity in cancer prevention: international evaluation of the evidence.Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002 Aug;11 Suppl 2:S94-100.
    C.) Physical activity and cancer: lessons learned from nutritional epidemiology.Nutr Rev.2001 Nov;59(11):349-57.
    * Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence.CMAJ. 2006 Mar 14;174(6):801-9.
    * Associations between physical activity and susceptibility to cancer: possible mechanisms.Sports Med. 1998 Nov;26(5):293-315.
    *Physical activity and cancer etiology: associations and mechanisms. Cancer Causes Control. 1998 Oct;9(5):487-509.
    * Lifetime physical activity and prostate cancer risk.Int J Cancer. 2005 Apr 20;114(4):639-42.
    * Long-term recreational physical activity and risk of invasive and in situ breast cancer: the California teachers study. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 26;167(4):408-15.
    * Exercise and colon cancer: primary and secondary prevention. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007 Apr;6(2):120-4. Links
    Spices:
    * Botanicals in cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 200
    2;21(3-4):231-55.
    * Curcumin inhibits human colon cancer cell growth by suppressing gene expression of epidermal growth factor receptor through reducing the activity of the transcription factor Egr-1. Oncogene. 2006 Jan 12;25(2):278-87.
    * Mechanisms of curcumin- and EGF-receptor related protein (ERRP)-dependent growth inhibition of colon cancer cells.Nutr Cancer. 2006;55(2):185-94.
    * Multiple molecular targets in cancer chemoprevention by curcumin. AAPS J. 2006 Jul 7;8(3):E443-9.
    * Chemopreventive properties of curcumin. Future Oncol. 2005 Jun;1(3):405-14.
    * Garlic-derived organosulfides induce cytotoxicity, apoptosis, cell cycle arrest and oxidative stress in human colon carcinoma cell lines. Neoplasma. 2006;53(3):191-9.
    * Differential effects of allyl sulfides from garlic essential oil on cell cycle regulation in human liver tumor cells. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Dec;42(12):1937-47.
    * Cancer chemoprevention with garlic and its constituents.Cancer Lett. 2007 Mar 18;247(2):167-81. Epub 2006 Jun 21.
    * Garlic – A Natural Source of Cancer Preventive Compounds. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2002;3(4):305-311.
    * Capsaicin inhibits growth of adult T-cell leukemia cells. Leuk Res. 2003 Mar;27(3):275-83.
    * Chemoprotective effects of capsaicin and diallyl sulfide against mutagenesis or tumorigenesis by vinyl carbamate and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Carcinogenesis. 1995 Oct;16(10):2467-71.
    * Chemoprotective properties of some pungent ingredients present in red pepper and ginger. Mutat Res. 1998 Jun 18;402(1-2):259-67.
    * Anti-tumor-promoting activities of selected pungent phenolic substances present in ginger. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1999;18(2):131-9.
    * Chemopreventive efficacy of ginger, a naturally occurring anticarcinogen during the initiation, post-initiation stages of 1,2 dimethylhydrazine-induced colon cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2005 Aug;358(1-2):60-7.
    * Effect of dietary caraway (Carum carvi L.) on aberrant crypt foci development, fecal steroids, and intestinal alkaline phosphatase activities in 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-induced colon carcinogenesis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 1;214(3):290-6. Epub 2006 Feb 17.
    * Prevention and therapy of cancer by dietary monoterpenes. J Nutr. 1999 Mar;129(3):775S-778S.
    * Citrus peel use is associated with reduced risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Nutr Cancer. 2000;37(2):161-8.
    * Chemoprevention and therapy of cancer by d-limonene. Crit Rev Oncog. 1994;5(1):1-22.
    * Chemomodulatory efficacy of basil leaf (Ocimum basilicum) on drug metabolizing and antioxidant enzymes, and on carcinogen-induced skin and forestomach papillomagenesis. Phytomedicine. 2004 Feb;11(2-3):139-51.
    * Anticancer and radioprotective potentials of Mentha piperita. Biofactors. 2004;22(1-4):87-91.
    Sunshine (vit D)
    *Moan, J. & Dahlback, A. The relationship between skin cancers, solar radiation and ozone depletion. British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 65, No. 6, June 1992, pp. 916-21
    *Miller, Dena L. & Weinstock, Martin A. Nonmelanoma skin cancer in the United States: incidence. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Vol. 30, No. 5, Pt. 1, May 1994, pp. 774-78
    *Garland, Cedric F., et al. Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk? American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, No. 4, April 1992, pp. 614-15
    * Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.
    * The epidemiology of vitamin D and colorectal cancer: recent findings. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2006 Jan;22(1):24-9.
    * Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: pooled analysis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):708-11.
    * Cancer chemoprevention using natural vitamin D and synthetic analogs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:421-42.
    * Vitamin D and vitamin D analogs as cancer chemopreventive agents. Nutr Rev. 2003 Jul;61(7):227-38.
    * Vitamin D and reduced risk of breast cancer: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Mar;16(3):422-9.
    Smoking
