Chemical body burden: Are you toxic?

As the Britney song goes, "Don't you know that you're toxic?" Given that the belt I purchased on sale recently contained lead, these lyrics could be prophetic. I just might be toxic! Of course, the toxic love Britney sings about isn't to be taken lightly. Thankfully, we usually have the option to walk away from a toxic relationship. I wish the same could be said about the toxins in our environment.

Toxins in our environment-

How did we get here? Warning labels attached to accessories? You would think that the past experiences of public safety concerns due to chemical risks would have brought about a change in practice. For example, toys, jewelry, accessories, clothing, furniture, crafts, foodware and office supplies have been recalled because they were found to contain dangerous levels of heavy metals, usually lead and/or cadmium. Evidently, if we are warned about something containing a toxic substance, that somehow makes it OK to be sold. 

I know, "caveat emptor" and all that. Given that you're reading this it's probably safe to say that you're concerned about your health and all that influences it. So, when we choose our purchases we try to consider their impact on us and our environment. I could simply choose to buy a different belt.  One that doesn't contain lead. But how would I know which belt doesn't contain a toxic substance given that this warning label isn't required by every state government? How are we to ascertain whether something we are purchasing contains a toxic substance known to cause harm to our health and well being?

Toxins in our bodies: biomonitoring and body burden-

An even bigger question for me is how many of these toxic substances are we exposed to in our environment, and what are the cumulative health risks, if any? In the bigger scheme of health hazards, wearing a belt that may expose me to a low dose of  lead might seem relatively benign. However, when you combine that particular exposure with the multitude of other toxins we encounter daily, the health risks increase and we end up with something scientists call the body burden (1).

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), body burden is the total amount of of toxic chemicals that have built up over time in our bodies (1). "Scientists estimate that everyone alive today carries within her or his body at least 700 contaminants, most of which have not been well studied" (3). To my horror I learned that the presence of toxic chemicals is found even in fetuses (2)(3). Evidently, pregnant mothers unintentionally pass toxins on to their babies through the placenta. According to the EWG, "358 industrial chemicals, pesticides and pollutants [were found] in the cord blood of American infants" (6). One expert calls this the state of being born "pre-polluted" (4).

The knowledge of body burden is available because scientists are now better able to measure and track the levels of chemicals present in us through blood, urine, breast milk and hair specimens. This process is called biomonitoring. According to Commonweal Breast Cancer Fund, biomonitoring is an important process for monitoring public health because it indicates "trends of exposure, identifies highly exposed communities and helps in setting priorities for legislative and regulatory action" (10). You can find one overview of some of the chemicals currently being biomonitored here, as well as the CDC's 4th Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals here. Interestingly, biomonitoring is also being used to watch wildlife that inhabit chemically contaminated environments like toxic waste dump sites. Scientists find that biomonitoring these animals serves as a "front line indicator of pollutant levels and potential health impacts" (7). You can read more about this here at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Chemical regulation - Innocent until proven guilty-

When it comes to the chemical industry and our government's regulation of it, it appears their thinking is that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Historically speaking, it hasn't been until recent times that chemicals and their link to ill health effects have come under closer scrutiny. Back in the 1970's, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to regulate a limited number of chemicals, mostly pesticides, under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). In 1992, the TSCA was amended to include a Lead Exposure Reduction Provision.

Toxins and health effects-

The health problems resulting from lead exposure are documented and well-known, with children being the most adversely effected. It took years, but health advocates pushed for tighter regulation of lead. As a result unleaded gas, paint and plumbing components are now the norm (5). However, as is evidenced by the warning label attached to my belt, lead is still finding its way into our lives. The lead example highlights what is broken with the current laws: 1) poor control of the import of goods made in countries that still allow the use of toxic substances and 2) current regulations are outdated.

The TSCA was enacted before the current scientific findings that show even small levels of chemical exposure, which were once considered harmless, actually do cause detrimental health effects. In addition, there are now hundreds of new chemicals that have been created since the TSCA went into effect. These chemicals aren't being regulated. Also, the present regulation of chemicals tends to focus on the effect that just one chemical has on our health and not the effects of total body burden. Given the past negative history of, for example, lead, one would expect that the government would choose to err on the side of caution and at least restrict the use of newer chemicals until more is known about their effects on us. Sadly, this just isn't the case. This wait and see attitude is like playing a game of chemical roulette. 

