What is it?

The controversial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test detects raised levels of PSA, an enzyme produced by the prostate and thought to be an indicator of prostate cancer. When the gland enlarges, greater amounts of PSA are produced in the blood. The test is a simple blood test, taking a sample from a vein.

Is it accurate?

As we’ve written before, it’s not clear that the test saves lives. At this time, there are no published randomized trials confirming that early detection improves the long-term prospects for patients with the disease (BMJ, 2004; 328: 301-2):

• It produces a high number of false positives – indicating cancer where none is present – and a high number of false negatives – failing to detect cancer when it’s present (Urologe A, 2000; 39: 22-6). False positives occur mainly in the over-50s, who are more likely to be undergoing regular screening. In this age group, 15 out of every 100 men will have elevated PSA levels, of which 12 will be false positives and only three a true indication of cancer.
• Doctors can’t agree as to what blood level of PSA is significant. The usual cut-off point is 4 ng/mL, but less than that doesn’t automatically mean no cancer. As much as 25 per cent of men with prostate cancer have PSA levels below this.
• The test cannot specify the type of cancer present. Prostate cancer has many forms, with variable growth rates and degrees of fatality; the test doesn’t distinguish between a fast- or slow-growing cancer, or between a harmless and dangerous type. Also, as research has yet to define what constitutes a clinically important prostate cancer, doctors have no clear idea of what the specific target of screening should be.
• The test cannot distinguish a good prognosis. Current test parameters can identify a few men with prostate cancer who have good prospects for long-term survival and a few with poor prospects, but not the vast majority of men with prognoses in between (Ann Intern Med, 2002; 137: 917-29).
• A positive test is usually confirmed by biopsy, another not particularly accurate procedure. Biopsies detect only 40 per cent of those who will go on to develop cancer (Br J Urol Int, 2000; 85: 1078-84).
• Elevated PSA levels can be caused by a number of other factors, including:
  • non-fatal forms of prostate cancer
  • common prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate)
  • benign prostatic hyperplasia, a natural enlargement of the prostate that often occurs with aging
  • medicines for the prostate and the drug finasteride, used to treat male-pattern baldness
  • ejaculation, which can elevate PSA levels for up to 48 hours afterwards
  • any physical activity, especially cycling, which can physically stimulate the prostate to produce more PSA.

Is it safe?

Although the procedure itself isn’t hazardous, a wrong diagnosis can set in motion the entire modern cancer regime, which can be harmful, if not fatal (BMJ, 2004; 328: 301-2). As many as one in six men will be diagnosed with the disease, compared with about one in 29 who will die from it (Ann Intern Med, 2002; 137: 917-29). Prostatic surgery can result in incontinence and loss of sexual function, and hormone treatment can lead to loss of libido and the development of breasts.

Safer uses of the PSA test

• Make sure your PSA test is carried out before a digital rectal examination as physical manipulation of the prostate can stimulate the gland to produce more PSA.
• Find out your percentage of free PSA. PSA circulates in the blood as free PSA and bound to a protein. Men with prostate cancer tend to have less free PSA than men without prostate cancer (Ann Intern Med, 2002; 137: 917-29).
• Use the PSA test only as part of a more comprehensive test for prostate cancer, and consider grossly elevated levels of PSA as only a red flag for further investigations.

You won’t find fiber in cheeseburgers, grilled chicken, cheese, or any other animal products. But a diet based on whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables can provide plenty of this essential nutrient.

Dietary fiber, or roughage, is a known cancer fighter found only in the cell walls of plant foods. Studies have shown that increased fiber intake decreases the risk of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer.

Fiber adds bulk to the digestive system, shortening the amount of time that waste travels through the colon. This waste often contains carcinogens and potential cancer-causing hormones that need to be removed from the body as quickly as possible. Fiber decreases the chances for intestinal cells to be affected by carcinogens. When bacteria in the lower intestine break down fiber, a substance called butyrate is produced. Butyrate may inhibit the growth of tumors of the colon and rectum.

Fiber may also help protect against breast cancer, especially when the fiber comes from grains and wheat bran. High-fiber diets are often lower in fat, and dietary fat is believed to increase the risk of breast cancer because fat can increase hormones in the body and speed tumor growth.

Increased fiber also expedites the removal of potentially harmful excess estrogen. The liver filters estrogens out of the blood by passing them into the digestive tract where fiber helps remove them from the body.

Fiber may also have a protective effect against mouth, throat, and esophageal cancers. And fiber may be part of the reason that vegetarian diets have been shown to result in low risk of prostate cancer. Of course, vegetarian diets are also rich in cancer-protective antioxidants.

Most Americans consume only 10 to 15 grams of fiber per day. But studies have shown that optimal intake for cancer prevention is at least 30 grams to 35 grams of fiber per day.

Studies suggest that small increases in fiber, such as adding vegetables to a chicken stir-fry or having a hamburger on a whole wheat bun, do not offer much protection. Replacing high-fat animal products such as chicken, fish, cheese, and eggs with plant foods helps boost fiber to levels where real protection is possible.

There are two types of dietary fiber—soluble and insoluble. Soluble fiber dissolves in water and is found in a variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains. It cuts cholesterol, adds to a feeling of fullness, and slows the release of sugars from food into the blood. These actions reduce your risk for health problems including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. Good sources of soluble fiber are oats, oat bran, oatmeal, apples, citrus fruits, strawberries, dried beans, barley, rye flour, potatoes, raw cabbage, and pasta.

Insoluble fiber does not dissolve in water and is found in grain brans, fruit pulp, and vegetable peels and skins. It is the type of fiber most strongly linked to cancer protection and improved waste removal. Good sources of insoluble fiber are wheat bran, whole wheat products, cereals made from bran or shredded wheat, crunchy vegetables, barley, grains, whole wheat pasta, and rye flour.

It is best to choose fiber-rich foods over fiber supplements to get the full range of cancer-fighting phytochemicals that fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains contain.

Adding more fiber to the diet is easy. Just follow these steps:

1. Choose products that are minimally processed, like whole wheat bread instead of white bread and brown rice instead of white rice.
   
2. Do not remove the fiber-rich peels and skins of fruits and vegetables. Just be sure to wash them thoroughly before eating.
   
3. Plan each of your meals to include whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.
   
4. To avoid intestinal discomfort when increasing fiber intake, it is best to increase gradually and drink plenty of water.
   
5. Snack on baby carrots, apples, strawberries, oranges, and other fiber-rich fruits and vegetables.
   
6. Top your breakfast cereals with dried fruits like raisins or dates, or fresh fruits like strawberries or peaches.
   
7. Sprinkle garbanzo beans or peas on your salad.
   
8. Add a handful of grated carrots to spaghetti sauce.
   

Beans present a bit of indigestion or gas for some people. Here are some ideas that will help solve this problem:

1. Start with modest servings.
   
2. Some people notice that smaller beans are easier to digest, so try black beans, black–eyed peas, and lentils, and work your way up to pinto, kidney, and fava beans.
   
3. After soaking dried beans, drain them, and then cook them in fresh water. It may also help to add a pinch of baking soda to the soaking water.
   
4. Always make sure beans are thoroughly cooked. Even some brands of canned beans need more cooking before they are thoroughly cooked.
   

By Jennifer K. Reilly, R.D.

The Cancer Project

Electromagnetic fields (or EMFs) from electricity lines almost certainly cause leukaemia, Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative illnesses. Yet, most scientists—and every power supplier and government planning department around the world—continue to deny that power lines are a health hazard.

The International Agency for Cancer Research of the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified extremely low-frequency (ELF) EMFs as a possible carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) in light of the overwhelming evidence that has been uncovered in recent years. Indeed, the Agency’s latest position, reported in 2001, is a complete reversal of its stance of four years ago, when it agreed with most scientists that there is no evidence of a causal link between power lines and severe illnesses. The WHO also recommends that power lines be sited well away from homes “to reduce people’s exposure”.

In the UK, the government-funded advisory group SAGE (Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs) reported in 2007 that there is now sufficient evidence of a causal link between power lines and childhood leukemia for power companies to adopt a precautionary approach. In particular, SAGE recommends that, in future, power lines should be placed underground, and that no new homes should be built within 60 metres of existing power lines.

It’s a view shared by the State of California, which commissioned a $7m, 10-year review of power- line safety in 1993. The study, called the ‘California EMF Project’ (2002), concluded that magnetic fields from power lines and other sources are a likely cause of childhood and adult leukemia, adult brain cancers, spontaneous abortions and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), the degenerative disease that afflicts astrophysicist Dr Stephen Hawking.

The EMF Project researchers state that “even a slight additional lifetime risk could be of concern to regulators, who already regulate other environmental concerns that convey even lower risks.”

So why do scientists persist in remaining ambivalent over the research-based evidence, and why are governments, regulatory bodies and power suppliers refusing to act when they must certainly be aware that overhead power lines represent a reasonable health risk?