    * Cigar smoking in men and risk of death from tobacco-related cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 16;92(4):333-7.
    * Cigarette smoking and bladder cancer in men: a pooled analysis of 11 case-control studies. Int J Cancer. 2000 Apr 15;86(2):289-94.
    * Cigarette smoking, use of other tobacco products and stomach cancer mortality in US adults: The Cancer Prevention Study II. Int J Cancer. 2002 Oct 1;101(4):380-9.
    * Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer mortality in the cancer prevention study II. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Dec 6;92(23):1888-96.
    * Smokeless and other noncigarette tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: a case-control study based on direct interviews.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Jan;13(1):55-8.
    * Lung cancer among cigar and pipe smokers.Prev Med. 1988 Jan;17(1):116-28.
    * Risk of bladder cancer by source and type of tobacco exposure: a case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1989 Oct 15;44(4):622-8.
    * Tobacco use in relation to renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 May;7(5):429-33.
    * Cigarette smoking and cervical cancer: Part I: a meta-analysis.Biomed Pharmacother. 2003 Mar;57(2):67-77.
    * Passive cigarette smoking is a risk factor in cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Apr;93(1):116-20.
    * Can the number of cigarettes smoked predict high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women with mildly abnormal cervical smears? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Aug;179(2):399-402.
    * Active and passive cigarette smoking and the risk of cervical neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):174-81.
    * The fragile histidine triad gene: a molecular link between cigarette smoking and cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15;11(16):5756-63.
    Weight:
    * Epidemiology and pathophysiology of obesity as cause of cancer.Swiss Med Wkly. 2007 Jan 27;137(3-4):50-6.
    * Obesity and cancer. Oncogene. 2004 Aug 23;23(38):6365-78.Summary: colon, female breast (postmenopausal), endometrium, kidney (renal cell), and esophagus (adenocarcinoma).
    * Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2001 Feb 1;91(3):421-30.
    * Risk factors for breast cancer in elderly women.Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Nov 1;160(9):868-75.
    * Anthropometric characteristics and risk of multiple myeloma. Epidemiology. 2005 Sep;16(5):691-4.
    * Obesity, adipokines, and prostate cancer (review). Int J Oncol. 2006 Mar;28(3):737-45.
    * Obesity and colorectal cancer: epidemiology, mechanisms and candidate genes. J Nutr Biochem. 2006 Mar;17(3):145-56. Epub 2005 Oct 27.
    * Association of incident carcinoma of the endometrium with body weight and fat distribution in older women: early findings of the Iowa Women’s Health Study.Cancer Res. 1989 Dec 1;49(23):6828-31.
    * Body size and breast cancer risk: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer And Nutrition (EPIC).Int J Cancer. 2004 Sep 20;111(5):762-71.
    Environmental Toxins
    * Lung cancer risk associated to exposure to radon and smoking in a case-control study of French uranium miners.Health Phys. 2007 Apr;92(4):371-8.
    * Asbestos-related lung disease. Am Fam Physician. 2007 Mar 1;75(5):683-8.
    * Worker exposure and health risks from volatile organic compounds utilized in the paint manufacturing industry of Kenya. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Nov;16(11):1035-42.
    * Drinking water and cancer incidence in Iowa. III. Association of cancer with indices of contamination. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Jun;121(6):856-69.
    * Tetrachloroethylene-contaminated drinking water in Massachusetts and t
    he risk of colon-rectum, lung, and other cancers. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Apr;107(4):265-71.
    * EWG’s interactive product safety guide to find cosmetics free of cancer-causing impurities.
    * From Campaign for Safe Cosmetics – Read about Dr. David Steinman’s new product tests for a cancer-causing impurity [PDF] called 1,4-dioxane, including tests of children’s products.
    * Branched fatty acids in dairy and beef products markedly enhance alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase expression in prostate cancer cells in vitro. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Aug;12(8):775-83.
    * Estrogen: one of the risk factors in milk for prostate cancer. Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(1):133-42.
    * The possible role of female sex hormones in milk from pregnant cows in the development of breast, ovarian and corpus uteri cancers. Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(6):1028-37. Epub 2005 Aug 24.
    * Diet and cancer prevention: where we are, where we are going. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):225-31.
    * Dietary isothiocyanate iberin inhibits growth and induces apoptosis in human glioblastoma cells. J Pharmacol Sci. 2007 Feb;103(2):247-51.
    * Tea and lycopene protect against prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16 Suppl 1:453-7.
    * A prospective study of dietary flavonoid intake and incidence of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 30; [Epub ahead of print].
    * Nutrition and cancer: the current epidemiological evidence. Br J Nutr. 2006 Aug;96 Suppl 1:S42-5.