Since this post is focusing on what we can do to limit our body burden, I won't go into a lot of detail about the ill health effects of toxins.  Suffice to say, current scientific evidence clearly shows increased risk for birth defects, as in genetic mutations, reproductive issues, and cancers (3). These risks, combined with the fact that babies are being born pre-polluted is compelling enough to take at least a little protective action.

How are we exposed? The biggest chemical culprits-

One of the biggest areas of our exposure comes from the consumer products we use. Government health authorities have identified the following chemicals as being "human carcinogens, serious neurotoxins or well-established hormone disrupters" (4), so it would seem prudent to try to limit our exposure to these (click on each if you want to learn more):

• Brominated flame retardants
• pesticides
• the Teflon chemical PFOA
• the Scotchgard chemical PFOS
• BPA
• lead
• cadmium
• mercury
• perchlorate
• dioxins
• furans

Several other areas of exposure include the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods we eat. If you've just thrown your hands up in surrender, I share your frustration. However, the situation isn't hopeless.  We may not be able to avoid toxins, but there are things we can do to reduce our level of exposure. Checking to see what your body burden currently is might seem like a logical place to begin.  However, at this point experts are saying that individual biomonitoring is difficult to use for specifically assessing how relevant your individual results are to your actual risk for disease. So, where do we begin?

What we can do to limit our body burden:

1. Let our government officials know that:
• we find the current regulation of chemicals unacceptable.  Public outcry was exactly what prompted the chemical DDT to be banned. The EWG states that "Proper environmental regulation does work to reduce people's chemical burdens" (8). The Toxic Substances Control Act must be amended to at least require that the complete health and safety data on chemicals be known and disclosed to the public. No more innocent until proven guilty. Dangerous chemicals should be phased out and safer alternatives assured.
• we desire community biomonitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been conducting biomonitoring for the past 30 years and several states are also biomonitoring for a small number of specific toxins only. One example is the program in Pennsylvania that tracks blood lead levels (9). You can read more about this at the CDC site here. However, more wide-spread biomonitoring of the chemicals experts have linked to increased risk for disease needs to be conducted in communities.
2. Support "watch dog" organizations that advocate for us by keeping an eye on the largely unregulated chemical industry, like the Environmental Working Group,  The Natural Resources Defense Council, or the Children's Environmental Health Network.
3.  Filter your water.
4. Buy organic foods if possible, especially if you have young children. If this isn't an affordable option, try to focus on buying organic products that make the most difference.  EWG has a handy list of the most pesticide laden produce here and it's also available as a free Iphone app.
5. Know what's in your personal care products and household cleaners and what chemicals to avoid. The list above gives you a good head start. Try to use natural products. You can read more about the natural personal care products at Skin Deep here and the household cleaning products here.
6. Know what kind of plastics are safer and avoid plastic baby bottles, water bottles, toys, teethers and  pacifiers and canned foods whose cans are lined with BPA. Avoid microwaving foods in plastic containers.
7. Throw away aluminum cookware and pans with non-stick coated surface. 
8. Avoid fabrics treated with flame retardants, wrinkle relaxers or stain repellents and limit use of fabric softeners and air fresheners.
9. Use low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints whenever possible.
10. Try not to use chemical pesticides on your lawn, pets or in your home and take your shoes off before you walk in the house.

The evidence linking toxins to deteriorating health is mounting and seems compelling. The good news is that by becoming educated about the situation we can take steps to decrease our chemical body burden. While making these changes in our lifestyle are important to reducing our chemical exposure, it is critical that we also push for improved government and industry standards regulating chemicals.

As for the lead belt that prompted this post, it went back to the store, along with a letter to the company letting them know how I feel about their sale of a lead laced accessory! I like a bargain, but with this purchase I got more than I bargained for!    


Sources
(1) Environmental Working Group (EWG) http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden 
(2) Biomonitoring http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/
(3) Chemical Body Burden http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc15.wais&start=9720137&SIZE=4204&TYPE=TEXT
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/titleten.html
(4) EWG http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/pressrelease
(5) EWG http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/lead/docs/introhealtheffectsmedicalprovider.pdf?ga=t  
(6) EWG http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-Report.pdf
(7) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/srp/products/products2_s3_s1.cfm 
(8) EWG http://www.ewg.org/news/proof-burden
(9) Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/trackbiomon.htm

The not so rosy side of breast cancer pink ribbons

National Breast Cancer Awareness month celebrates its 26th anniversary this year, and pink seems to be everywhere. Even football players are wearing pink. Have you ever wondered how this campaign began and what impact it is actually having on the prevention of breast cancer? Personally, I didn't give it much thought, that is until I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Before then, I rather naively assumed that anything pink was linked to a benevolent organization that was supporting the critical research needed to prevent the disease. That's why it came as a total surprise to realize that when it comes to the pink movement it seems there's a whole lot of gray.

