Nutrition
Food Deserts
Research
Is Price a Barrier to Eating More Fruits and Vegetables for Low-Income Families?
Diana Cassady DrPH Karen M. Jetter PhD and Jennifer Culp MPH, RD
Abstract
Objective
To determine if price is a barrier to fruit and vegetable consumption for low-income families by comparing the average cost of a market basket of fruits and vegetables from the Thrifty Food Plan and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005(2005 Dietary Guidelines), investigating variations in price by neighborhood income and by type of supermarket, and estimating the influence of a 2005 Dietary Guidelines fruit and vegetable basket on the food budget of a low-income family.
Design: A market basket survey was conducted at 25 supermarkets across three time periods to allow for seasonal variation in produce prices.
Setting: Stores were selected from census tracts with a variety of income levels in Sacramento, CA, and Los Angeles, CA. Main outcome measures The average cost of a Thrifty Food Plan and 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket for fruits and vegetables.
Statistical analyses performed Student t tests were used to compare the mean cost of market baskets.
Results: The 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket cost 4% less than the Thrifty Food Plan (P The 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket would require a low-income family to devote 43% to 70% of their food budget to fruits and vegetables.
Conclusions: Public policies should examine ways to make fruits and vegetables more affordable to low-income families.
doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.08.015
Journal of the American Dietetic Association Volume 107, Issue 11, November 2007, Pages 1909-1915
J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2017 Jul;28(1):43-49.
The World Health Organization - Community Empowerment Model in Addressing Food Insecurity in Low-Income African-American Women: A Review of the Literature Barbara A Fowler, Joyce Newman Giger PMID:29932567
Abstract
Numerous researchers have examined the serious consequences of food insecurity and food deserts affecting the nutritional health of poor or low-income African-American women and their families. Food insecurity is defined as having limited or uncertain capacity for acquiring sufficient, safe, and nutritious food at all times to meet one's dietary needs, while food deserts refer to economically and socially-deprived inner-city areas with inadequate food supply that are often inhabited by low-income groups.
Researchers have found that despite the capacity of community-level resources such as SNAP(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) supporting healthy nutrition, food insecurity persists among some recipients of both nutritional resources. Both food insecurity and food deserts had a negative effect on the emotional eating, emotional coping, coping strategies, and depressive symptoms in low-income African-American women. Even more concerning is that food deserts have been linked to decreased physical activity in low-income African-American women.
Neighborhoods with fewer food supermarkets in which to purchase fresh produce and other healthy nutritious foods also emphasized junk food displays. Thus, neighborhoods with persons that have powerful influences (e.g., local merchants and community liaisons) must bear responsibility to help eliminate food deserts that were linked to obesity, high BMI measures, and Type 2 diabetes in African-American women. Food insecurity was viewed from the lens of the World Health Organization -Community Empowerment Model (CEM) that incorporates 5 core processes or barometers for change: community coalitions, critical consciousness raising, exerting public pressure, lobbying, advocacy and mediation, and reframing and reorienting health services. Each of the processes plays a powerful role in assisting communities in taking charge of their health and assuming responsibility for improving access to healthy nutritious foods and eliminating food deserts in low-income communities. The implications of change and community involvement rely on all persons with a vested interest in addressing the disturbing problem of food insecurity and food deserts affecting the nutritional health and well-being of African-American communities.
Research
Is Price a Barrier to Eating More Fruits and Vegetables for Low-Income Families?
Diana Cassady DrPH Karen M. Jetter PhD and Jennifer Culp MPH, RD
Abstract
Objective
To determine if price is a barrier to fruit and vegetable consumption for low-income families by comparing the average cost of a market basket of fruits and vegetables from the Thrifty Food Plan and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005(2005 Dietary Guidelines), investigating variations in price by neighborhood income and by type of supermarket, and estimating the influence of a 2005 Dietary Guidelines fruit and vegetable basket on the food budget of a low-income family.
Design: A market basket survey was conducted at 25 supermarkets across three time periods to allow for seasonal variation in produce prices.
Setting: Stores were selected from census tracts with a variety of income levels in Sacramento, CA, and Los Angeles, CA. Main outcome measures The average cost of a Thrifty Food Plan and 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket for fruits and vegetables.
Statistical analyses performed Student t tests were used to compare the mean cost of market baskets.
Results: The 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket cost 4% less than the Thrifty Food Plan (P The 2005 Dietary Guidelines market basket would require a low-income family to devote 43% to 70% of their food budget to fruits and vegetables.
Conclusions: Public policies should examine ways to make fruits and vegetables more affordable to low-income families.
doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.08.015
Journal of the American Dietetic Association Volume 107, Issue 11, November 2007, Pages 1909-1915
J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2017 Jul;28(1):43-49.
The World Health Organization - Community Empowerment Model in Addressing Food Insecurity in Low-Income African-American Women: A Review of the Literature Barbara A Fowler, Joyce Newman Giger PMID:29932567
Abstract
Numerous researchers have examined the serious consequences of food insecurity and food deserts affecting the nutritional health of poor or low-income African-American women and their families. Food insecurity is defined as having limited or uncertain capacity for acquiring sufficient, safe, and nutritious food at all times to meet one's dietary needs, while food deserts refer to economically and socially-deprived inner-city areas with inadequate food supply that are often inhabited by low-income groups.
Researchers have found that despite the capacity of community-level resources such as SNAP(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) supporting healthy nutrition, food insecurity persists among some recipients of both nutritional resources. Both food insecurity and food deserts had a negative effect on the emotional eating, emotional coping, coping strategies, and depressive symptoms in low-income African-American women. Even more concerning is that food deserts have been linked to decreased physical activity in low-income African-American women.
Neighborhoods with fewer food supermarkets in which to purchase fresh produce and other healthy nutritious foods also emphasized junk food displays. Thus, neighborhoods with persons that have powerful influences (e.g., local merchants and community liaisons) must bear responsibility to help eliminate food deserts that were linked to obesity, high BMI measures, and Type 2 diabetes in African-American women. Food insecurity was viewed from the lens of the World Health Organization -Community Empowerment Model (CEM) that incorporates 5 core processes or barometers for change: community coalitions, critical consciousness raising, exerting public pressure, lobbying, advocacy and mediation, and reframing and reorienting health services. Each of the processes plays a powerful role in assisting communities in taking charge of their health and assuming responsibility for improving access to healthy nutritious foods and eliminating food deserts in low-income communities. The implications of change and community involvement rely on all persons with a vested interest in addressing the disturbing problem of food insecurity and food deserts affecting the nutritional health and well-being of African-American communities.
Food Preparation Affects Nutrients
Ann’s NOTE: It has been shown that our fruits and vegetables contain uneven amounts of nutrients. Studies point out that food grown on the east coast may contain less selenium than from other areas. Studies have shown that organically grown fruits and vegetables contain more nutrients than commercially-grown, pesticide sprayed produce.
Here is information on how food preparation affects nutrients: (excerpts)from Ralph Moss, Ph. D. Weekly Cancer Decisions, Newsletter #114, 1/04
Two studies published late last year suggest that many people may be eating fruits and vegetables that are seriously lacking in vitamins and antioxidants.
A test done at one of Spain’s major research centers measured the levels of flavonoids (a kind of antioxidant) that remained in fresh broccoli after it was cooked by four popular methods–steaming, pressure cooking, boiling or microwaving.
The authors looked at both the total flavonoid content as well as several derivatives in the edible portion of freshly harvested broccoli.
The results, they said, “showed large differences among the four treatments in their influence on flavonoid content in broccoli.” Conventional boiling led to a 66 percent loss of flavonoids compared to fresh raw broccoli.
And pressure cooking was not much better, with 47 percent of one of the major antioxidants left after cooking (the majority of it was found in the cooking water, which is usually tossed down the drain.) There was a major disadvantage detected when broccoli was microwaved. The loss of flavonoids with that method was an incredible 97 percent!
“On the other hand,” the Spanish authors wrote, “steaming had minimal effects, in terms of loss” of antioxidants. In fact, there was almost no difference in antioxidants between raw and steamed. “Therefore we can conclude that a greater quantity of phenolic compounds [i.e. compounds with antioxidant activity-ed.] will be provided by consumption of steamed broccoli as compared with broccoli prepared by other cooking processes.”
Blanching and Storing
Many people, pressed for time, resort to frozen foods instead of fresh. But what are the effects of blanching foods, i.e., soaking them in hot water, which is
commonly done before commercial freezing?
In a separate study, Finnish scientists found that blanching and long-term freezing of 20 commonly used vegetables also affected the level of various beneficial compounds in different ways.
Blanching, they discovered, destroyed up to one-third of the vitamin C content of vegetables, and this was followed by a further slight loss during storage. Folic acid turned out to be particularly sensitive to blanching, with more than half of this important B vitamin being lost, although levels remained stable during freezer storage.
Carotenoids and sterols (also common antioxidant compounds) were not affected by either blanching or freezer storage.
Dietary fiber was not adversely affected and minerals in general were stable. But phenolic antioxidants and vitamins were much more sensitive. There was a 20-30 percent loss of antioxidant activity detected in many vegetables.
Total Effect
From this pair of studies we can see that if you buy a package of frozen broccoli in the supermarket and then microwave it according to instructions you will be
getting almost NONE of the antioxidants and vitamins you expected from this food.
The same is probably true of other vegetables. Blanching and freezing will take away some nutrients, and then harmful (albeit very common) ways of cooking will take away the rest.
This has profound implications for the National Cancer Institute’s five-a-day fruit and vegetable program. It is clearly not just the QUANTITY of fruits and
vegetables that matters but the QUALITY as well.
The best idea is to buy fresh organic produce at the health food store or food coop, and then to steam it until it reaches a degree of “done-ness” that agrees with your digestion and taste.
While some cooking is usually desirable, less is better. Steaming baby bok choi with Asian mushrooms, or broccoli rabe, collard greens, and endive can be good.
Try adding tofu, cooked brown rice, and some seafood (avoiding those varieties with high mercury content). Season with saffron, sesame oil or tamari sauce.
–Ralph W. Moss, PhD
=======================
References:
Vallejo F, Tomás-Barberán FA, García-Viguera C, et al. Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture Volume 83, Issue 14 , Pages 1511 – 1516. Published Online: 15 Oct 2003
Puupponen-Pimiä R, Häkkinen ST, Aarni M, et al. Blanching and long-term freezing affect various bioactive compounds of vegetables in different ways. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Volume 83, Issue 14 , Pages 1389 – 1402 Published Online: 15 Oct 2003
SOURCE: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com
Newsletter #114 01/04/04
Ann’s NOTE: It has been shown that our fruits and vegetables contain uneven amounts of nutrients. Studies point out that food grown on the east coast may contain less selenium than from other areas. Studies have shown that organically grown fruits and vegetables contain more nutrients than commercially-grown, pesticide sprayed produce.
Here is information on how food preparation affects nutrients: (excerpts)from Ralph Moss, Ph. D. Weekly Cancer Decisions, Newsletter #114, 1/04
Two studies published late last year suggest that many people may be eating fruits and vegetables that are seriously lacking in vitamins and antioxidants.
A test done at one of Spain’s major research centers measured the levels of flavonoids (a kind of antioxidant) that remained in fresh broccoli after it was cooked by four popular methods–steaming, pressure cooking, boiling or microwaving.
The authors looked at both the total flavonoid content as well as several derivatives in the edible portion of freshly harvested broccoli.
The results, they said, “showed large differences among the four treatments in their influence on flavonoid content in broccoli.” Conventional boiling led to a 66 percent loss of flavonoids compared to fresh raw broccoli.
And pressure cooking was not much better, with 47 percent of one of the major antioxidants left after cooking (the majority of it was found in the cooking water, which is usually tossed down the drain.) There was a major disadvantage detected when broccoli was microwaved. The loss of flavonoids with that method was an incredible 97 percent!
“On the other hand,” the Spanish authors wrote, “steaming had minimal effects, in terms of loss” of antioxidants. In fact, there was almost no difference in antioxidants between raw and steamed. “Therefore we can conclude that a greater quantity of phenolic compounds [i.e. compounds with antioxidant activity-ed.] will be provided by consumption of steamed broccoli as compared with broccoli prepared by other cooking processes.”
Blanching and Storing
Many people, pressed for time, resort to frozen foods instead of fresh. But what are the effects of blanching foods, i.e., soaking them in hot water, which is
commonly done before commercial freezing?
In a separate study, Finnish scientists found that blanching and long-term freezing of 20 commonly used vegetables also affected the level of various beneficial compounds in different ways.
Blanching, they discovered, destroyed up to one-third of the vitamin C content of vegetables, and this was followed by a further slight loss during storage. Folic acid turned out to be particularly sensitive to blanching, with more than half of this important B vitamin being lost, although levels remained stable during freezer storage.
Carotenoids and sterols (also common antioxidant compounds) were not affected by either blanching or freezer storage.
Dietary fiber was not adversely affected and minerals in general were stable. But phenolic antioxidants and vitamins were much more sensitive. There was a 20-30 percent loss of antioxidant activity detected in many vegetables.
Total Effect
From this pair of studies we can see that if you buy a package of frozen broccoli in the supermarket and then microwave it according to instructions you will be
getting almost NONE of the antioxidants and vitamins you expected from this food.
The same is probably true of other vegetables. Blanching and freezing will take away some nutrients, and then harmful (albeit very common) ways of cooking will take away the rest.
This has profound implications for the National Cancer Institute’s five-a-day fruit and vegetable program. It is clearly not just the QUANTITY of fruits and
vegetables that matters but the QUALITY as well.
The best idea is to buy fresh organic produce at the health food store or food coop, and then to steam it until it reaches a degree of “done-ness” that agrees with your digestion and taste.
While some cooking is usually desirable, less is better. Steaming baby bok choi with Asian mushrooms, or broccoli rabe, collard greens, and endive can be good.
Try adding tofu, cooked brown rice, and some seafood (avoiding those varieties with high mercury content). Season with saffron, sesame oil or tamari sauce.
–Ralph W. Moss, PhD
=======================
References:
Vallejo F, Tomás-Barberán FA, García-Viguera C, et al. Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture Volume 83, Issue 14 , Pages 1511 – 1516. Published Online: 15 Oct 2003
Puupponen-Pimiä R, Häkkinen ST, Aarni M, et al. Blanching and long-term freezing affect various bioactive compounds of vegetables in different ways. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Volume 83, Issue 14 , Pages 1389 – 1402 Published Online: 15 Oct 2003
SOURCE: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com
Newsletter #114 01/04/04
Foods that are good to have in a Raw Food Kitchen
Seeds for jar sprouting like clover, radish
Raw almond butter, if it doesn't say raw on the jar, it isn’t
Raw tahini, if it doesn’t say raw on the jar it isn’t
Almonds, or other type of nut, or a variety both shelled and unshelled. Try walnuts, pecans, cashews, hazelnuts (filberts), macadamias, pine nuts
Dried fruit-raisins, prunes, apricots.
Spices and herbs (some suggestions): cayenne pepper, Chinese 5 spice powder, cinnamon, basil, oregano, cumin, curry powder mix, fennel, dill, etc)
Raw carob powder
Dates
Seaweed: try dulse flakes, kelp
Fresh garlic, parsley, cilantro, basil , ginger, chives
Lemons to flavor and preserve food
Nori sheets, green seaweed squares make great roll-ups instead of bread
Flax seed oil (I have a strong preference for Barlean’s high lignan brand), extra-virgin olive oil
Olives
Sun Dried Tomatoes for delicious marinara sauce all year round.
Sunflower seeds. Shelled. My personal favorite, low cost, high protein, easy to use.
Water. Tap water is basically not acceptable in most places. You do not want to drink chorine or fluoride. Buy it, filter it (reverse osmosis) or distill it.
And of course fresh produce. I always have bags of pre-washed baby lettuces, red pepper, tomato, onion, celery and anything I can find that is unique, different, exotic. Go for variety. Do not eat the same thing all the time.
Right now I have “watermelon” radishes, lovely white on the outside and pink and green like a watermelon slice on the inside, daikon radish, black radish, gold carrots, bok choy, red cabbage, beets, zucchini. Experiment. Talk to the produce manager at your store.
Use sprouts all the time, especially sunflower and buckwheat-you can’t find a better food. Buy them or grow them depending on where you live.
Thanks to rawgourmet.com
Seeds for jar sprouting like clover, radish
Raw almond butter, if it doesn't say raw on the jar, it isn’t
Raw tahini, if it doesn’t say raw on the jar it isn’t
Almonds, or other type of nut, or a variety both shelled and unshelled. Try walnuts, pecans, cashews, hazelnuts (filberts), macadamias, pine nuts
Dried fruit-raisins, prunes, apricots.
Spices and herbs (some suggestions): cayenne pepper, Chinese 5 spice powder, cinnamon, basil, oregano, cumin, curry powder mix, fennel, dill, etc)
Raw carob powder
Dates
Seaweed: try dulse flakes, kelp
Fresh garlic, parsley, cilantro, basil , ginger, chives
Lemons to flavor and preserve food
Nori sheets, green seaweed squares make great roll-ups instead of bread
Flax seed oil (I have a strong preference for Barlean’s high lignan brand), extra-virgin olive oil
Olives
Sun Dried Tomatoes for delicious marinara sauce all year round.
Sunflower seeds. Shelled. My personal favorite, low cost, high protein, easy to use.
Water. Tap water is basically not acceptable in most places. You do not want to drink chorine or fluoride. Buy it, filter it (reverse osmosis) or distill it.
And of course fresh produce. I always have bags of pre-washed baby lettuces, red pepper, tomato, onion, celery and anything I can find that is unique, different, exotic. Go for variety. Do not eat the same thing all the time.
Right now I have “watermelon” radishes, lovely white on the outside and pink and green like a watermelon slice on the inside, daikon radish, black radish, gold carrots, bok choy, red cabbage, beets, zucchini. Experiment. Talk to the produce manager at your store.
Use sprouts all the time, especially sunflower and buckwheat-you can’t find a better food. Buy them or grow them depending on where you live.
Thanks to rawgourmet.com
Foods that Heal
Leo Galland M.D., F.A.C.N. Director, Foundation for Integrated Medicine (Author of Power Healing: Use The New Integrated Medicine to Heal Yourself, Random House, 1997)
Study after study has found that vitamin and mineral supplements improve the immune function of elderly Americans. The specific nutrients with the most profound effects on immune function are EFAs, protein, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin B6, folic acid and iron. Among the healthy elderly, immune boosting benefits have been demonstrated for anti-oxidants like zinc, selenium, vitamin E and beta-carotene.
Detoxifying Foods
Protection against the effects of environmental pollution, free-radical induced cell damage and cancer is provided by dietary anti-oxidants. Foods that are richest in these anti-oxidants are red, yellow and green vegetables, uncooked nuts and seeds (like almonds and sunflower seeds), and fish. The appetizing colors of fresh fruits and vegetables derive from the presence of special groups of anti-oxidants.
Carotenoids are fat-soluble compounds which range in hue from light yellow to deep orange. The flagship carotenoid is beta-carotene, the orange pigment evident in carrots and cantaloupe. In the body, beta-carotene is converted to vitamin A, but the importance of carotenoids for human health extends far beyond beta-carotene’s role as a precursor of vitamin A.
Dietary supplements of beta-carotene are ineffective in preventing cancer or heart disease, whereas food that is high in beta-carotene and other carotenoids does confer protection. Scientists have previously paid insufficient attention to these other carotenoids, like alpha-carotene, lutein, lycopene and the xanthins. They do not serve as pre-cursors of vitamin A, yet their consumption may be as effective as consumption of beta-carotene in decreasing the risk of cancer, probably because they exert significant anti-oxidant effects of their own. I do not recommend nutritional supplements containing beta-carotene to my patients.