    1. Vitamin-less Vegetables: The New Nutrient Deficiency

      Who Cares about Vegetables?

      The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the FDA and the USDA consider vegetables one of the primary dietary sources of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients (non-vitamin, non-mineral nutrients derived from plants). Why? Because optimal levels of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients are necessary to prevent cancer, heart disease, neurological disease, and diabetes to name only a few. In other words, those in science and medicine agree that humans need the nutrients contained in vegetables and some fruits for proper nutrition and good health. In fact, nutrient deficiencies are considered by many physicians and scientists to be one of the primary causes of disease today. Because of this, the current USDA recommendation is to eat 3-5 servings of vegetables and 2-4 servings of fruit per day.

      The Sad News about Vegetables and Vitamins

      YOU DO NOT EAT enough vegetables and high-nutrient fruits. How do I know this even if I don’t know you? Consider these facts:

      I.) Most Americans do not achieve even the minimum 5 per day servings of produce. The current recommendations for veggie/fruit intake are 5-9 per day. A pickle, lettuce leaf, onion ring and ketchup on your burger DO NOT count as 4 servings of vegetables! Commercial fruit juice counts toward little but sugar intake because enzymes, fiber and vitamins are destroyed during processing. A side of french fries or onion rings with your burger don’t constitute a serving of nutrient-dense vegetable due to their high trans fat content and the fact that nutrients are destroyed during high-heat cooking. Further, for reason stated in #2 (below), even if you DO get 5-9 legitimate servings of vegetables per day, this current recommendation is almost surely NOT enough.

      II.) Commercially grown vegetables and fruits today do not contain as many nutrients as before. According to Institute of Nutrition, recent studies of more than a dozen fruits and vegetables demonstrate a decrease in the nutrient value of most, and in some cases the drop is drastic. For instance, the Vitamin A content in apples has dropped from 90 mg to 53mg. Vitamin C in sweet peppers has decreased from 128mg to 89mg. This is why many at the NAS think the 5-9 servings recommendation should be doubled. (Math help: this updated recommendation would equal 10-18 servings per day of vegetables and fruits).

      III.) Storing and/or cooking destroy many nutrients, rendering them “less” than a serving of the recommended daily dose.

      Vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients (“plant nutrients” including bioflavonoids, carotenoids, proanthocyanidins, etc.) are crucial to good health, yet even a “good” Standard American Diet (SAD) does not contain enough of these nutrients to meet the proven standards that prevent disease. Further, surveys show that most Americans do not obtain the lower recommendation of 5 servings per day, let alone the upper recommendation of 9 servings per day. Nutritional Supplementation appears both valuable and necessary in achieving the proven health-protective doses of nutrients.