Before I get to the gray, here's a brief history of the pink. Back in 1985, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) was organized through the sponsorship of Astra Zeneca, a pharmaceutical company, the American Academy of Family Physicians, a medical society, and CancerCare, Inc., a non-profit. More on this later, suffice to say for now that their purpose in forming NBCAM was to "promote breast cancer awareness, share information on the disease and provide greater access to screening services." NBCAM's initial week long event spawned what is now an internationally recognized month devoted to breast cancer awareness.

On to the story of how breast cancer awareness became wrapped up in a pink ribbon. In the early 1990's, activist Charlotte Haley was inspired by the yellow ribbons tied on trees to honor American soldiers. She decided to make peach ribbons in her home and distribute them in an effort to raise public awareness about the National Cancer Institute's small percentage (5%) of their then $1.8 billion budget going towards cancer prevention.  Her efforts caught the attention of Estee Lauder and Self Magazine executives. They contacted Charlotte about joining her efforts.  She refused saying they were "too commercial". The attorneys at Self Magazine suggested that the color of the ribbon be changed in order for Self to use the concept. That's when the pink ribbon began to be associated with breast cancer, and shortly after Avon began their breast cancer cause related marketing campaign. 

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pink ribbons, or raising money for cancer research, or providing greater access to mammography for the under or uninsured. When done altruistically, these are extraordinary  things. What is disconcerting is when pink ribbons are used to boost a company's profits or image under the guise of philanthropy. Unfortunately, it seems that breast cancer has become big business. It's because of those seeking to profit from breast cancer that some critics of NBCAM are now referring to it as "BCAM SCAM", or Breast Cancer Industry Awareness Month.  But how is it that such a noble and worthy cause has come to be viewed by some as a scam? To answer this question, a little research, along with some open minded consideration, is required.

When it comes to the public's health, the primary goals of health officials are prevention, intervention and eradication of disease, with prevention being preferable to intervention (McKenzie). For example, "immunizing to prevent a disease is preferable to taking an antibiotic to cure one" (McKenzie). Case in point, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer. Yet, when we look at the pink ribbon message, it focuses not on prevention, but detection and cure. Wait a minute. If prevention is preferable, why is the push for detection and cure? Because the detection and treatment of breast cancer has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Simply stated, prevention just isn't as profitable.

Skeptical? Perhaps a closer look at NBCAM might provide additional insight. Their organization was formed by Imperial Chemical Industries, the creator of Tamoxifen, a breast cancer treatment drug. In the 90's, Imperial Chemical Industries spun off Zeneca Group. Then Zeneca merged with Astra and became Astra Zeneca, which formed a non profit arm that is known today as AstraZeneca Healthcare Foundation, one of the largest financial contributors to NBCAM.  Astra Zeneca also created and markets Arimidex, another breast cancer treatment drug. CancerCares was also involved in the formation of NBCAM. A look at their donors reveals several pharmaceutical companies as well. So, what message would you want to spread if you were a drug manufacturer financially invested in breast cancer treatment medications? Probably not prevention. Might this explain NBCAM's focus on awareness and detection? To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that awareness, screening and early detection of breast cancer is negative. The point is non-profit organizations accepting donations from companies that stand to gain from their philanthropy seems to represent a conflict of interest.

The pink campaign isn't only effected by conflicts of interest. There are also the companies that profit from linking their products to the breast cancer cause. At first glance this may seem altruistic, but sometimes things aren't always as transparent as they seem. For example, 12 years ago Yoplait began a pink ribbon campaign called Save Lids to Save Lives. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of their yogurt are donated for breast cancer research. The conflict resulted from their yogurt being made with milk from cows that were given a synthetic growth hormone, called rBGH. This chemical has been linked to breast cancer and is banned from use in many countries. You can read more about the topic here, and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has an interesting video discussing rBGH and milk found here or click on the Videos tab in this blog.

