Monday, January 30, 2012


Jan 30th, 2012

Turmeric (Curcuma longa), the bright yellow of the spice rainbow, is an herb native to Southeast Asia that is a true superfood shown to have remarkable healing properties. It has been found to be effective when used for peptic, gastric and duodenal ulcers as well as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric, has several cancer-fighting properties. It has been found to be helpful in the treatment of several different forms of cancer, including colon cancer, duodenal cancer, leukemia, mouth cancer, stomach cancer, and even pancreatic cancer.

That’s right! A Phase II clinical trial conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center found that turmeric was equal to or better than all currently available FDA approved drugs for pancreatic
cancer, except that it does not cause the same negative side effects. When combined with other powerful nutrients like fish oil, olive oil, and/or black pepper, turmeric’s anti-cancer effects are even further amplified, as the spice is not very well absorbed by the body on its own.
Turmeric as good as some Drugs
Turmeric can also protect cells against xenoestrogens (“fake” estrogens) because it can fit to the same receptor as estrogen or estrogen-mimicking chemicals. In a study on human breast cancer cells, turmeric reversed growth caused by a certain form of estrogen by 98% and
growth caused by DDT by 75%. According to University of Chicago scientists, curcumin inhibits a cancer-provoking bacteria associated with gastric and colon cancer.

Yet another anti-cancer property of curcumin is that it is a powerful antioxidant. It can therefore protect our bodies from free radicals that damage DNA. This is also why turmeric (which contains curcumin) can be used for preserving foods. Tests in Germany, reported in the Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmacology in July 2003, found that “all fractions of the turmeric extract preparation exhibited pronounced antioxidant activity.” Turmeric extract tested more potent than garlic, devil’s claw, and salmon oil. In the June 1998 issue of Molecular Medicine, researchers at Harvard Medical School published their findings that curcumin inhibits angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels) which tumors use to nourish themselves as they spread. If you combine curcumin with black pepper, it multiplies the effectiveness of curcumin by 1,000 times. It makes it the most powerful “natural chemotherapy” you can ever experience.

Concerning Alzheimer’s disease, turmeric inhibits formation of, and breaks down, Amyloid-beta oligomers (entwined fibres) and aggregates (lumps). In other words, it keeps the brain
neuron synapses free of plaque and keeps the brain functioning normally. Turmeric is also a natural liver detoxifier, a natural painkiller, and helps in weight management.

ps: I, Don Porter, have used it & continue to use Tumeric !!

Posted in Beat Cancer, Beat Melanoma Cancer, Beat most Diseases with a Plant Based Diet, Clinton Weight Loss, Diets, Don J Porter, Dr. Esselstyn Stop Heart Attacks, Nutrition, Stop Heart Attacks Bill Clinton | Edit | No Comments »

New studies reveal caffeinated coffee protects against Alzheimer's, diabetes, depression and prostate cancer

New studies reveal caffeinated coffee protects against Alzheimer's, diabetes, depression and prostate cancer
Jan. 09, 2012 by: JB Bardot
(NaturalNews) Recent research suggests that drinking caffeinated coffee daily may protect against developing Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, prostate cancer, depression and more, according to reports from Science Daily. Animal studies at the University of Florida discovered an ingredient in coffee that interacts with caffeine and increases blood levels of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF), a growth factor that that prevents the production of beta amyloid plaques, which are thought to be the causative factor in Alzheimer's disease. Researchers reported that daily consumption of caffeniated coffee by middle-aged and elderly individuals markedly lessens the risk of developing the disease.
Alzheimer's and coffee
Treatment with caffeinated coffee increases memory capacity in Alzheimer's mice. The animals were treated with drip coffee and at the time of this article, scientists are unsure of the effects of instant coffee on the brain. Similar positive results were not evident in those mice treated with decaffeainated coffee or caffeine in other forms. Although testing was completed on mice, researchers have soon-to-be-released clinical evidence indicating coffee's ability to protect humans against the ravages of Alzheimer's disease.

It appears that 4-5 cups of caffeinated coffee daily are necessary to produce the increase in GCSF and protect against Alzheimer's. This amount may seem high for the average American coffee drinker, who consumes approximately 1.5 to 2 cups daily. Researchers suggest that using coffee to protect against Alzheimer's should start in early middle-age, between 30-50 years old; however, older people are also likely to benefit from consuming caffeinated coffee daily.
Additional benefits from coffee
Coffee is rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents, which provide the body with additional ingredients to increase cognitive function to protect the brain; as well as protect against other diseases of aging, such as Type II diabetes, depression, stroke, and Parkinson's. Studies also suggest coffee may help fight against breast, skin and prostate cancer.

