November 2009 Health in the News Archive

[ Monthly Index of New Briefs ]

ADHD linked to tobacco and lead exposure

November 24, 2009

tobacco

More than a third of cases of ADHD in children age eight to 15 could be reduced by eliminating pregnant mothers' exposure to tobacco and children's exposure to lead, a new U.S. study estimates.

Children exposed to tobacco smoke prenatally were 2.4 times more likely to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Those with the highest levels of lead (0.2 to 0.8 micrograms of lead per decilitre of blood) had a 2.3 increased likelihood of developing the disorder.

The results of the study, conducted by researchers at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, were published in Monday's online issue of the journal Pediatrics.

"Although we tend to focus on ADHD treatment rather than prevention, our study suggests that reducing exposures to environmental toxicants might be an important way to lower rates of ADHD," said Dr. Robert Kahn, a physician and researcher at Cincinnati Children's and the study's senior author. "But if children are exposed to both lead and prenatal tobacco, the combined effect is synergistic," he added.

The researchers found the risk of ADHD was 8.1 times higher for children exposed to both tobacco and lead compared to children who had exposure to only negligible levels of the substances. The findings were based on analysis of U.S. data on 2,588 children between the ages of eight and 15 gathered from 2001 to 2004. A total of 8.7 per cent of children in the study met criteria for ADHD.

Researchers measured lead levels in a child's blood and evaluated tobacco exposure based on how much smoking a women reported during pregnancy.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Academic Pediatrics Association, and a Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Physician Faculty Scholars Award.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

It is finally coming out in the media, even if the medical profession chooses to close its eyes. The American Academy of Pediatrics “Current Practice Guidelines” for treatment of ADHD recommends stimulant medication as the first approach.

Creating a healthy population means, in part, that we recognize the public health costs of business as usual. A recent study showed that heart attacks drop 26% each year after smoking bans are in effect – clear evidence that a cleaner world makes for healthier people and lowered health care costs.

The U.S. government admits that 1 in 6 children is born today with some kind of brain impairment. It is time to stress prevention.

Obesity responsible for 100,000+ cases of cancer annually

November 23, 2009

obesity

More than 100,000 cases of cancer each year are caused by excess body fat, according to a report released last week.

Researchers with the American Institute for Cancer Research looked at seven cancers with known links to obesity and calculated actual case counts that were likely to have been caused by obesity.

Specifically, the report says that 49 percent of endometrial cancers are caused by excess body fat. That number is followed by 35 percent of esophageal cancer cases; 28 percent of pancreatic cancer cases; 24 percent of kidney cancer cases; 21 percent of gallbladder cancer cases; 17 percent of breast cancer cases; and 9 percent of colorectal cancer cases.

"This is the first time that we've put real, quantifiable case numbers on obesity-related cancers," said Glen Weldon, the American Institute for Cancer Research educational director. In addition, he said, it's not just causing cancer that's an issue.

"Obesity not only raises the risk for getting cancer," Weldon said. "It also has a negative effect on survival and can make treatment more difficult."

Although there is no concrete science on why obesity increases a person's risk for cancer, scientists hypothesize that excess estrogen released by body fat could be the culprit in cancers such as estrogen-receptor positive breast cancers.

Studies have also shown that increased body fat can lead to increased levels of oxidative stress and inflammatory compounds in the blood, which are linked to DNA mutation and diseased cell growth, as is seen in many cancers.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Prior research tells us obesity is a known cause of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and strokes. Not surprisingly, cancer is now added to the list.

Thanks to studies from groups like Environmental Working Group, we know people are pretty much walking superfund sites today. We store everything from cancer-causing Teflon and sunscreen chemicals to neurotoxins like heavy metals. To spare the organs, the body tries to stores those toxins in excess fat. So in one sense, obesity is a sign of a toxic body.

The study associated physical activity with better outcomes. That is because regular physical activity helps regulate hormone levels.

A doctor's group is marketing for Coke – AAFP signed a six-figure deal to develop "educational" materials about soda

November 19, 2009

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) announced a six-figure alliance with the Coca-Cola Co. to fund educational materials about soft drinks, to be posted on the academy's consumer website next January. AAFP's CEO, Dr. Douglas Henley, insists the deal will not influence the group's public-health message. He said the new online information will include research linking soft drinks with obesity and will focus on sugar-free alternatives.

