The Hidden Danger in Lotions and Sunscreens

Many consumers have long known their favorite lotions and sunscreens contained parabens, or synthetic chemicals used as preservatives. But with more and more products being touted as “paraben-free," many are now wondering, "What, exactly, are parabens, and are they dangerous?"

Parabens, which inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, have been used in personal-care products like shampoos, conditioners, deodorants, and sunscreens for years, allowing these products to survive for months, or years, during shipping and on store shelves.

Studies have now shown that parabens mimic the activity of the hormone estrogen, which is associated with certain forms of breast cancer.

Parabens are one of the most commonly used ingredients in personal care products. The only ingredient used more frequently is water. You can find them in:

• Shampoos and conditioners
• Creams and lotions
• Deodorants and antiperspirants
• Sunscreens
• Cosmetics

But, did you know they are also present in many prepared foods, like mayonnaise, mustard, salad dressings, and candy?

You can identify them on the label, where they may be listed as:

• methyl paraben
• ethyl paraben
• propyl paraben
• butyl paraben
• isobutyl paraben
• E216.

Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies have also linked parabens to breast cancer, as researchers found traces of parabens in every sample of tissue taken from 20 different breast tumors.

The EPA has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

Would it surprise you to find out that more than a third of personal care products contain ingredients linked to cancer?

Cancer rates continue to rise, yet of the nearly 4,000,000 synthetic chemicals in your environment, less than one percent of these are known well enough to be able to ascertain their safety. This is a major concern. For example, the Environmental Working Group found that only 28 common cosmetics and toiletries out of 7,500 had all of their ingredients fully tested for safety.

It's important to recognize that whatever you put on your skin is readily absorbed into your bloodstream where it can potentially cause some serious damage to your body. If you want to learn more about the potential toxicity of your cosmetics, I urge you to review the EWG's extensive "Skin Deep Report."

To keep yourself safe, switch over to natural cleaning products and natural brands of toiletries, including shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants, and cosmetics.

Some suggestions for healthier, natural alternatives include:

• Deodorant -- A pinch of baking soda mixed into water is an effective all-day deodorant. Common soap and water work just fine too.
• Shampoo and Soaps -- You can find clean, non-chemical soaps at many health food stores. To make better shampoos, you can add a little rosemary oil.
• Skin softener -- A bit of coconut oil works great as an all over moisturizer.

Beware, however, that there are no federal certifications or official guidelines for beauty products, so anyone can claim their product is natural or organic. Some "organic" beauty products actually contain only a single-digit percentage of organic ingredients!

Truly organic personal care products do not contain preservatives, however they may contain natural antimicrobial and antifungal ingredients like grapefruit seed extract, or antioxidant vitamins (A, C and E), which come with all the benefits of a preservative, but none of the dangerous side effects.

There is no question that the beauty products you use on a daily basis can harm you, and the adverse effects of toxins are compounded over decades, so choose wisely, and read the labels.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/25/the-hidden-danger-in-lotions-and-sunscreens.aspx

Doctors Are Clueless About Medication for Kid

Information on how to prescribe medications to children is scarce, and doctors often rely on the flawed assumption that children are simply smaller versions of adults when doing so.

In reality, drugs act much differently in children, yet few studies have been conducted to determine their effectiveness, safety and proper dosages.

Federal regulators have enticed or forced pharmaceutical companies to conduct studies on more than 200 drugs geared for children, but more than two-thirds of the medications given to children remain untested. Among those that were tested, it was found that:

• One-fifth of drugs that work in adults are ineffective in children
• One-fifth of the drugs were being prescribed at the wrong dosage
• One-third of the drugs caused unexpected side effects, some of which were potentially fatal

Other alarming factors discovered were that children process drugs more quickly than adults do, and because children are still developing, drugs could stunt physical growth or impair emotional and cognitive development.

Researchers have identified categories of drugs that they say should be a priority for testing. These include drugs to treat cancers, infections, asthma, high blood pressure and hyperactivity, among others.

Hurdles still remain, however. Drug companies are often reluctant to study pediatric drugs because they represent only a small fraction of the market. Further, the drugs must be evaluated in four separate age groups, which makes analyzing data more difficult.

Parents are also wary about letting their children participate in studies for fear that they will be used as guinea pigs.