Reports in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry discusses the effects of caffeine in coffee regarding the prevention of Type II diabetes. Animal studies were performed on mice, which showed that caffeinated coffee helped control blood sugar levels and insulin sensitivity, lowering the risk of developing the disease. Coffee also triggered other beneficial changes in their bodies, further reducing the risk of diabetes. Researchers believe that it is the caffeine in coffee that acts as an anti-diabetic compound.

Drinking 2-3 cups of caffeinated coffee daily may also lower the risk of depression in women by 15%, according to research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine -- and those who consume four or more cups daily have shown an even greater reduction in their risk of developing depression. Caffeine affects brain chemicals and is known to release mood-altering transmitters.

Additional studies at the Harvard School of Public Health indicated that men who drink six cups of coffee daily have a 20-60% decreased risk of developing several forms of prostate cancer. The study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and indicated that even small quantities of coffee consumption can lower the risk of prostate cancer.

Many people are sensitive to the effects of caffeine, becoming nervous, jittery or unable to sleep. As with all good things, moderation is advised. Before introducing caffeinated coffee to your diet or greatly increasing existing quantities, consult a health care practitioner for the sake of your own health safety.

Additional information about treating Alzheimer's disease can be found in this article: Homeopathic treatment slows progression of Alzheimer's disease

Sources for this article include:

National Institute of Mental Health: Women and Depression: Discovering Hope

Journal of the National Cancer Institute; Coffee Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk and Progression in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study; Kathryn M. Wilson,; May 2011

Science Daily: Mystery Ingredient in Coffee Boosts Protection Against Alzheimer's Disease, Study Finds

Science Daily: New Evidence That Drinking Coffee May Reduce the Risk of Diabetes

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry; Yamauchi et al.?Coffee and Caffeine Ameliorate Hyperglycemia, Fatty Liver, and Inflammatory Adipocytokine Expression in Spontaneously Diabetic KKMice; 2010

About the author:
JB Bardot is trained in herbal medicine and homeopathy, and has a post graduate degree in holistic nutrition. Bardot cares for both people and animals, using alternative approaches to health care and lifestyle.

Learn more:

Thursday, January 26, 2012

A Fun Change – Quality Sports Apps FREE BetYet? Win Prizes

Time for a change of focus & have some Sports FUN FREE APP BetYet? Prizes!

Quality Sports Apps for FREE – An AVID sports fan sent me this email the other day & it turned out to be aVERY GOOD email ! Therefore I am placing it here for ALL of the Health, Plant Based Diet, Vegan, Organic & other Diet conscious folks. I like them both—lots of fun! Hope you folks do ?

Hi Don: Here are two really good/fun Apps.
Peppersports Free APP

Peppersports – Pepper Picks (FREE)- Helps you pick winners straight up? ThenDownload our latest FREE app: BetYet?…pick winners…get paid!
BetYet? with PrizesBetYet? for iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod touch (3rd generation), iPod touch (4th Read reviews, get customer ratings, seescreenshots, and learn more about BetYet? on the App Store.
Download BetYet?and enjoy it on your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.These are really fun - I am a "doubting Thomas", hard to convince - Glad I got them both ! No cash outlay---just prizes if you pick enough winners. Try it----you'll have fun!!BetYet" Screen

Monday, January 23, 2012

Diet and specific nutrients prevent brain shrinkage and lower Alzheimer's Disease Risk

(NaturalNews) Researchers reporting in the prestigious journal, Neurology have found that proper diet and specific nutrients can lower the risk of brain shrinkage by nearly 40%. Other lifestyle factors including degree of education and elevated blood pressure combined with a healthy diet can slash brain shrinkage risk in half. Shrinking brain volume is very closely associated with the development of many forms of dementia including the most devastating affliction, Alzheimer's disease. In addition to following weight management practices including calorie restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON), middle and advanced aging adults will want to ensure they consume a diet packed with marine derived Omega-3 fats and vitamins B, C, D and E to dramatically lower the risk of reduced brain volume, memory loss and risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Dr. Gene Bowman from the Departments of Neurology and Public Health and Preventive Medicine at the Oregon Health & Science University and his team of researchers recruited 104 elderly people with an average age of 87 who had few risk factors for impaired memory and thinking. They performed blood tests to quantify and compare 30 different nutrient biomarkers considered important to support brain health and volume. All the participants also completed tests of memory and thinking, while 42 of them also underwent MRI scans that measured their brain volume.