      Dr. Myatt’s Comment: While the USDA, FDA and commercial agri-business assure us that vegetables and fruits are as healthy as ever, the USDA’s own records show a plummeting level of nutrients since the 1960’s. All the while, medical science keeps stacking up new studies that demonstrate the disease-preventing effects of optimal doses of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. Still, you’ll read propaganda that assures you that you don’t need supplements because you can obtain everything you need from “a good diet.” (And you probably could get everything you need from diet IF you ate 5-9 servings of produce that was home-grown and eaten fresh, meat that was grass-fed without antibiotics and hormones, and dairy from same). But that’s not the reality of the American diet. Perhaps that is why, in spite spending more money on healthcare than any country in the world, the US ranks only 24th in life expectancy.

      All unsupported claims to the contrary, nutritional supplementation with vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients appears to be the safest, surest and least expensive way to stay healthy and reverse disease.

      Here is what I personally take and recommend to others to help achieve optimal daily nutrition:

      Maxi Multi multi vitamin, mineral and trace mineral supplement with optimal does of nutrients (the levels shown in studies to prevent disease), not minimal doses.
      AND
      Maxi Greens high potency multiple green food supplement in capsules
      AND/OR
      GreensFirst or Red Alert, powdered, great-tasting green food supplements that has the equivalent of 10 servings of veggies and fruits in one refreshing drink. (The taste is so good you can even get kids to take it)!

      And here’s a handy tip from Wellness Club member JoAnne, who dries out her empty water bottles, adds a serving of GreensFirst and takes the bottles to work. For a quick pick-me-up, she just adds water and shakes!
      ______________________
      References
      5 a day guide
      http://www.5aday.gov/what/index.html
      USDA
      http://www.usda.gov
      Veggies w/out Vitamins
      http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/0601.LEMag/LE%20Magazine,%20March%202001%20-%20Report%20Vegetables%20Without%20Vitamins.htm
      Drop in minerals concerns organic community
      http://www.newstarget.com/016626.html
      Organic consumer association
      http://www.organicconsumers.org/ofgu/vegies121205.cfm

      New Study Shows Decreasing Nutrient Value of Certain Fruits and Vegetables – An Increasing Need for Multivitamin and Mineral Complex Supplements
      http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2006/2/prweb340975.htm

      Population Life Expectancy
      http://www.geohive.com/charts/pop_lifespan.php

    2. Lettuce And Spinach To Be Secretly Irradiated! Say It Isn’t So!

      It Isn’t So!

      There has been somewhat of a flurry of outrage recently with the FDA announcement that on August 22, 2008, they published a final rule allowing the use of irradiation on fresh iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach. The FDA claims that this will make them "safer and last longer without spoiling."

      Opponents are claiming all sorts of evil ranging from the destruction of all nutritive value in treated foods (not that there is much these days anyway – see Dr. Myatt’s article "Vitaminless Vegetables") to actually causing the consumers of irradiated food to "glow in the dark"!

      So where is the truth in all of this? Somewhere in the middle, as usual.

      It is true that irradiation of food can kill certain bacteria, this rendering the food safer and less susceptible to spoilage – a boon to consumers who are less likely to become ill from eating contaminated food, and for the food industry who can enjoy a longer shelf-life and thus increased profits.

      It is also true that irradiation affects, alters, and reduces the nutritive values of foods – the FDA says as much in their "Final Rule" printed in the Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations.

       http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E8-19573.pdf (Warning: this is a stupefyingly boring paper to read!)

      According to this paper the FDA also reassures us that it really doesn’t matter that the nutritive values of foods are altered and vitamins are destroyed – after all, the FDA would have us believe that vitamins are not really necessary for health beyond the tiny amounts of the RDA’s…

      It is certainly NOT true that eating irradiated foods will cause someone to "glow in the dark" as one well-known activist wrote!

      In response to an article by that activist, who has a large readership for his very popular newsletter, we received this note from one of our HealthBeat News readers who is also a friend and neighbor:

      This was recently sent to me … just makes me crazy.  Thought you might find it interesting.
      Hope all if well with both of you.
      Jamie O

      Jamie then referred us to a very alarmist article by "Health Ranger" Mike Adams posted on his website naturalnews.com where he reports "beginning today, spinach and lettuce sold across the United States may now be secretly irradiated before it reaches grocery store shelves."