Instead, I recommend a diet high in mixed carotenoids, which includes many different varieties of fruits and vegetables: carrots, broccoli, spinach, tomatoes, winter squash and papaya. Sea vegetables like kelp, wakame, dulse, hiziki and nori are especially rich in mixed carotenoids. They can be quite tasty cooked or raw, along with rice or beans or in salad.
The darker colors of fruits and vegetables are supplied by a group of compounds called bioflavonoids, which typically range from bright yellow to deep purple in hue.
There are over four hundred bioflavonoids in the human diet. They are widely distributed in fruits, vegetables, beverages and spices. A typical North American consumes about one gram of bioflavonoids per day; Asians may consume over five grams per day, much of it coming from herbs and spices.
Bioflavonoids are potent anti-oxidants that not only contribute to the health benefits of fruits and vegetables but also to the therapeutic effects of many traditional Chinese and Indian herbal remedies. The bioflavonoids which give grapes their purple color are believed responsible for the protection against heart disease which is offered by red wine.
Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the bioflavonoid which is the main constituent of green tea, is credited with the protection against cancer that results from drinking green tea. A number of foods stimulate the body to produce more of the enzymes used for detoxicating the body from cancer-causing chemicals.
These foods have been shown to improve liver detoxification and to decrease the risk of developing cancer. They include members of the cabbage family (crucifers), which includes not only cabbage but broccoli, cauliflower, bok choy and brussel sprouts, and also green onions and kale. These vegetables contain compounds called aryl isothiocyanates which directly stimulate the activity of an enzyme, glutathione S-transferase, an important component of the Phase Two system.
Activation of liver detoxification probably explains the highly publicized effects of broccoli, brussel sprouts and cabbage in preventing cancer in humans and experimental animals. Bioflavonoids found in soy beans have weak estrogen-like activity. If a women is deficient in estrogen (early menopause, for example),consuming soy products can replace the missing estrogen and relieve hot flashes.
If a person is exposed to an excess of estrogen, the flavonoids in soy act as estrogen blockers and lower the effects of estrogen. The low frequency of breast cancer in east Asia, where soy is a major source of protein, has been attributed to the mild estrogen-blocking effect of soy flavonoids.
Preliminary research indicates that soy flavonoids can block the estrogenic effects of dioxin.
Infection-Fighting Foods
A high intake of vegetables increases the consumption of a group of natural chemicals called saponins, which have immune-stimulating and antibiotic effects. Saponins are the latest in a long list of plant chemicals that are not considered nutrients, the way that vitamins are, because no deficiency state has been identified, but which promote health.
In plants, saponins seem to function as natural antibiotics, protecting the plant against microbial parasites. In humans, they may thwart cancer and ward off infection. Saponins are most highly concentrated in soybeans, chickpeas, bean sprouts, asparagus, tomatoes, potatoes and oats. They have a creamy texture and a sweet taste that separates them from other plant components.
Some biotechnology companies are presently attempting to harvest saponins and use them as drugs. Carrots, carob, blueberries and raspberries contain complex sugars (oligosaccharides) which interfere with the binding of pathogenic bacteria to the intestinal lining. These have been used in Europe for centuries for the treatment or prevention of diarrhea. Before they were used as seasoning, culinary herbs and spices were probably used for food preservation.
Many varieties have natural antimicrobial activity and can retard spoilage. They are also used to mask the flavor of spoiled food, so I suggest using them at home, where you know the food they flavor is fresh to begin with.
The world’s most extensively studied spice is garlic. Its medicinal use predates recorded history. Garlic is mentioned in the earliest Vedic medical documents, written in India over five thousand years ago. During an epidemic of plague in Marseilles, in 1721, four condemned criminals were enlisted to bury the dead. None of them contracted plague.
It seems that they sustained themselves by drinking a cocktail of crushed garlic in cheap wine, which came to be called vinaigre des quatre voleurs (vinegar of the four thieves).
In 1858, Louis Pasteur demonstrated garlic’s antibiotic activity. The herb was used by Albert Schweitzer for the treatment of amoebic dysentery at his clinic in Africa. Antimicrobial activity of garlic has been repeatedly demonstrated against many species of bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. In addition, garlic lowers cholesterol and blood pressure and may protect against cancer.
The dose of garlic needed to obtain significant benefit is at least ten grams (about three small cloves) per day. Garlic also has a great immune-enhancing effect, stimulating activity of natural killer cells in healthy people and in people with AIDs. AIDS patients taking five to ten grams of aged garlic (equivalent to two to three small cloves) per day developed normal natural killer cell activity after twelve weeks which was associated with clinical improvement.
Onion, garlic’s closest edible relative, has also been widely used for medicinal purposes. Although it lacks the potency of garlic, it can be consumed it much larger quantity, so that its antimicrobial benefits may be equal to those of garlic if consumed regularly.
Turmeric, a major ingredient in curry powder, is a natural antibiotic that relieves intestinal gas by lowering the numbers of gas forming bacteria, has antifungal activity and has been traditionally used for relieving inflammation. The effective dose is about one gram per day.
Ginger, which contains over four hundred chemically active ingredients, has long been used for the treatment of digestive complaints. It protects the intestinal lining against ulceration and has a wide range of actions against intestinal parasites.
Cinnamon, which I recommend for sweetening the taste of ginger tea, has anti-fungal activity. Sage and rosemary contain the essential oil, eucalyptol, which kills Candida albicans, bacteria, and worms. Oregano contains over thirty biologically active ingredients of which twelve have antibiotic, anti-viral, anti-parasitic or anti-fungal effects.
As mentioned earlier, thyme has anti-parasitic activity. Meals seasoned with these pungent, aromatic herbs, consumed regularly, help protect against intestinal infection. However, heating at 200 degrees(Fahrenheit) for twenty minutes destroys the antibacterial activity of most of these spices. They should be added to food at the end of cooking, just before being eaten.
Leo Galland M.D., F.A.C.N. Director, Foundation for Integrated Medicine (Author of Power Healing: Use The New Integrated Medicine to Heal Yourself, Random House, 1997)
Study after study has found that vitamin and mineral supplements improve the immune function of elderly Americans. The specific nutrients with the most profound effects on immune function are EFAs, protein, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin B6, folic acid and iron. Among the healthy elderly, immune boosting benefits have been demonstrated for anti-oxidants like zinc, selenium, vitamin E and beta-carotene.
Detoxifying Foods
Protection against the effects of environmental pollution, free-radical induced cell damage and cancer is provided by dietary anti-oxidants. Foods that are richest in these anti-oxidants are red, yellow and green vegetables, uncooked nuts and seeds (like almonds and sunflower seeds), and fish. The appetizing colors of fresh fruits and vegetables derive from the presence of special groups of anti-oxidants.
Carotenoids are fat-soluble compounds which range in hue from light yellow to deep orange. The flagship carotenoid is beta-carotene, the orange pigment evident in carrots and cantaloupe. In the body, beta-carotene is converted to vitamin A, but the importance of carotenoids for human health extends far beyond beta-carotene’s role as a precursor of vitamin A.
Dietary supplements of beta-carotene are ineffective in preventing cancer or heart disease, whereas food that is high in beta-carotene and other carotenoids does confer protection. Scientists have previously paid insufficient attention to these other carotenoids, like alpha-carotene, lutein, lycopene and the xanthins. They do not serve as pre-cursors of vitamin A, yet their consumption may be as effective as consumption of beta-carotene in decreasing the risk of cancer, probably because they exert significant anti-oxidant effects of their own. I do not recommend nutritional supplements containing beta-carotene to my patients.
Instead, I recommend a diet high in mixed carotenoids, which includes many different varieties of fruits and vegetables: carrots, broccoli, spinach, tomatoes, winter squash and papaya. Sea vegetables like kelp, wakame, dulse, hiziki and nori are especially rich in mixed carotenoids. They can be quite tasty cooked or raw, along with rice or beans or in salad.
The darker colors of fruits and vegetables are supplied by a group of compounds called bioflavonoids, which typically range from bright yellow to deep purple in hue.
There are over four hundred bioflavonoids in the human diet. They are widely distributed in fruits, vegetables, beverages and spices. A typical North American consumes about one gram of bioflavonoids per day; Asians may consume over five grams per day, much of it coming from herbs and spices.
Bioflavonoids are potent anti-oxidants that not only contribute to the health benefits of fruits and vegetables but also to the therapeutic effects of many traditional Chinese and Indian herbal remedies. The bioflavonoids which give grapes their purple color are believed responsible for the protection against heart disease which is offered by red wine.
Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the bioflavonoid which is the main constituent of green tea, is credited with the protection against cancer that results from drinking green tea. A number of foods stimulate the body to produce more of the enzymes used for detoxicating the body from cancer-causing chemicals.
These foods have been shown to improve liver detoxification and to decrease the risk of developing cancer. They include members of the cabbage family (crucifers), which includes not only cabbage but broccoli, cauliflower, bok choy and brussel sprouts, and also green onions and kale. These vegetables contain compounds called aryl isothiocyanates which directly stimulate the activity of an enzyme, glutathione S-transferase, an important component of the Phase Two system.
Activation of liver detoxification probably explains the highly publicized effects of broccoli, brussel sprouts and cabbage in preventing cancer in humans and experimental animals. Bioflavonoids found in soy beans have weak estrogen-like activity. If a women is deficient in estrogen (early menopause, for example),consuming soy products can replace the missing estrogen and relieve hot flashes.
If a person is exposed to an excess of estrogen, the flavonoids in soy act as estrogen blockers and lower the effects of estrogen. The low frequency of breast cancer in east Asia, where soy is a major source of protein, has been attributed to the mild estrogen-blocking effect of soy flavonoids.
Preliminary research indicates that soy flavonoids can block the estrogenic effects of dioxin.
Infection-Fighting Foods
A high intake of vegetables increases the consumption of a group of natural chemicals called saponins, which have immune-stimulating and antibiotic effects. Saponins are the latest in a long list of plant chemicals that are not considered nutrients, the way that vitamins are, because no deficiency state has been identified, but which promote health.
In plants, saponins seem to function as natural antibiotics, protecting the plant against microbial parasites. In humans, they may thwart cancer and ward off infection. Saponins are most highly concentrated in soybeans, chickpeas, bean sprouts, asparagus, tomatoes, potatoes and oats. They have a creamy texture and a sweet taste that separates them from other plant components.
Some biotechnology companies are presently attempting to harvest saponins and use them as drugs. Carrots, carob, blueberries and raspberries contain complex sugars (oligosaccharides) which interfere with the binding of pathogenic bacteria to the intestinal lining. These have been used in Europe for centuries for the treatment or prevention of diarrhea. Before they were used as seasoning, culinary herbs and spices were probably used for food preservation.
Many varieties have natural antimicrobial activity and can retard spoilage. They are also used to mask the flavor of spoiled food, so I suggest using them at home, where you know the food they flavor is fresh to begin with.
The world’s most extensively studied spice is garlic. Its medicinal use predates recorded history. Garlic is mentioned in the earliest Vedic medical documents, written in India over five thousand years ago. During an epidemic of plague in Marseilles, in 1721, four condemned criminals were enlisted to bury the dead. None of them contracted plague.
It seems that they sustained themselves by drinking a cocktail of crushed garlic in cheap wine, which came to be called vinaigre des quatre voleurs (vinegar of the four thieves).
In 1858, Louis Pasteur demonstrated garlic’s antibiotic activity. The herb was used by Albert Schweitzer for the treatment of amoebic dysentery at his clinic in Africa. Antimicrobial activity of garlic has been repeatedly demonstrated against many species of bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. In addition, garlic lowers cholesterol and blood pressure and may protect against cancer.
The dose of garlic needed to obtain significant benefit is at least ten grams (about three small cloves) per day. Garlic also has a great immune-enhancing effect, stimulating activity of natural killer cells in healthy people and in people with AIDs. AIDS patients taking five to ten grams of aged garlic (equivalent to two to three small cloves) per day developed normal natural killer cell activity after twelve weeks which was associated with clinical improvement.
Onion, garlic’s closest edible relative, has also been widely used for medicinal purposes. Although it lacks the potency of garlic, it can be consumed it much larger quantity, so that its antimicrobial benefits may be equal to those of garlic if consumed regularly.
Turmeric, a major ingredient in curry powder, is a natural antibiotic that relieves intestinal gas by lowering the numbers of gas forming bacteria, has antifungal activity and has been traditionally used for relieving inflammation. The effective dose is about one gram per day.
Ginger, which contains over four hundred chemically active ingredients, has long been used for the treatment of digestive complaints. It protects the intestinal lining against ulceration and has a wide range of actions against intestinal parasites.
Cinnamon, which I recommend for sweetening the taste of ginger tea, has anti-fungal activity. Sage and rosemary contain the essential oil, eucalyptol, which kills Candida albicans, bacteria, and worms. Oregano contains over thirty biologically active ingredients of which twelve have antibiotic, anti-viral, anti-parasitic or anti-fungal effects.
As mentioned earlier, thyme has anti-parasitic activity. Meals seasoned with these pungent, aromatic herbs, consumed regularly, help protect against intestinal infection. However, heating at 200 degrees(Fahrenheit) for twenty minutes destroys the antibacterial activity of most of these spices. They should be added to food at the end of cooking, just before being eaten.
Glycemic Index Foods
6/29/04
Ann Fonfa has just returned from a week long training program ‘Food as Medicine’. The summary will be posted in our Meeting Summaries/Advocacy Issues section. But one important thing she heard was that Glycemic Load was different than Glycemic Index. It made clear that fruits and vegetables are ALWAYS healthy choices.
4/04 We received an email from Denise. She wrote to say the following:
“Yes it’s a book “The Glycemic Revolution”. It is supposed to be the utmost authority on the subject. It comes recommended by several people including Dr. Andrew Weil.
Brown rice, pasta, wild rice, corn are all recommended on a low glycemic diet. As opposed to raisins, corn and popcorn?
There is a database here as well as info on the book.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
http://www.glycemicindex.com/images/books/new-gluc-rev-130.jpg
Thanks for checking back.
Denise”
________________________________________________________________________
From Leonard R. AKA LeonardLeo[email protected] (advocate)
High-glycemic foods (especially if you eat a lot of them on an empty stomach) GREATLY promotes the growth of cancer cells.
However, some foods have a much lower (or higher) glycemic index than one would expect. Some juices (e.g., apple, orange, and [to a lesser degree] carrot) have a lower glycemic index than you would think.
Whatever the reason/explanation, carrot juice is very effective in healing cancer despite its moderately high glycemic index.
Beets are substantially higher-glycemic than carrots, but they have antitumor properties and detox the liver (speaking of which, liver detox is essential if you’re doing daily juicing, and while beet juice helps, I don’t know if it by itself detoxes the liver sufficiently); accordingly, I would definitely juice beets, but only a little bit at a time, and I’d juice it (i.e., mix it)w/another fruit or vegetable, not by itself.
Also, blenders (e.g., Vita-mix) is probably safer to use for very-high-glycemic produce; blended juice has lower glycemic index than “juiced” juice, but masticating juicers are much better than blenders in other ways. I’d use a masticating juicer for all low and moderate glycemic foods.
Gerson therapy also includes the drinking of organic (green) APPLE (20oz/day) and ORANGE (8oz/day) juice (note: Tangerine, bioflavonoid in oranges, may interfere w/tamoxifen). I would juice lemon and lime together w/the orange.
I would also juice KIWI and green/unripe PAPAYA (particularly for their proteolytic enzymes), as well as a few organic grapes (only juice a few grapes at a time considering their high sugar content).
Some recommend juicing organic unpeeled pineapple (for its bromelain), including its stem, but (erring on the side of caution) I wouldn’t (considering pineapple’s high glycemic index, I wouldn’t even eat pineapple if I had cancer) but instead would take high dosages of bromelain supplements, ideally Wobenzyme.
The following fruits are low-glycemic:
Raspberries, oranges, grapes, apple, fresh or dried, pear, peach– organic only, plums, prunes, apricot, dried
The following are very-low-glycemic:
lemon & lime– in moderation strawberries– organic only; have anticancer properties cherries– organic only
Juice usually has a higher-glycemic index than the whole fruit, but not always.
Oats and (particularly) RYE are 2 of the lowest glycemic grains.
The following are high-glycemic foods listed (approximately) in order of glycemic index beginning w/the highest glycemic index:
beer, dates, parsnips, white/red potato, pumpkin, rutabaga, watermelon, whole wheat, millet, couscous, cornmeal, pineapple, cantaloupe, corn, popcorn, raisins, brown-rice pasta, brown & wild rice, muesli, beets.
Unless I was trying to gain weight, I would avoid ALL of these (PARTICULARLY in large quantities on an empty stomach) except beets and a little brown rice. The only type of wheat or bread I’d eat is sprouted bread and perhaps a little sourdough bread.
6/29/04
Ann Fonfa has just returned from a week long training program ‘Food as Medicine’. The summary will be posted in our Meeting Summaries/Advocacy Issues section. But one important thing she heard was that Glycemic Load was different than Glycemic Index. It made clear that fruits and vegetables are ALWAYS healthy choices.
4/04 We received an email from Denise. She wrote to say the following:
“Yes it’s a book “The Glycemic Revolution”. It is supposed to be the utmost authority on the subject. It comes recommended by several people including Dr. Andrew Weil.
Brown rice, pasta, wild rice, corn are all recommended on a low glycemic diet. As opposed to raisins, corn and popcorn?
There is a database here as well as info on the book.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
http://www.glycemicindex.com/images/books/new-gluc-rev-130.jpg
Thanks for checking back.
Denise”
________________________________________________________________________
From Leonard R. AKA LeonardLeo[email protected] (advocate)
High-glycemic foods (especially if you eat a lot of them on an empty stomach) GREATLY promotes the growth of cancer cells.
However, some foods have a much lower (or higher) glycemic index than one would expect. Some juices (e.g., apple, orange, and [to a lesser degree] carrot) have a lower glycemic index than you would think.
Whatever the reason/explanation, carrot juice is very effective in healing cancer despite its moderately high glycemic index.
Beets are substantially higher-glycemic than carrots, but they have antitumor properties and detox the liver (speaking of which, liver detox is essential if you’re doing daily juicing, and while beet juice helps, I don’t know if it by itself detoxes the liver sufficiently); accordingly, I would definitely juice beets, but only a little bit at a time, and I’d juice it (i.e., mix it)w/another fruit or vegetable, not by itself.
Also, blenders (e.g., Vita-mix) is probably safer to use for very-high-glycemic produce; blended juice has lower glycemic index than “juiced” juice, but masticating juicers are much better than blenders in other ways. I’d use a masticating juicer for all low and moderate glycemic foods.
Gerson therapy also includes the drinking of organic (green) APPLE (20oz/day) and ORANGE (8oz/day) juice (note: Tangerine, bioflavonoid in oranges, may interfere w/tamoxifen). I would juice lemon and lime together w/the orange.
I would also juice KIWI and green/unripe PAPAYA (particularly for their proteolytic enzymes), as well as a few organic grapes (only juice a few grapes at a time considering their high sugar content).
Some recommend juicing organic unpeeled pineapple (for its bromelain), including its stem, but (erring on the side of caution) I wouldn’t (considering pineapple’s high glycemic index, I wouldn’t even eat pineapple if I had cancer) but instead would take high dosages of bromelain supplements, ideally Wobenzyme.
The following fruits are low-glycemic:
Raspberries, oranges, grapes, apple, fresh or dried, pear, peach– organic only, plums, prunes, apricot, dried
The following are very-low-glycemic:
lemon & lime– in moderation strawberries– organic only; have anticancer properties cherries– organic only
Juice usually has a higher-glycemic index than the whole fruit, but not always.