Key vitamins and marine derived fats slow brain shrinkage and cognitive decline
An analysis of the results found that the participants ate an otherwise healthy diet, yet 25% were lacking in vitamin D and 7% were deficient in vitamin B12. Dr. Bowman noted that the results showed a significant amount of the variation in brain volume and scores on the thinking and memory tests were tied to levels of nutrient biomarkers.

Researchers determined the nutrient levels accounted for 17% of the variation in the scores, while 46% of the variation was tied to other factors such as age, number of years of education and blood pressure. For brain volume, the nutrient levels accounted for 37% of the variation. The study found that the vitamins and nutrients you get from eating a wide range of fruits, vegetables and fish can be measured in blood biomarkers and have a direct impact on brain shrinkage, memory and cognition.

Dr. Bowman concluded "it is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet...I'm a firm believer these nutrients have strong potential to protect your brain and make it work better." In addition to eating a natural, organic diet full of fresh vegetables, fish and fruit, some health-minded individuals may want to consider supplementing with vitamins B, C, D, E along with fish oil capsule to ensure optimal bioavailability of these critical nutrients.

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:

Monday, January 16, 2012

Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer"

Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'
By James Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News

Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?
A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.

They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.

But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.

Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.

Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".

She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."

The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.

AdvertisementHazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk -It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.

Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."

She recommended that people eat less red meat.

Continue reading the main story
Pancreatic cancer symptoms
Unexplained weight loss
Abdominal pain (often described as a dull, gnawing ache that spreads to the back, which may becomes worse if the patient eats)
Weight loss and weakness
Nausea and loss of appetite
Back pain
Itching of the skin
Fever and shivering
BBC - Health- Pancreatic cancer

Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.

Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."

However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.

The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.

Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.

"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.

"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."

Friday, January 13, 2012

A Link Between Sausage and Cancer?

Eating a single serving of processed meat per day might increase your risk of pancreatic cancer, a new study suggests. Experts say the cancer risk is still small, but reducing the amount of processed meat in your diet is a healthy move.

Based on a review of seven previously published studies, Swedish researchers found the risk of pancreatic cancer was 19 percent higher among men and women who ate roughly 4 ounces of processed meat per day. That’s about one link of sausage or four pieces of bacon.

“Right now, your lifetime risk of getting pancreatic cancer is 1.4 percent,” said ABC News senior health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser. “If you have a serving of processed meat per day, your risk would go up to 1.7 percent; still very small.”

Pancreatic cancer affects roughly one in 65 men and women, according to the National Cancer Institute. But because it’s usually advanced by the time it’s detected, the five-year survival rate is only 5.5 percent.

Although the cancer’s cause is unknown, it’s more common among people who smoke, have diabetes or are obese, confounding variables that make it hard to tease out the role of processed meats alone. “When you’re combining a lot of different studies, it’s sometimes hard to take all of that into account,” Besser said.

Processed meats have also been linked to colon and bladder cancer. And because they’re high in salt and fat, they can raise the risk of other health problems, too. “We’ve always said don’t eat a lot of processed meats,” Besser said.

As for the cancer link, the study authors suspect it mighty stem from nitrites, chemical preservatives broken down in the stomach and carried to the pancreas through the bloodstream. “If you want to cut down on that,” Besser said, “you can look for products that don’t have nitrites.”

There are many Examples of processed meats that do not comply with Food ... Preservatives are used in processed meats for food safety, shelf life and food technology Very Dangerous !!

The worst and largest drinking water contamination in U.S. history.

The U.S. Navy is asking government investigators to suppress information concerning the toxic water scandal at the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune, according to a letter obtained Thursday by The Huffington Post.

The letter, signed by Maj. Gen. J.A. Kessler of the Marine Corps and dated Jan. 5, 2012, asks the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry to withhold from a forthcoming report details about the whereabouts of water lines, wells, treatment plants and storage tanks on the North Carolina military base -- in the name of national security.