The term "pinkwasher" has been used to describe a company "that purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink-ribboned product, but manufactures products that are linked to the disease" (Breast Cancer Action). When you consider that Yoplait was both contributing to and profiting from breast cancer, one could say they were successful at "pinkwashing." Thankfully, because of pressure brought about by health activist groups, like Breast Cancer Action and their "Put a Lid on It" campaign, as well as concerned consumers, to their credit as of 2008 Yoplait has stopped using rBGH milk in their yogurt.

The above is just one example of pink ribbon profiteering. Breast Cancer Action has some great information on their Think Before You Pink site to help guide consumers when purchasing "pink" products. They suggest asking the following questions:

1. How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer?
2. What is the maximum amount that will be donated? Sometimes contributions are capped at a certain amount. 
3. How are the funds being raised? 
4. To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?
5. What is the company doing to assure that its products are not actually contributing to the breast cancer epidemic? 

You can find a more detailed discussion of these points here.

In a recent post I mentioned my support of the Love/Army of Women, a non-profit foundation dedicated to stopping breast cancer before it starts.  At first inspection I felt this group represented something that I feel is of critical importance - the need for more research into the prevention of breast cancer. However, after closer scrutiny I realized that this group is funded through a grant from Avon. This cosmetics company uses a number of chemicals in their products that have been linked to cancer through standard laboratory feeding tests done on mice and rats by the National Toxicology Program. Their study results have been published and accepted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A perfect example of the importance of the need to "think before I pink."

A final thought. On my last visit to the doctor she mentioned that Tamoxifen is now being recommended as a breast cancer prevention treatment for women who are considered to be at high risk for developing the disease. I was hoping that more breast cancer prevention research would be focused on how to reduce our exposure to cancer causing agents, such as the above-mentioned chemicals. Sadly, this doesn't appear to be a research priority, but it's not that surprising.  All things considered, I suppose drugs would be the first line of defense offered for prevention, if the pharmaceutical and chemical companies are underwriting a great deal of the research being conducted in the area of cancer prevention. Evidently there isn't anything completely transparent when it comes to this issue. One thing is for certain, pink looked a whole lot rosier before I took off my rose-colored glasses.

Sources
McKenzie, J., et.al., An Introduction to Community Health, 5th Ed., Jones & Bartlett, MA, 2005
http://www.nbcam.org/newsroom_nbcam_facts.cfm
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=newsletter-88d
http://www.safe2use.com/drsherman/life/15.htm
http://www.cancercare.org/about_us/
http://www.cancercare.org/about_us/annual_reports/2009/donors.php
http://globalrace.info-komen.org/site/PageNavigator/hq_gr_learn_FAQ_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chemical_Industries#History
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/878S
Lancet - Circulating concentrations of insulin like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer -  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2910384-1/abstract
Potential public health impacts of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy production - http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm
Breast Cancer Action - http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=10
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/

Work out smarter not harder

When you think of working out do images of grunting, straining, vein bulging hard work come to mind? Isn't fitness training all about working this hard? Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say not necessarily. Now, before you slack off, or completely bale out of  your next workout, I'm clarifying that the working smarter not harder concept of fitness training doesn't mean doing either.

So, what does training smarter mean? Well, for one, it means beginning with the design of an exercise program that takes you and your goals into consideration. This may seem obvious. Unfortunately this step is often neglected. Without goals how do you know where to begin, change direction or end a phase and move into the next?  This is where SMART goal setting comes in.

SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic/Relevant and Timely. When it comes to goal setting this is the gold standard.  If you're considering taking a stab at designing your own fitness program, I encourage you NOT to skip the goal setting step.  This is because when it comes to success, all too often failing to plan means planning to fail. After all, how do we know where we are going if we don't know where we are or where we've been? Hopefully I haven't overstated the importance of the goal setting step to training smarter.  If you're ready to take a stab at it, way to go! You can find a SMART goal worksheet here.

Another aspect of training smarter has to to with working at a level that is suitable to your skill, experience and abilities. Deciding to try the latest, greatest workout routine torn out of a magazine or taken from the internet usually isn't the smartest way to work out. Whether your a novice or an elite exerciser, it's absolutely critical to success to workout at an appropriate level. If you're wondering what your level is, you're not alone.  That's why many people seek the expertise of a trainer. Wisdom about fitness training is constantly evolving. Old school thinking about strength training is the no pain, no gain mentality. Current understanding is train, don't strain. This perspective is being underscored by some emerging research.