"They don't want their child to be thought of as a guinea pig or a rat in a study. What I try to explain is that if they are receiving a medication that hasn't been studied, then they are essentially participating in an experiment anyway," said Robert M. Ward, director of the pediatric pharmacology program at the University of Utah.

Sources:

• Washington Post November 23, 2007

Thousands Have Gotten Sick from Gardasil HPV Vaccine

Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine recommended for girls as young as 12 years old, is causing side effects ranging from seizures and numbness to dizzy spells, fainting and paralysis.

More than 17 girls a week in Australia have experienced such reactions after receiving the vaccination, but the country’s Department of Health and Aging refuses to release their details.

Further, as of November 30, 2007, 496 adverse reaction reports were filed with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA). Of them, 468 had the cervical cancer vaccine as the sole suspected cause.

In the United States, up to 1,700 women have reported adverse reactions from Gardasil, including at least seven deaths.

To date, more than 10 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed worldwide.

TGA noted that the safety of Gardasil was being monitored by officials in Australia and overseas, and that the adverse reactions are consistent with those expected from any vaccine.

Sources:

• News.com.au December 3, 2007

Cancer Killed Almost 8 Million Worldwide in 2007

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Dec. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Cancer continues to cut a deadly swath across the globe, with the American Cancer Society reporting 12 million new cases of malignancy diagnosed worldwide in 2007, with 7.6 million people dying from the disease.

The report, Global Cancer Facts & Figures, finds that 5.4 million of those cancers and 2.9 million deaths are in more affluent, developed nations, while 6.7 million new cancer cases and 4.7 million deaths hit people in developing countries.

"The point of the report is to promote cancer control worldwide, and increase awareness worldwide," said report co-author Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, director of the society's Cancer Occurrence Office.

The number of cancers and cancer deaths around the world is on the rise, Jemal said, mostly due to an aging population. "There is increasing life expectancy, and cancer occurs more frequently in older age groups," he noted.

Lifestyle may be another reason for the rise in malignancies in developing countries, Jemal said, as people adopt Western behaviors such as smoking, high-fat diets and less physical activity.

The best way to stem the increasing number of cancer cases and deaths is prevention, especially in poorer countries, the expert said. In many developing nations, the health-care infrastructure simply isn't there to offer cancer screening and treatment for most people, Jemal added.

In developed countries, the most common cancers among men are prostate, lung and colorectal cancer. Among women, the most common cancers are breast, colorectal and lung cancer, according to the report.

However, in developing countries the three most common cancer among men are lung, stomach and liver, and among women, breast, and cervix uteri.

Worldwide, some 15 percent of all cancers are thought to be related to infections, including hepatitis (liver cancer) and human papilloma virus (cervical cancer). But the incidence of infection-related cancers remains three times higher in developing countries compared with developed countries (26 percent vs. 8 percent), according to the report.

In addition, cancer survival rates in many developing countries are far below those in developed countries. This is mostly due to the lack of early detection and treatment services. For example, in North America five-year childhood cancer survival rates are about 75 percent compared with three-year survival rates of 48 percent to 62 percent in Central America, the report notes. The report estimates that 60 percent of the world's children who develop cancer have little or no access to treatment.

The report also includes a section on the toll tobacco use takes around the world. In 2000, some 5 million people worldwide died from tobacco use. Of these, about 30 percent (1.42 million) died from cancer -- 850,000 from lung cancer alone.

Jemal believes smoking is a key culprit.

"Smoking prevalence is decreasing in developed countries. So, as tobacco companies are losing market in developed countries they are trying to expand their market in developing countries," he said.

In China alone, more than 350 million people smoke. "That's more than the entire population of the United States," Jemal said. "If these current patterns continue, there will be 2 billion smokers worldwide by the year 2030, half of whom will die of smoking-related diseases if they do not quit," he added.

In the 20th century, tobacco use caused about 100 million deaths around the world. In this century, that figure is expected to rise to over 1 billion people. Most of these will occur in developing countries.

One expert agreed that many cancer deaths can be avoided through lifestyle changes.

"What is most provocative here is not the total global burden of suffering and death cancer causes, dramatic though that may be, but the variations in cancer occurrence around the world, and the insights provided about how much of the cancer burden need not occur at all," said Dr. David Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine.

In developing countries, cancer of the uterine cervix is a leading cause of death in women, Katz noted.

"Yet this infection-related cancer is now preventable by vaccine, and long treatable when detected early using the Pap smear. As a result, death from cervical cancer in developed countries is dramatically lower. Its toll in the developing world is testimony to missed opportunities to apply our resources effectively, and equitably," he said.