"The Marine Corps understands the need to share information with the scientific community," writes Kessler, the Marines' assistant deputy commandant for installations and logistics. "Prudence requires, however, that information sharing be within the rubric of responsible force protection."

Government watchdogs and environmental advocates said they interpret the letter as further evidence of a Navy effort to evade culpability for what many call the worst and largest drinking water contamination in U.S. history.

Congress assigned the disease registry to trace when, where and at what levels Camp Lejeune's drinking water was tainted with toxic industrial chemicals from the late-1950s to the 1980s. The research is a prerequisite for a series of health studies exploring links between chemical exposures and what appears to be increased levels of disease among former Camp Lejeune residents, including male breast cancer and childhood leukemia.

As part of its research, the disease registry must map the entire water system on the base, past and present. And for the findings to be credible, the registry must release all of the information, so other scientists can review or replicate the results. The Navy's pressure could stymie that effort.

"This is exactly what happens when you have one federal agency investigating another," said retired Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger, the central character of a new documentary, "Semper Fi: Always Faithful," which tells the Camp Lejeune contamination story.

Jerry and his daughter, Janey, in 1982.

Ensminger added that the information the Navy seeks to supress has been in the public domain for decades, including print materials distributed to Marine personnel. "Anyone with Google Earth can zoom in on Camp Lejeune and see those red and white checkered tanks popping out of the housing areas," said Ensminger, who lost his 9-year-old daughter Janey to a rare type of leukemia. Janey was conceived at Camp Lejeune.

Ensminger and other advocates said they are concerned that the letter represents another maneuver by the Navy to cover up its actions and inactions, and to delay justice for the estimated 1 million Marines and family members who were exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune over 30-odd years.

As the documentary explains, base officials received multiple warnings from 1980 to 1984 that tests of the drinking water showed toxic chemicals including the solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), and the fuel additive benzene. Yet the first contaminated well wasn't closed until late-1984, when the co-owner of an outside lab that had conducted three of those tests notified North Carolina environmental officials. By the end of 1985, 10 more contaminated wells had been closed.

The Marine Corps denies any delay or wrongdoing. TCE, a metal degreaser, and PCE, a dry-cleaning solvent, were unregulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act when they were discovered in water, Capt. Kendra N. Hardesty, a Marine Corps spokeswoman, told HuffPost in an email.

"The test results varied between drinking water samples collected at different times," Hardesty added. "Base officials were confused and unable to immediately identify the source of the chemicals."

Legislation is currently pending in the House and Senate that seeks to provide healthcare to Camp Lejeune residents suffering as a result of exposure to the contaminated drinking water. The Senate bill passed the Committee on Veterans' Affairs over the summer and awaits further action. Legislators are on the hunt for offsets to cover its $340 million price. The House version of the bill, named after Janey Ensminger, has yet to move out of committee.

For Richard Clapp, the Camp Lejeune controversy triggers a bit of deja vu. Decades ago, the cancer expert at the Boston University School of Public Health helped link well water contaminated with TCE and PCE to an unusual number of childhood leukemia cases in Woburn, Mass. -- a battle that became the basis of the book and movie, "A Civil Action."

He recalled his first thought when those same two chemicals "popped up" in the Camp Lejeune water: "Here we go again."

"The TCE levels found in the water there were way higher than in Woburn, or anywhere I’ve ever seen," said Clapp, who has also worked on studies of contamination at other military sites, including Upper Cape Cod. He now serves as an expert on the disease registry's Camp Lejeune community assistance panel.

"I'm retired now," Clapp added. "But I can't retire from this."

The story of Camp Lejeune echoes the town of Woburn's. But in Woburn, environmental advocates were pitted against industry opponents. Plaintiffs for the Camp Lejeune victims face a government agency -- often relying on other government agencies. "Semper Fi: Always Faithful" lacks big-name actors like John Travolta, though the film's real-life characters including Ensminger are nevertheless compelling.

"We had a lot of concerns about following people who were going up against the U.S. Department of Defense," said Rachel Libert, the Oscar contender's director. "But these guys prove that an individual can make a difference."

She is also referring to Mike Partain, who was born and raised on Camp Lejeune and, at the age of 39, developed breast cancer. Partain has joined Ensminger in his crusade, helping to identify more than 70 other men with breast cancer who had lived or worked at Camp Lejeune during the years of contamination.