Oats and (particularly) RYE are 2 of the lowest glycemic grains.
The following are high-glycemic foods listed (approximately) in order of glycemic index beginning w/the highest glycemic index:
beer, dates, parsnips, white/red potato, pumpkin, rutabaga, watermelon, whole wheat, millet, couscous, cornmeal, pineapple, cantaloupe, corn, popcorn, raisins, brown-rice pasta, brown & wild rice, muesli, beets.
Unless I was trying to gain weight, I would avoid ALL of these (PARTICULARLY in large quantities on an empty stomach) except beets and a little brown rice. The only type of wheat or bread I’d eat is sprouted bread and perhaps a little sourdough bread.
How to Identify Real Organic Food
Look for the USDA Organic Seal or the Words “Made With Organic Ingredients”
When you see the “USDA Organic” seal, you know that the food is at least 95% organic, does not contain genetically modified organisms, was not irradiated, and comes from a farm that:
* Employs positive soil building, conservation, manure management and crop rotation practices.
* Provides outdoor access and pasture for livestock.* Refrains from antibiotic and hormone use in animals.
* Sustains animals on 100% organic feed.* Keeps records of all operations.
* Is inspected annually by an accredited Third-Party Organic Certifier.
If it is a multi-ingredient product, it was made at a certified organic processing plant that takes strict measures to avoid contamination of organic products.
Products that are “Made With Organic Ingredients” are at least 70% organic and are also free from genetically modified organisms and food irradiation.
Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
UPDATE: Free Trade/Organic has a new designaton, look for it.
Look for the USDA Organic Seal or the Words “Made With Organic Ingredients”
When you see the “USDA Organic” seal, you know that the food is at least 95% organic, does not contain genetically modified organisms, was not irradiated, and comes from a farm that:
* Employs positive soil building, conservation, manure management and crop rotation practices.
* Provides outdoor access and pasture for livestock.* Refrains from antibiotic and hormone use in animals.
* Sustains animals on 100% organic feed.* Keeps records of all operations.
* Is inspected annually by an accredited Third-Party Organic Certifier.
If it is a multi-ingredient product, it was made at a certified organic processing plant that takes strict measures to avoid contamination of organic products.
Products that are “Made With Organic Ingredients” are at least 70% organic and are also free from genetically modified organisms and food irradiation.
Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
UPDATE: Free Trade/Organic has a new designaton, look for it.
Is Eating Cartoon
Is Eating Cartoon-Colored Food Bad for Kids’ Health?
By: Emily P. Walker | March 30, 2011
When I was growing up, my mother cruelly denied my sister and I all sorts of delicious packaged, processed, artificially-colored foods.
My dream sandwich was creamy peanut butter with bright purple grape jelly, on fluffy, snow-white slices of Wonder Bread. Instead, I had to eat chunky natural peanut butter with jam on cardboard-like slices of whole wheat bread.
But the worst denial of simple childhood pleasures was my mom’s refusal to keep what we called ‘sweet cereal’ in the house.
Boxes of Cheerios, Wheaties, and oatmeal perched unappealingly atop our refrigerator. But what I really longed for was Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, and Fruity Pebbles.
My friends’ parents must have thought my own parents starved me, because when I was lucky enough to have a sleepover at a friend’s house whose parents gladly stocked “sweet cereal,” I’d combine all varieties in a giant bowl filled with Technicolor tidbits.
Those colors defied nature. They contained yellows brighter than the sun on the belly of the most uplifting Care Bear, Funshine Bear. Reds so vibrant, they must have been plucked right from Woody Woodpecker’s flowing feather mane. Blues that could only be seen on the smooth skin of a Smurf.
Okay, so not the most natural colors, and certainly not the most natural things to eat.
But is eating these cartoon colors actually bad for you?
That’s what an FDA’s Food Advisory Committee will decide.
The panel is holding a two-day meeting this week at the request of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is requesting that the FDA revoke approval for eight synthetic dyes that are used as color additives in food.
An FDA review of the literature released ahead of the advisory panel meeting included this study that found three year-old children fed drink mixtures containing common food dyes and the preservative sodium benzoate were significantly more hyper than kids who drank a placebo.
But FDA reviewers wrote that the effects of artificial coloring on kids’ behavior are far from conclusive, and said dyes have not been definitively linked to hyperactivity.
The reviewers basically likened dyes to allergens that might affect some kids who are already hyperactive. But they said additives other than dyes might have the same effect.
Speakers from CSPI argued Wednesday morning that dyes should be banned from all foods because they offer no benefit, other than attempting to fool people into thinking they are eating fruit, or something else that is healthy.
A valid point, but judging from my own excitement as a child over eating Technicolor foods, I suspect manufacturers of processed foods would not take the news of removing dyes from food so well.
After all, Fruity Pebbles with no dye would look like a bowl full of actual pebbles. Which, to a kid, is only slightly less appealing than a chunky PB&J on whole wheat bread.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/25619
Ann Fonfa (founder Annie Appleseed Project) commented at the time this was published:
April 04, 2011 “Cute — we were all ‘denied’ something by our parents. But does this speak at ALL to a health issue? Nope. Studies are not done in meaningful ways to elicit information on long-term or combined effects of these less-than-healthy, mostly untested, additions to our food.
For centuries, children ate real food and amazingly lived to talk about it. We don’t seem to have had ADHD or any of the complex auto-immune diseases we do now. When we export our lousy food, people in other countries become less healthy and fairly quickly too. A connection? I think so”.
— Posted by Ann Fonfa, advocate
Is Eating Cartoon-Colored Food Bad for Kids’ Health?
By: Emily P. Walker | March 30, 2011
When I was growing up, my mother cruelly denied my sister and I all sorts of delicious packaged, processed, artificially-colored foods.
My dream sandwich was creamy peanut butter with bright purple grape jelly, on fluffy, snow-white slices of Wonder Bread. Instead, I had to eat chunky natural peanut butter with jam on cardboard-like slices of whole wheat bread.
But the worst denial of simple childhood pleasures was my mom’s refusal to keep what we called ‘sweet cereal’ in the house.
Boxes of Cheerios, Wheaties, and oatmeal perched unappealingly atop our refrigerator. But what I really longed for was Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, and Fruity Pebbles.
My friends’ parents must have thought my own parents starved me, because when I was lucky enough to have a sleepover at a friend’s house whose parents gladly stocked “sweet cereal,” I’d combine all varieties in a giant bowl filled with Technicolor tidbits.
Those colors defied nature. They contained yellows brighter than the sun on the belly of the most uplifting Care Bear, Funshine Bear. Reds so vibrant, they must have been plucked right from Woody Woodpecker’s flowing feather mane. Blues that could only be seen on the smooth skin of a Smurf.
Okay, so not the most natural colors, and certainly not the most natural things to eat.
But is eating these cartoon colors actually bad for you?
That’s what an FDA’s Food Advisory Committee will decide.
The panel is holding a two-day meeting this week at the request of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is requesting that the FDA revoke approval for eight synthetic dyes that are used as color additives in food.
An FDA review of the literature released ahead of the advisory panel meeting included this study that found three year-old children fed drink mixtures containing common food dyes and the preservative sodium benzoate were significantly more hyper than kids who drank a placebo.
But FDA reviewers wrote that the effects of artificial coloring on kids’ behavior are far from conclusive, and said dyes have not been definitively linked to hyperactivity.
The reviewers basically likened dyes to allergens that might affect some kids who are already hyperactive. But they said additives other than dyes might have the same effect.
Speakers from CSPI argued Wednesday morning that dyes should be banned from all foods because they offer no benefit, other than attempting to fool people into thinking they are eating fruit, or something else that is healthy.
A valid point, but judging from my own excitement as a child over eating Technicolor foods, I suspect manufacturers of processed foods would not take the news of removing dyes from food so well.
After all, Fruity Pebbles with no dye would look like a bowl full of actual pebbles. Which, to a kid, is only slightly less appealing than a chunky PB&J on whole wheat bread.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/25619
Ann Fonfa (founder Annie Appleseed Project) commented at the time this was published:
April 04, 2011 “Cute — we were all ‘denied’ something by our parents. But does this speak at ALL to a health issue? Nope. Studies are not done in meaningful ways to elicit information on long-term or combined effects of these less-than-healthy, mostly untested, additions to our food.
For centuries, children ate real food and amazingly lived to talk about it. We don’t seem to have had ADHD or any of the complex auto-immune diseases we do now. When we export our lousy food, people in other countries become less healthy and fairly quickly too. A connection? I think so”.
— Posted by Ann Fonfa, advocate
Is food becoming less nutritious?
Courtesy the University of Texas at Austin and World Science staff
A study of 43 vegetables and fruits suggests their nutritional value has declined in the past 50 years, scientists say. The researchers suggested the decline may result from the fact that farmers have been planting crops designed to improve traits other than nutritional value, such as size.
Broccoli — a favorite among many mothers, thanks to its alleged nutritional value — is one of the many garden crops whose nutrient content has been declining in recent decades, according to studies.
The researchers said the study also raises the possibility that similar declines might have affected other food crops, such as grains. More research is required to check whether this is so, said Donald Davis, the study’s lead author.
The study was designed to investigate the effects of modern agricultural methods on foods’ nutrient content.
Davis and colleagues studied U.S. Department of Agriculture data on garden crops, mostly vegetables, but also melons and strawberries, comparing data from both 1950 and 1999.
The study is scheduled to appear in the December issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Davis, of the University of Texas, said demonstrating meaningful changes in nutrient content over a 50-year time interval was a challenge.
The researchers had to compensate for variations in moisture content that affect nutrient measurements, and could not rule out the possibility that changes
in analytical techniques may have affected results for some nutrients.
“It is much more reliable to look at average changes in the group rather than in individual foods, due to uncertainties in the 1950 and 1999 values,” said Davis, who is also a research consultant at the Austin Bio-Communications Research Institute in Wichita, Kansas.
“Considered as a group, we found that six out of 13 nutrients showed apparently reliable declines between 1950 and 1999.”
These nutrients included protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid. The declines, which ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin, raise significant questions about how modern agriculture practices are affecting food crops.
“We conclude that the most likely explanation was changes in cultivated varieties used today compared to 50 years ago,” Davis said. “During those 50 years, there have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates.
But the dominant effort is for higher yields.
Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don’t necessarily have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate.”
According to Davis, these results suggest a need for research into other important nutrients and foods that provide significant dietary calories, such as grains, legumes, meat, milk and eggs.
“Perhaps more worrisome would be declines in nutrients we could not study because they were not reported in 1950 — magnesium, zinc, vitamin B-6,
vitamin E and dietary fiber, not to mention phytochemicals,” Davis said.
“I hope our paper will encourage additional studies in which old and new crop varieties are studied side-by-side and measured by modern methods.” Davis’s paper taps into what should be a major and growing concern, according to Chuck Benbrook, science advisor to the Greenfield, Massachusetts-based Organic Center for Education and Promotion.
The paper is “an important contribution,” wrote Benbrook in a recent email. But he added that he disagreed with some of Davis’ ideas on the reasons for the drop in nutrition. “His sense is that varietal/genetic differences account for most of the change, but I think it is likely that production systems also are major contributors, and sometimes even more important than genetics,” wrote Benbrook.
In other words, the same variety of plant may have different nutritional values depending on how it’s grown, Benbrook added.
“The faster a plant grows/is pushed, the more intensive the production system, the higher the yield goal, the greater the chance that the harvest from that crop will be deficient in some set of minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants,” Benbrook wrote.
Posted Dec. 6, 2004
Courtesy the University of Texas at Austin and World Science staff
A study of 43 vegetables and fruits suggests their nutritional value has declined in the past 50 years, scientists say. The researchers suggested the decline may result from the fact that farmers have been planting crops designed to improve traits other than nutritional value, such as size.
Broccoli — a favorite among many mothers, thanks to its alleged nutritional value — is one of the many garden crops whose nutrient content has been declining in recent decades, according to studies.
The researchers said the study also raises the possibility that similar declines might have affected other food crops, such as grains. More research is required to check whether this is so, said Donald Davis, the study’s lead author.
The study was designed to investigate the effects of modern agricultural methods on foods’ nutrient content.
Davis and colleagues studied U.S. Department of Agriculture data on garden crops, mostly vegetables, but also melons and strawberries, comparing data from both 1950 and 1999.
The study is scheduled to appear in the December issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Davis, of the University of Texas, said demonstrating meaningful changes in nutrient content over a 50-year time interval was a challenge.
The researchers had to compensate for variations in moisture content that affect nutrient measurements, and could not rule out the possibility that changes
in analytical techniques may have affected results for some nutrients.
“It is much more reliable to look at average changes in the group rather than in individual foods, due to uncertainties in the 1950 and 1999 values,” said Davis, who is also a research consultant at the Austin Bio-Communications Research Institute in Wichita, Kansas.
“Considered as a group, we found that six out of 13 nutrients showed apparently reliable declines between 1950 and 1999.”
These nutrients included protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid. The declines, which ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin, raise significant questions about how modern agriculture practices are affecting food crops.
“We conclude that the most likely explanation was changes in cultivated varieties used today compared to 50 years ago,” Davis said. “During those 50 years, there have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates.
But the dominant effort is for higher yields.
Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don’t necessarily have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate.”
According to Davis, these results suggest a need for research into other important nutrients and foods that provide significant dietary calories, such as grains, legumes, meat, milk and eggs.
“Perhaps more worrisome would be declines in nutrients we could not study because they were not reported in 1950 — magnesium, zinc, vitamin B-6,
vitamin E and dietary fiber, not to mention phytochemicals,” Davis said.
“I hope our paper will encourage additional studies in which old and new crop varieties are studied side-by-side and measured by modern methods.” Davis’s paper taps into what should be a major and growing concern, according to Chuck Benbrook, science advisor to the Greenfield, Massachusetts-based Organic Center for Education and Promotion.
The paper is “an important contribution,” wrote Benbrook in a recent email. But he added that he disagreed with some of Davis’ ideas on the reasons for the drop in nutrition. “His sense is that varietal/genetic differences account for most of the change, but I think it is likely that production systems also are major contributors, and sometimes even more important than genetics,” wrote Benbrook.
In other words, the same variety of plant may have different nutritional values depending on how it’s grown, Benbrook added.
“The faster a plant grows/is pushed, the more intensive the production system, the higher the yield goal, the greater the chance that the harvest from that crop will be deficient in some set of minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants,” Benbrook wrote.
Posted Dec. 6, 2004
Issues with Farm-raised Fish
Studies suggest farmed salmon may be far from pure. A recent pilot study by Canadian scientist Michael Easton, an expert in ecotoxicology, found that a four-fish sample of farmed salmon when compared with wild-caught salmon contained elevated levels of chemical contaminants, including PCBs — known carcinogens.
Easton’s research, which was published in the peer-reviewed international science journal, Chemosphere, showed 10 times more PCBs in farmed salmon than in wild fish — levels that he believes pose a health risk for regular consumers.
Levels of pesticides in farmed fish were also significantly higher, Easton’s study showed, while mercury levels were roughly the same. ”This is a preliminary study that raises significant questions,” Easton says.
He stresses the possibility of damage to anyone who consumes farmed salmon directly or indirectly from combined, low-level toxins. Easton also points out the elevated risk of mental retardation and brain damage to nursing babies and unborn fetuses.
Other new studies in the United Kingdom (source of many farmed salmon that supply U.S. markets) have cast further doubts on the safety of these fish, enough to fan an outcry in the British media.
A recent feature in the Daily Mail outlines a ”chemical cocktail” of substances found in trace amounts in these fish, including canthaxanthin, a dietary additive that gives farmed salmon its appealing color; various pesticides such as cypermethrin, dichlorvos and azamethiphos, associated with cancer and reproductive problems in humans; copper and zinc-based paints; and malachite green, a fungicide. The latter was banned in June by the Scottish government, and a European government-sanctioned science commission has recently called for a two-thirds reduction in canthaxanthin, which has long been banned by the European Union for direct human consumption, due to its potential for vision damage.
The contaminants’ source is linked to the farming process. PCBs and other toxins are concentrated in the oil-rich, pelletized fish meal, which farmed salmon are fed. The fish are treated with pesticides to control parasites, fed canthaxanthin and subjected to pen disinfectants. Antibiotics are administered to treat disease in crowded pens. In addition, there is mounting evidence farmed salmon contain fewer of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids for which wild salmon are so highly touted.
A number of respected sources, including U.S. nutritionist Andrew Weil and The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, state that farmed salmon have two to three times fewer omega-3’s than their wild counterparts. Meanwhile, the fat content of farmed fish ranges between 11% and 20% vs. 7% for wild.
There are serious environmental issues associated with salmon farming as well. The spread of highly infectious, mutating salmon diseases, large-scale environmental pollution and the escape of millions of non-native fish from salmon-farm operations are all ongoing problems that alarm scientists. They worry about the potential impact on wild salmon stocks.
USA Today op ed, October, 2002
Thanks to Rivercurrents, newsletter from American Rivers
Quantitative Approach for Incorporating Methylmercury Risks and omega-3 Fatty Acid Benefits in Developing Species-Specific Fish Consumption Advice
“Results: Estimated omega-3 FA benefits outweigh MeHg risks for some species (e.g., farmed salmon, herring, trout); however, the opposite was true for others (swordfish, shark). Other species were associated with a small net benefit (e.g., flounder, canned light tuna) or a small net risk (e.g., canned white tuna, halibut). These results were used to place fish into one of four meal frequency categories, with the advice tentative because of limitations in the underlying dose-response information. Separate advice appears warranted for the neurodevelopmental risk group versus the cardiovascular risk group because we found a greater net benefit from fish consumption for the cardiovascular risk group.” Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Feb;117(2):267-75. doi: 10.1289/ehp.11368. Epub 2008 Sep 3.
Studies suggest farmed salmon may be far from pure. A recent pilot study by Canadian scientist Michael Easton, an expert in ecotoxicology, found that a four-fish sample of farmed salmon when compared with wild-caught salmon contained elevated levels of chemical contaminants, including PCBs — known carcinogens.
Easton’s research, which was published in the peer-reviewed international science journal, Chemosphere, showed 10 times more PCBs in farmed salmon than in wild fish — levels that he believes pose a health risk for regular consumers.
Levels of pesticides in farmed fish were also significantly higher, Easton’s study showed, while mercury levels were roughly the same. ”This is a preliminary study that raises significant questions,” Easton says.
He stresses the possibility of damage to anyone who consumes farmed salmon directly or indirectly from combined, low-level toxins. Easton also points out the elevated risk of mental retardation and brain damage to nursing babies and unborn fetuses.
Other new studies in the United Kingdom (source of many farmed salmon that supply U.S. markets) have cast further doubts on the safety of these fish, enough to fan an outcry in the British media.
A recent feature in the Daily Mail outlines a ”chemical cocktail” of substances found in trace amounts in these fish, including canthaxanthin, a dietary additive that gives farmed salmon its appealing color; various pesticides such as cypermethrin, dichlorvos and azamethiphos, associated with cancer and reproductive problems in humans; copper and zinc-based paints; and malachite green, a fungicide. The latter was banned in June by the Scottish government, and a European government-sanctioned science commission has recently called for a two-thirds reduction in canthaxanthin, which has long been banned by the European Union for direct human consumption, due to its potential for vision damage.
The contaminants’ source is linked to the farming process. PCBs and other toxins are concentrated in the oil-rich, pelletized fish meal, which farmed salmon are fed. The fish are treated with pesticides to control parasites, fed canthaxanthin and subjected to pen disinfectants. Antibiotics are administered to treat disease in crowded pens. In addition, there is mounting evidence farmed salmon contain fewer of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids for which wild salmon are so highly touted.