Before we answer these questions, let’s look at some of the studies published since 2000, the watershed year that heralded the beginning of all the research that began to draw compelling links between EMFs and their effects on the human immune system.

Power lines and leukemia

The possibility that power lines cause childhood leukemia has attracted more research than any other health concern associated with EMFs.

One of the strongest associations was established by what is now referred to as the ‘Draper report’, a case-control study that discovered that children under the age of 15 years who lived within 100 metres of power lines were nearly twice as l i kely to develop leukemia compared with children who lived further away (BMJ, 2005; 330: 1290–4).

The team of researchers, led by Gerald Draper and based at the University of Oxford, included a representative from the National Grid Transco plc as scientific advisor. They arrived at their conclusions after examining the profiles of 29,081 children who developed
cancer between 1962 and 1995 in England and Wales.

Although the findings were of considerable public interest, the UK Government’s Department of Health, which had funded the research , suppressed the report for four years. Officials at the Department were first informed of the preliminary results in 2001, yet the report was not
published until June 2005.

What’s more, even when it finally made it into print, Geoff Watts , science editor of the British Medical Journal, declared that the Draper report simply means that only “five cases annually of childhood leukemia may be associated with power lines” compared with the 32 children who are killled annually in house fires or the 200 who die every year on UK roads (B M J, 2005; 330: 1294–5). Nevertheless, it was still an admission that power lines can affect
our health.

Two researchers—Anders Ahlbom f rom the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Sander Greenland from the UCLA School of Public Health in Los Angeles, CA—h a v e
conducted a range of studies into EMFs and childhood leukemia since 2000. Indeed, in that year alone, they both published papers – one of which was a pooled analysis of 15 studies— that demonstrated a doubling of leukaemia rates among children exposed to the same levels of ELF fields as are generated by standard power lines (Br J Cancer, 2000; 85: 692–8;
Epidemiology, 2000; 11: 624–34). A year later, Ahlbom followed up with another review of the “voluminous epidemiologic literature on EMF” that confirmed the association of childhood leukaemia and postnatal exposures to EMFs (Environ Health Perspect, 2001; 109 [Suppl 6]: 911–33).

Power lines and Alzheimer’s

Several studies have produced compelling evidence for a causal connection between EMFs and Alzheimer’s disease. The latest study, published in November 2007, comes from Switzerland, where researchers have established that people who are living within 50 metres of a power line for 15 years or more have twice the the risk of developing Alzheimer’s
disease compared with those who are living 600 metres or more from such power lines.

Researchers at the University of Bern made the discovery when they analyzed the health profiles of 4.7 million people in Switzerland who lived close to a power line. They concluded that the distance from a line, and the duration of time spent living near such a line, were both
significant risk factors. The overall risk of Alzheimer’s for anyone living within 50 metres of a power line for any length of time was 1.24 times greater than that of someone who lived further away (Am J Epidemiol, 2008; doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn297).

In fact, the conclusion that the duration of EMF exposure is asignificant marker of Alzheimer’ s
risk has been supported by a study of workers in Spain whose occupations bring them into regular contact with ELF EMFs. A meta-analysis of 14 studies, carried out by researchers at
Valencia University, revealed that people in those occupations had twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s in later life compared with the general population (Int J Epidemiol, 2008; 37: 329–40).

EMFs and other diseases

As EMFs are believed to interfere with the workings of the immune system, it follows that they would be expected to be responsible for causing a wide range of degenerative, chronic diseases, as suggested by California’s EMF Project findings. In fact, in addition to leukemia, the researchers consider it “likely” that magnetic fields are the cause of spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) and ALS, a view that has been supported by a number of studies.
Three recent studies support the hypothesis that EMFs cause spontaneous abortions. One such study, which reviewed 177 cases of miscarriage in Northern California, found a close correlation with exposure to high levels of EMFs. Women exposed to the highest levels
were more than three times more likely to miscarry than those whose exposure was minimal (Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 21–31).

Scientists at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in Oakland, California, arrived at a similar conclusion when they examined the cases of 969 women from the San Francisco Bay area who had experienced miscarriage. Although they could find no correlations among
women exposed to average levels of EMFs, those who were regularly exposed to levels of 16 mG (milliGauss) or more were nearly twice as likely to lose their pregnancy (Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 9–20).

The third study, carried out on laboratory mice, demonstrated that exposure to ELF EMFs during pregnancy would not only affect the term of the pregnancy, but could also interfere with the development of the offspring (Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi, 2006; 24: 468–70).

Further studies also suggest that high EMF levels may cause ALS. The first, which analyzed the Swedish census of 1980 against instances of neurodegenerative disorders such as
Alzheimer’s disease and ALS, found that workers in the electrical or electronics industry had a 40-percent greater chance of developing ALS than those who did not work in electrical/electronic-related occupations (Epidemiology, 2003; 14: 413–9).

The Swedish study findings were supported by a later study that also found a direct correlation between exposures was more than two times greater than for those in other industries, although the risk was higher still – at four times – for Alzheimer’s disease (Epidemiology, 2003; 14: 420–6).

In yet another study, the researchers concluded that “there are relatively strong data indicating that electric utility work may be associated with an increased risk [of ALS]” (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; suppl 5: S132–43).

Why scientists disagree

Power lines emit both electrical and magnetic fields. The electric field is related to the voltage running through the line—a typical cable handles between 275 kV (kilovolts) and 400 kV -whereas the magnetic field is dependent on the current being carried through the cable, and
this can vary depending on the usage. This means that any scientist researching the impact of an EMF is faced with the immediate problem of how to measure something that can fluctuate wildly over any 24-hour period. This is why only studies that have examined EMF effects over years are able to discern any causal relationship with health problems, whereas a study that is carried out for only a few days or weeks at a time is only able to determine insignificant
effects—if any at all.

Scientists who deny any association also argue that no one truly understands how EMFs can cause cancer or damage the immune system. However, as Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, an independent consumers’ information service, says: “We still do not know the actual
mechanisms by which cigarette smoking, asbestos fibre or DDT cause cancers, but we have accepted the epidemiological evidence and have introduced laws to limit or reduce
human exposure.”

The distance from power lines is another issue, and sceptics have argued that people living even relatively short distances from them should not suffer any ill effects. In effect, they appear to be suggesting that illnesses being reported may just be psychosomatic—all in the
head.

Professor Denis Henshaw, at Bristol University, has spent years studying this issue, and has come up with an hypothesis of ‘corona ions’. He posits that the ions emitted by
high-voltage power lines are ending up as tiny charged particles of air pollution that can penetrate deeply into our lungs and bloodstream. These so-called corona ions are
carried on the wind and quickly become attached to microscopic particles of air pollution, thereby electrically charging them.

Professor Henshaw believes that these pollutants can be carried several hundred metres away from power lines, which would explain why children living at greater distances –
and downwind—from a line can stilldevelop leukaemia.

One task of the BioInitiative Report, prepared by 14 independent internationally based scientists in 2007, was to try to understand why there is still so much disagreement
among experts, despite the fact that enough evidence has already been published to justify improvements in safety standards within the power industry.

Among the 10 reasons listed by the Report, the authors concluded that:

• different scientists use different measurements to determine the existence of any proof;
  
• some scientists continue to insist that every study should achieve the same results;
  
• some scientists are only looking at short-term and acute effects, which do not always tell the whole story; and
  
• vested interests appear to have a substantial influence on the whole issue under debate.
  

Industry pressures

This is an exceedingly high-stakes game, one that goes way beyond deciding whether power lines should be buried under the ground or not. If governments and power industries
accept the growing epidemiological evidence that EMFs cause cancer—not to mention any other chronic and degenerative diseases—then there will need to be a massive change in
the way we live our lives.

EMFs are emitted from the mains electricity and all the wiring in our homes—powering everything from microwave ovens to Wi-Finetworks—but also, and more significantly, from
mobile phones and mobile-phone masts.

The upshot of all this is that, while it is a matter of degrees and being reasonable, any admission from our health guardians that EMFs are causing cancer would have major
effects on the world’s economy—not to mention our present taken—for granted
comfy lifestyles. It is also known that the power industry, like the drug industry, recruits and richly rewards ‘friendly’ scientists who are always on hand to deride any research
that links EMFs to cancer and other diseases. Indeed, the power industry openly—but sometimes covertly—funds research that invariably discovers no association between
EMFs and illness.

This is part and parcel of the damage limitation that began in the 1960s, when field pioneers such as Drs Ross Adey, Milton Zaret and Robert Becker started investigating the effects of EMFs on humans. Dr Zaret was among the first to discover that EMF radiation, such as
emitted by microwaves, is biologically harmful and can cause conditions such as cataracts. Yet, in the course of his work, his research funds were stopped. Dr Becker worked for the
US Navy, and his brief was to assess the health impact of a submarine ELF communications system. His study concluded that the health of significant segments of the American
population was at risk from 60-Hz power lines. But when the State of New York was planning the construction of 10 high-power lines, the Navy denied that Becker’s work existed, so
the high-power lines were erected. Becker said afterwards: “The way science is currently funded andevaluated, we are learning more and more about less and less, and science
is becoming our enemy instead of our friend.”