Recently, a study conducted by researchers at McMaster University found that study participants were able to build muscle size (hypertrophy) by training in a way that was previously not associated with this result. You can view the published paper here. It can be a little surprising, but exciting as well, to learn that conventional wisdom may be changing in light of new scientific discovery.  That's exactly what the McMaster study has done. It has shed light on a potentially new way of thinking about resistance training. Thankfully discovery happens frequently in the health industry. Otherwise we might still be using those vibrating belt machines for weight loss like the women in the photo above.

One way that fitness trainers determine the ideal amount of training weight to be lifted is by predicting a client's one rep (short for repetition) max.  This is where the client is asked to lift an average amount of weight until they can't perform any more repetitions of the exercise. In other words, until they reach the point of fatigue.  Then the trainer can calculate or refer to a table to estimate the percentage of one rep max. If you're interested, you can find a chart here. Conventional wisdom regarding resistance training has been that to build muscle it is necessary to lift approximately 85% of one rep max for 4-8 reps (American College of Sports Medicine's 2002 guidelines).  This is some pretty heavy lifting and results in the ability to perform less repetitions.

So, what does all this have to do with the McMaster University study? Well, their research results surprisingly suggest that using significantly lighter weights, those that were 30% of one rep max, while performing a higher number of repetitions (known as low-load, high volume training), was actually more effective at building muscle than the traditional high-load, low volume resistance training method. Their study findings are equivalent to the world turning upside down, at least the fitness world. Okay, I exaggerate, but only a little.

Why are these study findings important? For one, the ability to build muscle with this type of training protocol has the potential to reach a wider population. In particular, the low-load, high volume training will become practical for "people with compromised skeletal muscle mass, such as the elderly, patients with cancer, or those who are recovering from trauma, surgery or even stroke" (McMaster Univ.). As we move into the second decade of the new millennium, it's exciting to see scientific research underscoring a training protocol that is suitable for a larger, more diverse group of people.  It will be interesting to see where this paradigm shift in resistance training leads. After all, this is a small initial study in this area of research. In the meantime, I'm still going to train smarter not harder. Now let's go pump some, er, lighter iron? 

Sources
American College of Sports Medicine - http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_ACSM&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=1273
Centers for Disease Control - http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/growingstronger/motivation/define.html
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/OneRepMax.html
McMaster University - http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca/story.cfm?id=6908

Slash, Burn and Poison: Is this the only way?

After the shock, denial and numbness a woman often feels after receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer, comes the time to discuss treatment. To my surprise and dismay, I learned that the current treatment options for breast cancer are basically one-size-fits-all. Regardless of tumor size, grade or stage there are basically three ways to treat breast cancer. Dr. Susan Love calls these traditional treatments; slash, burn and poison. In other words surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.


Now, please don't get me wrong. It's wonderful that there are treatments! It's also a blessing that medicine has evolved beyond radical mastectomy, which was the primary treatment for breast cancer at one time. This procedure resulted in removal of the entire breast, pectoral muscles, fat and all lymph nodes under the arm. Now that's radical! Thankfully, researchers decided to test another treatment. Some extremely brave women participated in clinical trials that led to breast conserving surgery (lumpectomy), along with radiation becoming a viable breast cancer treatment.

Not too many years ago breast cancer wasn't openly discussed.  There were no pink ribbon campaigns and not much breast cancer awareness. Now, money for research is being generated that's resulting in ongoing breast cancer studies.  This has lead to new knowledge and a greater understanding of breast cancer. Yet, with all this progress the reality is that regardless of the stage, grade or size of an individual's breast cancer, for the most part treatment still centers around surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

Why hasn't treatment of breast cancer evolved as quickly as one would hope based on the amount of research and resources? Well, one reason might be a result of the way doctors have traditionally approached cancer.  The conventional thinking is that cancer needs to be wiped out as completely as possible from the body. This is often accomplished at the expense of healthy cells.  Even though the understanding of cancer is evolving, many doctors still adhere to the kill the cancer at all costs mindset. Some health experts blame our litigious society. This creates a fear of malpractice lawsuits and drives doctors to treat cancer as aggressively as possible.