A number of respected sources, including U.S. nutritionist Andrew Weil and The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, state that farmed salmon have two to three times fewer omega-3’s than their wild counterparts. Meanwhile, the fat content of farmed fish ranges between 11% and 20% vs. 7% for wild.
There are serious environmental issues associated with salmon farming as well. The spread of highly infectious, mutating salmon diseases, large-scale environmental pollution and the escape of millions of non-native fish from salmon-farm operations are all ongoing problems that alarm scientists. They worry about the potential impact on wild salmon stocks.
USA Today op ed, October, 2002
Thanks to Rivercurrents, newsletter from American Rivers
Quantitative Approach for Incorporating Methylmercury Risks and omega-3 Fatty Acid Benefits in Developing Species-Specific Fish Consumption Advice
“Results: Estimated omega-3 FA benefits outweigh MeHg risks for some species (e.g., farmed salmon, herring, trout); however, the opposite was true for others (swordfish, shark). Other species were associated with a small net benefit (e.g., flounder, canned light tuna) or a small net risk (e.g., canned white tuna, halibut). These results were used to place fish into one of four meal frequency categories, with the advice tentative because of limitations in the underlying dose-response information. Separate advice appears warranted for the neurodevelopmental risk group versus the cardiovascular risk group because we found a greater net benefit from fish consumption for the cardiovascular risk group.” Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Feb;117(2):267-75. doi: 10.1289/ehp.11368. Epub 2008 Sep 3.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Vol. 91, No. 13, July 7, 1999
“The negative results from intervention trials that sought to prevent cancer by the use of beta-carotene supplements underline the difficulty in choosing the APPROPRIATE prophylactic AGENT.” (Ann’s emphasis). “…if the research strategy is to conduct intervention trials, each using one substance at one dose, then it will probably take several decades to discover an effective anticancer substance.
This is especially true if there is no ‘magic bullet’ in fruits and vegetables but rather a ‘team’ of substances, each of which is needed for optimal effectiveness”. Ann’s NOTE: EAT WHOLE FOODS
Dr. Temple suggests further: “…conduct a randomized intervention trial using a mixture of fruits and vegetables”(oranges, tomatoes, broccoli and carrots). “A placebo of similar taste and appearance could easily be formulated.
What this would achieve: “1) It would prove that fruits and vegetables do indeed prevent cancer 2) it would demonstrate the feasibility of this study design and 3) there is strong evidence that fruits and vegetables should also prevent coronary heart disease and help correct hypertension.”
Ann has written about this concept for years and has testified at FDA and other government meetings. This has also been raised by advocates at scientific and medical meetings. It makes sense. How long do we have to wait before these studies are done? Our government has no problem spending $50-$60 million on drugs for prevention, but CANNOT seem to rationalize testing products and substances that no company will profit from. BUT PATIENTS MAY BENEFIT. SPEAK UP.
Ann’s NOTE: We have written extensively on Big Pharma having NO interest in any substance/protocol/ that cannot be patented to earn money. Fine for them, but this is ABOUT US! (April 2020)
“The negative results from intervention trials that sought to prevent cancer by the use of beta-carotene supplements underline the difficulty in choosing the APPROPRIATE prophylactic AGENT.” (Ann’s emphasis). “…if the research strategy is to conduct intervention trials, each using one substance at one dose, then it will probably take several decades to discover an effective anticancer substance.
This is especially true if there is no ‘magic bullet’ in fruits and vegetables but rather a ‘team’ of substances, each of which is needed for optimal effectiveness”. Ann’s NOTE: EAT WHOLE FOODS
Dr. Temple suggests further: “…conduct a randomized intervention trial using a mixture of fruits and vegetables”(oranges, tomatoes, broccoli and carrots). “A placebo of similar taste and appearance could easily be formulated.
What this would achieve: “1) It would prove that fruits and vegetables do indeed prevent cancer 2) it would demonstrate the feasibility of this study design and 3) there is strong evidence that fruits and vegetables should also prevent coronary heart disease and help correct hypertension.”
Ann has written about this concept for years and has testified at FDA and other government meetings. This has also been raised by advocates at scientific and medical meetings. It makes sense. How long do we have to wait before these studies are done? Our government has no problem spending $50-$60 million on drugs for prevention, but CANNOT seem to rationalize testing products and substances that no company will profit from. BUT PATIENTS MAY BENEFIT. SPEAK UP.
Ann’s NOTE: We have written extensively on Big Pharma having NO interest in any substance/protocol/ that cannot be patented to earn money. Fine for them, but this is ABOUT US! (April 2020)
Junk Cereal
Is Eating Cartoon-Colored Food Bad for Kids’ Health?
By: Emily P. Walker | March 30, 2011
When I was growing up, my mother cruelly denied my sister and I all sorts of delicious packaged, processed, artificially-colored foods.
My dream sandwich was creamy peanut butter with bright purple grape jelly, on fluffy, snow-white slices of Wonder Bread. Instead, I had to eat chunky natural peanut butter with jam on cardboard-like slices of whole wheat bread.
But the worst denial of simple childhood pleasures was my mom’s refusal to keep what we called ‘sweet cereal’ in the house.
Boxes of Cheerios, Wheaties, and oatmeal perched unappealingly atop our refrigerator. But what I really longed for was Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, and Fruity Pebbles.
My friends’ parents must have thought my own parents starved me, because when I was lucky enough to have a sleepover at a friend’s house whose parents gladly stocked ‘sweet cereal,’ I’d combine all varieties in a giant bowl filled with Technicolor tidbits.
Those colors defied nature. They contained yellows brighter than the sun on the belly of the most uplifting Care Bear, Funshine Bear. Reds so vibrant, they must have been plucked right from Woody Woodpecker’s flowing feather mane. Blues that could only be seen on the smooth skin of a Smurf.
Okay, so not the most natural colors, and certainly not the most natural things to eat.
But is eating these cartoon colors actually bad for you?
That’s what an FDA’s Food Advisory Committee will decide.
The panel is holding a two-day meeting this week at the request of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is requesting that the FDA revoke approval for eight synthetic dyes that are used as color additives in food.
An FDA review of the literature released ahead of the advisory panel meeting included this study that found three year-old children fed drink mixtures containing common food dyes and the preservative sodium benzoate were significantly more hyper than kids who drank a placebo.
But FDA reviewers wrote that the effects of artificial coloring on kids’ behavior are far from conclusive, and said dyes have not been definitively linked to hyperactivity.
The reviewers basically likened dyes to allergens that might affect some kids who are already hyperactive. But they said additives other than dyes might have the same effect.
Speakers from CSPI argued Wednesday morning that dyes should be banned from all foods because they offer no benefit, other than attempting to fool people into thinking they are eating fruit, or something else that is healthy.
A valid point, but judging from my own excitement as a child over eating Technicolor foods, I suspect manufacturers of processed foods would not take the news of removing dyes from food so well.
After all, Fruity Pebbles with no dye would look like a bowl full of actual pebbles. Which, to a kid, is only slightly less appealing than a chunky PB&J on whole wheat bread.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/25619
Ann Fonfa (founder Annie Appleseed Project) commented at the time this was published:
April 04, 2011 “Cute — we were all ‘denied’ something by our parents. But does this speak at ALL to a health issue? Nope. Studies are not done in meaningful ways to elicit information on long-term or combined effects of these less-than-healthy, mostly untested, additions to our food.
For centuries, children ate real food and amazingly lived to talk about it. We don’t seem to have had ADHD or any of the complex auto-immune diseases we do now. When we export our lousy food, people in other countries become less healthy and fairly quickly too. A connection? I think so”. — Posted by Ann Fonfa, advocate
“This study suggests that some of the food preservatives and colorants can contribute to the activation of inflammatory pathways.” Physiol Int. 2016 Sep;103(3):334-343. doi: 10.1556/2060.103.2016.3.6.
Food Additives: Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Azorubine, and Tartrazine Modify the Expression of NFκB, GADD45α, and MAPK8 Genes
Is Eating Cartoon-Colored Food Bad for Kids’ Health?
By: Emily P. Walker | March 30, 2011
When I was growing up, my mother cruelly denied my sister and I all sorts of delicious packaged, processed, artificially-colored foods.
My dream sandwich was creamy peanut butter with bright purple grape jelly, on fluffy, snow-white slices of Wonder Bread. Instead, I had to eat chunky natural peanut butter with jam on cardboard-like slices of whole wheat bread.
But the worst denial of simple childhood pleasures was my mom’s refusal to keep what we called ‘sweet cereal’ in the house.
Boxes of Cheerios, Wheaties, and oatmeal perched unappealingly atop our refrigerator. But what I really longed for was Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, and Fruity Pebbles.
My friends’ parents must have thought my own parents starved me, because when I was lucky enough to have a sleepover at a friend’s house whose parents gladly stocked ‘sweet cereal,’ I’d combine all varieties in a giant bowl filled with Technicolor tidbits.
Those colors defied nature. They contained yellows brighter than the sun on the belly of the most uplifting Care Bear, Funshine Bear. Reds so vibrant, they must have been plucked right from Woody Woodpecker’s flowing feather mane. Blues that could only be seen on the smooth skin of a Smurf.
Okay, so not the most natural colors, and certainly not the most natural things to eat.
But is eating these cartoon colors actually bad for you?
That’s what an FDA’s Food Advisory Committee will decide.
The panel is holding a two-day meeting this week at the request of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is requesting that the FDA revoke approval for eight synthetic dyes that are used as color additives in food.
An FDA review of the literature released ahead of the advisory panel meeting included this study that found three year-old children fed drink mixtures containing common food dyes and the preservative sodium benzoate were significantly more hyper than kids who drank a placebo.
But FDA reviewers wrote that the effects of artificial coloring on kids’ behavior are far from conclusive, and said dyes have not been definitively linked to hyperactivity.
The reviewers basically likened dyes to allergens that might affect some kids who are already hyperactive. But they said additives other than dyes might have the same effect.
Speakers from CSPI argued Wednesday morning that dyes should be banned from all foods because they offer no benefit, other than attempting to fool people into thinking they are eating fruit, or something else that is healthy.
A valid point, but judging from my own excitement as a child over eating Technicolor foods, I suspect manufacturers of processed foods would not take the news of removing dyes from food so well.
After all, Fruity Pebbles with no dye would look like a bowl full of actual pebbles. Which, to a kid, is only slightly less appealing than a chunky PB&J on whole wheat bread.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/25619
Ann Fonfa (founder Annie Appleseed Project) commented at the time this was published:
April 04, 2011 “Cute — we were all ‘denied’ something by our parents. But does this speak at ALL to a health issue? Nope. Studies are not done in meaningful ways to elicit information on long-term or combined effects of these less-than-healthy, mostly untested, additions to our food.
For centuries, children ate real food and amazingly lived to talk about it. We don’t seem to have had ADHD or any of the complex auto-immune diseases we do now. When we export our lousy food, people in other countries become less healthy and fairly quickly too. A connection? I think so”. — Posted by Ann Fonfa, advocate
“This study suggests that some of the food preservatives and colorants can contribute to the activation of inflammatory pathways.” Physiol Int. 2016 Sep;103(3):334-343. doi: 10.1556/2060.103.2016.3.6.
Food Additives: Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Azorubine, and Tartrazine Modify the Expression of NFκB, GADD45α, and MAPK8 Genes
Kefir
Kefir Extracts Suppress In Vitro Proliferation of Estrogen-Dependent Human Breast Cancer Cells but Not Normal Mammary Epithelial Cells
Chujian Chen
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, People’s Republic of China
School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China
Hing Man Chan
Community Health Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, People’s Republic of China
Stan Kubow
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, People’s Republic of China
Anti-tumorigenic effects have been demonstrated in animal studies from the intake of kefir, a traditional fermented milk product believed to originate from the Caucasian mountains of Russia. In the present study, the antiproliferative effects of extracts of kefir, yogurt, and pasteurized cow’s milk on human mammary cancer cells (MCF-7) and normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs) was investigated at doses of 0.31%, 0.63%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5%, and 10% (vol/vol).
After 6 days of culture, extracts of kefir-fermented milk depressed MCF-7 cell growth in a dose-dependent manner, showing 29% inhibition of proliferation at a concentration as low as 0.63%, whereas yogurt extracts began to show dose-dependent antiproliferative effects only at the 2.5% dose.
Moreover, at the 2.5% dose, kefir extracts decreased the MCF-7 cell numbers by 56%, while yogurt extracts decreased MCF-7 cell proliferation by only 14%. No antiproliferative effects of kefir extracts were observed in the HMECs, while the yogurt extracts exerted antiproliferative effects on HMECs at the 5% and 10% doses.
Unfermented milk extracts stimulated proliferation of MCF-7 cells and HMECs at concentrations above 0.31%. Peptide content and capillary electrophoresis analyses showed that kefir-mediated milk fermentation led to an increase in peptide concentrations and a change in peptide profiles relative to milk or yogurt.
The present findings suggest that kefir extracts contain constituents that specifically inhibit the growth of human breast cancer cells, which might eventually be useful in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.
Journal of Medicinal Food. 2007, 10(3): 416-422. doi:10.1089/jmf.2006.236.
Med Oncol. 2017 Sep 27;34(11):183. doi: 10.1007/s12032-017-1044-9.
Kefir: A Powerful Probiotics With Anticancer Properties
Mohammadreza Sharifi 1, Abbas Moridnia 2, Deniz Mortazavi 3, Mahsa Salehi 3, Marzieh Bagheri 3, Abdolkarim Sheikhi 2 PMID: 28956261
Abstract
Probiotics and fermented milk products have attracted the attention of scientists from various fields, such as health care, industry and pharmacy. In recent years, reports have shown that dietary probiotics such as kefir have a great potential for cancer prevention and treatment. Kefir is fermented milk with Caucasian and Tibet origin, made from the incubation of kefir grains with raw milk or water. Kefir grains are a mixture of yeast and bacteria, living in a symbiotic association. Antibacterial, antifungal, anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory effects are some of the health beneficial properties of kefir grains. Furthermore, it is suggested that some of the bioactive compounds of kefir such as polysaccharides and peptides have great potential for inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. Many studies revealed that kefir acts on different cancers such as colorectal cancer, malignant T lymphocytes, breast cancer and lung carcinoma. In this review, we have focused on anticancer properties of kefir.
Arch Iran Med . 2015 Dec;18(12):852-7.
Kefir and Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literatures
Nahid Rafie 1, Sahar Golpour Hamedani 1, Reza Ghiasvand 1, Maryam Miraghajani 1 PMID: 26621019
Abstract
Some studies have suggested chemopreventive effects of kefir, a fermented milk product, on carcinogenesis. The aim of this review study was to evaluate the scientific evidence for effects of kefir on cancer prevention and treatment. We systematically searched for all relevant studies published before June 2015, using PubMed, Google scholar, Cochrane and Science Direct, SID, MedLib and Srlst databases. Relevant studies were reviewed based on systematic review (PRISMA) guidelines. From a total of 2208 papers obtained at the initial database search, 11 publications including 7 in vitro and 4 experimental studies were eligible. In vitro studies on breast, colon, skin and gastric cancers and leukemia cell lines and experimental studies on different sarcomas consistently showed beneficial effects of kefir on cancer prevention and treatment. The results of this systematic review suggest that kefir may be associated with cancer prevention and it also has beneficial effects in cancer treatment. This protection may be associated with kefir bioactive components including peptides, polysaccharides and sphingolipids.
Kefir Extracts Suppress In Vitro Proliferation of Estrogen-Dependent Human Breast Cancer Cells but Not Normal Mammary Epithelial Cells
Chujian Chen
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, People’s Republic of China
School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China
Hing Man Chan
Community Health Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, People’s Republic of China
Stan Kubow
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, People’s Republic of China
Anti-tumorigenic effects have been demonstrated in animal studies from the intake of kefir, a traditional fermented milk product believed to originate from the Caucasian mountains of Russia. In the present study, the antiproliferative effects of extracts of kefir, yogurt, and pasteurized cow’s milk on human mammary cancer cells (MCF-7) and normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs) was investigated at doses of 0.31%, 0.63%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5%, and 10% (vol/vol).
After 6 days of culture, extracts of kefir-fermented milk depressed MCF-7 cell growth in a dose-dependent manner, showing 29% inhibition of proliferation at a concentration as low as 0.63%, whereas yogurt extracts began to show dose-dependent antiproliferative effects only at the 2.5% dose.
Moreover, at the 2.5% dose, kefir extracts decreased the MCF-7 cell numbers by 56%, while yogurt extracts decreased MCF-7 cell proliferation by only 14%. No antiproliferative effects of kefir extracts were observed in the HMECs, while the yogurt extracts exerted antiproliferative effects on HMECs at the 5% and 10% doses.
Unfermented milk extracts stimulated proliferation of MCF-7 cells and HMECs at concentrations above 0.31%. Peptide content and capillary electrophoresis analyses showed that kefir-mediated milk fermentation led to an increase in peptide concentrations and a change in peptide profiles relative to milk or yogurt.
The present findings suggest that kefir extracts contain constituents that specifically inhibit the growth of human breast cancer cells, which might eventually be useful in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.
Journal of Medicinal Food. 2007, 10(3): 416-422. doi:10.1089/jmf.2006.236.
Med Oncol. 2017 Sep 27;34(11):183. doi: 10.1007/s12032-017-1044-9.
Kefir: A Powerful Probiotics With Anticancer Properties
Mohammadreza Sharifi 1, Abbas Moridnia 2, Deniz Mortazavi 3, Mahsa Salehi 3, Marzieh Bagheri 3, Abdolkarim Sheikhi 2 PMID: 28956261
Abstract
Probiotics and fermented milk products have attracted the attention of scientists from various fields, such as health care, industry and pharmacy. In recent years, reports have shown that dietary probiotics such as kefir have a great potential for cancer prevention and treatment. Kefir is fermented milk with Caucasian and Tibet origin, made from the incubation of kefir grains with raw milk or water. Kefir grains are a mixture of yeast and bacteria, living in a symbiotic association. Antibacterial, antifungal, anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory effects are some of the health beneficial properties of kefir grains. Furthermore, it is suggested that some of the bioactive compounds of kefir such as polysaccharides and peptides have great potential for inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. Many studies revealed that kefir acts on different cancers such as colorectal cancer, malignant T lymphocytes, breast cancer and lung carcinoma. In this review, we have focused on anticancer properties of kefir.
Arch Iran Med . 2015 Dec;18(12):852-7.
Kefir and Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literatures
Nahid Rafie 1, Sahar Golpour Hamedani 1, Reza Ghiasvand 1, Maryam Miraghajani 1 PMID: 26621019
Abstract
Some studies have suggested chemopreventive effects of kefir, a fermented milk product, on carcinogenesis. The aim of this review study was to evaluate the scientific evidence for effects of kefir on cancer prevention and treatment. We systematically searched for all relevant studies published before June 2015, using PubMed, Google scholar, Cochrane and Science Direct, SID, MedLib and Srlst databases. Relevant studies were reviewed based on systematic review (PRISMA) guidelines. From a total of 2208 papers obtained at the initial database search, 11 publications including 7 in vitro and 4 experimental studies were eligible. In vitro studies on breast, colon, skin and gastric cancers and leukemia cell lines and experimental studies on different sarcomas consistently showed beneficial effects of kefir on cancer prevention and treatment. The results of this systematic review suggest that kefir may be associated with cancer prevention and it also has beneficial effects in cancer treatment. This protection may be associated with kefir bioactive components including peptides, polysaccharides and sphingolipids.