Dr Adey, who died in 2004, worked on secret CIA projects in the 1970s that looked into the impact of EMFs on people’s mental health. Since then, other researchers have found that these energy fields can cause depression: indeed, several noted that suicide levels were far higher among people who lived near power lines.

In 1992, Adey reported that there was “very little doubt” that EMFs affect the immune system, interfere with fetal development and cause birth abnormalities, damage healthy cell growth, encourage tumour formation, and affect the central nervous system and the brain. In addition, as he said on BBC Radio Scotland on January 10, 1992, “This work is being carried out in
many laboratories worldwide so that the old fiction that this research describes uncorroborated experiments is no longer true.”

In the 16 years since that programme was aired, the evidence has become even stronger, but it will still be a long time before governments and the so-called guardians of our public health admit it. As Dr John Bonnell, chief medical officer for the UK’s now-defunct Central Electricity Generating Board, said in 1985, on a Central TV programme entitled The Good, the Bad and the Indefensible: “If we accepted the dangers, it would mean an enormous turnabout for industry and for the country as a whole. There are no contingency plans to cope with such
a turnabout.”

Not only are there no contingency plans in place, but we have also seen the explosion of the mobile-phone industry in the intervening years, making any admission concerning the harmful effects of EMFs physically as well as fiscally catastrophic.

Bryan Hubbard

A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology reinforced existing evidence that women with breast cancer can greatly reduce their risk of recurrence by eating a healthy plant-based diet rich in fruits and vegetables and making other healthy lifestyle choices.

The study, conducted by researchers with the University of California, San Diego, tracked dietary patterns and exercise habits among about 1,500 women who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer between 1991 and 2000. It found that the death rate for women who consumed a high-fiber diet rich in fruits and vegetables and practiced good exercise habits was 44 percent lower than the rate for women who exercised little and ate few plant-based foods.

The Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) study showed that women previously treated for breast cancer who consume at least five fruit and vegetable servings per day and are physically active have a nearly 50 percent reduction in mortality risk.

The WHEL study included more than 3,000 pre- and postmenopausal women. Half the participants (the intervention group) were asked to have five vegetable servings, 16 ounces of vegetable juice, and three fruit servings daily, as part of a low-fat, high-fiber diet. A comparison group was asked to consume at least five fruit and vegetable servings per day.

After seven years, those women in the comparison group who followed the guideline of eating at least five fruit and vegetable servings daily and who were physically active turned out to have nearly a 50 percent lower rate of mortality, compared with women who did not meet these healthful guidelines.

A 2005 National Cancer Institute study found that breast cancer patients in the study who reduced their fat consumption lowered their risk of tumor recurrence by as much as 42 percent. High-fat foods, including beef, vegetable oils, and chicken, can boost the hormones that promote cancer cell growth. But most plant-based foods are naturally low in fat and offer people a healthy way to stay slim.

Researchers followed 2,437 postmenopausal breast cancer patients for five years after standard surgery and cancer treatments. They instructed 1,462 of the patients to continue their regular diets, while 975 patients were given intensive counseling with a dietitian to reduce their fat intake. The control group consumed an average of 51.3 grams of fat per day, which is still lower than the average American’s fat intake. The low-fat group averaged 33.3 grams per day—slightly more than in a typical vegetarian diet. After five years, 12.4 percent of the women eating their usual diet had cancer recurrences, compared with only 9.8 percent of the low-fat diet group: that’s a 24 percent reduction in recurrence. Low-fat dieters with estrogen-negative tumors experienced a 42 percent reduction in recurrence.

In 1982, the National Research Council linked eating habits—particularly high-fat, meat-heavy diets—to cancer of the breast and other organs. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute recently reported that the rate of breast cancer among premenopausal women who ate the most animal fat was one-third higher than that of women who ate the least animal fat.

Consuming meat only increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. A study of postmenopausal Danish women looked at 378 women who developed breast cancer and matched them to control subjects who did not develop breast cancer. A higher intake of meat—including poultry and fish, as well as red meat and processed meat—was associated with a significantly higher breast cancer incidence rate.

Every 25 gram increase (about one ounce) in consumption of total meat, red meat, and processed meat led to a 9, 15, and 23 percent increase in risk of breast cancer, respectively. However, the degree of risk may depend on genetics. Certain genes activate the carcinogens (heterocyclic amines) found in cooked meat. The study showed that women with genes that rapidly activate these carcinogens are at particular risk of breast cancer if they eat meat.

There are more than 2 million breast cancer survivors in the United States, but many of these women eat fewer than five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, consume too much fat, and lead sedentary lifestyles.

Simply adding healthy foods to an otherwise poor diet, rather than getting rid of the troublemakers—meat, dairy products, and fried foods—may not offer the same benefits of adopting a fully plant-based diet. But science has repeatedly shown that a plant-based diet composed of legumes, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables can help prevent cancer and cancer recurrence.

While scientists are hard at work searching for specific breast cancer-fighting compounds, the best approach is to apply what we already know: Diets that are highest in a variety of plant foods and stay away from heavy oils, meat, and dairy products help prevent many diseases. The earlier in life we start, the better.

Need help making dietary changes? Visit http://www.CancerProject.org for delicious vegetarian recipes, information on nutrition and cooking classes, fact sheets on nutrition and cancer, DVDs, videos, books, and a free copy of The Cancer Project’s booklet Healthy Eating for Life: Food Choices for Cancer Prevention and Survival.

By Jennifer K. Reilly, R.D.
The Cancer Project

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer, other than skin cancers, in American men, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS). ACS estimates that 192,280 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009.

What men eat strongly influences prostate cancer risk, and consuming dairy products can contribute to an increased risk of this disease.

Men who consume low-fat and nonfat milk face an increased risk of prostate cancer, according to two studies in the American Journal of Epidemiology. One study included 82,483 men in the Multiethnic Cohort Study, 4,404 of whom developed prostate cancer over an average follow-up of eight years. Researchers found no association between prostate cancer risk and calcium and vitamin D intake, whether in the form of food or supplements. But the study did find a positive association between consuming 1 cup or more per day of low-fat or nonfat milk and developing prostate cancer.

The other study included 293,888 participants in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study. Consuming two or more daily servings of skim milk was associated with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.

Several previous studies—including two large Harvard studies—have shown that milk-drinking men have a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer. Researchers offer two possible reasons for the association: Milk drinking increases blood levels of insulin-like growth factor, which is associated with cancer risk. It also decreases activation of vitamin D precursors. Vitamin D helps protect the prostate against cancer.

Men who have prostate cancer can increase their chances of survival by following a low-fat vegan diet. By increasing consumption of cancer-fighting vegetarian foods and avoiding foods that feed tumor growth, such as dairy products and meat, men may significantly increase chances of living longer after prostate cancer diagnosis, according to a review in Nutrition Reviews in 2007.

Researchers found that low-fiber diets raise circulating testosterone, estradiol, and insulin levels, which in turn may fuel prostate cancer cell growth. Among men with the highest intake of saturated fat, the risk of dying from prostate cancer is three times higher than among men with the lowest intake.

Men with prostate cancer who follow a low-fat vegetarian diet benefit from increased quality of life and slowed PSA doubling time, according to a study in Urology. PSA doubling time is the amount of time it takes for levels of prostate-specific antigen, a biological marker for prostate cancer, to increase by 100 percent.

The study, led by Dean Ornish, M.D., focused on 36 men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, had undergone primary treatment for more than six months, and had continuous increases in PSA levels. The men were assigned to attend vegetarian nutrition and cooking classes or to a control group. Those in the vegetarian intervention group consumed significantly less saturated fat, more vegetable protein, and less animal protein, including fewer dairy products. The mean PSA doubling time at the three-month follow-up was substantially longer for the intervention group compared with that of the control group, meaning that the diet slowed cancer growth.

Men who want to avoid prostate cancer should follow a low-fat vegetarian diet. Which foods should men focus on? Building a balanced diet from whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables is the best way to go. But a few foods stand out as powerful fighters in the battle against prostate cancer.

Black, pinto, small red, and kidney beans are high in fiber, which helps the body rid itself of excess testosterone, and are among the 20 most antioxidant-rich foods. Beans are also rich in inositol pentakisphosphate, a known cancer-fighter.

Tomatoes and other lycopene-rich foods, such as watermelon and pink grapefruit, are associated with a reduced risk of prostate and other cancers. Studies from the Harvard School of Public Health have shown that men who frequently consume lycopene-rich foods cut their prostate cancer risk by one-third.

Broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, including kale and cauliflower, are rich in sulforaphane, a cancer-fighting phytochemical that helps rid the body of excess testosterone and reduces the risk of prostate and other cancers.