Coca Cola

Harvard University nutrition educator Walter Willett, M.D., M.P.H., begs to differ: "Coca-Cola like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities." He said the academy "should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled."

Coca-Cola spokeswoman Diana Garza Ciarlante said that kind of criticism "misses the point of the partnership which is to provide education based on sound science."

The idea is "to develop educational materials to help consumers make informed decisions so they can include the products they love in a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle," said the academy's president-elect, Dr. Lori Heim.

Critics liken the deal with the practice decades ago in which physicians advertised for cigarettes. A number of AAFP members resigned because of the Coke deal.

Coca-Cola is among several corporate contributors to the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, a separate philanthropic group. These contributors include many drug companies, McDonalds, and PepsiCo. Henley said the academy is in talks with other foundation contributors to fund other materials for the group, but he declined to say which ones.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Soda has no redeeming features. High levels of phosphoric acid in soft drinks can leech calcium and magnesium, making for softer bones. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contains high levels of reactive carbonyls, a free radical linked to tissue damage, the development of diabetes, and the occurrence of diabetes complications. (HFCS) has also been found to contain mercury. Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi officials confirmed that bisphenol A, BPA, is used in the linings of their beverage containers. Effects at even low BPA exposure appear to include: prostate cancer, breast cancer, early puberty onset, alterations in gender-specific behavior, decreased sperm count, decreased fertility, increased obesity and insulin resistance, behavioral effects including hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, impaired learning and other changes in behavior. And diet sodas are even worse. The health problems of synthetic sweeteners such as aspartame are well documented.

It is unfortunate to see any doctors' group sell out like this. Obesity and diabetes are on the rise. Both are preventable. But not when consumers think they can trust a professional health organization like the American Academy of Family Physicians who then gives a stamp of approval to junk food. What were they thinking?

Can you be vaccinated against cocaine, nicotine addiction? A vaccine for alcoholism tried a few years ago didn't work. Is a vaccine for addictions even a good idea?

November 18, 2009

cigarette

Researchers are investigating whether vaccines could treat addictions. Nicotine and cocaine molecules are so tiny they easily pass from the bloodstream into the brain, where they produce feelings of pleasure or euphoria. Nicotine and cocaine vaccines stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies which bind with the molecules, and the combo is far too large to pass through the blood/brain barrier.

No such vaccines are on the market, but in late September, NIDA released a $10 million stimulus grant to Nabi Pharmaceuticals to help pay for the first Phase III trial of a smoking-cessation vaccine. It is thought that no company is interested in developing a cocaine vaccine because of liability concerns and the assumption it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as a nicotine vaccine.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Sounds good, doesn't it? The problem here though is that when you bind up the nicotine receptors, you may also be blocking the acetylcholine receptors, which is not a good thing to do. Acetylcholine receptors are also called nicotinic acid receptors. There is auto-regulation of acetylcholine production, but there is no auto-regulation of nicotininc acid, which is delivered through a tobacco product. Acetylcholine neurotransmitters are responsible for some critical functions including maintaining blood pressure, activating memory in the brain, and passing messages from the brain to the muscles so they work. What if we started to make antibodies to the very substance that activates our own memory receptors? What a mess that would be. Why would we even consider making antibodies to them? There are healthier ways to get beyond addictions besides making antibodies to chemicals which we deliberately choose to put into our bodies.

Smoking cessation through hypnosis, through guided imagery, through bioenergetic treatments, through substituting chewing gum (Xylitol sweetened, of course), through making a decision to stop smoking, through just white-knuckling it for however long it takes… Whatever means are chosen as an aide, if the fundamental decision is made to stop smoking, then stopping will occur. If the fundamental decision is to stop smoking only if it's not too uncomfortable, then we will continue to smoke until we die of lung cancer or emphysema. As with most things in life, the choice is ours.

Firestorm erupts over mammography recommendations

November 18, 2009

Pink ribbon

New guidelines released November 16 by the United States Preventive Services Task Force call for less mammography screening. Most women should now forgo routine mammograms if they are in their 40s. Starting at age 50, the new guidelines call for 10 mammograms in a lifetime, one every two years.