Kids: Organic vs Pesticides
“Organophosphorus pesticide exposure or urban and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets”
Cynthia L. Curl, Richard A. Fenske, Kai Elgethun
Environmental Health Perspectives, October 13, 2002, National Institute of Environmental Sciences
A University of Washington study analyzed pesticide breakdown products (metabolites) in pre-school aged children and found that children eating organic fruits and vegetables had concentrations of pesticide metabolites six times lower than children eating conventional produce.
The study compared metabolite concentrations of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides (a class of insecticides that disrupt the nervous system) in the urine of 39 urban and suburban children aged 2 to 4 years. The researchers’ findings point to a relatively simple way for parents to reduce their children’s chemical loads–serve organic produce.
The authors focused on children’s dietary pesticide exposure because children are at greater risk for two reasons: they eat more food relative to body mass, and they eat foods higher in pesticide residues–such as juices, fresh fruits and vegetables.
An earlier study cited by the authors looked at pesticide metabolites in the urine of 96 urban and suburban children and found OP pesticides in the urine of all children but one. The parents of the child with no pesticide metabolites reported buying exclusively organic produce.
Researchers recruited children for the study outside of conventional and organic grocery stores in the Seattle metropolitan region and asked parents to record all food consumed in a three-day period prior to collecting their child’s urine over the next 24 hours.
Based on the food diaries, the study assigned the children into groups consuming at least 75% organic or at least 75% conventional fruits and vegetables. Parents were also asked about household pesticide use in their homes and on gardens, lawns and pets.
Although the authors found that parents of children eating conventional diets were more likely to report some home pesticide use, they did not find significant differences in concentrations of pesticide metabolites based on this use.
The children’s urine was tested for five metabolites of OP pesticides which are registered in the U.S. and frequently applied to food crops. The study focused on these pesticides because they are metabolized into several easily recognizable compounds.
Breakdown products of pesticides such as malathion, azinphos-methyl, parathion, oxydemeton-methyl, phosmet, methyl parathion, methidatihon and dimethoate were found at the highest concentrations. Of these pesticides, azinphos-methyl and phosmet are the two primarily used on fresh produce within the U.S. Lower concentrations were found of breakdown products from diazinon and chlorpyrifos.
The researchers found median concentrations of OP metabolites six times lower in the children with organic diets. Average concentrations for the organic group were actually nine times lower, suggesting that some children eating conventional produce had much higher concentrations of OP metabolites in their systems.
Because many of the OP pesticides break down into identical metabolites, the study did not provide information on the specific pesticides children were exposed to. However, the study did determine that some children were at risk for consuming more OP pesticides than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers “safe” as a daily dose.
The researchers concluded that organic fruits and vegetables can reduce exposure levels from above to below EPA chronic reference doses, “thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk.”
These findings confirm what is already known about pesticide residues on conventional produce. Consumers Union analyzed U.S. Department of Agriculture residue data for all pesticides for 1999 and 2000 and warned parents of small children to limit or avoid conventionally grown foods known to have high residues such as cantaloupes, green beans (canned or frozen), pears, strawberries, tomatoes (Mexican grown) and winter squash.
The Seattle study, which reflects children’s food diaries, adds apples to that list.
Susan Kegley, staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network states, “We have been concerned for a long time about continuous exposure to organochlorine pesticides because they persist in our bodies for years.
This study reveals that we are continuously exposed to OP pesticides, not because they linger in our bodies, but because we are persistently being exposed through the food we eat every day.”
The study’s main conclusion–eating organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce children’s pesticide loads–is information that parents can act on to reduce their children’s risk.
A secondary conclusion–that small children may be exceeding “safe” levels of pesticide exposure–is information that regulators should act on and, at the very least, reduce uses of these pesticides on food crops.
Thanks to:
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA
Phone: (415) 981-1771
Fax: (415) 981-1991
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.panna.org
“Organophosphorus pesticide exposure or urban and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets”
Cynthia L. Curl, Richard A. Fenske, Kai Elgethun
Environmental Health Perspectives, October 13, 2002, National Institute of Environmental Sciences
A University of Washington study analyzed pesticide breakdown products (metabolites) in pre-school aged children and found that children eating organic fruits and vegetables had concentrations of pesticide metabolites six times lower than children eating conventional produce.
The study compared metabolite concentrations of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides (a class of insecticides that disrupt the nervous system) in the urine of 39 urban and suburban children aged 2 to 4 years. The researchers’ findings point to a relatively simple way for parents to reduce their children’s chemical loads–serve organic produce.
The authors focused on children’s dietary pesticide exposure because children are at greater risk for two reasons: they eat more food relative to body mass, and they eat foods higher in pesticide residues–such as juices, fresh fruits and vegetables.
An earlier study cited by the authors looked at pesticide metabolites in the urine of 96 urban and suburban children and found OP pesticides in the urine of all children but one. The parents of the child with no pesticide metabolites reported buying exclusively organic produce.
Researchers recruited children for the study outside of conventional and organic grocery stores in the Seattle metropolitan region and asked parents to record all food consumed in a three-day period prior to collecting their child’s urine over the next 24 hours.
Based on the food diaries, the study assigned the children into groups consuming at least 75% organic or at least 75% conventional fruits and vegetables. Parents were also asked about household pesticide use in their homes and on gardens, lawns and pets.
Although the authors found that parents of children eating conventional diets were more likely to report some home pesticide use, they did not find significant differences in concentrations of pesticide metabolites based on this use.
The children’s urine was tested for five metabolites of OP pesticides which are registered in the U.S. and frequently applied to food crops. The study focused on these pesticides because they are metabolized into several easily recognizable compounds.
Breakdown products of pesticides such as malathion, azinphos-methyl, parathion, oxydemeton-methyl, phosmet, methyl parathion, methidatihon and dimethoate were found at the highest concentrations. Of these pesticides, azinphos-methyl and phosmet are the two primarily used on fresh produce within the U.S. Lower concentrations were found of breakdown products from diazinon and chlorpyrifos.
The researchers found median concentrations of OP metabolites six times lower in the children with organic diets. Average concentrations for the organic group were actually nine times lower, suggesting that some children eating conventional produce had much higher concentrations of OP metabolites in their systems.
Because many of the OP pesticides break down into identical metabolites, the study did not provide information on the specific pesticides children were exposed to. However, the study did determine that some children were at risk for consuming more OP pesticides than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers “safe” as a daily dose.
The researchers concluded that organic fruits and vegetables can reduce exposure levels from above to below EPA chronic reference doses, “thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk.”
These findings confirm what is already known about pesticide residues on conventional produce. Consumers Union analyzed U.S. Department of Agriculture residue data for all pesticides for 1999 and 2000 and warned parents of small children to limit or avoid conventionally grown foods known to have high residues such as cantaloupes, green beans (canned or frozen), pears, strawberries, tomatoes (Mexican grown) and winter squash.
The Seattle study, which reflects children’s food diaries, adds apples to that list.
Susan Kegley, staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network states, “We have been concerned for a long time about continuous exposure to organochlorine pesticides because they persist in our bodies for years.
This study reveals that we are continuously exposed to OP pesticides, not because they linger in our bodies, but because we are persistently being exposed through the food we eat every day.”
The study’s main conclusion–eating organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce children’s pesticide loads–is information that parents can act on to reduce their children’s risk.
A secondary conclusion–that small children may be exceeding “safe” levels of pesticide exposure–is information that regulators should act on and, at the very least, reduce uses of these pesticides on food crops.
Thanks to:
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA
Phone: (415) 981-1771
Fax: (415) 981-1991
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.panna.org
Lemons
Lemon Juice as a Germicide (1903 article)
Lemon Juice a Germicide.
Medical News.
ILLINOIS.
Chicago.
The publicity given in the daily press to a cablegram alleging that lemon juice was a powerful germicide, with especial reference to the typhoid bacillus, has led the health department to experiment, with the following preliminary results:
The following experiment was made in the laboratory to test the value of lemon juice in destroying the typhoid bacilli: One hundred and twenty c.c. of bouillon was inoculated with the Bacillus typhosis. The flask was placed in the incubator at 90 degrees for 12 hours.
At the end of this period 4 c.c. of lemon juice was added. At the end of four hours plates were inoculated from this flask. The plates at the end of 24 hours showed no growth.
Further investigations will be made, and the department says lemon juice may be recommended as a prophylactic if results prove its value.
JAMA. 1903;40:40-41
JAMA 100 Years Ago Section Editor: Jennifer Reiling, Assistant Editor.
A simple detoxification and liver cleanse can be accomplished by taking one oz. of fresh lemon juice in 8 oz. of water (or 1/2 oz. of lemon juice to 4 oz. of water) upon arising and before bedtime.
Mildew manager: Mix one part salt and one part lemon juice and apply to mildew in bathrooms and kitchens. SOURCE: HealthyChild.org (blog post)
Lemon Juice as a Germicide (1903 article)
Lemon Juice a Germicide.
Medical News.
ILLINOIS.
Chicago.
The publicity given in the daily press to a cablegram alleging that lemon juice was a powerful germicide, with especial reference to the typhoid bacillus, has led the health department to experiment, with the following preliminary results:
The following experiment was made in the laboratory to test the value of lemon juice in destroying the typhoid bacilli: One hundred and twenty c.c. of bouillon was inoculated with the Bacillus typhosis. The flask was placed in the incubator at 90 degrees for 12 hours.
At the end of this period 4 c.c. of lemon juice was added. At the end of four hours plates were inoculated from this flask. The plates at the end of 24 hours showed no growth.
Further investigations will be made, and the department says lemon juice may be recommended as a prophylactic if results prove its value.
JAMA. 1903;40:40-41
JAMA 100 Years Ago Section Editor: Jennifer Reiling, Assistant Editor.
A simple detoxification and liver cleanse can be accomplished by taking one oz. of fresh lemon juice in 8 oz. of water (or 1/2 oz. of lemon juice to 4 oz. of water) upon arising and before bedtime.
Mildew manager: Mix one part salt and one part lemon juice and apply to mildew in bathrooms and kitchens. SOURCE: HealthyChild.org (blog post)
Licorice Root Against Cancers
Licorice Root Molecule Explored Against Cancers
A novel molecule extracted from licorice root has the ability to stop some cancers dead in their tracks, according to a collaborative research study conducted at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Mohamed Rafi, assistant professor in the department of food science at Rutgers’ Cook College, discovered the new molecule, ß-hydroxy-DHP (BHP), in common dietary supplements made from licorice root, a natural remedy with curative powers recognized for millennia. Rafi tested the compound in the laboratory on tissues taken from prostate and breast cancer tumors.
“We were able to conclusively demonstrate for the first time that BHP stopped the growth of cancer cells in prostate and breast cancers,” Rafi said. Prostate and breast cancers are the leading cancers affecting men and women respectively, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BHP belongs to a class of organic chemicals known as polyphenols that includes the potential anticancer compounds found in green tea and wine.
“The precision with which ß-hydroxy-DHP acts in treating these cancers offers new hope for more effective therapies,” said Rafi. Standard chemotherapy kills normal cells along with cancer cells, causing side effects such as hair loss, nausea and reduced immunities.
BHP, a small, highly specific molecule, focuses precisely on cancer cells. It works by deactivating a protein associated with tumor cells known to promote the rampant cell growth characteristic of cancer.
The paper reporting this discovery was first published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry by Rafi and his colleagues. The team’s findings have gained new prominence since the National Institutes of Health included it in its Annual Bibliography of Significant Advances in Dietary Supplement Research in October 2002. Collaborators in this research included other scientists at Rutgers’ Cook College and Center for Advanced Food Technology, as well as researchers at the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus recognized the natural medicinal qualities of licorice. Tutankhamen was even buried with licorice root. Today, the root is a botanical ingredient in modern Chinese medicines used to manage cancers. While some previous scientific studies confirmed the wisdom of the ancients, the actual anticancer mechanisms remained a mystery until Rafi’s discovery.
“While licorice root is currently in clinical trials, we still need to isolate, synthesize and clinically test the BHP compound,” Rafi says. “There is still a lot more to do both in the laboratory with animal models and in clinical trials on humans.”
This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey.
http://ur.rutgers.edu/medrel/viewArticle.html?ArticleID=3683
Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey
===========================================================================================
Breast Cancer News is brought to you by BREAST CANCER OPTIONS, part of the Mid Hudson Options Project, a grassroots Breast Cancer Health Advocacy, Support and Activist Group.
Ann’s NOTE: My understanding of licorice is that it enhances Chinese prescriptions but is not used alone. And it is estrogenic and anti-estrogenic as well.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Licorice and Cancer Z Y Wang 1, D W Nixon PMID: 11588889 DOI: 10.1207/S15327914nc391_1
Abstract
Licorice root is one of the oldest and most frequently employed botanicals in Chinese medicine. In the United States, licorice products are most often used as flavoring and sweetening agents in food products. Constituents of licorice include triterpenoids, such as glycyrrhizin and its aglycone glycyrrhizic acid, various polyphenols, and polysaccharides. A number of pharmaceutical effects of licorice are known or suspected (anti-inflammatory, antivirus, antiulcer, anticarcinogenesis, and others). Licorice and its derivatives may protect against carcinogen-induced DNA damage and may be suppressive agents as well. Glycyrrhizic acid is an inhibitor of lipoxygenase and cyclooxygenase, inhibits protein kinase C, and downregulates the epidermal growth factor receptor. Licorice polyphenols induce apoptosis in cancer cells. These and other activities of licorice are reviewed, and a rationale is suggested for combinations of agents in preventive clinical trials.
Nutr Cancer, 39 (1), 1-11 2001
Curr Pharmacol Rep, 1 (1), 60-71 2015
Chemopreventive Effects of Licorice and Its Components
Ann M Bode 1, Zigang Dong 1 PMID: 32226725 PMCID: PMC7100402
DOI: 10.1007/s40495-014-0015-5
Abstract
Cancer is still a major health issue worldwide and identifying novel but safe compounds for prevention and treatment is a high priority. Licorice (Glycyrrhiza) is a perennial plant that is cultivated in many countries and has been reported to exert antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anticancer effects. However, some components of licorice exert unwanted side effects and therefore identifying safer licorice components would be ideal. The anticancer activities of many of the licorice components appear to include cycle arrest, apoptosis induction, and general antioxidant effects. Commonly reported indirect protein targets important in tumorigenesis include many cell cycle-related proteins, apoptosis-associated proteins, MMP proteins, COX-2, GSK-β, Akt, NF-κB, and MAP kinases. Importantly, several licorice components were reported to directly bind to and inhibit the activities of PI3-K, MKK4, MKK7, JNK1, mTOR, and Cdk2, resulting in decreased carcinogenesis in several cell and mouse models with no obvious toxicity. This review focuses on specific components of licorice for which a direct protein target has been identified.
Licorice Root Molecule Explored Against Cancers
A novel molecule extracted from licorice root has the ability to stop some cancers dead in their tracks, according to a collaborative research study conducted at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Mohamed Rafi, assistant professor in the department of food science at Rutgers’ Cook College, discovered the new molecule, ß-hydroxy-DHP (BHP), in common dietary supplements made from licorice root, a natural remedy with curative powers recognized for millennia. Rafi tested the compound in the laboratory on tissues taken from prostate and breast cancer tumors.
“We were able to conclusively demonstrate for the first time that BHP stopped the growth of cancer cells in prostate and breast cancers,” Rafi said. Prostate and breast cancers are the leading cancers affecting men and women respectively, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BHP belongs to a class of organic chemicals known as polyphenols that includes the potential anticancer compounds found in green tea and wine.
“The precision with which ß-hydroxy-DHP acts in treating these cancers offers new hope for more effective therapies,” said Rafi. Standard chemotherapy kills normal cells along with cancer cells, causing side effects such as hair loss, nausea and reduced immunities.
BHP, a small, highly specific molecule, focuses precisely on cancer cells. It works by deactivating a protein associated with tumor cells known to promote the rampant cell growth characteristic of cancer.
The paper reporting this discovery was first published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry by Rafi and his colleagues. The team’s findings have gained new prominence since the National Institutes of Health included it in its Annual Bibliography of Significant Advances in Dietary Supplement Research in October 2002. Collaborators in this research included other scientists at Rutgers’ Cook College and Center for Advanced Food Technology, as well as researchers at the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus recognized the natural medicinal qualities of licorice. Tutankhamen was even buried with licorice root. Today, the root is a botanical ingredient in modern Chinese medicines used to manage cancers. While some previous scientific studies confirmed the wisdom of the ancients, the actual anticancer mechanisms remained a mystery until Rafi’s discovery.
“While licorice root is currently in clinical trials, we still need to isolate, synthesize and clinically test the BHP compound,” Rafi says. “There is still a lot more to do both in the laboratory with animal models and in clinical trials on humans.”
This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey.
http://ur.rutgers.edu/medrel/viewArticle.html?ArticleID=3683
Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey
===========================================================================================
Breast Cancer News is brought to you by BREAST CANCER OPTIONS, part of the Mid Hudson Options Project, a grassroots Breast Cancer Health Advocacy, Support and Activist Group.
Ann’s NOTE: My understanding of licorice is that it enhances Chinese prescriptions but is not used alone. And it is estrogenic and anti-estrogenic as well.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Licorice and Cancer Z Y Wang 1, D W Nixon PMID: 11588889 DOI: 10.1207/S15327914nc391_1
Abstract
Licorice root is one of the oldest and most frequently employed botanicals in Chinese medicine. In the United States, licorice products are most often used as flavoring and sweetening agents in food products. Constituents of licorice include triterpenoids, such as glycyrrhizin and its aglycone glycyrrhizic acid, various polyphenols, and polysaccharides. A number of pharmaceutical effects of licorice are known or suspected (anti-inflammatory, antivirus, antiulcer, anticarcinogenesis, and others). Licorice and its derivatives may protect against carcinogen-induced DNA damage and may be suppressive agents as well. Glycyrrhizic acid is an inhibitor of lipoxygenase and cyclooxygenase, inhibits protein kinase C, and downregulates the epidermal growth factor receptor. Licorice polyphenols induce apoptosis in cancer cells. These and other activities of licorice are reviewed, and a rationale is suggested for combinations of agents in preventive clinical trials.
Nutr Cancer, 39 (1), 1-11 2001
Curr Pharmacol Rep, 1 (1), 60-71 2015
Chemopreventive Effects of Licorice and Its Components
Ann M Bode 1, Zigang Dong 1 PMID: 32226725 PMCID: PMC7100402
DOI: 10.1007/s40495-014-0015-5
Abstract
Cancer is still a major health issue worldwide and identifying novel but safe compounds for prevention and treatment is a high priority. Licorice (Glycyrrhiza) is a perennial plant that is cultivated in many countries and has been reported to exert antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anticancer effects. However, some components of licorice exert unwanted side effects and therefore identifying safer licorice components would be ideal. The anticancer activities of many of the licorice components appear to include cycle arrest, apoptosis induction, and general antioxidant effects. Commonly reported indirect protein targets important in tumorigenesis include many cell cycle-related proteins, apoptosis-associated proteins, MMP proteins, COX-2, GSK-β, Akt, NF-κB, and MAP kinases. Importantly, several licorice components were reported to directly bind to and inhibit the activities of PI3-K, MKK4, MKK7, JNK1, mTOR, and Cdk2, resulting in decreased carcinogenesis in several cell and mouse models with no obvious toxicity. This review focuses on specific components of licorice for which a direct protein target has been identified.
Lifestyle German
Lifestyle & Mortality : German Vegetarians
Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-up
Jenny Chang-Claude1, Silke Hermann1,3, Ursula Eilber1 and Karen Steindorf2
1 Division of Clinical Epidemiology, 2 Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany and 3 Unilever Health Institute, Vlaardingen, the Netherlands
Requests for reprints: Jenny Chang-Claude, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Phone: 496-224-422373; Fax: 011-49-6221422203. E-mail: [email protected]
Background: The long-term observation of vegetarians in affluent countries can provide insight into the relative effects of a vegetarian diet and lifestyle factors on mortality.
