9 Tips for Cancer Prevention

This is an excellent article and one that should be copied and posted on the refrigerator.  It should also be shared with everyone you know.

When you read that "Four of every 10 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes, and two of every 10 will die from it"  this should raise some eyebrows and motivate all of us to take action.

 Cancer Prevention Tips Environmental Working Group

The Vitamin Scam

In the Reader’s Digest April 2010 issue an article appeared which implied that vitamins are a scam. (The Vitamin Scam). I have reprinted a response to that article from Dr. Stephen G. Chaney

Steve Chaney PhD Dr. Chaney holds a B.S. in Chemistry from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from UCLA.


Currently he’s a professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and the Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina where he teaches first year medical students and has headed an active cancer research program for 30 years.


Dr. Chaney has published over 95 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, plus 12 reviews and two chapters on nutrition for one of the leading biochemistry textbooks for medical students today. He’s also been named “Teacher of the Year” several times by the first year medical students and currently holds a Medical Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professorship.


Lots of you have asked me to comment on the recent Reader's Digest article called "The Vitamin Scam". If you believed that article you'd think that, except for vitamin D, all supplements were worthless - and they might even kill you.

The sad thing is that I've written about this many times before...yet the myths keep resurfacing. It's sort of like "Whack a Mole". You whack one and another pops up somewhere else!

But let me start at the beginning: The author is a journalist - not a dietitian, a scientist or a doctor! And the role of journalists is to sell magazines, papers or TV ads. The more controversial the article the better. If it draws attention, it sells.

Some critics have said that journalists "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". But that is, perhaps, not entirely fair. It's just that journalists seldom have the time or inclination to write about the subtleties of the science or point out that there are two sides to the story.


So let me make a few comments about each of the so-called myths that were "exposed" by the Reader’s Digest article.


Myth #1: A multivitamin can make up for a bad diet:


The author quotes one study that suggests that multivitamin use did not decrease the risk of cancer, heart disease or stroke. There are several other studies that have come to the opposite conclusion, but the author failed to mention those. However, none of the studies are definitive by themselves, so I think that it is fair to say that the jury is still out on this one.


I also think that it is asking a lot of a multivitamin tablet to believe that it could significantly reduce the risk of disease by itself. For example, in the Landmark study the multivitamin user group had the same or higher risk of disease than the non-supplement user group. It was only the Shaklee group, who were taking a more comprehensive approach to supplementation, that had a significantly decreased incidence of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.


Myth #2: Vitamin C is a cold fighter.


The author says that vitamin C is ineffective in preventing the common cold, but does decrease the severity of the common cold. That is actually correct, but the author worded the findings in such a negative light that you might think "Why bother?"


Vitamin C is actually often fairly effective at decreasing the symptoms of the common cold. If the cold symptoms are mild enough that you hardly know you have it, that's good enough for me.


Myth #3: Vitamin pills can prevent heart disease:


The author quoted several studies in concluding that vitamin E and B vitamins were ineffective at decreasing the risk of heart disease. But the bottom line is that supplementation makes little or no difference in cardiovascular disease or deaths if you are at low risk of heart disease – but makes a significant difference if you are at high risk.


I'm not sure that we really needed a lot of high powered clinical studies to prove that. It's just common sense! By the way, are you really sure that you are at low risk of heart disease? The first symptom is often sudden death!


Myth #4: Vitamin pills can protect against cancer:


Again the author would have you believe that supplements were worthless in reducing cancer risk. Once again supplementation had little benefit in women at low risk of breast cancer, but made a big difference in women at high risk.


Myth #5: Hey, It Can't Hurt:


Here the author dredges up those old reports that claim that vitamin E, beta-carotene or folic acid might even do more harm than good.


I've covered this topic in some past articles like"What Can We Believe About Vitamin E?", "Folic Acid: Friend Or Foe?" and "Folic Acid Recommendations – Who Decides?"


There are several take home points here:


1. Most of those reports were single studies and were outweighed by many other studies showing no detrimental effects of those supplements.