Perhaps another cause of the lack of change to breast cancer treatment stems from our health care system itself, which tends to reward more treatment, rather than health outcomes (Kaiser). At the risk of sounding paranoid, one more motive might be a result of corporate greed. The fact is companies spend billions of dollars in research, development, testing and acquiring of government approval for their treatments. According to Breast Cancer Action, this results in corporations influencing the way breast cancer is treated. This can happen in one of two ways. The company that made the treatment can provide biased information about their product directly to doctors, or the company can give money to influential organizations in an effort to financially persuade "the type of information the organization provides to people."   

One thing is evident. The research and treatment of cancer is itself becoming a big industry. With this thought in mind, there is a growing need for accountability and transparency with regard to how the health care industry, medical community and government agencies approach cancer policy and treatment. To begin with patients should have access to unbiased information in order to make informed treatment decisions. Regardless of the reason for the slow evolution of the treatment of breast cancer one fact still remains. There are many kinds of breast cancer and it should no longer be treated with a one-size-fits-all attitude, nor should the only options be the slash, burn and poison approach. What do you think? Is this really the only way?

Sources
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/
http://www.cedars-sinai.edu/Patients/Programs-and-Services/Breast-Center/Treatment-and-Procedure-Innovations/Surgical-Options.aspx
http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-brca-gene-test
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=cancer-policy-perspective

Don't put a milk moustache on breast cancer

Milk is a healthy beverage right? We've been told to "drink your milk" since we were old enough to hold the sippy cup. A quick look at the GotMilk website here will show you that they are even touting milk as a way to help PMS (Pre-Menstrual Syndrome). They go so far as to call milk, "The perfect comfort food." If you're of a certain age you may remember when milk was delivered by the milkman to the front door of your house and it actually was healthy.  However, things have changed a lot since then and not all milk is created equal.

It all started back in the early 1980's with research for a drug that would increase the production of milk in cows. Monsanto Company eventually received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for their drug Posilac. It's what is known as a genetically engineered hormone called recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH. In 2008, Eli Lilly acquired the Posilac branch of Monsanto's business. Eli Lilly also manufactures breast cancer treatment drugs. So, what's the big deal? Well, the plot thickens.

There are potential health issues associated with the use of rBGH. To underscore this point, several countries including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union recognize rBGH as a big enough health threat that they have banned it and any products containing it. Animal and food safety activists in the US have been voicing their concerns for years as well.  Thankfully, some grocery stores, dairies and companies that utlize milk in their products are no longer using rBGH milk. You can view a list here compiled by Food and Water Watch.org.

So, just what are these potential health issues? Well, one concern is that the hormone causes mastitis in the udders of cows. The mastitis then requires antibiotics - strong antibiotics.  In some cases, antibiotics are regularly used to prevent mastitis before it even occurs. The prolific use of antibiotics is thought to be one cause of the increasing numbers of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria we're seeing. That by itself is bad enough. However, the story doesn't end here. 

The presence of rBGH in the cow's blood stimulates production of another hormone that is normally present in cow's milk, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1).  A side effect of the use of rBGH is that it causes IGF-1 levels to rise significantly above normal. According to one study, rBGH caused the normal levels of  IGF-1 in cow's milk to increase by "sixfold", and recent information released by Eli Lilly to the European Community Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products admitted increases of ten times the normal IGF-1. 

Why is this a problem? When we drink milk containing normal levels of IGF-1, the hormone usually binds with proteins whose job is to keep the biological activity of IGF-1 in check. However, when levels of IGF-1 are significantly increased, as they are in rBGH cow's milk, it's thought that this leads to unbound IGF-1 circulating in the body.  It's a known fact that IGF-1 causes cells to divide and that unregulated cell division leads to cancer. The concern many experts have is that rBGH, and the resulting increased levels of unbound IGF-1 in our circulation, are contributing factors to the increases seen in a variety of cancers, including breast, colon, lung and prostate.

So, that's the connection. A drug company that offers breast cancer treatment drugs is also responsible for a drug that may cause breast cancer. I find this appalling! Like me, you might be wondering where the FDA is in this story. If you'd like, you can read an updated 2009 statement from them here, and get their side of the story. It's difficult for me to understand how other countries can see the wisdom in banning the use of this drug, but the US cannot. Having said that, the cynic in me can recall many similar situations where a big industry with deep pockets was able to fly under the radar for years.

If you're feeling moved to activism, Breast Cancer Action has composed a petition to Eli Lilly requesting that they stop making rBGH. You can link to it here. It really is an inexcusable conflict of interest when a company sells a drug that ultimately may contribute to breast cancer and also sells drugs for breast cancer treatments.