Methods: A cohort study of vegetarians and health-conscious persons in Germany was followed-up prospectively for 21 years, including 1,225 vegetarians and 679 health-conscious nonvegetarians. Standardized mortality ratios compared with the German general population were calculated for all causes and specific causes.
Within the cohort, Poisson regression modeling was used to investigate the joint effects of several risk factors on overall and cause-specific mortality.
Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases.
Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level.
Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.
Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality.
The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 14, 963-968, April 2005
Lifestyle & Mortality : German Vegetarians
Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-up
Jenny Chang-Claude1, Silke Hermann1,3, Ursula Eilber1 and Karen Steindorf2
1 Division of Clinical Epidemiology, 2 Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany and 3 Unilever Health Institute, Vlaardingen, the Netherlands
Requests for reprints: Jenny Chang-Claude, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Phone: 496-224-422373; Fax: 011-49-6221422203. E-mail: [email protected]
Background: The long-term observation of vegetarians in affluent countries can provide insight into the relative effects of a vegetarian diet and lifestyle factors on mortality.
Methods: A cohort study of vegetarians and health-conscious persons in Germany was followed-up prospectively for 21 years, including 1,225 vegetarians and 679 health-conscious nonvegetarians. Standardized mortality ratios compared with the German general population were calculated for all causes and specific causes.
Within the cohort, Poisson regression modeling was used to investigate the joint effects of several risk factors on overall and cause-specific mortality.
Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases.
Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level.
Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.
Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality.
The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 14, 963-968, April 2005
Lifestyle Prostate Ca
Lifestyle Changes Slow Progression Prostate Ca
Lifestyle Changes May Slow Progression of Prostate Cancer
Paula Moyer, MA
Men with prostate cancer who change their diet and make other lifestyle changes may also improve the course of their disease, according to investigators who published their findings in the September issue of The Journal of Urology.
The investigative team, headed by diet entrepreneur Dean Ornish, MD, found that a completely vegetarian diet, in combination with exercise and meditation, was associated with a reduction in baseline prostate specific antigen (PSA) and growth of prostate carcinoma cells with the experimental and control groups were compared.
“Changes in serum PSA and [prostate cancer] cell growth from baseline to 12 months were significantly different between the groups, showing more favorable changes in the experimental group,” the authors wrote.
“Specifically serum PSA decreased an average of 0.25 ng/ml or 4% of the baseline average in the experimental group but it showed an average increase of 0.38 ng/ml or 6% of the baseline average in the control group (P = 0.016).”
The investigators conducted the study to understand more clearly whether such changes could affect the course of prostate cancer.
They recruited 93 men with early localized prostate cancer and randomly assigned them to usual care or to the experimental group, which underwent extensive lifestyle changes.
After following the men for a year, the investigators found that none of those in the experimental group but six in the control group underwent conventional prostate cancer treatment due to a rise in serum PSA.
In addition to the changes in serum PSA and slowed growth of prostate cancer cells, the investigators also found that prostate cancer cell growth was inhibited nearly eight times more by serum from the experimental group than it was by serum from the controls (P
However, the investigators cautioned that the intensive lifestyle changes may be difficult to follow for patients. They also noted that due to the short duration of the study, the investigators could not associate the improved disease findings with any effect on survival.
J Urol. 2005;174:1065-1070
Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD
Source: Medscape Medical News, 9/05
Lifestyle Changes Slow Progression Prostate Ca
Lifestyle Changes May Slow Progression of Prostate Cancer
Paula Moyer, MA
Men with prostate cancer who change their diet and make other lifestyle changes may also improve the course of their disease, according to investigators who published their findings in the September issue of The Journal of Urology.
The investigative team, headed by diet entrepreneur Dean Ornish, MD, found that a completely vegetarian diet, in combination with exercise and meditation, was associated with a reduction in baseline prostate specific antigen (PSA) and growth of prostate carcinoma cells with the experimental and control groups were compared.
“Changes in serum PSA and [prostate cancer] cell growth from baseline to 12 months were significantly different between the groups, showing more favorable changes in the experimental group,” the authors wrote.
“Specifically serum PSA decreased an average of 0.25 ng/ml or 4% of the baseline average in the experimental group but it showed an average increase of 0.38 ng/ml or 6% of the baseline average in the control group (P = 0.016).”
The investigators conducted the study to understand more clearly whether such changes could affect the course of prostate cancer.
They recruited 93 men with early localized prostate cancer and randomly assigned them to usual care or to the experimental group, which underwent extensive lifestyle changes.
After following the men for a year, the investigators found that none of those in the experimental group but six in the control group underwent conventional prostate cancer treatment due to a rise in serum PSA.
In addition to the changes in serum PSA and slowed growth of prostate cancer cells, the investigators also found that prostate cancer cell growth was inhibited nearly eight times more by serum from the experimental group than it was by serum from the controls (P
However, the investigators cautioned that the intensive lifestyle changes may be difficult to follow for patients. They also noted that due to the short duration of the study, the investigators could not associate the improved disease findings with any effect on survival.
J Urol. 2005;174:1065-1070
Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD
Source: Medscape Medical News, 9/05
Low-fat and Ovarian Ca
low-fat diet may decrease the risk of ovarian cancer
A low-fat diet may decrease the risk of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women, according to a study published online October 9 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Previous reports from the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Randomized Controlled Trial examined the effect of a low-fat diet on the risk of breast and colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women, but it was not yet known whether the same diet would alter ovarian cancer risk.
Ross Prentice, Ph.D., of Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle and colleagues analyzed data from the dietary modification trial to see if the changes in the women’s diets decreased the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer and invasive cancers overall.
In the trial, nearly 20,000 women were randomly assigned to the diet modification group and almost 30,000 women ate their normal diet. The women participating in the diet were asked to reduce their fat intake to 20 percent of their overall diet, as well as eat at least five serving of fruits and vegetables a day and at least six servings of whole grains.
They were followed for an average of eight years.
The risk of ovarian cancer was similar in the two groups for the first four years of follow-up, but it was reduced in the dieting group during the following four years.
Women who had the highest fat intake before the trial saw the greatest reduction in risk. There was no difference in endometrial cancer risk between the two groups, but a trend toward a reduction in invasive cancers overall was suggested in the dieting group. It was not, however, statistically significant.
“Ongoing …follow-up of trial participants may provide additional valuable assessment of the effects of a low-fat dietary pattern on these and other cancer incidence rates,” the authors write.
Press Release, JNCI, October 2007
Ann’s NOTE: The value of nutrition when combined with exercise and a relaxation technique is worth studying. We suspect this would enhance survival.
low-fat diet may decrease the risk of ovarian cancer
A low-fat diet may decrease the risk of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women, according to a study published online October 9 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Previous reports from the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Randomized Controlled Trial examined the effect of a low-fat diet on the risk of breast and colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women, but it was not yet known whether the same diet would alter ovarian cancer risk.
Ross Prentice, Ph.D., of Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle and colleagues analyzed data from the dietary modification trial to see if the changes in the women’s diets decreased the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer and invasive cancers overall.
In the trial, nearly 20,000 women were randomly assigned to the diet modification group and almost 30,000 women ate their normal diet. The women participating in the diet were asked to reduce their fat intake to 20 percent of their overall diet, as well as eat at least five serving of fruits and vegetables a day and at least six servings of whole grains.
They were followed for an average of eight years.
The risk of ovarian cancer was similar in the two groups for the first four years of follow-up, but it was reduced in the dieting group during the following four years.
Women who had the highest fat intake before the trial saw the greatest reduction in risk. There was no difference in endometrial cancer risk between the two groups, but a trend toward a reduction in invasive cancers overall was suggested in the dieting group. It was not, however, statistically significant.
“Ongoing …follow-up of trial participants may provide additional valuable assessment of the effects of a low-fat dietary pattern on these and other cancer incidence rates,” the authors write.
Press Release, JNCI, October 2007
Ann’s NOTE: The value of nutrition when combined with exercise and a relaxation technique is worth studying. We suspect this would enhance survival.
Nutrients 2020
Abstract
The definition of what constitutes a healthy diet is continually shifting to reflect the evolving understanding of the roles that different foods, essential nutrients, and other food components play in health and disease. A large and growing body of evidence supports that intake of certain types of nutrients, specific food groups, or overarching dietary patterns positively influences health and promotes the prevention of common non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
Greater consumption of health-promoting foods and limited intake of unhealthier options are intrinsic to the eating habits of certain regional diets such as the Mediterranean diet or have been constructed as part of dietary patterns designed to reduce disease risk, such as the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) or Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diets.
In comparison with a more traditional Western diet, these healthier alternatives are higher in plant-based foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts and lower in animal-based foods, particularly fatty and processed meats. To better understand the current concept of a “healthy diet,” this review describes the features and supporting clinical and epidemiologic data for diets that have been shown to prevent disease and/or positively influence health. In total, evidence from epidemiological studies and clinical trials indicates that these types of dietary patterns reduce risks of NCDs including cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Nutrients 2020, 12(2), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12020334
Review
Defining a Healthy Diet: Evidence for the Role of Contemporary Dietary Patterns in Health and Disease by Hellas Cena 1,2,* and Philip C. Calder 3,4
Abstract
The definition of what constitutes a healthy diet is continually shifting to reflect the evolving understanding of the roles that different foods, essential nutrients, and other food components play in health and disease. A large and growing body of evidence supports that intake of certain types of nutrients, specific food groups, or overarching dietary patterns positively influences health and promotes the prevention of common non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
Greater consumption of health-promoting foods and limited intake of unhealthier options are intrinsic to the eating habits of certain regional diets such as the Mediterranean diet or have been constructed as part of dietary patterns designed to reduce disease risk, such as the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) or Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diets.
In comparison with a more traditional Western diet, these healthier alternatives are higher in plant-based foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts and lower in animal-based foods, particularly fatty and processed meats. To better understand the current concept of a “healthy diet,” this review describes the features and supporting clinical and epidemiologic data for diets that have been shown to prevent disease and/or positively influence health. In total, evidence from epidemiological studies and clinical trials indicates that these types of dietary patterns reduce risks of NCDs including cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Nutrients 2020, 12(2), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12020334
Review
Defining a Healthy Diet: Evidence for the Role of Contemporary Dietary Patterns in Health and Disease by Hellas Cena 1,2,* and Philip C. Calder 3,4
- Laboratory of Dietetics and Clinical Nutrition, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
- Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics Service, Unit of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, ICS Maugeri IRCCS, 27100 Pavia, Italy
- Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
Radiation Exposure Lifestyle
Lifestyle, Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk
Lifestyle, radiation exposure and cancer risk
Catherine Saubaget, MD, PhD, Nobuo Nishi, MD, PhD, Midori Soda, MD, PhD
Objective: The purpose of this study is to clarify whether lifestyle can modify the effects of radiation exposure on cancer risk. Numerous laboratory and animal studies have described the protective effects of dietary factors supplemented before radiation exposure, examining their radio-protective effects. However human studies are very limited and little is known about the lifestyle effects after radiation exposure on radiation damage and cancer risks.
Methods: A cohort of about 40,000 atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for whom radiation dose estimates were currently available, had their lifestyle (smoking, drinking, diet, etc.) assessed in 1980. They were followed during 20 years for incidence of cancer. The combined effects of smoking, drinking, diet and radiation exposure on cancer risk was examined in additive and multiplicative models.
Results: Preliminary results show that the combined effects of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables and ionizing radiation exposure result in lower cancer risk as compared to those with a diet poor in fruit and vegetables and exposed to radiation.
Similarly those exposed to radiation and who never drink alcohol or never smoke tobacco present in a lower esophagus cancer risk than those exposed to radiation and who currently drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. There is no evidence to reject either the additive or multiplicative model.
Abstract 9-48 World Cancer Congress, 2006
Lifestyle, Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk
Lifestyle, radiation exposure and cancer risk
Catherine Saubaget, MD, PhD, Nobuo Nishi, MD, PhD, Midori Soda, MD, PhD
Objective: The purpose of this study is to clarify whether lifestyle can modify the effects of radiation exposure on cancer risk. Numerous laboratory and animal studies have described the protective effects of dietary factors supplemented before radiation exposure, examining their radio-protective effects. However human studies are very limited and little is known about the lifestyle effects after radiation exposure on radiation damage and cancer risks.
Methods: A cohort of about 40,000 atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for whom radiation dose estimates were currently available, had their lifestyle (smoking, drinking, diet, etc.) assessed in 1980. They were followed during 20 years for incidence of cancer. The combined effects of smoking, drinking, diet and radiation exposure on cancer risk was examined in additive and multiplicative models.
Results: Preliminary results show that the combined effects of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables and ionizing radiation exposure result in lower cancer risk as compared to those with a diet poor in fruit and vegetables and exposed to radiation.
Similarly those exposed to radiation and who never drink alcohol or never smoke tobacco present in a lower esophagus cancer risk than those exposed to radiation and who currently drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. There is no evidence to reject either the additive or multiplicative model.
Abstract 9-48 World Cancer Congress, 2006
SENT_Soy and cancer-1
Soy and cancer
Soy products, best is tofu, tempeh, then soy milk, is ONLY to be used if ORGANIC. Ask in restaurants to be sure (also this alerts them that organic is a need).
Soya food intake and risk of endometrial cancer among Chinese women in Shanghai: population based case-control study
Main outcome measures Odds ratios for risk of endometrial cancer in women with different intakes of soya foods.
Results Regular consumption of soya foods, measured as amount of either soya protein or soya isoflavones, was inversely associated with the risk of endometrial cancer. BMJ. 2004 May 29; 328(7451): 1285.
Tamoxifen Plus Soy Prevents Breast Cancer in Rats
Soy may boost the effects of the anti-breast cancer drug tamoxifen, Illinois researchers report. In a study of female rats that were exposed to a breast cancer-causing chemical, animals taking a combination of tamoxifen and soy developed fewer breast tumors than rodents taking soy or tamoxifen alone.
Compared to rats that did not receive any sort of treatment, those given tamoxifen had 29% fewer breast tumors, while soy alone reduced tumors by 37%. But a combination of soy and tamoxifen led to a 62% reduction in the number of tumors, researchers reported last month at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research in New Orleans, Louisiana. “While we do not know whether these results apply to women who, because of environmental factors or genetic predisposition, are at high risk for developing breast cancer, our study would suggest that a human trial is warranted,” the study’s lead author, Dr. Andreas Constantinou, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a university press release.
Constantinou’s team is now trying to figure out how soy enhances tamoxifen’s effects–either through phytoestrogens or other substances in soy. Large quantities of phytoestrogens, or naturally-occurring estrogens, are found not only in soybeans, but also in cereals, alfalfa sprouts and other plants. Some research suggests that phytoestrogens may have health benefits, including reducing the risk of heart disease, but the evidence is not conclusive.
Tamoxifen was first used to treat breast cancer, but the drug is now approved for the prevention of breast cancer in some high-risk women. Drug maker AstraZeneca markets the drug as Nolvadex. The United Soybean Board provided funding for the study. Thanks to Reuters Health
Association between Soy Isoflavone Intake and Breast Cancer Risk for Pre- and Post-Menopausal Women: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies PLoS One. 2014; 9(2): e89288.
Conclusions
We meta-analyzed more and newer research results, and separated women according to menopausal status to explore soy isoflavone-breast cancer association. We founded that soy isoflavone intake could lower the risk of breast cancer for both pre- and post-menopausal women in Asian countries. However, for women in Western countries, pre- or post-menopausal, there is no evidence to suggest an association between intake of soy isoflavone and breast cancer.
The association of soy food consumption with the risk of subtype of breast cancers defined by hormone receptor and HER2 status Volume139, Issue 4 15 August 2016 Pages 742-748
Furthermore, we found that high soy intake during adulthood and adolescence was associated with reduced premenopausal breast cancer risk (HR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32–0.88; comparing third vs. first tertile) while high adulthood soy intake was associated with postmenopausal breast cancer only when adolescent intake was low (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43–0.91). Our study suggests that hormonal status, menopausal status and time window of exposure are important factors influencing the soy‐breast cancer association.
Excerpts from MD Anderson article https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/soy-cancer.h18-1589046.html sept 2014
Do Soy Foods increase breast cancer
Soy and breast cancer
Because natural soy foods contain isoflavones, similar to estrogen, some people fear that soy may raise their risk for certain cancers. This is because estrogen is linked to hormonally-sensitive cancers like breast cancer.
But according to the American Cancer Society, when it comes to soy, isoflavones may act like estrogen, but they have anti-estrogen properties as well. Some studies even show that a diet high in soy didn’t increase the chances of developing breast cancer and may even reduce that risk.
“The current research does not support avoiding whole soy foods, even for cancer patients or survivors,” Levy says.
Soy might lower the risk of other cancers
Soybeans, soy nuts and edamame all contain fiber. And a diet high in fiber may lower your risks for several cancers, including colorectal cancer.
Studies among prostate cancer survivors indicate that eating soy foods may lower PSA levels. Among men in various stages of prostate cancer, those who consumed soy milk or isolated soy isoflavones saw their PSA levels rise at a slower rate. The effect was stronger in some men than others, making it unclear whether genetics or metabolism made a difference in lowering PSA levels.
A healthy balanced diet can include soy
It’s important to have a variety of foods in your diet, including soy.
“If you’re still uncomfortable adding whole soy foods to your diet, yet want to reduce how much animal protein you eat, try these common alternatives: beans, lentils, nuts and seeds," Levy says. "The protein (and amino acid) content will vary for each."
If you want to add soy to your diet, eat fewer processed soy foods, and choose more whole foods like edamame, tofu and soy nuts. Does that mean you should skip the soy nuggets? Not necessarily. That’s a personal choice. But, remember that a processed soy nugget is just that—processed food. And avoiding processed foods is another way to lower your cancer risk.
If eating certain foods, like soy, gives you anxiety, skip them.
"Consider talking with a dietitian if you have questions about going meatless," Levy says. "It's important to make sure you are getting all the nutrients your body needs. Talking with an expert will help you go in the right direction."
Soy and cancer
Soy products, best is tofu, tempeh, then soy milk, is ONLY to be used if ORGANIC. Ask in restaurants to be sure (also this alerts them that organic is a need).
Soya food intake and risk of endometrial cancer among Chinese women in Shanghai: population based case-control study
Main outcome measures Odds ratios for risk of endometrial cancer in women with different intakes of soya foods.
Results Regular consumption of soya foods, measured as amount of either soya protein or soya isoflavones, was inversely associated with the risk of endometrial cancer. BMJ. 2004 May 29; 328(7451): 1285.
Tamoxifen Plus Soy Prevents Breast Cancer in Rats
Soy may boost the effects of the anti-breast cancer drug tamoxifen, Illinois researchers report. In a study of female rats that were exposed to a breast cancer-causing chemical, animals taking a combination of tamoxifen and soy developed fewer breast tumors than rodents taking soy or tamoxifen alone.
Compared to rats that did not receive any sort of treatment, those given tamoxifen had 29% fewer breast tumors, while soy alone reduced tumors by 37%. But a combination of soy and tamoxifen led to a 62% reduction in the number of tumors, researchers reported last month at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research in New Orleans, Louisiana. “While we do not know whether these results apply to women who, because of environmental factors or genetic predisposition, are at high risk for developing breast cancer, our study would suggest that a human trial is warranted,” the study’s lead author, Dr. Andreas Constantinou, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a university press release.