Soy, nut, and rice milks are a healthy alternative to cow’s milk, which is known to increase the risk of prostate cancer. According to two major Harvard studies, men who avoided dairy products cut their prostate cancer risk by as much as 25 to 40 percent. Soy foods are also associated with a lower risk of cancer. Excellent plant sources of calcium are broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale, mustard greens, and fortified products such as orange juice and soymilk, and these foods will also provide your body with important cancer-fighting nutrients.

Need more information on prostate cancer and or making the transition to a vegetarian diet? Visit http://www.CancerProject.org for delicious recipes, information on nutrition and cooking classes, fact sheets on nutrition and cancer, DVDs, videos, books, and a free copy of The Cancer Project’s booklet Healthy Eating for Life: Food Choices for Cancer Prevention and Survival.

By Jennifer K. Reilly, R.D.
The Cancer Project

Researchers have known for years that meat-eaters have higher cancer rates, compared with people who avoid meat. But now we also know that grilled meats pose a unique threat. Cancer-causing chemicals called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) have been found in chicken and other meats, and the very highest concentrations occur when these products are grilled.

Grilling meat, especially chicken, produces carcinogenic HCAs, which are formed from the creatinine, amino acids, and sugar found in muscle tissue. More HCAs are produced by long cooking times and hot temperatures, which make grilling, pan frying, and oven broiling particularly dangerous cooking methods.

The federal government added HCAs to its list of carcinogens in January 2005. But most Americans remain unaware that these compounds lurk in cooked meat. As known mutagens, HCAs can bind directly to DNA and cause mutations, the first step in the development of cancer.

Grilling is also problematic because when fat from meat drips onto an open flame, carcinogens called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) form and are deposited back onto the meat through smoke.

Scientists have discovered more than 16 different HCAs. One type commonly found in grilled meats is PhIP, which has been on Californiaâ€s list of cancer-causing chemicals for more than a decade. Scientists have not determined a safe consumption level of PhIP, meaning that any amount is believed to potentially increase cancer risk.

Recent studies have shown that the consumption of well-done meat, which contains PhIP and other HCAs, is associated with an increased risk for colon, rectal, esophageal, lung, larynx, pancreatic, prostate, stomach, and breast cancer, and non-Hodgkinâ€s lymphoma.

In a recent review of 30 epidemiologic studies on the link between eating well-done meat and cancer at various sites, 80 percent of the studies showed a positive correlation. HCAs have also been specifically linked to colorectal cancer: One review found that high cooking temperature increased colon cancer risk almost twofold and increased risk for rectal cancer by 60 percent.

Meat cooked at high temperatures may also increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, according to a study presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting. In this nine-year study, researchers analyzed information on meat consumption and preferred cooking methods for 62,581 participants. Participants who cooked meat at high temperatures and consumed more well-done meat had about a 60 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer, compared with other people.

Many people switch to chicken and fish, believing these to be healthier alternatives to beef. But that is not the case. Grilled chicken produces more than 10 times the amount of the carcinogenic HCAs found in grilled beef. Furthermore, nearly all the HCAs detected are in the form of PhIP, which has specifically been implicated in breast cancer risk. Fish also contains significant amounts of creatine, one of the other main ingredients for the formation of the carcinogens.

HCAs are not the only cancer risk that comes from eating meat. Countries with a higher fat intake, especially fat from animal products, have a higher incidence of breast cancer. One hypothesized reason is that low-fiber, high-fat foods increase the amount of estrogen in the bloodstream, which encourages breast cancer cell growth. A similar phenomenon can occur when men eat high-fat fare, leading to a higher risk of prostate cancer.

The consumption of meat and other fatty foods is strongly linked to colon cancer. Recent studies have shown that red meat—even red meat cooked at a low temperature—can increase colon cancer risk by as much as 300 percent.

These facts seem to pose a dilemma for meat-eating consumers. Cook chicken or beef too little, and you could easily end up with a bacterial infection. Turn up the heat enough to kill the bacteria, and you may create cancer-causing compounds.

There is a healthy—and delicious—alternative. Instead of meat products, try grilling up a homemade veggie burger or vegetable-and-tofu kebobs.

Since creatine, one of the ingredients for the formation of HCAs, is mostly found in muscle tissue, it is not surprising that grilled veggie burgers and other vegetarian foods contain either no HCAs or negligible levels.

Choosing plant-based foods instead of meat also lowers cancer risk in other ways. Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they also contain many cancer-fighting substances. Carotenoids, the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors, have been shown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, present in dark green and yellow vegetables, helps protect against lung cancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth, larynx, esophagus, breast, and other sites. Many studies have found that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and low in animal fat cut cancer risks.

Want to grill up something healthy? Visit www.CancerProject.org for delicious vegetarian recipes, information on nutrition and cooking classes, fact sheets on nutrition and cancer, DVDs, videos, books, and a free copy of The Cancer Projectâ€s booklet Healthy Eating for Life: Food Choices for Cancer Prevention and Survival.

By Jennifer K. Reilly, R.D.

The Cancer Project

This brings me to the issue at hand, HORMONES and hormone replacement therapy (HRT)! The topic has almost reached celebrity status with genuine confusion and concern regarding what is being talked about! I have been extremely perplexed at the whole notion of replacing hormones. I ask…where did they go? Which hole did they fall out of? Did a woman leave them at a party one night and wake up the asking “oh my..has anyone seen my hormones?” Our bodies have exactly what they need to make all the hormones we need at any particular stage in a women’s life. When there is trouble hormonally, it is more about RESTORING function rather than REPLACING it!

As my private naturopathic practice evolved, I was in awe at the number of women I experienced having trouble during normal hormonal transitions. I saw women having difficulty transitioning into menopause, a very natural, once celebrated once honored stage, and I also saw an extraordinary number of younger women experiencing weight gain, irritability, insomnia, decreased libido, and hot flashes. There were also women with sexual and reproductive problems—infertility, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS)—as well as breast and uterine cancer. Most of these women came in with a recommendation from their physician that they begin taking synthetic hormones. For women entering menopause it was HRT, and for the younger women it was the birth control pill. These artificial hormones suppress the body’s natural cycles; they do nothing to address why the symptoms are occurring.

A pattern was emerging among my patients, but it really hit home when my own 37-year-old body started to flare up. My periods became unbearable; I had cramping, clotting, and bloating. My PMS and irritability got so bad my family would mark the two weeks beforehand as the “red zone.” I wrestled with debilitating fatigue for the first time in my life, not to mention the unwelcome weight gain and changes in body temperature. I was frustrated because I couldn’t attribute these changes to anything different in my diet or lifestyle. I was desperate to figure out what was going on, and more importantly, what I could do about it. The stress of building my practice and business, having a family, being president of the California Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and having an overall unrelentingly stressful lifestyle was taking a toll. I had moved back to one of the most polluted—yet beautiful—areas in California. And my dietary choices tended to be less than ideal in times of stress when I needed quick energy. I was drinking coffee in the morning to get me going and looking forward to a glass or two of wine on the weekends so I could finally relax.

I was completely out of balance. My stress level was taxing my adrenal glands (the built in back up system for post menopausal hormone production). I developed digestive disturbances, which I knew were compromising my liver’s ability to do its many jobs, including processing and neutralizing hormones. The effects on my body were manifesting in the form of annoying and uncomfortable symptoms. I knew the last thing I needed was more estrogen from birth control pills. I needed to get my body back in balance. If I didn’t work to correct some things, I knew I was increasing my risk down the road for dangerous health conditions, such as cancer. Listening to the signals my body was sending, such as the difficult periods (which are not normal), then making some profound changes in my diet, lifestyle, and supplement regime got me back on track, in balance, and wiser than before. What I discovered in treating my patients and myself is that women are experiencing extreme difficulties during normal hormonal transitions due to being overall OUT OF BALANCE due to many underlying influences.

Most important, the treatment approach of just “replacing hormones” is not helping women live longer, healthier lives. More hormones are the last thing women need. In fact, this course of action could be harmful. Hormone imbalance can not only cause the symptoms mentioned above, but also can lead to cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s disease. Women’s hormone health did not become more problematic overnight. It has a lot to do with our modern environment and lifestyles. Pollution, stress, food quality, the way we nourish ourselves and prevailing medical practices take their toll on bodily systems. The good news is once we understand what creates imbalance; we can tap the many safe ways of restoring balance and eliminating uncomfortable, irritating symptoms while preventing disease and increasing overall quality of life and well-being.

When experiencing difficulties during hormonal transitions that are normal, natural and a birth right for all of us, before filling that prescription, take an internal inventory to see how well you are! Ask yourself these questions: What is my foundation like, are there any cracks? What is my exercise regime? Am I involved in re-creation activities? How am I moving through the stress in my life? Am I staying hydrated? Am I adequately rested with restorative sleep? How am I nourishing myself (what is my diet like)? Is it time for a 2-week cleanse? How is my digestion? Am I absorbing the nutrients I need and eliminating waste products regularly? Am I having fun? What is the quality of my relationships, with self, others and my higher source?