2. Even if we take the supposed risks at face value, they are far outweighed by the other beneficial effects of those supplements.


3. Finally, if there are any detrimental effects they were probably due to use of high purity individual nutrients such as alpha-tocopherol alone, beta-carotene alone or folic acid alone.


In theory that can be a problem because they could interfere with the absorption of related nutrients like gamma-tocopherol or alpha-carotene - which have health benefits of their own.


Those risks would not apply to supplements that contained all of the vitamin E family, all of the carotenoids or all of the B vitamins in balance.

It is unfortunate that articles like this come out from time to time because they confuse and worry those people who might really benefit from supplementation. Of course, it's not just the anti-supplement group that writes misleading articles. There are just as many articles in the magazines hyping the latest "snake-oil" remedies.

The truth, as always, is hard to find.

To Your Health!

Dr. Stephen G Chaney

Thank you, Dr. Cheney for your wonderful incites.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me by filling out the request form on the right side bar.

The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

This a compelling new report put out last week by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.  It created quite a stir in the media so I wanted to be sure my readers had a chance to read it for themselves and take action.  If you are tired of the governments lack of concern regarding the dangers of toxic chemicals in our homes, speak up on behalf of chemical reform by adding your name to the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign.

The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act: Executive Summary

There is growing agreement across the political spectrum that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not adequately protect Americans from toxic chemicals. In the 34 years since TSCA was enacted, the EPA has been able to require testing on just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S., and just five chemicals have been regulated under this law. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked Congress to provide her agency with better chemical management tools for safeguarding our nation’s health.[1]




Much has changed since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago. Scientists have developed a more refined understanding of how some chemicals can cause and contribute to serious illness, including cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, neurologic diseases, and asthma.



The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition believes that, by reforming TSCA, we can reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals, improve our nation’s health, and lower the cost of health care. This report documents some of the scientific findings and economic analysis underlying our position.



Chronic disease is on the rise

More than 30 years of environmental health studies have led to a growing consensus that chemicals are playing a role in the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and disorders in our country, including:



•Leukemia, brain cancer, and other childhood cancers, which have increased by more than 20% since 1975.[2]

•Breast cancer, which went up by 40% between 1973 and 1998.[3] While breast cancer rates have declined since 2003, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.[4]

•Asthma, which approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995 and has stayed at the elevated rate.[5][6]

•Difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy affected 40% more women in 2002 than in 1982. The incidence of reported difficulty has almost doubled in younger women, ages 18–25.[7][8][9]

•The birth defect resulting in undescended testes, which has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993.[10]

•Autism, the diagnosis of which has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.[11]

The health and economic benefits of reforming TSCA

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 133 million people in the U.S.—almost half of all Americans—are now living with these and other chronic diseases and conditions, which now account for 70% of deaths and 75% of U.S. health care costs.[12]



Estimates of the proportion of the disease burden that can be attributed to chemicals vary widely, ranging from 1% of all disease[13] to 5% of childhood cancer[14] to 10% of diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and neurodevelopmental deficits[15] to 30% of childhood asthma.[14] Whatever the actual contribution, effective chemical policy reform will incorporate the last 30 years of science to reduce the chemical exposures that contribute to the rising incidence of chronic disease. And any decline in the incidence of chronic diseases can also be expected to bring health care cost savings. Even if chemical policy reform leads to reductions in toxic chemical exposures that translate into just a tenth of one percent reduction of health care costs, it would save the U.S. health care system an estimated $5 billion every year.



The U.S. now spends over $7,000 per person per year directly on health care.[12] This sum does not include the many other kinds of costs, such as the costs of raising a child with a severe learning disability or coping with a young mother’s breast cancer diagnosis. Chemical policy reform holds the promise of reducing the economic, social and personal costs of chronic disease by creating a more healthy future for all Americans.