Constantinou’s team is now trying to figure out how soy enhances tamoxifen’s effects–either through phytoestrogens or other substances in soy. Large quantities of phytoestrogens, or naturally-occurring estrogens, are found not only in soybeans, but also in cereals, alfalfa sprouts and other plants. Some research suggests that phytoestrogens may have health benefits, including reducing the risk of heart disease, but the evidence is not conclusive.
Tamoxifen was first used to treat breast cancer, but the drug is now approved for the prevention of breast cancer in some high-risk women. Drug maker AstraZeneca markets the drug as Nolvadex. The United Soybean Board provided funding for the study. Thanks to Reuters Health
Association between Soy Isoflavone Intake and Breast Cancer Risk for Pre- and Post-Menopausal Women: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies PLoS One. 2014; 9(2): e89288.
Conclusions
We meta-analyzed more and newer research results, and separated women according to menopausal status to explore soy isoflavone-breast cancer association. We founded that soy isoflavone intake could lower the risk of breast cancer for both pre- and post-menopausal women in Asian countries. However, for women in Western countries, pre- or post-menopausal, there is no evidence to suggest an association between intake of soy isoflavone and breast cancer.
The association of soy food consumption with the risk of subtype of breast cancers defined by hormone receptor and HER2 status Volume139, Issue 4 15 August 2016 Pages 742-748
Furthermore, we found that high soy intake during adulthood and adolescence was associated with reduced premenopausal breast cancer risk (HR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32–0.88; comparing third vs. first tertile) while high adulthood soy intake was associated with postmenopausal breast cancer only when adolescent intake was low (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43–0.91). Our study suggests that hormonal status, menopausal status and time window of exposure are important factors influencing the soy‐breast cancer association.
Excerpts from MD Anderson article https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/soy-cancer.h18-1589046.html sept 2014
Do Soy Foods increase breast cancer
Soy and breast cancer
Because natural soy foods contain isoflavones, similar to estrogen, some people fear that soy may raise their risk for certain cancers. This is because estrogen is linked to hormonally-sensitive cancers like breast cancer.
But according to the American Cancer Society, when it comes to soy, isoflavones may act like estrogen, but they have anti-estrogen properties as well. Some studies even show that a diet high in soy didn’t increase the chances of developing breast cancer and may even reduce that risk.
“The current research does not support avoiding whole soy foods, even for cancer patients or survivors,” Levy says.
Soy might lower the risk of other cancers
Soybeans, soy nuts and edamame all contain fiber. And a diet high in fiber may lower your risks for several cancers, including colorectal cancer.
Studies among prostate cancer survivors indicate that eating soy foods may lower PSA levels. Among men in various stages of prostate cancer, those who consumed soy milk or isolated soy isoflavones saw their PSA levels rise at a slower rate. The effect was stronger in some men than others, making it unclear whether genetics or metabolism made a difference in lowering PSA levels.
A healthy balanced diet can include soy
It’s important to have a variety of foods in your diet, including soy.
“If you’re still uncomfortable adding whole soy foods to your diet, yet want to reduce how much animal protein you eat, try these common alternatives: beans, lentils, nuts and seeds," Levy says. "The protein (and amino acid) content will vary for each."
If you want to add soy to your diet, eat fewer processed soy foods, and choose more whole foods like edamame, tofu and soy nuts. Does that mean you should skip the soy nuggets? Not necessarily. That’s a personal choice. But, remember that a processed soy nugget is just that—processed food. And avoiding processed foods is another way to lower your cancer risk.
If eating certain foods, like soy, gives you anxiety, skip them.
"Consider talking with a dietitian if you have questions about going meatless," Levy says. "It's important to make sure you are getting all the nutrients your body needs. Talking with an expert will help you go in the right direction."
Sugar Substitutions
Here is what Aliss T suggested as sweeteners:
I use organic applesauce, apple butter, plum butter, mashed bananas and stevia powder for sweetening.
The sweeter spices (VANILLA, cardamom, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, anise, cloves). Orange squash and sweet baby carrots sometimes.
I use almond flour instead of wheat for most baking. Dried currants pack a lot of flavor and their acidity makes apples taste sweeter without sugar. Stevia doesn’t work with everything – sweetens acidic fruits, goes well with pumpkin (Thanksgiving pies, yum) but doesn’t seem to help egg-heavy or chocolate things.
I tried making a cheesecake with it once, bad idea, but it makes the most amazing lemonade you ever tasted. Try lemon-merengue pie sweetened with stevia, with a ground nut crust instead of wheat?
Vegetable glycerine is supposed to be a low-glycemic sugar substitute, makes baked desserts nice and moist too.
Many summer fruits are sweet enough not to need anything added. Slice an assortment with blueberries in a bowl. Cinnamon and a drizzle of unpasteurized honey in one dish, clotted fresh cream in another, a bunch of cocktail forks.. watch them disappear.
From a macrobiotic point of view, cooking fruit makes it less yin as water is removed and the flavor is more concentrated. So cooked fruit tastes sweeter without adding sugar.
Brown rice, pinch of salt, spices and stevia make a nice pudding.
Barley and rice syrups tend to have mold toxins unfortunately so they are not a good choice.
Ann’s NOTE: Years ago I used apple slices when making tomato sauce. (I rarely ‘cook’ anymore).
Here is what Aliss T suggested as sweeteners:
I use organic applesauce, apple butter, plum butter, mashed bananas and stevia powder for sweetening.
The sweeter spices (VANILLA, cardamom, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, anise, cloves). Orange squash and sweet baby carrots sometimes.
I use almond flour instead of wheat for most baking. Dried currants pack a lot of flavor and their acidity makes apples taste sweeter without sugar. Stevia doesn’t work with everything – sweetens acidic fruits, goes well with pumpkin (Thanksgiving pies, yum) but doesn’t seem to help egg-heavy or chocolate things.
I tried making a cheesecake with it once, bad idea, but it makes the most amazing lemonade you ever tasted. Try lemon-merengue pie sweetened with stevia, with a ground nut crust instead of wheat?
Vegetable glycerine is supposed to be a low-glycemic sugar substitute, makes baked desserts nice and moist too.
Many summer fruits are sweet enough not to need anything added. Slice an assortment with blueberries in a bowl. Cinnamon and a drizzle of unpasteurized honey in one dish, clotted fresh cream in another, a bunch of cocktail forks.. watch them disappear.
From a macrobiotic point of view, cooking fruit makes it less yin as water is removed and the flavor is more concentrated. So cooked fruit tastes sweeter without adding sugar.
Brown rice, pinch of salt, spices and stevia make a nice pudding.
Barley and rice syrups tend to have mold toxins unfortunately so they are not a good choice.
Ann’s NOTE: Years ago I used apple slices when making tomato sauce. (I rarely ‘cook’ anymore).
The Problems with Irradiated Food: What the Research Says
In the course of legalizing the irradiation of beef, chicken, pork, fruit, vegetables, eggs, juice, spices and sprouting seeds– a process that has spanned nearly 20 years– the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has dismissed or ignored a substantial body of evidence suggesting that irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption.
The following is a sampling of research– appearing in scientific journals and other publications– that raise questions about the FDA’s assertions that people who eat irradiated food have nothing to worry about.
Reproductive Problems, Cancer in Mammals
“A careful analysis by FDA of all Army data present (including 31 loose-leaf notebooks of animal feeding test results) showed significant adverse effects produced in animals fed irradiated food…
What were these adverse effects?
A decrease of 20.7 percent in surviving weaned rats.
A 32.3 percent decrease in surviving progeny of dogs.
Dogs weighing 11.3 percent less than animals on the control diets… Carcinomas of the pituitary gland, a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor.”
Food irradiation: An FDA report. FDA Papers, Oct. 1968.
Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (I)
“A significant number of rats consuming irradiated beef died from internal hemorrhage within 46 days, the first death of a male rat coming on the 11th day of feeding. This rat became sluggish on the 8th day of the regimen and started refusing food. He continued to be morbid during the next two days, did not eat any food, lost weight and appeared anemic. He was found dead on the 11th day.
Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated beef.
Journal of Nutrition, 69:18-21, 1959. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)
Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (II)
“Hemorrhagic death had occurred in all males fed irradiated diets by day 34… There is evidence to suggest that inefficient absorption of vitamins, i.e. vitamin K, from the intestinal tract may contribute to a deficiency state.” [Note: Vitamin K plays a major role in blood clotting.]
Influence of age, sex, strain of rat and fat soluble vitamins on hemorrhagic syndromes in rats fed irradiated beef.
Federation Proceedings, 19:1045-1048, 1960. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)
Fetal Deaths in Mice
“Freshly irradiated diets produced elevated levels of early deaths in [mice fetuses]… The increase in early deaths would suggest that the diet when irradiated has some mutagenic potential.”
Irradiated laboratory animal diets: Dominant lethal studies in the mouse.
Mutation Research, 80:333-345, 1981.
Embryo Deaths in Mice
“Feeding of mice for two months before mating with 50 percent of the standard complete diet irradiated with gamma rays provokes a significant increase of embryonal deaths, probably to be interpreted as a dominant lethal mutation associated with gross chromosomal aberrations, such as breaks repeatedly found to be induced by irradiated materials.”
Pre-implantation death of mouse eggs caused by irradiated food.
International Journal of Radiation Biology, 18:201-216, 1970.
Radioactive Organs and Excrement in Rats
“Considerable amounts of radioactivity were present in the liver, kidney, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of rats fed irradiated sucrose solutions. Radioactivity was present in urine and feces samples.
Biochemical effects of irradiated sucrose solutions in the rat. Radiation Research, 37:202-215, 1969.
A Thalidomide Warning (I)
“The thalidomide disaster might have been prevented if an easily performed investigation of possible cytotoxic effects in plant cells had been made. It must be acknowledged that any compound causing [cellular] damage must be considered a potential hazard to any living cell or cell system– including man.”
Toxic effects of irradiated foods. Nature, 211:302, 1966.
A Thalidomide Warning (II)
“Irradiating can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens, particularly hydrogen peroxide and various organic peroxides.
It is now realized, especially since the thalidomide episode, that older testing protocols do not detect the more subtle population hazards such as mutagens and teratogens. In view of the serious consequences to the human population which could arise from a high level of induced mutations, it is desirable that protocols for irradiated food should include in vivo tests on mammals for possible mutagenicity.”
Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of irradiated foods and food components.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 41:873-904, 1969. (Cosponsored by the US Atomic Energy Commission and Food and Drug Administration)
A Host of Problems
“Numerous studies have been carried out to ascertain whether cytotoxic effects occur when unirradiated biological test systems are cultured or fed with irradiated media or food. In such studies, adverse physiological growth retardation and inhibition, cytological cell division inhibition and chromosome aberrations and genetical effects have been observed in a wide range of test systems, ranging from bacteriophages to human cells… The available data suggest that a variety of free radicals may act as the toxic and mutagenic agents.”
Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material. Radiation Botany, 11:253-281, 1971.
A Cancer Warning
“An increase in concentration of a mutagen in food by irradiation will increase the incidence of cancer. It will take four to six decades to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in cancer due to mutagens introduced into food by irradiation. When food irradiation is finally prohibited, several decades worth of people with increased cancer incidence will be in the pipeline.”
Food Irradiation. Nutrition, 16:698-701, 2000.
Mutations in Fruit Flies
An increase in the rate of mutation has been found in fruit flies reared on a basic medium that was irradiated with a sterilizing dose (150,000 rads) of cobalt-60 gamma rays… Visible changes were two to six times more frequent in the irradiated series than in the controls, such as half-thorax, vestigial wings and incurved wings.” [Note: Fruit flies have long been a dependable bellwether for determining the potential mutagenicity of substances.]
Mutations: Incidence in Drosophila melanogaster reared on irradiated medium. Science, 141:637-638, 1963.
Fatal Vitamin E Deficiency in Rats
“A considerable number of the second litter of the experimental group of rats that ate irradiated beef died. Symptoms observed were marked fluid buildup of the face, ruffled hair coat, general incoordination, spastic hopping gait, and sometimes complete loss of movement with dragging of the hind quarters.
Those pups most severely affected often became completely prostrated a short time before death. In no case were these symptoms noted in the control group. The probability is that the pups were suffering from the characteristic muscular dystrophy syndrome commonly referred to as nutritional muscular dystrophy known to result from a marginal vitamin E intake.”
Growth, reproduction, survival and histopathology of rats fed beef irradiated with electrons. Food Research, 20:193-214, 1955.
Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (I)
“Irradiated sucrose solutions were extremely toxic to human white blood cells. Cell divisions were inhibited. Degenerated cell divisions were observed and the chromosomes were grossly damaged. The DNA was clumped or the chromosomes appeared shattered or pulverized. In contrast, treatment with unirradiated sucrose at the same concentration had no apparent effect on the mitotic rate and the chromosomes were not visibly damaged.”
Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro. Nature, 211:1254-1255, 1966.
Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (II)
“White blood cell cultures from four different healthy human males underwent a considerable inhibition of mitosis and chromosome fragmentation.”
Cytotoxic and radiomimetic activity of irradiated culture medium on human leukocytes. Current Science, 16:403-404, 1966.
Toxic Chemical Formed in Food Containing Fat (I)
“When food containing fat is treated by ionizing radiation, a group of 2-alkylcyclobutanones [toxic chemicals] is formed. To date, there is no evidence that the cyclobutanones occur in unirradiated food. In vitro experiments using rat and human colon cells indicate that 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB)… is clearly cytotoxic and genotoxic.”
Genotoxic properties of 2-dodecylcyclobutanone, a compound formed on irradiation of food containing fat. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 52:39-42, 1998.
(Cosponsored by the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation)
Thanks to Dr. Mercola (www.drmercola.com) for this information
Preventing Pathogenic Food Poisoning: Sanitation Not Irradiation
by Dr. Samuel Epstein,
Cancer Prevention Coalition
Bacterial food poisoning can be readily prevented by long overdue basic sanitary measures rather than by ultrahazardous irradiation technologies.
The food and nuclear industries, with strong government support, have capitalized on recent outbreaks of pathogenic E.coli 0157 meat poisoning to mobilize public acceptance of large scale food irradiation.
Already, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is allowing the use of high-level radiation to “treat”
☐vegetables ☐beef
☐fruit ☐pork
☐flour ☐poultry
☐spices ☐eggs
while the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes the imminent irradiation of imported fruit and vegetables.
Caving in to powerful corporate industry interests, both House and Senate Appropriations Committees have recently proposed to sanitize the FDA’s already weakened labeling requirements for irradiated food by eliminating the word “irradiated” in favor of “electronic pasteurization” (1); this term was proposed by the San Diego based Titan corporation, an erstwhile major defense contractor using highly costly linear accelerator “E-beam” technology, originally designed for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” program, which shoots food with a stream of electrons travelling at the speed of light.
However, the proposed electronic pasteurization label is a euphemistic absurdity, especially since the FDA’s approved meat radiation dosage of 450,000 rads is approximately 150 million times greater than that of a chest X-ray, besides circumventing consumers’ fundamental right to know.
Furthermore, the new labeling initiative is reckless. Irradiated meat is a very different product from cooked meat.
Whether irradiated by linear accelerators or pelletized radioactive isotopes, the resulting ionizing radiation produces highly reactive free radicals and peroxides from unsaturated fats. U.S. Army analyses in 1977 revealed major differences between volatile chemicals formed during irradiation or cooking meat (2).
Levels of the carcinogen benzene in irradiated beef were found to be some tenfold higher than cooked beef. Additionally, high concentrations of six poorly characterized “unique radiolytic chemical products” admittedly “implicated as carcinogens or carcinogenic under certain conditions,” were also identified (2).
Based on these striking changes in the chemistry of irradiated meat, FDA’s 1980 Irradiated Food Committee explicitly warned that safety testing should be based on concentrated extracts of irradiated foods, rather than on whole foods, to maximize the concentration of radiolytic products (3).
This would enable development of sufficient sensitivity essential for routine safety testing. In 1984, Epstein and Gofman more specifically urged that “stable radiolytic products could be extracted from irradiated foods by various solvents which could then be concentrated and subsequently tested. Until such fundamental studies are undertaken, there is little scientific basis for accepting industry’s assurances of safety” (4).
In an accompanying editorial comment, FDA was quoted as admitting that “it is nearly impossible to detect (and test radiolytic products) with current techniques” on the basis of which the agency’s claims of safety and regulatory abdication still persist (5).
While refusing to require standard toxicological and carcinogenicity testing of concentrated extracts of radiolytic products from irradiated meat and other foods, FDA instead has relied on some five studies selected from 441 published prior to the early 1980’s, on which its claims of safety still remain based.
However, the chair of FDA’s Irradiated Food Task Committee which reviewed these studies insisted that none were adequate by 1982 standards (6), and even less so by the 1990’s (7). Furthermore, detailed analysis of these studies revealed that all were grossly flawed and non-exculpatory (8).
These results are hardly surprising since a wide range of independent studies prior to 1986 clearly identified mutagenic and carcinogenic radiolytic products in irradiated food, and confirmed evidence of genetic toxicity in tests on irradiated food (9).
Studies in the 1970’s, by India’s National Institute of Nutrition, reported that feeding freshly radiated wheat to monkeys, rats, mice and to a small group of malnourished children induced gross chromosomal abnormalities in blood or bone marrow cells, and mutational damage in the rodents (10).
Food irradiation results in major micronutrient losses, particularly vitamins A, C, E, and the B complex (11). As admitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Research Service, these losses are synergistically increased by cooking, resulting in “empty calorie” food (12); this is a concern of major importance for malnourished populations. Radiation has also been used to clean up food unfit for human consumption, such as spoiled fish, by killing odorous contaminating bacteria.
While the USDA is strongly promoting meat and poultry irradiation, it has been moving to deregulate and privatize the industry by promoting a self-policing Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) control program (13); in late 2000, the agency will start a rulemaking process to privatize meat inspection.
Moreover, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues its decades long aggressive promotion of food irradiation as a way of reducing disposal costs of spent military and civilian nuclear fuel by providing a commercial market for cesium nuclear wastes.
Irradiation facilities using pelletized isotopes pose risks of nuclear accidents to communities nationwide from the hundreds of facilities envisaged for the potentially enormous radiation market; in contrast to nuclear power stations, these facilities are small, minimally regulated, unlikely to be secure, and require regular replenishment of cobalt (Co-60) or cesium (Cs-137) isotopes, entailing nationwide transportation hazards. Furthermore, linear accelerators, besides plants using radioactive isotopes, pose grave hazards to workers and are subject to virtually no regulation (9, 14).
The track record of the irradiation industry is, at best, unimpressive.
Robert Alvarez, former DOE Senior Policy Advisor, recently warned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission files are bulging with unreported documents on radioactive spills, worker over-exposure, and off-site radiation leakage (15). Strangely, the Environmental Protection Agency has still failed to require an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the siting of food irradiation facilities.
The focus of the radiation and agribusiness industries is directed to the highly lucrative cleanup of contaminated food rather than to preventing contamination at its source (16).
However, E. coli 0157 food poisoning can be largely prevented by long overdue improved sanitation. Feedlot pen sanitation, including reducing overcrowding, drinking water disinfection and fly control, would drastically reduce cattle infection rates.
Moreover, E. coli 0157 infection rates could be virtually eliminated by feeding hay, rather than the standard unhealthy starchy grain diet, for seven days prior to slaughter (17). Sanitation would also prevent water contamination from feed lot run off, incriminated in the recent outbreak of E. coli 0157 poisoning in Walkerton, Ontario (18); run off will remain a continuing threat even if all meat was irradiated.
Pre-slaughter, post-knocking and post-evisceration sanitation at meat packing plants is highly effective for reducing carcass contamination rates (16). Testing pooled carcasses for E. coli 0157 and Salmonella contamination is economical, practical, and rapid.