The task force said the modest benefit of mammograms must be weighed against the harms - false positives, overtreatment, and radiation exposure. "I can't tell you how many friends I have who've gone through severe worries from false scares," said Maren Waxenberg, a Manhattan mother. "At least three of them have had biopsies. And it turned out to be nothing."

The task force determined that although mammograms were found to reduce the breast cancer death rate of women 40 to 49 years old by 15 percent, it wasn't enough to warrant starting screening at age 40. Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. The panel found insufficient evidence for the benefits of screening after age 74. The panel also found no evidence that breast self-exams lead to fewer deaths.

The new recommendations do not apply to a small group of women with a gene mutation that puts them at greater risk for breast cancer.

"I think it's shocking to basically spell out in such a bold and callous way which groups of women they no longer care to find cancer in," said Dr. Linda Gordon, imaging director at the Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland and Berkeley, CA. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology both said they were staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40.

However, several breast cancer advocacy groups, including Breast Cancer Action in San Francisco, supported the recommendations.

"There's really no evidence to support routine mammography for women who are premenopausal who are at normal risk for breast cancer," said Joyce Bichler, deputy director of Breast Cancer Action. "The fact women have been led to believe mammography at those ages would overall be something that would save lives has been oversold."

Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, said this is an opportunity to look beyond emotions. The task force "is an independent body of experts that took an objective look at the data," Ms. Visco said. "These are the people we should be listening to when it comes to public health messages."

The task force is an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. It is an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers.

Some worry that insurance would no longer cover mammograms for younger women, something doctors said could be a possibility, although not right away.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed breast and prostate cancer screening and questioned the legitimacy of such screenings in saving lives. Dr. Otis W. Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, told the New York Times that the supposed benefits of screening have been "exaggerated." Dr. Brawley's comments fueled a firestorm of controversy since they fly in the face of what the organization has been saying for years.

The new U.S. recommendations are more in line with international guidelines, which call for screening to start at age 50.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

The cancer industry has been reluctant to switch from mammography to thermography, even though the only acknowledged cause of cancer by the American Cancer Society is radiation. Many radiologists are invested in mammography. The Susan G. Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world.

Thermography is the safer form of screening. No radiation, no painful compression. And best of all, earlier detection.

Cancer cells are typically in the body 10-20 years before the mass gets large enough to be noticed. When a tumor is forming, it develops its own blood supply to feed its accelerated growth and this increased blood flow can increase the surface temperatures of the breast. Pre-cancerous tissues can start this process well in advance of the cells becoming malignant. Thermography measures the skin's autonomic response to that inflammation – its "heat signature."

Modern thermography is the cancer society's answer to screening that can help raise suspicions of breast cancer at an early stage, when there is still chance of complete cure. That's why we offer thermography at the Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine.

Now, will someone please make media headlines about the fact cancer is preventable? Two years ago, the Komen organization quietly issued a study that found breast cancer to be an environmental disease, one brought on in great part by exposure to toxic chemicals.

Organic Silk soy milk that isn't organic

November 10, 2009

Silk soy milk

The Cornucopia Institute filed a complaint with the National Organic Program to draw attention to a bait-and-switch tactic used by Silk soymilk. The complaint says Target stores advertised Silk soymilk in newspapers with the term "organic" pictured on the carton's label, when in fact the product's manufacturer, Dean Foods' WhiteWave division, has been sourcing this product line with conventional soybeans.

Dean Foods quietly removed the word "organic" from the familiar blue cartons January 15 and switched to cheaper beans — not genetically modified but likely grown with chemical fertilizer and pesticides — then called it "all natural" soy milk. Dean did not change the product's identifying bar code or package design, nor did it significantly alter the price — moves that would have triggered scrutiny by store owners, some of whom now feel duped. Specialty food markets contacted in California, Delaware and Texas said they did not discover the switch for six to nine months.

A number of other Silk products were similarly changed from organic without a new bar code, Dean confirmed. "Dean has only added to the marketplace confusion between 'natural' and 'organic,' as they definitely do not mean the same thing, and 'natural' requires no verification whatsoever," said Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist at Consumer Reports.

Historically, Silk had been committed to supporting domestic organic farmers until Dean Foods took it over. "Dean Foods had the opportunity to push organic and sustainable agriculture to incredible heights of production by working with North American farmers and traders to get more land in organic production," says Merle Kramer, a marketer for the Midwestern Organic Farmers Cooperative, based in Michigan. "But what they did was pit cheap foreign soybeans against the U.S. organic farmer, taking away any attraction for conventional farmers to make the move into sustainable agriculture."