For more information and to take action now, please visit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Citations:


1.^U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Administrator Jackson Unveils New Administration Framework for Chemical Management Reform in the United States,” http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D07993FDCF801C-2285257640005D27A6 (accessed November 8, 2009)

2.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., America’s Children and the Environment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008)

3.^Holly L. Howe, et al., “Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer (1973 through 1998), Featuring Cancers with Recent Increasing Trends,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93, no. 11 (June 2001): 824–42

4.^Janet Gray, ed, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, (San Francisco: Breast Cancer Fund, 2008)

5.^Tracey J. Woodruff, et al., “Trends in Environmentally Related Childhood Illnesses,” Pediatrics, 113, no. 4 (April 2004): 1133– 1140

6.^Jeanne E. Moorman, et al., “National Surveillance for Asthma, United States 1980–2004,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5608a1.htm (November 1, 2009)

7.^Anjani Chandra and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen, “Impaired Fecundity in the United States: 1982–1995,” Family Planning Perspectives, 30, no 1, (1998): 34–42

8.^Anjani Chandra, et al., “Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of US Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth,” Vital and Health Statistics, 23, no. 25 (2005)

9.^Kate Brett, “Fecundity in 2002 National Survey of Family Growth Women 15–24 Years of Age”, Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics (2008)

10.^Leonard J. Paulozzi, “International Trends in Rates of Hypospadias and Cryptorchidism,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 107, no. 4, (1999): 297–302

11.^National Institute of Mental Health, “NIMH’s Response to New Autism Prevalence Estimate,” http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/updates/2009/nimhs-response-tonew-autism-prevalence-estimate.shtml (November 4, 2009)

12.^ abNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, The Power of Prevention: Chronic Disease...the Public Health Challenge of the 21st Century, (Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009)

13.^Commission of the European Communities, “Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH), establishing European Chemicals Agency and Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Extended Impact Assessment.” (October 29, 2003): 30

14.^ abPhilip J. Landrigan, et al., “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, No. 7 (July 2002): 721–8

15.^Tom Muir and Mike Zegarac, “Societal Costs of Exposure to Toxic Substances: Economic and Health Costs of Four Case Studies That Are Candidates for Environmental Causation,” Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements, 109, No. S6 (December 2001): 885–903

Endocrine Disruptors: How Do They Affect Us?

Well, this is another huge topic. And so to keep this blog as concise as possible, I will give you the abridged response. But again, I urge you to please do your own due diligence and learn as much as you can about endocrine disruptors.

How do they affect us? It starts before birth in the womb. What a mother has been exposed to throughout life as well as what she takes in during her pregnancy become the legacy of the next generation. Many exposures during pregnancy don’t even manifest themselves until the child reaches sexual maturity or beyond.

Children are exposed to more chemicals today than ever before. As a result we are seeing a more rapid maturation process. Doctors are seeing eight-, nine-, and ten-year-olds exhibiting signs of early puberty.

Endocrine disruption has also been linked to an increase in childhood cancers & asthma, abnormal development of sex organs; in addition, birth defects, preterm births and low birth weight babies are increasing in number. Lower IQ’s, behavior and attention issues also may be linked to endocrine disruptors.

Problems related to men’s health range from reproductive issues like low sperm count and testicular cancer to other types of cancers such as leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease; and an increase in heart disease has been seen in several dioxin-exposed populations.

There are a number of women’s health conditions that are possibly related to hormone-disrupting chemicals in the body: endometriosis, uterine fibroids, benign breast disease, PMS, ovarian cysts, infertility and increase in reproductive cancers. And this is just a partial list.

Think for a minute – I bet you have friends or family members who have experienced some of the above mentioned issues. I can tell you that I personally have encountered many of them among my clients and friends, and I truly believe that this is a topic that we must treat seriously.

The information that I have been sharing with you may be alarming to some. But because it is a serious issue that historically has not gotten a lot of press, I am determined to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can. There are things we all can do to alleviate our exposures to endocrine disruptors, but people have to know that they have been exposed to them in order to be proactive about make changes. Spreading awareness is the essence of what I do…I hope you have been enlightened but what I have shared with you.

Next time we finally get to the good news: Ways to protect ourselves and our families.