Mike Partain

"Male breast cancer is very unusual," Devra Davis, president and founder of the consumer advocacy group Environmental Health Trust, told HuffPost. "It's a canary in the coal mine. There's no way in hell that you’d have as many cases as have reported thus far" by chance.

Tracking down all of the former residents of Camp Lejeune who may have gotten sick has been an extremely difficult. More cases will likely be uncovered by the Camp Lejeune health studies -- assuming the disease registry's water model produces the necessary data.

"Our biggest weakness is the fact that we are not concentrated at Camp Lejeune," Partain says in the film. "The people that were there were only there for a couple years and were gone. But as word of this gets out, that weakness becomes our strength, because we’re in every town across America."

Ensminger called Camp Lejeune the "tip of the iceberg." With over 130 contaminated military sites around the country, he said, "that makes the DoD the nation's largest polluter."

Libert said she understands this pervasiveness. "We have yet to be at a film screening in which there's not a local connection," she said, from a former resident of Camp Lejeune to a community member concerned about pollution at a nearby military base. "You start to realize just how big this problem is."

She said she hopes viewers of the film, available via streaming on Netflix and iTunes beginning Jan. 17, will take away that "there really needs to be more accountability over the Department of Defense and what they do to the environment here and abroad."

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act tightens the release of information that relates to so-called "critical infrastructure," that might be used by terrorists. Language introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) narrowed what Leahy called in a statement, "overbroad exemptions."

“Information that does not compromise security and is in the public interest should be brought to light. Indeed, withholding certain information can endanger the public -- as evidenced by the water contamination at Camp Lejeune," Rep. Maloney told The Huffington Post in an email.

The Navy letter to the disease registry "is completely ignoring the new law on the books," said Angela Canterbury, director of public policy for the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight. "The Navy, the department being investigated by the agency, is requesting that information be broadly withheld without specific authority under the law.

"This smacks of coercion," Canterbury added.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Chemicals in fast food wrappers show up in human blood

Toxic chemicals used to line fast food wrappers migrate easily into human blood, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Oily foods such as fast food and microwave popcorn are regularly packaged in paper or cardboard coated with polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs), which prevent water or grease from leaking through the packaging. A prior study by the same research team confirmed that PAPs can migrate from packaging into food, and thereby be ingested. This is an issue of particular concern, because the body can metabolize PAPs into a highly toxic class of chemicals called perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs).
The most infamous PFCA is perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8) the active ingredient in Teflon. PFOA and other PFCAs have been linked to a wide variety of health problems including changes in cholesterol and sex hormones. They have produced tumors and even infant death in animal studies.

"PFOA used in non-stick pans (fast-food containers, carpets, furniture and a host of other everyday household products) accumulates in the umbilical cords of babies and is retarding their growth and brain development, according to two new studies published in the prestigious journal Environmental Health Perspectives (August 2007)," notes Andreas Moritz in the book Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation.
"Babies whose umbilical cords had the highest concentrations of PFOA were born lighter, thinner and with smaller head circumferences than others."

In the new study, researchers exposed rats to PAPs and confirmed that they were indeed metabolized into PFOA.

"This discovery is important because we would like to control human chemical exposure, but this is only possible if we understand the source of this exposure," researcher Scott Mabury said.

He noted that the findings refute attempts "to locate the blame for human exposure on environmental contamination that resulted from past chemical use rather than the chemicals that are currently in production."
FAST FOOD and MANY Packaged Foods with LOTS of Chemicals are DANGEROUS !!!

Sources for this story include:

Learn more:

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Prostate cancer risk linked to a diet high in red and processed meats

Prostate cancer risk linked to a diet high in red and processed meats

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and second most common cause of cancer related death in men in the United States. Nearly one in five men will develop the disease during their lifetime. New research demonstrates that increased consumption of ground beef or processed meat is positively associated with aggressive prostate cancer, according to a study published in the journal PLoS ONE. Researchers found a strong correlation between well cooked, grilled or barbequed red meat and processed meats and the development of prostate cancer. Health-minded individuals will want to severely limit and review cooking methods for red and processed meat consumption to limit this prostate cancer risk factor.

The result of a study conducted at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), offers solid evidence of a link between aggressive prostate cancer and meat consumption. Scientists found prostate cancer growth is driven largely by consumption of grilled or barbecued red meat, especially when it is well-done. Senior study author, Dr. John Witte set out to explain the result of prior studies and to establish a scientific basis for increased prostate cancer risk with red and processed meat consumption.