Listening to your body and answering these questions and increasing awareness in your life instead of increasing your hormones artificially might just be the key to overall hormonal health and well-being!

However, new research suggests that low-fat milk could actually be doing
us more harm than good, increasing the risk of serious health problems-from infertility to prostate cancer.

Worse, scientists hypothesize that stripping the fat from milk-to make the drink supposedly healthier-could be the very reason for its toxic effects.

Two major studies have discovered that a high-dairy diet increases the risk of prostate cancer-but the real culprit could be the multibillion-pound low-fat industry built upon the belief that animal fats cause heart disease (see WDDTY vol 17 no 11). Scientists now suspect that the real problem is processed, low-fat dairy foods that have been stripped of their protective and health-giving qualities.

The two separate studies-both published in February-have confirm-ed growing suspicions of a link between dairy and prostate cancer. One is the CLUE II study, involving nearly 4000 men in Washington County, Maryland; this found that those who consumed five or more servings a week of dairy foods were more likely to suffer from prostate cancer than those who ate a serving of one or less (Cancer Causes Control, 2007; 18: 41-50).

Similarly, the other study, an analysis of over 29,000 Finnish men taking part in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC Study), found that the more dairy consumed, the higher the risk of prostate cancer (Int J Cancer, 2007 Feb 2; Epub ahead of print).

These findings deal a double blow to the dairy industry, yet the link between dairy and prostate cancer is not new. As far back as 1975, scientists noted a strong correlation between milk intake and prostate cancer deaths (Am J Clin Nutr, 2005; 81: 1147-54).

Since then, many more reports have confirmed an increased cancer risk from dairy foods-particularly milk, the most common form of dairy consumed.

Initial explanations for such an association blamed saturated dairy fat (Salud Publ Mex, 1997; 39: 298-309), but mounting evidence suggests that the truth could be quite the opposite: that removing the fat from milk may be responsible for the carcinogenic effects.

An American prospective study involving more than 3600 men and 10 years of follow-up-for the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS)-found that those with the highest intakes of dairy were more than twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than men with the lowest intakes.

However, when the researchers looked at the individual dairy products consumed, they found that the risk was higher only with low-fat milk-and not for whole milk or any other dairy. In fact, whole milk had a slight-albeit statistically not significant-protective effect (Am J Clin Nutr, 2005; 81: 1147-54).

Harvard’s Physicians’ Health Study arrived at a similar conclusion. This study, involving over 20,000 men and 11 years of follow-up, found that the increased risk of prostate cancer associated with dairy intake was attributable primarily to skimmed milk. Of the five dairy foods investigated (milk in cold breakfast cereal, whole milk, skimmed milk, cheese and ice cream), only skimmed milk showed a significantly positive relationship when men consumed one or more servings per day (Am J Clin Nutr, 2001; 74: 549-54).

Similar results were found in a prospective study of more than 25,000 Norwegian men (Int J Cancer, 1997; 73: 634-8) and, in an analysis of milk-drinking and diet in 41 countries, Dr William B. Grant, of the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia, found that non-fat milk had the highest association with prostate-cancer death rates (Altern Med Rev, 1999; 4: 162-9).

Calcium unbound
Thus, rather than being a healthy choice, low-fat milk-and possibly other low-fat dairy items-may, in fact, be detrimental to men’s health. But why should this be so?

One theory is that removing the fat from milk strips it of certain nutritional components that are vital to health. Fat is found in milk for a reason. It contains vitamins A and D, both of which are necessary for the uptake and use of the calcium and protein elements in milk. Without these vitamins, milk protein and calcium are more difficult to absorb-and can even become toxic to the body.

Calcium, particularly in large amounts, seems to have a specific adverse effect: it suppresses the formation of calcitrol, the hormonal form of vitamin D. Because calcitrol has anticarcinogenic effects on prostate cells, scientists have postulated that a reduction in the amount of calcitrol in the circulation could increase the risk of prostate cancer (Anticancer Res, 1990; 10: 1307-11).

Indeed, a recent study from Harvard showed that a high calcium intake-whether from diet or supplements-was associated with reduced levels of calcitrol and a higher risk of prostate cancer (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2006; 15: 203-10). The above-mentioned Finnish study also suggested a connection between calcium and prostate cancer (Int J Cancer, 2007 Feb 2; Epub ahead of print).

While the suppressive effects of calcium from whole milk may be countered by higher levels of vitamin D, such a reversal of calcium effects may not occur with low-fat milk as fat-reduced milk tends to contain little, if any, vitamin D. And even if the vitamin is added to skimmed milk, as it is in the US, it may still be less well-absorbed from fat-reduced milk.

This has been confirmed in studies looking at different types of milk that have shown that calcium from low-fat or skimmed milk is associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, while calcium from whole milk is not (Am J Clin Nutr, 2005; 81, 1147-54; Am J Clin Nutr, 2001; 74: 549-54).
So, it appears that, far from being good for us, calcium-when separated from the fat in milk-can be toxic to the body.

The CLA connection
Another possible explanation is that stripping the fat from milk also removes other important cancer-protective components such as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA was identified as a component of milk and dairy products over 20 years ago, and studies have shown it to be a powerful anticarcinogen. In the lab, when human breast and colon cancer cells were bathed in high-CLA milk fat from cows raised on pastureland, the number of cancer cells was reduced by 58 per cent up to 90 per cent (Br J Nutr, 2003; 90: 877-85; Anticancer Res, 2000; 20: 3591-601).

Although modern milking methods and processing affect the CLA content of milk, women who consumed four or more servings a day of high-fat dairy foods were half as likely to develop colorectal cancer as women who ate less than one serving a day; low-fat dairy had no effect. The researchers attributed the results to CLA, although they noted that other potentially anticancer components, such as sphingomyelin and ether lipids, may have also played a role (Am J Clin Nutr, 2005; 82: 894-900).

CLA may protect against prostate cancer by cancelling out the effects of the potentially carcinogenic growth factors found in milk, such as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). This occurs naturally-and in identical forms-in both cows and humans. Because cows are milked during and after pregnancy-when growth factors are at their highest-scientists are concerned that consuming milk and dairy could raise IGF-1 levels in humans-perhaps by crossing the gut wall-and trigger an abnormal response leading to, for example, certain cancers.

Indeed, elevated IGF-1 levels have recently been linked to an increased risk of gastrointestinal and breast cancers (Int J Health Serv, 1996; 26: 173-85; Lancet, 1998; 351: 1393-6), lung cancer, childhood cancers, melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate (Ann NY Acad Sci, 1995; 766: 402-8; J Natl Cancer Inst, 2000; 92: 1910-7).

The association with the prostate appears to be particularly strong. In one study, men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared with those who had the lowest levels (Science, 1998; 279: 563-6).

Whether the IGF-1 in milk is the real culprit is not yet known. What is clear is that milk stripped of its natural fat is more likely to promote cancer, and the more of its natural fat-and CLA content-that milk retains, the more anticancer benefits it will have.

Infertility
But it’s not only men who are at risk from the hazards of low-fat milk, and the problem isn’t just cancer. Harvard scientists recently confirmed a link between low-fat dairy in the diet and an increased risk of infertility due to lack of egg release-also known as ‘anovulatory infertility’.

This study monitored 18,555 American women aged 24 to 42, without a history of infertility, who were trying to become pregnant or had become pregnant between 1991 and 1999. It showed that women who ate two or more servings of low-fat dairy foods a day, such as skimmed milk or yoghurt, increased their risk of anovulatory infertility by more than 85 per cent compared with women who ate less than one serving of low-fat dairy a week.

Of the low-fat dairy foods, women who consumed one or more servings per week of skimmed or low-fat milk had a significantly higher risk of anovulatory infertility compared with those having less than one serving per week.

In contrast, adding a daily serving of whole milk reduced the risk of infertility by more than 50 per cent. Other high-fat dairy products, such as ice cream, were also associated with a lower risk.

Previous research has suggested that lactose, the sugar found in milk, might be involved in anovulatory infertility, but the present study found no such connection. Instead, the researchers believe that the presence of a fat-soluble substance, which improves ovarian function, might explain the lower risk of infertility from high-fat dairy foods. As with the prostate-cancer studies, there appears to be a substance vital for healthy ovaries that requires the presence of fat for it to be properly absorbed (Hum Reprod, 2007 Feb 28; Epub ahead of print).

This may also explain why studies that have looked at dairy intake and rates of ovarian cancer have found that only low-fat milk and skimmed milk, but not whole milk, were associated with an increased cancer risk. In the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Nurses’ Health Study, based on more than 80,000 women, those who consumed one or more servings of skimmed or low-fat milk daily had a 32-per-cent higher risk of any type of ovarian cancer-and a 69-per-cent higher risk of serous ovarian cancer, the most widespread form-compared with women who had three or fewer servings a month. Whole milk, on the other hand, had no such effect (Int J Cancer, 2004; 110: 271-7).