Few Silk products are certified organic anymore, and some are processed with hexane, a neurotoxin. The use of hexane poses risks to workers in the plants and possibly the consumers of the product and is listed as an air pollutant by EPA. In Illinois alone, 5 million pounds of hexane are released into the environment by food processors Bunge, Cargill and Arthur Daniels Midland.

While the green "USDA Organic" seal is gone, hexane-processed soymilk can still be labeled "natural," and if it contains organic ingredients, the label "made with organic ingredients" is still used.

"In America today, the big food companies are all about dis-informing consumers," said health consumer advocate Mike Adams. "Rather than telling the truth on product labeling, they seek to confuse consumers with misleading information. That's why they want to weaken the definition of organic so that they can essentially grow conventional foods with pesticides, then misleadingly position them as "near-organic" products that are sold at organic prices."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

This is a classic case of what happens when "Big Ag" gets into organic farming. Dean Foods owns more than 50 milk labels around the country, including Horizon Organic, a brand that heavily depends on large factory farms milking thousands of cows.

A key element driving this bait-and-switch is market research. "Many consumers do not understand green terminology," said Suzanne Shelton, whose firm, the Shelton Group, just released a national survey examining consumer perception about food labeling. "They prefer the word 'natural' over the term 'organic,' thinking organic is more of an unregulated marketing buzzword that means the product is more expensive. In reality, the opposite is true: 'Natural' is the unregulated word. Organic foods must meet government standards to be certified as such," Shelton concluded.

Kellogg cereal under attack for immunity claims

November 4, 2009

Kellogg's Rice Krispies

Kellogg is under fire for claiming that its "fortified" Rice Krispies, Cocoa Krispies and Frosted Krispies cereals can help boost kids' immune systems.

The cereal boxes sport a large banner reading, "Now helps support your child's IMMUNITY." The label also says Kellogg has increased the amount of Vitamins A, C and E the cereals contain from 10 percent of the recommended daily minimum consumption to 25 percent.

The city of San Francisco sent a letter this week to Kellogg and the Food and Drug Administration requesting evidence of the immunity claims, suggesting Kellogg "may mislead parents at a time when they are increasingly worried about the spread of the H1N1 virus."

Kelly Brownell of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity told CBS news, "It simply defies logic to think that spraying on some vitamins and minerals to a cereal that's otherwise almost 40 percent of its weight in sugar makes a healthy product."

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, told USA Today, "The idea that eating Cocoa Krispies will keep a kid from getting swine flu, or from catching a cold, doesn't make sense. Yes, these nutrients are involved in immunity, but I can't think of a nutrient that isn't involved in the immune system."

In a statement, the company says, "These nutrients have been identified by the Institute of Medicine and other studies as playing an important role in the body's immune system. Therefore, we believe the claim ... is supported by reliable and competent scientific evidence."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

The ironies here are endless. Fortifying junky kid food does not make it health food. Adding synthetic vitamins doesn't necessarily mean kids can absorb them. Sugar actually weakens the immune system. Cocoa Krispies are a sugary cereal made with high-fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils - trans-fats.

The processed food industry came under attack last month for its "Smart Choice" labels put most famously on boxes of Fruit Loops whose number one ingredient is sugar, not to mention also at least four food coloring dyes. Although the campaign was backed by most of the nation's largest food manufacturers, many dropped out when they saw themselves so heavily criticized.

My favorite quote in the various news stories about this came from Dr. Eileen T. Kennedy, president of the Smart Choices board and the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University: "You're rushing around [in the grocery store], you're trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal. Froot Loops is a better choice." Kennedy is a classic example of why our diet and nutritional information is so unhealthy. This is America where we have so many more choices than just a donut and cereal. What we don't have enough of is nutritionists teaching people how to eat something other than junk food. A good diet is fundamental to a strong immune system.

© Copyright 2007 - 2010. All Rights Reserved. Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine.
Serving the Phoenix metro area including Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, Chandler, Tempe,
Paradise Valley, Peoria, Cave Creek, Carefree, Fountain Hills, Ahwatukee, Queen Creek