Well Cooked Red and Processed Meats Dramatically Increase Prostate Cancer Incidence
Researchers used a cohort of 470 men with aggressive prostate cancer and contrasted them against 512 matched controls that did not have prostate cancer. All the men completed questionnaires that enabled the researchers to assess not only their meat intake for the previous 12 months, but also the type of meat and how it had been prepared. Researchers placed special emphasis on the "doneness level", ranging from rare to well-done.

The study authors used pre-established levels of carcinogens from the National Cancer Institute's CHARRED database, which contains the mutagen content for each type of meat by cooking method and doneness. Compiling the data obtained from the participants allowed the researchers to determine the consumption levels of chemicals that have the potential to transform into cancer-causing compounds including heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The study established the following conclusions:

"Higher consumption of any ground beef or processed meats was positively linked with aggressive prostate cancer, with ground beef showing the strongest association."

"The main driver of this link was intake of grilled or barbecued meat, with more well-done meat tied to a higher risk of aggressive prostate cancer."

"Men who ate high levels of well or very well cooked ground beef had twice the odds of developing aggressive prostate cancer compared to men who ate none."

Dr. Witte and his team were able to make a conclusive link between well cooked and processed meats and incidence of prostate cancer. Of particular importance was the degree of cooking and use of high heat cooking methods that add carcinogens to the surface of the meat. Most health-conscious people avoid regular meat consumption. This study provides further evidence that limiting or eliminating meat from the diet and utilizing proper cooking practices for all types of food can help prevent prostate cancer and many chronic illnesses.

Sources for this article include:

About the author:
John Phillip is a Health Researcher and Author who writes regularly on the cutting edge use of diet, lifestyle modifications and targeted supplementation to enhance and improve the quality and length of life. John is the author of 'Your Healthy Weight Loss Plan', a comprehensive EBook explaining how to use Diet, Exercise, Mind and Targeted Supplementation to achieve your weight loss goal. Visit My Optimal Health Resource to continue reading the latest health news updates, and to download your Free 48 page copy of 'Your Healthy Weight Loss Plan'.

Learn more:

Sunday, January 1, 2012

There's A 25% Chance Your Ground Meat Has A Potentially Fatal Bacteria

There's A 25% Chance Your Ground Meat Has A Potentially Fatal Bacteria

Mark Bittman has yet another fascinating column in the New York Times, this time on the prevalence of bacteria in meat. He discusses a study that analyzed 80 brands of beef, pork chicken and turkey from five cities. The study found that 47% of the meat contained the bacteria staphylococcus aureus and that 52% were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics. One particular line struck us:
So when you go to the supermarket to buy one of these brands of pre-ground meat products, there's a roughly 25% chance you'll consume a potentially fatal bacteria that doesn't respond to commonly prescribed drugs.
Yup, you read that right folks -- based on this study, there is about a one-in-four chance that your ground meat contains a potentially fatal bacteria. Now why is that the case? That's when things get tricky. There has always been problems with giving antibiotics to healthy farm animals, but the practice is widespread nonetheless. In short, antibiotic use on farms can be linked to rising rates of drug-resistant infections.
Now it turns out that the FDA recently decided not to fight against this antibiotic use. So that means that, for the time being, if you use pre-packaged ground beef to make a hamburger, it's probably best to cook the meat through rather than keeping it tastily rare. (Even antibiotic resistant bacteria can be killed by sufficient heat.) Or better yet, grind high-quality meat yourself, or have a reputable butcher grind it right in front of your eyes.
Bittman sums up the problems with this quite succinctly; read his column "Bacteria 1, F.D.A. 0" -- BELOW
The Opinion Pages Dec. 27, 2011,
Bacteria 1, F.D.A. 0
Earlier this month, the Maine-based grocery chain Hannaford issued a ground beef recall after at least 14 people were infected with an antibiotic-resistant strain of salmonella. Chances are this is the first you’ve heard of it. After all, it’s not much compared to the 76 illnesses and one death back in Aug that led Cargill to recall almost 36 million pounds of ground turkey products potentially contaminated with drug-resistant salmonella. The particulars get confusing, but the trend is unmistakable: our meat supply is frequently contaminated with bacteria that can’t readily be treated by antibiotics.