Similarly, the Iowa Women’s Health Study found that skimmed milk-but not whole milk-was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer of the ovaries (Am J Epidemiol, 1999; 149: 21-31).

What’s the verdict?
Just as there are often two sides to every story, there are findings that don’t support the ‘low fat = bad, high fat = good’ hypothesis. In one study, for example, whole milk resulted in a threefold increase in ovarian-cancer risk, while low-fat milk reduced the risk (Am J Epidemiol, 1990; 132: 871-6).

These, however, were case-control studies, which are retrospective and, therefore, tend to be less reliable.
Indeed, a recent meta-analysis, which pooled together the data from a number of studies, found that case-control studies on milk and ovarian-cancer risk are conflicting, whereas
the more reliable prospective, cohort studies-which record relevant data before the disease develops-were consistent. And these prospective studies showed that low-fat milk, but not whole milk, was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer (Int J Cancer, 2006; 118: 431-41).

Ditching low-fat milk
One of the more worrying elements of these findings is that low-fat milk is so popular. In the Physicians’ Health Study, for instance, skimmed milk was the most-consumed dairy product, accounting for 48 per cent of all dairy (Am J Clin Nutr, 2001; 74: 549-54).
And yet, there are so many reasons to stop drinking the stuff.

As if prostate cancer, infertility and ovarian cancer weren’t bad enough, scientists have also noted a connection between low-fat milk and acne. Taking data again from the Nurses’ Health Study, retrospective evaluation found that women who frequently consumed low-fat dairy such as reduced-fat milk, skimmed milk and cottage cheese as high-school teenagers were more likely to suffer from severe, physician-diagnosed acne at the time.

Skimmed milk showed the strongest association, leading the researchers to speculate that changes in milk composition during the fat-extraction process could aggravate acne. Altering the balance of the hormones in milk, for example, might be an explanation. The addition of whey proteins-added to low-fat and skimmed milk to simulate the consistency of whole milk-could also have a role to play (J Am Acad Dermatol, 2005; 52: 207-14).

The final nail in the coffin, though, is delivered by NASA’s Dr Grant, in his summary of the mounting evidence that non-fat milk is a major player in bringing on heart disease. The report points out that non-fat milk, which contains substantial amounts of dairy protein, is very low in B vitamins. The body’s attempts to metabolize all this protein in the absence of B vitamins contributes to the build up of homocysteine, a known marker for heart disease.

Not surprisingly, Grant’s statistical analysis of the dietary influences on coronary heart disease (CHD) across 32 countries found non-fat milk to have the highest association in men aged 45 and over, and in women aged 75 and over-more than any other dietary factor, including saturated fats (Altern Med Rev, 1998; 3: 281-94).

Evidently, the idea of removing fat from milk to protect the heart is not only putting both men and women at risk from a number of serious health problems, it is also seriously flawed.

The milky way forward
Many researchers are now calling for a revision of current dietary guidelines for dairy intake-which are similar in the US and UK. For example, Dr Jorge Chavarro, research fellow in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, and lead author of the dairy and infertility study, says that the current dietary guidelines for Americans-that adults consume three or more servings of low-fat milk or equivalent dairy products per day-“may be deleterious for women planning to become pregnant”. His advice to women wanting to conceive is to change their diet. “They should consider changing low-fat dairy foods for high-fat dairy foods; for instance, by swapping skimmed milk for whole milk and eating ice cream, not low-fat yoghurt.”

Considering the other negative health effects linked to low-fat milk, should we all heed this advice?
Sadly, it’s not that simple. While whole milk seems to be a healthier option than low-fat or skimmed milk, it, too, is subjected to processing that destroys some of its nutrients. Pasteurization typically involves heating milk for 30 seconds at 63 degrees C, which destroys beneficial bacteria as well as all the important enzymes that aid milk digestion. Essential vitamins and proteins are also damaged or destroyed.

Homogenization, a process that passes milk through a fine filter, causes other problems by reducing the size
of fat globules by a factor of 10 or more. When protein molecules become attached to these smaller fat globules, this piggy-backing allows the proteins to bypass digestion in the stomach, which may lead to their incomplete digestion and allergies.

Processed milk also contains a host of undesirable components (see box, page 8), which might explain why it’s not just low-fat milk that has been linked to a rash of illnesses, but other sorts of dairy in general.
So, other than avoiding all dairy products altogether, a more sensible option would be to consume milk in its most natural state-raw, unprocessed and full-fat.

Joanna Evans
For more information on raw milk and where you can get it, visit the website: http://www.realmilk.com.

Your intestines contain billions of living bacteria-10 times the number of cells in your body-and new research suggests that they may be crucial to our immune systems and, thus, our health. In fact, the immune system is not a specific entity in itself, but an interaction between our cells and the ‘foreign’ intestinal flora.

“About 75 per cent of the immune cells of the body are localized to the gut, and almost all immune cells in the body are conditioned in the gut,” says Professor Stig Bengmark of University College London. This conditioning is done by bacteria, 400 of which could fit on the dot of this “i”.

As Professor Fergus Shanahan of the National University of Ireland explains it: “Gut bacteria have a collective metabolic activity equal to a virtual organ within an organ”.

In addition, these bacteria play a vital role in ‘completing’ our genes (see box on the right).
Although these dramatic discoveries about gut flora and the immune system are relatively new, the means by which we can take advantage of them-probiotics-have been around for a century.

First discovered by Nobel prizewinner Elie Metchnikoff in 1907, probiotic yoghurts, drinks and capsules are one of the fastest-growing sectors in food retailing: UK sales are increasing by 40 per cent each year. Most people take them to promote general wellbeing, but now there’s evidence that they can help serious bowel disorders, allergies, cancer and even autism.

Immune-system development
The word ‘probiotic’ means simply ‘for life’-in this case, the bacteria that live in our gut. Our intestines are home to around 500 species, some good and some bad. The bad ones such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella and Clostridium are kept in check by the ‘good’ bacteria, mainly lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. And the experts are only now realizing that the presence or absence of gut bacteria at birth could be the key to a range of health problems in later life.

We are not born with a fully functioning immune system. What it needs is exposure to bacteria-almost entirely from the mother. “The birth process allows the progressive formation of complex intestinal microflora composed of myriad bacteria,” says Belgian pediatrician
Dr Jean-Paul Langhendries. “It is used by the young body to initiate its own immune system” (Arch Pediatr, 30 October 2006; epub ahead of print).

So, two things are necessary: natural birth and breastfeeding. Passing down the birth canal exposes the baby to its mother’s bacteria. Some of these may be harmful, but that’s what the immune system needs, according to the latest theory. Then, as the infant breastfeeds, beneficial lactobacilli from the breastmilk enter the baby’s gut to supplant the disease-causing species. This kickstarts the immune system and firmly establishes it-probably for life.

But, modern medicine unwittingly interferes with this process. Infants born by caesarean section or who are not breastfed have a different range of gut bacteria, which can compromise their immune system (Acta Paediatr Suppl, 2003; 91:48-55). Indeed, caesarean-born children have more asthma and food allergies than naturally birthed babies-problems that continue into adulthood (WDDTY vol 17 no 8).

Connection with the brain
But asthma and allergies are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a raft of childhood problems that may be due to a malfunctioning gut-which also affects the brain. Learning difficulties, poor coordination and even autism have been linked with ‘gut dysbiosis’, an imbalance of intestinal bacterial species. One clue is that autistic children have more digestive problems than normal children, as recently confirmed in an in-depth study led by Dr Andrew Wakefield at London’s prestigious Royal Free Hospital, which showed “a consistent profile of . . . increased pro-inflammatory and decreased regulatory activities” in the intestines of autistic children (J Clin Immunol, 2004; 24: 664-73).

How does what happens in the gut affect the brain? The most obvious answer is simple malnutrition. With-out the proper balance within the gut flora, food may be poorly digested and absorbed, leading to nutritional deficiency. Too many ‘bad’ bacteria can also mop up nutrients or, worse, an overgrowth of, say, Candida or Clostridium can produce toxins and create a ‘Catch-22’ vicious circle. The original gut dysbiosis leads to a so-called ‘leaky gut’, where intestinal walls are damaged, thus allowing toxins to pass through into the bloodstream, from where they may then penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Chief among these toxins are acetaldehyde, alcohol and opiate-like substances from undigested foods. “The theory is that autism is the result of a metabolic disorder,” says Paul Shattock, of the Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland. “Peptides with opioid activity derived from . . . foods that contain gluten and casein, pass through an abnormally permeable intestinal membrane and enter the central nervous system to exert an effect on neurotransmission” (Expert Opin Ther Targets, 2002; 6: 175-83).

To test this theory, Professor Glenn Gibson, director of the University of Reading’s Department of Food Biosciences, analyzed the feces of young autistic children, and found abnormally high levels of Clostridium species, confirming Dr Wakefield’s earlier findings.