The expense of producing sanitary meat would be trivial compared to the high costs of irradiation, including possible nuclear accidents, which would be passed on to consumers. Additional high costs are likely to result from an anticipated international ban on the imports of irradiated U.S. food, and also from losses of tourist revenues.
We charge that support of the “electronically pasteurized” label by the food and radiation industries, governmental agencies, and Congress, is a camouflaged denial of citizen’s fundamental right to know. Rather than sanitizing the label in response to special interests, Congress should focus on sanitation and not irradiation of the nation’s food supply.
International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, Number 1, 2001
Organic Consumers Association statement: https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20food%20irradiation.pdf
EXCERPT:
“Science has not proved that a diet high in irradiated foods is safe in the long term. ∙ The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks, in China. The data is not available in English. No one knows the health effects of a life-long diet that includes a large number of foods that can already be legally irradiated in the U.S., such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, eggs and sprouts. ∙ There are no studies on the effects of feeding normal babies or children diets containing irradiated foods. A very small study from India on malnourished children showed health effects. ∙ Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food”.
In the course of legalizing the irradiation of beef, chicken, pork, fruit, vegetables, eggs, juice, spices and sprouting seeds– a process that has spanned nearly 20 years– the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has dismissed or ignored a substantial body of evidence suggesting that irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption.
The following is a sampling of research– appearing in scientific journals and other publications– that raise questions about the FDA’s assertions that people who eat irradiated food have nothing to worry about.
Reproductive Problems, Cancer in Mammals
“A careful analysis by FDA of all Army data present (including 31 loose-leaf notebooks of animal feeding test results) showed significant adverse effects produced in animals fed irradiated food…
What were these adverse effects?
A decrease of 20.7 percent in surviving weaned rats.
A 32.3 percent decrease in surviving progeny of dogs.
Dogs weighing 11.3 percent less than animals on the control diets… Carcinomas of the pituitary gland, a particularly disturbing finding since this is an extremely rare type of malignant tumor.”
Food irradiation: An FDA report. FDA Papers, Oct. 1968.
Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (I)
“A significant number of rats consuming irradiated beef died from internal hemorrhage within 46 days, the first death of a male rat coming on the 11th day of feeding. This rat became sluggish on the 8th day of the regimen and started refusing food. He continued to be morbid during the next two days, did not eat any food, lost weight and appeared anemic. He was found dead on the 11th day.
Vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by feeding of irradiated beef.
Journal of Nutrition, 69:18-21, 1959. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)
Fatal Internal Bleeding in Rats (II)
“Hemorrhagic death had occurred in all males fed irradiated diets by day 34… There is evidence to suggest that inefficient absorption of vitamins, i.e. vitamin K, from the intestinal tract may contribute to a deficiency state.” [Note: Vitamin K plays a major role in blood clotting.]
Influence of age, sex, strain of rat and fat soluble vitamins on hemorrhagic syndromes in rats fed irradiated beef.
Federation Proceedings, 19:1045-1048, 1960. (Cosponsored by the Surgeon General of the US Army)
Fetal Deaths in Mice
“Freshly irradiated diets produced elevated levels of early deaths in [mice fetuses]… The increase in early deaths would suggest that the diet when irradiated has some mutagenic potential.”
Irradiated laboratory animal diets: Dominant lethal studies in the mouse.
Mutation Research, 80:333-345, 1981.
Embryo Deaths in Mice
“Feeding of mice for two months before mating with 50 percent of the standard complete diet irradiated with gamma rays provokes a significant increase of embryonal deaths, probably to be interpreted as a dominant lethal mutation associated with gross chromosomal aberrations, such as breaks repeatedly found to be induced by irradiated materials.”
Pre-implantation death of mouse eggs caused by irradiated food.
International Journal of Radiation Biology, 18:201-216, 1970.
Radioactive Organs and Excrement in Rats
“Considerable amounts of radioactivity were present in the liver, kidney, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of rats fed irradiated sucrose solutions. Radioactivity was present in urine and feces samples.
Biochemical effects of irradiated sucrose solutions in the rat. Radiation Research, 37:202-215, 1969.
A Thalidomide Warning (I)
“The thalidomide disaster might have been prevented if an easily performed investigation of possible cytotoxic effects in plant cells had been made. It must be acknowledged that any compound causing [cellular] damage must be considered a potential hazard to any living cell or cell system– including man.”
Toxic effects of irradiated foods. Nature, 211:302, 1966.
A Thalidomide Warning (II)
“Irradiating can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens, particularly hydrogen peroxide and various organic peroxides.
It is now realized, especially since the thalidomide episode, that older testing protocols do not detect the more subtle population hazards such as mutagens and teratogens. In view of the serious consequences to the human population which could arise from a high level of induced mutations, it is desirable that protocols for irradiated food should include in vivo tests on mammals for possible mutagenicity.”
Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of irradiated foods and food components.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 41:873-904, 1969. (Cosponsored by the US Atomic Energy Commission and Food and Drug Administration)
A Host of Problems
“Numerous studies have been carried out to ascertain whether cytotoxic effects occur when unirradiated biological test systems are cultured or fed with irradiated media or food. In such studies, adverse physiological growth retardation and inhibition, cytological cell division inhibition and chromosome aberrations and genetical effects have been observed in a wide range of test systems, ranging from bacteriophages to human cells… The available data suggest that a variety of free radicals may act as the toxic and mutagenic agents.”
Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material. Radiation Botany, 11:253-281, 1971.
A Cancer Warning
“An increase in concentration of a mutagen in food by irradiation will increase the incidence of cancer. It will take four to six decades to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in cancer due to mutagens introduced into food by irradiation. When food irradiation is finally prohibited, several decades worth of people with increased cancer incidence will be in the pipeline.”
Food Irradiation. Nutrition, 16:698-701, 2000.
Mutations in Fruit Flies
An increase in the rate of mutation has been found in fruit flies reared on a basic medium that was irradiated with a sterilizing dose (150,000 rads) of cobalt-60 gamma rays… Visible changes were two to six times more frequent in the irradiated series than in the controls, such as half-thorax, vestigial wings and incurved wings.” [Note: Fruit flies have long been a dependable bellwether for determining the potential mutagenicity of substances.]
Mutations: Incidence in Drosophila melanogaster reared on irradiated medium. Science, 141:637-638, 1963.
Fatal Vitamin E Deficiency in Rats
“A considerable number of the second litter of the experimental group of rats that ate irradiated beef died. Symptoms observed were marked fluid buildup of the face, ruffled hair coat, general incoordination, spastic hopping gait, and sometimes complete loss of movement with dragging of the hind quarters.
Those pups most severely affected often became completely prostrated a short time before death. In no case were these symptoms noted in the control group. The probability is that the pups were suffering from the characteristic muscular dystrophy syndrome commonly referred to as nutritional muscular dystrophy known to result from a marginal vitamin E intake.”
Growth, reproduction, survival and histopathology of rats fed beef irradiated with electrons. Food Research, 20:193-214, 1955.
Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (I)
“Irradiated sucrose solutions were extremely toxic to human white blood cells. Cell divisions were inhibited. Degenerated cell divisions were observed and the chromosomes were grossly damaged. The DNA was clumped or the chromosomes appeared shattered or pulverized. In contrast, treatment with unirradiated sucrose at the same concentration had no apparent effect on the mitotic rate and the chromosomes were not visibly damaged.”
Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro. Nature, 211:1254-1255, 1966.
Chromosomal Damage to Human Cells (II)
“White blood cell cultures from four different healthy human males underwent a considerable inhibition of mitosis and chromosome fragmentation.”
Cytotoxic and radiomimetic activity of irradiated culture medium on human leukocytes. Current Science, 16:403-404, 1966.
Toxic Chemical Formed in Food Containing Fat (I)
“When food containing fat is treated by ionizing radiation, a group of 2-alkylcyclobutanones [toxic chemicals] is formed. To date, there is no evidence that the cyclobutanones occur in unirradiated food. In vitro experiments using rat and human colon cells indicate that 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB)… is clearly cytotoxic and genotoxic.”
Genotoxic properties of 2-dodecylcyclobutanone, a compound formed on irradiation of food containing fat. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 52:39-42, 1998.
(Cosponsored by the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation)
Thanks to Dr. Mercola (www.drmercola.com) for this information
Preventing Pathogenic Food Poisoning: Sanitation Not Irradiation
by Dr. Samuel Epstein,
Cancer Prevention Coalition
Bacterial food poisoning can be readily prevented by long overdue basic sanitary measures rather than by ultrahazardous irradiation technologies.
The food and nuclear industries, with strong government support, have capitalized on recent outbreaks of pathogenic E.coli 0157 meat poisoning to mobilize public acceptance of large scale food irradiation.
Already, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is allowing the use of high-level radiation to “treat”
☐vegetables ☐beef
☐fruit ☐pork
☐flour ☐poultry
☐spices ☐eggs
while the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes the imminent irradiation of imported fruit and vegetables.
Caving in to powerful corporate industry interests, both House and Senate Appropriations Committees have recently proposed to sanitize the FDA’s already weakened labeling requirements for irradiated food by eliminating the word “irradiated” in favor of “electronic pasteurization” (1); this term was proposed by the San Diego based Titan corporation, an erstwhile major defense contractor using highly costly linear accelerator “E-beam” technology, originally designed for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” program, which shoots food with a stream of electrons travelling at the speed of light.
However, the proposed electronic pasteurization label is a euphemistic absurdity, especially since the FDA’s approved meat radiation dosage of 450,000 rads is approximately 150 million times greater than that of a chest X-ray, besides circumventing consumers’ fundamental right to know.
Furthermore, the new labeling initiative is reckless. Irradiated meat is a very different product from cooked meat.
Whether irradiated by linear accelerators or pelletized radioactive isotopes, the resulting ionizing radiation produces highly reactive free radicals and peroxides from unsaturated fats. U.S. Army analyses in 1977 revealed major differences between volatile chemicals formed during irradiation or cooking meat (2).
Levels of the carcinogen benzene in irradiated beef were found to be some tenfold higher than cooked beef. Additionally, high concentrations of six poorly characterized “unique radiolytic chemical products” admittedly “implicated as carcinogens or carcinogenic under certain conditions,” were also identified (2).
Based on these striking changes in the chemistry of irradiated meat, FDA’s 1980 Irradiated Food Committee explicitly warned that safety testing should be based on concentrated extracts of irradiated foods, rather than on whole foods, to maximize the concentration of radiolytic products (3).
This would enable development of sufficient sensitivity essential for routine safety testing. In 1984, Epstein and Gofman more specifically urged that “stable radiolytic products could be extracted from irradiated foods by various solvents which could then be concentrated and subsequently tested. Until such fundamental studies are undertaken, there is little scientific basis for accepting industry’s assurances of safety” (4).
In an accompanying editorial comment, FDA was quoted as admitting that “it is nearly impossible to detect (and test radiolytic products) with current techniques” on the basis of which the agency’s claims of safety and regulatory abdication still persist (5).
While refusing to require standard toxicological and carcinogenicity testing of concentrated extracts of radiolytic products from irradiated meat and other foods, FDA instead has relied on some five studies selected from 441 published prior to the early 1980’s, on which its claims of safety still remain based.
However, the chair of FDA’s Irradiated Food Task Committee which reviewed these studies insisted that none were adequate by 1982 standards (6), and even less so by the 1990’s (7). Furthermore, detailed analysis of these studies revealed that all were grossly flawed and non-exculpatory (8).
These results are hardly surprising since a wide range of independent studies prior to 1986 clearly identified mutagenic and carcinogenic radiolytic products in irradiated food, and confirmed evidence of genetic toxicity in tests on irradiated food (9).
Studies in the 1970’s, by India’s National Institute of Nutrition, reported that feeding freshly radiated wheat to monkeys, rats, mice and to a small group of malnourished children induced gross chromosomal abnormalities in blood or bone marrow cells, and mutational damage in the rodents (10).
Food irradiation results in major micronutrient losses, particularly vitamins A, C, E, and the B complex (11). As admitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Research Service, these losses are synergistically increased by cooking, resulting in “empty calorie” food (12); this is a concern of major importance for malnourished populations. Radiation has also been used to clean up food unfit for human consumption, such as spoiled fish, by killing odorous contaminating bacteria.
While the USDA is strongly promoting meat and poultry irradiation, it has been moving to deregulate and privatize the industry by promoting a self-policing Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) control program (13); in late 2000, the agency will start a rulemaking process to privatize meat inspection.
Moreover, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues its decades long aggressive promotion of food irradiation as a way of reducing disposal costs of spent military and civilian nuclear fuel by providing a commercial market for cesium nuclear wastes.
Irradiation facilities using pelletized isotopes pose risks of nuclear accidents to communities nationwide from the hundreds of facilities envisaged for the potentially enormous radiation market; in contrast to nuclear power stations, these facilities are small, minimally regulated, unlikely to be secure, and require regular replenishment of cobalt (Co-60) or cesium (Cs-137) isotopes, entailing nationwide transportation hazards. Furthermore, linear accelerators, besides plants using radioactive isotopes, pose grave hazards to workers and are subject to virtually no regulation (9, 14).
The track record of the irradiation industry is, at best, unimpressive.
Robert Alvarez, former DOE Senior Policy Advisor, recently warned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission files are bulging with unreported documents on radioactive spills, worker over-exposure, and off-site radiation leakage (15). Strangely, the Environmental Protection Agency has still failed to require an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the siting of food irradiation facilities.
The focus of the radiation and agribusiness industries is directed to the highly lucrative cleanup of contaminated food rather than to preventing contamination at its source (16).
However, E. coli 0157 food poisoning can be largely prevented by long overdue improved sanitation. Feedlot pen sanitation, including reducing overcrowding, drinking water disinfection and fly control, would drastically reduce cattle infection rates.
Moreover, E. coli 0157 infection rates could be virtually eliminated by feeding hay, rather than the standard unhealthy starchy grain diet, for seven days prior to slaughter (17). Sanitation would also prevent water contamination from feed lot run off, incriminated in the recent outbreak of E. coli 0157 poisoning in Walkerton, Ontario (18); run off will remain a continuing threat even if all meat was irradiated.
Pre-slaughter, post-knocking and post-evisceration sanitation at meat packing plants is highly effective for reducing carcass contamination rates (16). Testing pooled carcasses for E. coli 0157 and Salmonella contamination is economical, practical, and rapid.
The expense of producing sanitary meat would be trivial compared to the high costs of irradiation, including possible nuclear accidents, which would be passed on to consumers. Additional high costs are likely to result from an anticipated international ban on the imports of irradiated U.S. food, and also from losses of tourist revenues.
We charge that support of the “electronically pasteurized” label by the food and radiation industries, governmental agencies, and Congress, is a camouflaged denial of citizen’s fundamental right to know. Rather than sanitizing the label in response to special interests, Congress should focus on sanitation and not irradiation of the nation’s food supply.
International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, Number 1, 2001
Organic Consumers Association statement: https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20food%20irradiation.pdf
EXCERPT:
“Science has not proved that a diet high in irradiated foods is safe in the long term. ∙ The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks, in China. The data is not available in English. No one knows the health effects of a life-long diet that includes a large number of foods that can already be legally irradiated in the U.S., such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, eggs and sprouts. ∙ There are no studies on the effects of feeding normal babies or children diets containing irradiated foods. A very small study from India on malnourished children showed health effects. ∙ Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food”.
Vegetarianism_SE Asian Women
Vegetarianism
Epidemiology
Lifelong vegetarianism and risk of breast cancer: A population-based case-control study among South Asian migrant women living in England
Isabel dos Santos Silva *[], Punam Mangtani, Valerie McCormack, Dee Bhakta, Leena Sevak, Anthony J. McMichael Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
email: Isabel dos Santos Silva ([email protected])
*Correspondence to Isabel dos Santos Silva, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, England
[]Fax: +44-20-7436-4230
Abstract
To investigate the role of lifelong vegetarianism on the aetiology of female breast cancer, we conducted a population-based case-control study among South Asian migrant women from the Indian subcontinent resident in England.
A total of 240 South Asian breast cancer cases were identified from 2 cancer registries during 1995-1999. For each case, 2 age-matched South Asian controls were randomly selected from the age-sex register of the case practice.
Lifelong vegetarians had a slight reduction, although not statistically significant, in the odds of breast cancer relative to lifelong meat-eaters, which persisted after adjustment for socio-demographic and reproductive variables [odds ratio (OR)=0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.50-1.18].
Analysis by food group revealed no linear trend in the odds of breast cancer with increasing consumption of meat (p=0.10) but the odds were higher for women in the top 75%.
In contrast, there were strong inverse trends in the odds of breast cancer with increasing intake of vegetables (p=0.005), pulses (p=0.007) and fibre [non-starch polysaccharides, NSP (p=0.02)], with women in the highest 25% of intake of these foods having about 50% of the odds of those in the lowest ones.
Adjustment for intake of vegetables and pulses reverted the odds of breast cancer in lifelong vegetarians relative to lifelong meat-eaters (OR=1.04; 95% CI=0.65-1.68) and attenuated the quartile-specific estimates for meat intake, whereas the inverse trends in the odds of breast cancer with intake of vegetables and pulses remained after adjustment for type of diet or meat intake.
These findings suggest that lifelong vegetarianism may be associated with a reduction in the risk of breast cancer through its association with a higher intake of vegetables and pulses.
Although it is not possible to exclude the possibility that lifelong meat abstention may also play a role, the findings provide evidence that a diet rich in vegetables and pulses, such as those typically found in South Asian diets, may be protective against this cancer.
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 99, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 238-244
� 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Vegetarianism
Epidemiology
Lifelong vegetarianism and risk of breast cancer: A population-based case-control study among South Asian migrant women living in England
Isabel dos Santos Silva *[], Punam Mangtani, Valerie McCormack, Dee Bhakta, Leena Sevak, Anthony J. McMichael Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
email: Isabel dos Santos Silva ([email protected])
*Correspondence to Isabel dos Santos Silva, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, England
[]Fax: +44-20-7436-4230
Abstract
To investigate the role of lifelong vegetarianism on the aetiology of female breast cancer, we conducted a population-based case-control study among South Asian migrant women from the Indian subcontinent resident in England.
A total of 240 South Asian breast cancer cases were identified from 2 cancer registries during 1995-1999. For each case, 2 age-matched South Asian controls were randomly selected from the age-sex register of the case practice.
Lifelong vegetarians had a slight reduction, although not statistically significant, in the odds of breast cancer relative to lifelong meat-eaters, which persisted after adjustment for socio-demographic and reproductive variables [odds ratio (OR)=0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.50-1.18].
Analysis by food group revealed no linear trend in the odds of breast cancer with increasing consumption of meat (p=0.10) but the odds were higher for women in the top 75%.
In contrast, there were strong inverse trends in the odds of breast cancer with increasing intake of vegetables (p=0.005), pulses (p=0.007) and fibre [non-starch polysaccharides, NSP (p=0.02)], with women in the highest 25% of intake of these foods having about 50% of the odds of those in the lowest ones.
Adjustment for intake of vegetables and pulses reverted the odds of breast cancer in lifelong vegetarians relative to lifelong meat-eaters (OR=1.04; 95% CI=0.65-1.68) and attenuated the quartile-specific estimates for meat intake, whereas the inverse trends in the odds of breast cancer with intake of vegetables and pulses remained after adjustment for type of diet or meat intake.
These findings suggest that lifelong vegetarianism may be associated with a reduction in the risk of breast cancer through its association with a higher intake of vegetables and pulses.
Although it is not possible to exclude the possibility that lifelong meat abstention may also play a role, the findings provide evidence that a diet rich in vegetables and pulses, such as those typically found in South Asian diets, may be protective against this cancer.
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 99, Issue 2, 2002. Pages: 238-244
� 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