The good news is that there is a movement for labeling non rBGH cow's milk and other dairy products so that consumers can identify and choose products that don't use this growth hormone. The bigger picture is that this fight isn't just about dairy products. It's about all foods that are being genetically modified or altered. Don't you think we should have a right to know what we're eating? That healthy milk delivered by the milkman is still available today.  It's just our responsibility to make sure that we can choose for ourselves which milk we deem healthiest.


Sources
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/rBGH_Health.pdf
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm
http://www.gotmilk.com/#/benefits/pms/info/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5149628
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/documents/consumer2_001.pdf
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%2900354-3/abstract
Image from -http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/milk-organic-FD-lg.jpg 

Eating to starve disease?

Putting the concepts of eating and starving together may seem paradoxical, but when it comes to food and disease experts are finding a definite connection. You can view the amazing details in this TED Talk video by Dr. William Li, an expert in angiogenesis.  If you prefer to skip the short video, I've attempted to summarize his talk below.

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li


So what is angiogenesis?  Angio comes from the Greek word meaning "pertaining to blood vessels" and genesis comes from Greek word meaning "the act of producing or giving birth to". So angiogenesis is the production of new blood vessels.

In the video, Dr. Li describes angiogenesis as "an important natural process in the body used for healing and reproduction." An example of reproductive angiogenesis is the uterus as it sheds its lining and produces another with each monthly menstrual cycle.  The process of the growth of new blood vessels that occurs after an injury is an example of healing angiogenesis. In both of these instances, angiogenesis is regulated by a complicated balance of factors that either stimulate or slow the growth of new blood vessels. Experts now recognize that when these factors become unbalanced and too much or too little angiogenesis takes place, cancer, age-related blindness, diabetic ulcers, cardiovascular disease, stroke, skin diseases, and many other diseases can occur.

Let's look at cancer, which is what Dr. Li focuses on in his presentation. In order for a tumor to grow beyond a certain size it requires new blood vessels. Interestingly, researchers have discovered that "small activator molecules produced by the cancer cells... signal angiogenesis in the tissue surrounding the tumor" (National Cancer Institute). Scientists also know that without angiogenesis tumor growth halts at about 1-2 mm. Dr. Li explains in the video that after a certain age many of us probably have these 1-2 mm microscopic cancers, but the disease doesn't progress beyond this point.  Experts are learning that in some people the body doesn't respond to the cancer cells' signal to begin angiogenesis. One expert calls this cancer without disease.

The fact that a tumor stops growing without angiogenesis has staggering implications.  Could cancer possibly be thwarted from developing into a larger, more aggressive and life threatening disease? Dr. Li is looking into this possibility and has done numerous experiments on animals with fairly good success, considering the cases were mostly more advanced stages of cancer.  How has he been able to accomplish these results?  By using angiogenesis medicine.

So, what does eating to starve disease have to do with angiogenesis? Well, Dr. Li has found that there are foods that have the ability to regulate angiogenesis. In the case of cancer this means specific foods have anti-angiogenic properties. They have the potential to starve a cancer by interfering with the angiogenic process. This in turn limits a tumors blood supply and ultimately stops its growth! Chemical comounds like dithiolthiones and sulforaphane which are found in cruciferous vegetables such as cabbage and broccoli are anti-angiogenic. The slide is from Dr. Li's presentation.  It lists some of these foods that have anti-angiogenic properties.

Source: Dr. Li and the Angiogenesis Foundation

Dr. Li's statement at the end of the presentation was profound for me.  Food can be my chemotherapy, three times a day! What do you think? It might seem a little outside the box to consider food as medicine or chemotherapy. However, considering that both food and chemotherapy are chemical compounds, it's not that big of a stretch. Why is that what comes from nature is sometimes seen as less superior than a drug that man can create from nature? If the end result is finding a cure or preventing cancer, it really doesn't matter from where it's derived. Until that end result happens, I feel empowered by knowing there are foods I can choose to eat that really are having a positive impact on my health.

UPDATE: Check out the Eat to Beat Cancer Initiative - "which has catalyzed a movement to improve health through cancer-fighting foods. Based on the latest medical science, there are practical, healthy, and tasty food choices that can be made by you every day, at every meal, to incorporate cancer-fighting foods into your diet."

Sources
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/angio
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/angiogenesis/Slide9
http://www.angio.org/

Mind, spirit dis-ease and cancer connection?