Gibson then wondered whether giving the children ‘good’, probiotic bacteria would reverse the dysbiosis and reduce their autism. He randomly selected 20 of these children to receive a probiotic capsule containing Lacto-bacillus plantarum, and gave another 20 children an identical placebo capsule. After a few weeks, the chil-dren switched to the other capsule, but neither group knew when they were receiving the real probiotics.

Sadly, the trial soon collapsed. “The effect of the probiotic bacteria was so great that many of the parents realized their children were taking something other than a placebo, and refused to allow the switch to take place,” says Professor Gibson. “Parents told me how the probiotics had made such improvements in their children’s concentration and behaviour that, as one parent said, it would have been heartbreaking to force the children to stop taking them. But it meant I couldn’t draw any firm scientific conclusions from the trial because of the high drop-out rate.”

Nevertheless, Gibson’s ‘results-too-good-to-be-scientific’ trial will be a landmark in probiotic therapy, paving the way for more studies of not only autism, but of the more widespread autistic-spectrum disorders such as Asperger’s syndrome, hyperactivity and learning difficulties in general. Indeed, gut problems similar to those in autism have been seen in children with these related conditions (Am J Gastroenterol, 2000; 95: 2285-95).

Bacteria as therapy
How do probiotics work? Until recently, it was thought their mode of action was simply to stick to the gut wall, preventing other bacteria from gaining a foothold.

But new laboratory evidence suggests that probiotics are much more proactive, producing substances such as acids, bacteriocins and hydrogen peroxide, which can kill harmful bacteria and interfere with their ability to produce toxins (Gut, 2003; 52: 827-33).

Other new evidence (from at least six different studies) shows that probiotics act directly on the immune system, boosting both T-helper and natural-killer (NK) cells, the system’s major weapons. For example, a recent Korean study measured a 35-per-cent increase in NK cells in study participants given probiotics (J Med Food, 2006; 9: 321-7).

Perhaps ironically, a major use for probiotics is to combat the side-effects of their near-namesake-antibiotics. These powerful medicines don’t discriminate between friend or foe, so the inevitable consequence of oral antibiotic therapy is the death of all gut bacteria, good and bad.
Nevertheless, antibiotics may be less efficient at killing the bad species, as they can cause proliferation of one of the worst of them, Clostridium difficile. This stomach bug is fast becoming a major pest of hospitals, as it’s involved in the development of superbug resistance, and has officially been dubbed a ‘new epidemic’ (Ann Intern Med, 2006; 145: 758-64).

However, probiotics have come to the rescue, with over 30 separate studies showing they can halve the incidence of diarrhea caused by C. difficile (Lancet Infect Dis, 2006; 6: 374-82)-not to mention diarrhea in general.

Interestingly, probiotics can cure constipation, too (Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2006; 20: 575-87).
With conventional drugs, these contrary effects would be considered impossible. But probiotics don’t act like drugs. They are more like wise regulators, with a unique ability to restore gut bacteria to normal, whatever the state of the intestines.

Bowel disorders-and worse
Probiotics are now offering hope to people who have more serious bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, which afflicts about 3 per cent of the population. This can flare up for no apparent reason, and cause severe stomach pain, bloating, diarrhea and constipation.

One school of thought says it’s due to food intolerance, but gut bacteria may also be involved, as probiotics have been seen to result in up to a 30-per-cent improvement in symptoms (J Clin Gastroenterol, 2006; 40: 264-9).

Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), which are also known as ‘inflammatory bowel disorders’, may affect up to a quarter of a million Britons. Orthodox medicine considers these conditions to be essentially incurable. Yet, according to Dr Sandra Macfarlane of Dundee University: “. . . there is now indisputable evidence that a loss of beneficial bacteria is involved in the two conditions.”

Although probiotics are a logical solution, only a few small-scale clinical trials have put them to the test. One, a pilot study at Bologna University, showed that a very high dose of a cocktail of different lactobacilli “induced remission” in two-thirds of CD patients. With UC, however, the results have been mixed. The explanation could be that these trials have tended to use single Lactobacillus species rather than a combination.

“The general experience thus far is that the best effects are obtained with combinations of probiotics rather than single LAB [lactic-acid bacteria] treatments,” says Professor Bengmark.

The most severe form of bowel disease is cancer-of either the colon or rectum. Again, probiotics may be of use here, too. Researchers have noticed an association between a high intake of yoghurt or probiotics and lower rates of colon cancer (J Nutr, 2000; 130: 384S- 90S). So far, trials have shown a significant protective effect of probiotics on colon cancer, and even a tiny curative effect-at least in rats, so it may not apply to humans (Carcinogenesis, 2002;
23: 1953-60).

Guts apart
The link between probiotics and gut conditions is fairly predictable. The real detective work has been to uncover the connections between probiotics and diseases unrelated to the gut.

One breakthrough has involved allergies, perhaps because they are immune-related. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’, for example, posits the idea that allergies are caused by overzealous cleanliness, particularly in childhood-but our immune system needs to be exposed to bacteria to begin working. So far, trials of probiotics involving allergic children and adolescents have generally been disappointing, but some researchers argue that’s because they have been given too late in life to work.

Five years ago, Finnish doctors were the first to examine probiotics in early infancy. Having located more than 100 mothers-to-be with a family history of allergic eczema, they gave their newborns either probiotics or a placebo for the first six months of life. Follow-up of the babies at age two revealed that eczema was halved among those taking the probiotics (Lancet, 2001; 357: 1076-9).

Similar studies on other allergies have had less favorable results, with no particular benefits found in asthma or food allergies and intolerance. This is surprising as one of the major theories of food allergy is the ‘leaky-gut’ hypothesis (mentioned above).

Experts now believe that the answer lies in a huge research program that has been designed to test both individual strains as well as cocktails of lactobacilli. A few small-scale probiotic pharmaceutical companies have already begun testing their own semi-exclusive probiotic cocktails.

As for female urinary tract and vaginal infections, most studies have shown that single probiotics haven’t prevented or cured them, although an Austrian company has found that three Lactobacillus strains (L. rhamnosus GR-1 and L. reuteri B-54 and RC-14) do work (World J Urol, 2006; 24: 28-32). And there’s some tantalizing preliminary evidence of a place for probiotic cocktails in cirrhosis, pancreatitis and postoperative infections, too.

To date, this non-drug therapy is in its infancy. Only a fraction of the 500 gut-flora species has been explored so far, and few but the most advanced researchers understand that the specific strains of bacteria residing in our intestines may be related to maintaining health by keeping particular illnesses at bay.
What’s already clear is that we need to change how we view health and immunity to something that doesn’t just start and end with our own bodies.

Tony Edwards – WDDTY vol 17 no 10 (2007)

Suddenly, the whole world seems to be going wireless. It started with mobile phones, then landline phones went wireless, and now broadband, laptops and bluetooth devices are following suit. We’re told it’s inevitable by the electronics industry. But has it considered the potential health hazards—or for that matter, have we?

“Day by day, I hear of more and more microwave applications, all of which are increasing the electro-smog that surrounds us,” says Alasdair Philips of the UK health-lobby group Powerwatch.

One telling piece of evidence for this is what happened to wireless car keys. Since remote car keys first came on the scene about 10 years ago, manufacturers have had to increase their power output by a massive 40 times to enable the signal to cut through the increasingly dense microwave smog around us, says Philips.

The other evidence is that microwave pollution can affect some people badly. Two years ago, Sarah Dacre was a successful high-powered executive, running a 70-strong TV production company, until she was struck down by a host of debilitating symptoms, including dizziness, loss of balance, chronic Candida, numbness in the arms, side and legs, and deteriorating eyesight. After months of false diagnoses–and in a state of near-total collapse–Sarah finally found the answer. “At the office, I was working all day with a laptop on my knees, and constantly using either a cordless phone or a mobile. One of the clues to what was causing the problem was that my symptoms were mainly right-sided–where I held the phones. I now can’t go anywhere near a computer or mobile phone without extreme care”.

Another sufferer is 35-year-old Roy Warne, who had to give up his job as a furniture salesman after his company installed a new wireless computer system. Now unable to work, he can’t get anywhere near his own laptop. “When I want to use the computer, I have it on in one room and sit in the hallway looking at the screen through binoculars,” he says.

Norway’s first female Prime Minister, and later Director-General of the World Health Organization, 65-year-old Gro Harlem Brundtland first suffered headaches from mobile phones, but now she finds that cordless phones and laptops cause her even worse problems. “If I hold a laptop to read what’s on the screen, it feels like I get an electric shock through my arms,” she says, “and I get an instant reaction if I touch a cordless phone.”

Although much of the evidence so far is anecdotal, even the official UK Health Protection Agency (incorporating the cautious National Radiological Protection Board) has acknowledged in a 45-page report (November 2005) that electrosensitivity (ES) is a genuine health condition. One convincing argument is that everyone reports the same cluster of neurological and physiological problems.