      This is the same article where he warns that those who eat irradiated foods will "glow in the dark."

      Folks, you need to know that I am no friend of the FDA – I think that it is a bureaucracy out-of-control.

      I also think that the jury is still out on the irradiation of food – I’m not yet convinced that it is entirely safe or healthy though I do concede that it is certainly effective for it’s stated purpose.

      I further think that writer Mike Adams, the self-described "Health Ranger", makes some good points about many things – there is much we agree upon.

      But for heaven’s sakes, let’s ease up on the rhetoric! I feel that there is nothing to be gained, and everything to be lost, by the sort of alarmist writing and outright fabrications that his article present. This kind of writing just gets us all branded as "nut-balls" and "conspiracy theorists" and diminishes our credibility.

      Let’s look at this "Health Ranger" article: http://www.naturalnews.com/023945.html

      Adams’ first claim is that "spinach and lettuce sold across the United States may now be secretly irradiated before it reaches grocery store shelves" further claiming that "irradiated foods will not be labeled as such, and consumers are going to be left in the dark about all this".

      Unfortunately, Adams’ article contains no references to tell me where he found this information – I had to look for it myself and after much research I must conclude that this just isn’t true.

      According to several FDA documents, "Irradiation of iceberg lettuce and spinach is voluntary on the part of food processors. FDA requires that foods that have been irradiated bear the "radura" logo along with the statement "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation.""

      This regulation is found in a number of sources, including the FDA press release regarding irradiation of lettuce and spinach: http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/irradiation082208.html – there are also statements regarding mandatory labeling here: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title21/21-3.0.1.1.10.html#21:3.0.1.1.10.2.1.3 and here: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html – They seem pretty clear to me…

      Next Adams gives us his "glow in the dark" statement. This is pure alarmist hyperbole, and is so silly that it is not really worth commenting on. Just shake your head in amazement that he (or his editors) would allow this to be published and move on…

      Then Adams claims that "The FDA, of course, insists that the levels of irradiation used to kill e.coli will have no effect whatsoever on the nutritional value of the food."

      This again is not quite true: As I read through the Federal Register referred to in this article it is quite clear that the FDA is aware that a number of nutrients are adversely affected by irradiation – they just don’t think it matters very much.

      Adams further claims that irradiation removes all the nutritive value from food by destroying all phytonutrients: "lowering the value to zero by destroying all the phytonutrients does not, in the opinion of the FDA, alter its nutritional value at all."

      I have a little bit of a problem with the absolute nature of this statement – my review of available research indicates that irradiation does indeed alter and reduce some nutrient, phytonutrient, and vitamin levels – but it does not somehow mysteriously suck all the nutritive value from food – that is just silly.

      Adams does lighten up a bit with the next statement: "irradiating food destroys much of its nutritional content, including vitamins, carotenoids, anthocyanins and other delicate protective nutrients that are right now providing the last, desperate nutritional defense against the American diet of meat, milk, fried foods and processed junk."

      Fair enough – so perhaps irradiation only destroys some of the nutritive value – but if Americans are relying on that silly little bit of wilted lettuce and soggy slice of tomato to transform their deluxe cheeseburger and fries into something even remotely healthy they are sadly, tragically misinformed.

      What really upsets me with the "Health Ranger" and this article is that it is clearly misleading and very alarming – obviously written to "stir up" and agitate his audience who he feels will accept these statements at face value as some sort of "gospel truth." He gets away with this by failing to provide any references for his statements. If the FDA has stated that labeling is not necessary for example, where is the reference to the FDA document where this can be found?

      Like many HealthBeat rea
      ders, I will continue to read Adams’ articles – but I’m afraid he has lost forever some of the confidence and trust that I had in his work.

      The moral of this story? Be sure, when you read any health article that is making any sort of claim that there are verifiable references for what is being said.

      Opinion is one thing – but if something is being presented as a statement of fact, well, if it ain’t referenced, it ain’t so!