Cancer of the liver, often related to hepatitis infection, is a leading cause of death in developing countries, but not so in developed countries. "Again, an infection preventable with vaccine is causing death because of inequities in the distribution and use of existing resources," Katz said.

Prostate and colon cancers are more common in wealthier countries, where they are likely related to poor diet and obesity, Katz said. "Unnecessary suffering and death are occurring in affluent countries due to dietary excesses," he said.

Katz also noted that tobacco-related cancer is largely preventable. "The toll of tobacco-related disease, including lung cancer, is an appalling example of a global willingness to tolerate preventable suffering and death for the sake of profit," he said.

These data show both developed and developing countries how to move toward the lower rates of specific cancers, Katz said.

"It will be a tragic failure for public health if instead of applying these lessons developed countries continue to export tobacco and dietary transgressions so that the developing world adds to its current cancer burden ours as well," he said.

Meat Can Raise Lung Cancer Risk

Meat can raise lung cancer risk, too
First big study to find link between saturated fats and lung disease
Reuters
updated 10:41 a.m. ET, Tues., Dec. 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - People who eat a lot of red meat and processed meats have a higher risk of several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, U.S. researchers reported.

The work is the first big study to show a link between meat and lung cancer. It also shows that people who eat a lot of meat have a higher risk of liver and esophageal cancer and that men raise their risk of pancreatic cancer by eating red meat.

"A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites," Dr. Amanda Cross and colleagues at the U.S. National Cancer Institute wrote in their report, published in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine.

The researchers studied 500,000 people aged 50 to 71 who took part in a diet and health study done in conjunction with the AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons.
After eight years, 53,396 cases of cancer were diagnosed.

"Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake," the researchers wrote.
The people in the top 20 percent of eating processed meat had a 20 percent higher risk of colorectal cancer — mostly rectal cancer — and a 16 percent higher risk for lung cancer.

"Furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver," the researchers wrote.

These differences held even when smoking was accounted for.
"Red meat intake was not associated with gastric or bladder cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, or melanoma," added the researchers, whose study is freely available on the Internet.
Source of DNA mutationsRed meat was defined as all types of beef, pork and lamb. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats, cold cuts, ham and most types of hot dogs including turkey dogs.

Meats can cause cancer by several routes, the researchers noted. "For example, they are both sources of saturated fat and iron, which have independently been associated with
carcinogenesis," the researchers wrote.

Meat is also a source of several chemicals known to cause DNA mutations, including N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Jeanine Genkinger of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and Anita Koushik of the University of Montreal said the findings fit in with other research.

"Meat consumption in relation to cancer risk has been reported in over a hundred epidemiological studies from many countries with diverse diets," they wrote in a commentary.
(c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/?GT1=10645

Carcinogens: An Avoider's Guide

What is carcinogen? Carcinogen is a substance or agent that can cause cells to become cancerous by altering their genetic structure so that they multiple continuously and become malignant.

Acrylamide- Crispy, crunchy stuff such as potato chips, crackers, and fries contain the most. This suspected carcinogen was recently let off the hook as a breast cancer promoter, but it may raise the risk of other types.

Alcohol- Moderation, meaning no more than a drink (for women) or two (men) a day, is your best bet.

Bromodichloromethane: It's in the water and vapors released from chlorinated swimming pools and saunas. It has given rats kidney and intestinal cancers. More and More pools are using alternative water -purification systems: you can check with local pools to see if there is one near you.

Heterocyclic Amines and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: The first are in very well-done meats, the second in charred grilled meats and veggies. Minimize exposure by cooking food until done, not well-done.

Reserpine: This blood pressure drug has induced adrenal and breast tumors in rats and mice. Roserpine can be an effective treatment for patients who don't respond to diuretics, but it should always be a second-line treatment. You can discuss your options with your doctor.

Safrole- Found in the pungent oil of sassafras root bark, it has caused lung and liver cancer in mice. Although safrole is banned by the FDA, sassafras rook bark is still sold.

Wood Dust and Soot: Known human carcinogens, both can up your odds for nasal and lung cancer. This is a concern for carpenters and cabinetmakers; even hobbyist will want to take precautions like wearing a mask or respirator while working.

Oprah January 2008
read full report ntp.niehs.nih.gov and click on Report on Carcinogens