Nevertheless, the medical profession has tended to ignore ES sufferers, aided and abetted by an electronics industry anxious to protect its patch. That’s why most of the clinical evidence on wireless technology has come from case histories collected by a burgeoning number of self-help and lobby groups both in the UK and across the globe.

One of the most active UK groups is ElectroSensitvity-UK. Its technical consultant is Dr. John Rogers, a retired microwave-research scientist who himself suffers from ES.

Rogers points out that many of the so-called ‘wireless’ technologies (or Wi-Fi, for ‘wireless fidelity’) use microwaves like those used in radar. Wi-Fi frequencies (2.45–5.3 GHz) are chosen for their high transmission efficiency. But these frequencies are highly ‘bioactive’, says Rogers.

Problem products

What are the wireless dangers lurking in our homes? In pole position, according to ES experts, are cordless phones, especially those called DECT (digital electronic cordless telephone). They enable the phone to be used anywhere in the house, but at a price. ES campaigners say that having a DECT phone is like having an Orange or Vodafone mobile mast plonked slap-bang in the middle of your living room.

Just like a phone mast, DECT phones transmit 24/7, even when they’re not being used. Like masts, they also transmit a pulsed signal—suspected of being more dangerous than continuous radiowaves, for example. “These pulse rates mimic the body’s own endogenous nerve signalling rates, thus potentially interfering with normal functioning,” says Philips.

Added to that, like masts, DECT phones always operate at peak power, something even mobiles don’t do, having been designed to reduce power to the minimum when close to a mast (which is, incidentally, why rural mobile users receive higher doses of radiation that city-dwellers).

DECT phone emissions have a power of about 6 volts per metre (V/m) within a few feet of the base unit. That’s well within the official safety guidelines in the UK—but not in Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, China, Italy or Russia. Indeed, the city of Salzburg decreed a maximum exposure of 0.6 V/m after a scientist discovered cellular effects with emissions as low as 0.1 V/m (Electromagn Biol Med, 2003; 22: S161–9).

Likewise, in an open letter to the Bavarian Prime Minister in July 2005, a group of doctors urged a reduction of safety levels to even lower—to 0.06 V/m—after over 300 patients reported a range of health problems down to that level of exposure.

The concern over DECT phones has revived fears concerning an older piece of wireless technology—baby alarms, which have now also gone digital. Although not as powerful as DECT phones, they are potentially far more dangerous. They’re often mounted close to a baby’s head, and a baby’s brain is even more vulnerable than an adult’s.

Next on the list of domestic hazards are wireless broadband and wireless laptops. These also use the 2.45–5.3 GHz microwave frequencies, pulsed to obtain a range of up to 90 metres. Official figures of their power outputs are hard to come by, but ES groups have measured 1–3 V/m.

As radiation drops off rapidly with distance, the biggest worry is laptops, often used close to the body. What’s more, laptops seem to radiate downwards: outputs similar to those from DECT phones have been recorded from the underside of laptops. One case on Electro-Sensitivity-UK’s files is of a man who developed a penile tumour that may have been caused by a laptop, believes Dr Rogers.

Where’s the evidence?

The electronics industry, however, backed by the UK and US governments, continues to argue that any health risks from wireless are largely imaginary, fostered by hysterical hypochondriacs. Most electrical engineers and doctors agree with London University’s risk-expert Professor John Adams, who mocks ES as “an example of the modern disease of ‘compulsive risk assessment psychosis’–otherwise known as crap.”

Yet, in countries like Sweden, doctors recognize ES as a widespread condition that affects up to 3 per cent of the population (Johanssson O, Liu P-Y. ‘Electrosensitivity, electrosupersensitivity and screen dermatitis: preliminary observations from ongoing studies in the human skin’, in Simunic D, ed. Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 1995: 52–7).

Part of the reason for professional scepticism is the lack of an explanation for why it happens.

The core of the problem may be that orthodox science still doesn’t recognize that body cells communicate electromagnetically—the orthodox view is that it’s all chemistry. Yet, 30 years ago, Dr Robert Becker showed that the body produces tiny electro-magnetic fields to regulate the immune system in general, and self-healing in particular (Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric. William Morrow, 1987).

This discovery was later con-firmed and extended by scientists such as Fritz-Albert Popp and Jacques Benveniste, giving us at least a theoretical basis for even relatively small artificial electrical fields having a potentially disruptive effect on the body.

However, precisely how they might do harm isn’t yet known. “The generally received opinion is that microwaves act as stressors of the immune system, particularly in vulnerable people,” says Alasdair Philips. Support for this comes from Professor Kjell Mild, of Örebro University, who has found that ES sufferers also tend to have allergic conditions or chemical sensitivity (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; 22: 457–62). In fact, it turns out that up to 75 per cent of ES sufferers are chemically sensitive.

But many ES campaigners contend that we are all victims of microwave pollution—it’s just that we either haven’t noticed the symptoms, mistake them for something else or have particularly strong immune systems.

Growing evidence suggests they may be right. Although Wi-Fi technology is relatively new, we’ve had over a decade of experience with mobile phones and mast transmitters. Like Wi-Fi, mobiles and masts use pulsed digital microwaves. In the last five years, a cascade of studies and reports has catalogued some increasingly disturbing effects on health.

Cancer

An international review of nine studies found a 3.5-fold increased risk of acoustic neuromas (brain tumours near the ear) and 4.2-fold greater risk for uveal melanoma (cancer of the eye) in mobile users (J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2004; 7: 351–84). A German study found that long-term use (more than 10 years) of mobile phones more than doubled the risk of a glioma (tumours of the brain and spinal cord) (Am J Epidemiol, 2006; 163: 512–20).

However, some studies have shown no cancer effect at all–although most of these were funded by the mobile industry, according to a Powerwatch analysis.

An EU project called Reflex—involving 12 labs across Europe—tested the effect of mobile-phone radiation on isolated cells. Although the final report played down the findings, the small print revealed that significant DNA breaks were seen in human and animal cells at exposures far below official radiation limits (European Union. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. December 2004).

This confirms nearly 30 years of research by Professor Henry Lai, of the University of Washington, showing damage by electro-magnetic fields to rat DNA, particularly in the brain (Environ Health Perspect, 2004; 112: 687–94).

“I have seen a lot of DNA damage, which is a concern because DNA mutation is a cause of cancer,” says Lai.

Brain damage

Study after study has shown that mobile-phone radiation has measurable effects on brain function. Swedish scientists have found “highly significant” evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia in rat brains—though these results may not apply to humans.

They believe “weak pulsed microwaves” cause a “significant pathological” breaching of the blood–brain barrier, allowing potential toxins to enter the brain (Environ Health Perspect, 2003; 111: 881–3).

Similar findings were reported by Dr George Carlo, who ran a $25m research programme for six years for the US mobile-phone industry and reported a 50-per-cent greater risk of acoustic neuroma with cellphone use for six years or more (Carlo G, Schram M. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. Avalon Publishing Group, 2000).

Other rat studies have found significant changes related to brain growth and development, and widespread brain-cell “oxidative damage” due to mobile-phone radiation (Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 61–70; Clin Chim Acta, 2004; 340: 153–62).

In humans, mobile phone radiation—particularly pulsed radiation can alter brain potentials, blood flow and brain-wave patterns (Eur J Appl Physiol, 2000; 81: 18–27; J Sleep Res, 2002; 11: 289–95). Pulsed radiation can impair cognitive processing on hearing tests and slow down reaction times (Acta Neurol Scand, 2004; 110: 46–52; Bioelectromagnetics, 2006; 27: 119–26). Significant drops in melatonin have shown up, too, after just half-an-hour of mobile use (Int J Radiat Biol, 2002; 78: 1029–36)—which could explain some of the symptoms of ES such as poor sleep. Melatonin is key in the regulation of both the endocrine system and the ‘body clock’.

Few of these adverse findings have received much publicity. “There are fortunes being made from mobile phones—not only by the mobile companies, but also by government,” says Philips. “Apart from the selling of the 3G mobile licences for over £20bn, the UK government also makes billions a year on mobile phone taxes alone.”

Future lawsuits?

What can you do about Wi-Fi? Happily, there are a number of technological and lifestyle solutions that ES sufferers say work. Or you can simply turn your back on wireless technology—although for those who need to earn a living, that’s increasingly becoming impractical.

There’s no escape from microwaves in any case. Only the very remotest parts of the UK remain untouched by ‘microwave pollution’. Many schools, public buildings, towns and cities are now geared up to provide Internet and telephone access wherever we go.

This has prompted an increasing number of experts to call for a halt to the wireless revolution—at least until the health risks are better understood. Says Dr George Carlo, “Based on exposures in 1990s, we’re looking at 30 to 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer today; by 2010, we’re anticipating 300,000 to 500,000 cases per year directly attributable to mobile phone use.”

US and UK insurance companies will not insure mobile-phone companies against any future lawsuit–a sign of things to come.

Tony Edwards