A study earlier this year by a nonprofit research center in Phoenix analyzed 80 brands of beef, pork, chicken and turkey from five cities and found that 47% contained staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria that can cause anything from minor skin infections to pneumonia and sepsis, more technically called systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and commonly known as blood poisoning — but no matter what you call it, plenty scary. Of those bacteria, 52% were resistant to at least 3 classes of antibiotics. So when you go to the supermarket to buy one of these brands of pre-ground meat products, there’s a roughly 25% chance you’ll consume a potentially fatal bacteria that doesn’t respond to commonly prescribed drugs.

It’s not like this is happening without a reason; the little germs have plenty of practice fighting the drugs designed to kill them in the industrially raised animals to which antibiotics are routinely fed. And although it’s economical for producers to drug animals prophylactically[1], there are many strong arguments against the use of those drugs, including their declining efficacy in humans.
Probably you’d agree with the couple of people I described this situation to earlier this week, one of whom said something like, “Ugh, that’s crazy,” and the other simply, “They gotta do something about that!”
The thing is, “they” did. In 1977. That’s when the FDA, aware of the health risks of administering antibiotics to healthy farm animals, proposed to withdraw its prior approval of putting penicillin and tetracycline in animal feed. Per their procedure, the F.D.A. then issued two “notices of opportunity for a hearing,” which were put on hold by Congress until further research could be conducted. On hold is exactly where the F.D.A.’s requests have been since your dad had sideburns. Until last week, when the agency decided to withdraw them.

Not because the situation has gotten better, that’s for sure; the agency is well aware that it’s only gotten worse. A staggering 80% of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to farm animals, mostly, as I said, prophylactically: the low-dose drugs help the animals fatten quickly and presumably help ward off diseases caused by squalid living conditions. The animals become perfect breeding grounds for bacteria to gain resistance to the drugs, and our inadequate testing procedures allow them to make their way into stores and our guts.
The F.D.A. knows all about this; in 2010 the agency issued a draft guidance proposing that big agriculture voluntarily (there’s a non-starter for you[2]) stop the use of low-dose antibiotics in healthy farm animals. “The development of resistance to this important class of drugs,” the F.D.A. asserted, “and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious public health threat.” Good. Nice. But toothless. So why would the F.D.A. — with full knowledge of the threat and a high-profile lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council impelling them to finally address it — decide not to act? In its announcement last week, the agency said that its “efforts will focus on promoting voluntary reform and the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of best using the agency’s overall resources to protect the public health.” What this means is that the F.D.A. has neither the budget nor the political support to mandate regulation.


That’s true: the F.D.A. is consistently under-financed and increasingly unable to do its job, which is largely to protect the public health.[3] (It’s surprising that Congress recently increased the F.D.A.’s budget by an inadequate but better-than-nothing 3%. Most of that money is for implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act, a critical and long-overdue piece of legislation.)
Here’s the nut: The F.D.A. has no money to spare, but the corporations that control the food industry have all they need, along with the political power it buys. That’s why we can say this without equivocation: public health, the quality of our food, and animal welfare are all sacrificed to the profits that can be made by raising animals in factories. Plying “healthy” farm animals (the quotation marks because how healthy, after all, can battery chickens be?) with antibiotics — a practice the EU banned in 2006 — is as much a part of the American food system as childhood obesity and commodity corn. Animals move from farm to refrigerator case in record time; banning prophylactic drugs would slow this process down, and with it the meat industry’s rate of profit. Lawmakers beholden to corporate money are not about to let that happen, at least not without a fight.
[1] Economical, that is, as long as you don’t count the cost of human lives and suffering or the actual dollars it costs to treat the disease. Once that’s included, the cost to the U.S. healthcare system of treating such antibiotic-resistant infections in humans is estimated to be between $16 billion and $26 billion per year. But there’s no reason for animal producers to care about that unless they’re required to — or exhibit unusual levels of altruism.
[2] As are all voluntary guidelines; see my column of two weeks ago.
[3] It’s worth noting that the F.D.A. is responsible for regulating antibiotics, but the department of agriculture (USDA) oversees the actual animals that receive them. Why it’s too much to ask for a single agency overseeing the production and health of animals is beyond me, but later for that.
An earlier version of this article misidentified The Natural Resources Defense Council as The National Resources Defense Council; this has been corrected.