It was a total shock to me when I was told I had breast cancer. I'm sure I'm not unique, but I think my total shock resulted from the concrete and absolute belief that I was doing everything humanly possible to prevent cancer. So, my brain went into NOT ME mode. This is a mistake. Shock and denial...just beginning to process my grief.

In retrospect, I think the "not me" mode I reverted to stemmed from my firm belief that if I practice all the healthy lifestyle habits the medical community stresses for cancer prevention, I won't get it. Period. End of story. I rationalized like this: I don't even have any genetic predisposition to this cancer. I don't smoke, I rarely drink, I filter my water, I eat flax, I blah, blah, blah. Perhaps you've had this same painful conversation with yourself. I hope not. Well, I now realize that my discussion with myself didn't include two very important components of my health: my mind and spirit.

I think I've always been vaguely aware that if the mind and spirit are in a state of dis-ease, the body is affected. I just didn't appreciate the degree of this mind/body effect. I’m a science geek so I love this photo from The Franklin Institute. It shows neurons in the brain. These neurons connect with muscles in the body at places called neuromuscular junctions. The brain speaks to the muscles via chemical neurotransmitters. Anytime we experience an emotion a flood of chemical reactions occurs, which may cause our heart to beat faster, our muscles to become tenser and a host of other responses. These reactions underscore the intimate relationship between the body and the mind. Interestingly, according to The Franklin Institute, massage therapists have reported finding "that deep massage can trigger the release and awareness of powerful, long-held emotional memories." This is called somatic recall, an example of the mind/body connection.

When we experience, for example, mental pain, anger, bitterness, sadness, or any host of emotions, the body is affected. The situation becomes toxic when the mental pain is internalized, repressed and ignored or never addressed. Some interesting research on personality and cancer conducted by Dr. Lydia Temoshok at the University of California San Francisco theorized that, "people with repressive personalities, who look calm but hold in a cauldron of painful emotions, are more prone to develop cancer."

The fact remains that most of the medical community believes there is insufficient scientific evidence to make the claim that there is a mind-body-cancer connection. It's also a slippery slope to walk if the quest for understanding and awareness of how one might have come to have a disease leads them to self blame. The journey to dis-ease is long, complex and consists of many variables. I now recognize the importance of looking at my health from a holistic perspective. On the path to healing, the mind and spirit are just as important as the body. Because "the part can't be well unless the whole is well," and we're so much more than a part!

Sources:
http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/emotional/mind-body.htm

Positive thinking and cancer

"Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens."
Kahlil Gibran

I'm going to make an assumption and say that people who know me would describe me as a positive, upbeat person. That's why since being diagnosed with breast cancer I've been surprised by how upset I get when people tell me to "be positive" or to "stay strong." I realize it's well-intentioned and it wouldn't be much help for people to be negative. I understand that's why these words are kindly shared. But I think it would be refreshing and definitely more realistic if someone occasionally acknowledged to me that cancer sucks. Call me Queen of the Obvious, but don't call me Queen of Denial (although I admit to wearing that crown at some point during this cancer journey). Really, doesn't this situation seem like a time when telling someone to be positive is a bit absurd?

Sometimes it might feel like your walking on eggshells trying to figure out the right words to say to someone during a difficult time. We've all been there. The point I'm making is telling a person to be positive may make them feel guilty or bad about the way they are feeling or coping with their situation at the moment. It can result in causing a person to feel that they somehow aren't measuring up because they can't smile or look on the bright side of life.

If we approach an illness or negative experience as a journey taking us to a place of acceptance of the good, the bad and the ugly feelings, we are allowing the range of emotions to be recognized and validated. It's not just about forcing a positive mindset, or putting on a happy face. Now, I'm not suggesting that lingering on the negative is healthy. I'm simply saying it's good to deal with the negative feelings and it helps when people provide support by validating the entire spectrum of feelings. Coming from a place of dis-ease and working toward a place of wellness is a process. After this processing occurs it becomes more likely that I'm able to get to a genuinely positive attitude.

When people offer their support by acknowledging a tough situation and allowing feelings to be shared, whether positive or negative, well, that is golden. While it is important to have a positive belief about life's circumstances, it's equally important to ask "what is this life challenge trying to teach me?" So... I think Gibran is right. I'm not defined by life's challenges, but by how I choose to look at and respond to those challenges and, yes, I'm being positive.