Everything I Like Gives Me Cancer

[taxexile]

One day we're told that something will help us live to 150, the next that it causes cancer in white mice

By Jeremy Clarke

(Filed: 27/08/2006)

Is sunshine good for you? For years, scientists have warned us that to lie in the sun all day without sunscreen is more or less fatal. But new research is telling us that we can come out from under our beach umbrellas and sombreros because 95 per cent of our intake of vitamin D comes from sunshine. And vitamin D is essential for absorbing calcium, keeping bones healthy, and protecting against serious diseases such as osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

And the sun screen? Forget it, chuck it away. Even newer research suggests that, if rubbed in too thoroughly, it gives you cancer. Eat three portions of fish a week instead, which gives protection equivalent to factor six, says yet another lot of researchers.

Also bad for your health, apparently, are melons. You would think that melons could be nothing but a boon to the human race. Now health experts are saying that, in the past few years, the cantaloupe melon has been responsible for violent gastric disorders that have made 1,615 people severely ill, put 57 in hospital and left two dead. Bacteria lurking in the rough surface can contaminate the flesh when the melon is sliced open, they say.

advertisement

And so it goes on. One day we read that farmed salmon is the healthy option, the next you read that it is almost as bad for us as renting a cheap apartment in Chernobyl. Even apples - can you believe it? - are now said to be bad for our teeth. We cannot open a newspaper nowadays without learning that something that we thought was going to help us live to 150 is now considered a summary death sentence.

In last week's papers, there were articles saying that a portion of hot curry is a better cure for headache than an aspirin, that women who eat three portions of fish a week are 40 per cent less likely to have an early menopause (though lying in the sun can increase the likelihood by up to seven times, and heavy manual labour can double it), that some so-called pro-biotics are a waste of money and may be harmful, that milk lowers blood pressure, that citrus can cut the risk of oral cancers, and that a cup of tea - contrary to the prevailing belief that it dehydrates the body - is both rehydrating and contains powerful antioxidants that inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria in the gut. Four cups of tea a day, claimed a report in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is more beneficial to overall health than the equivalent amount of water.

In my younger days, on the whole I preferred harmful substances to healthy ones. My diet came principally from parked vans and vending machines. Now I am middle aged, I am wearing out my eyes studying the small print on food labels in an effort to avoiding eating anything harmful so that I can cheat death for as long as possible - my working definition, I suppose, of health.

So all this conflicting advice about what is healthy and what isn't, is terribly confusing. Everything I like seems to cause cancer in white mice. I persevere conscientiously with what I have been told is good for me, only to be told that new scientific research "suggests" that these things will give me cancer as well, and in parts of my body I am only dimly aware of. I endured muesli for breakfast for years until I read that if you do not soak it thoroughly there is a long-term risk of colon cancer, for example. The only indisputably safe diet, as far as I can see, is bananas, tomatoes and broccoli for breakfast, dinner and tea.

One's suspicion, of course, is that this constant revision of what is healthy is due to a proportion of nutritional research being conducted by vested interests, cynically aware of what sort of results are most likely to excite the attention of newspaper editors. Dr Alison Stephen, the head of nutritional epidemiology at the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge, does not deny it can happen, but thinks that nutritional research findings that contradict current scientific thinking are more often simply a case of poor science and inadequate methods.

"Take tea, for example. It's consumed differently in different countries. In Britain, it's taken with milk. In lower socio-economic groups with sugar. But in the US, it's drunk without milk or sugar by a higher socio-economic group. So how do you figure out the science? It's difficult."

Dr Stephen does concede that scientists' desires to get their names on the front of scientific journals might influence the interpretation of the results of their research. And, with research funded by industry, it can be a temptation to stress or un-stress results to the company's advantage. "Officially, industry has no right to influence the outcome of research but, in reality, there is some sway. There are always ways of reporting things that would appeal to the people who have funded you. It's infuriating. We want the consumer to get a good, clear message, not this constant flip-flopping."

Dr Chris Hiley, the head of policy for the Prostate Cancer Charity, questions the validity of extrapolating hard and fast scientific conclusions from experiments designed to study the effects of a particular food on a selected group of people by asking them to keep a food diary for 20 years. "It's generally known that nutrition can increase any kind of cancer. And people's diets change. What you don't like to eat at puberty you might like very much 10 years later. You can't tell 10,000 people to eat tomato ketchup for 10 years and another 10,000 not to. Scientists are even still arguing about the effects of smoking."

Dr Hiley is angered by the way that the homeopathic industry exacerbates and then plays on men's fear of prostate cancer to sell its products. "They'll announce, for example, that prostate cancer kills 400,000 a year, when that figure would, in reality, be the combined US and UK fatalities in the past decade. The actual UK figure is 32,000 diagnoses and 10,000 deaths. In a sense, the increasing incidence of prostate cancer is a kind of success because it means people are living to a greater age than before."

Emma Dickinson, a spokesman for the British Medical Journal, countered my suggestion of research articles skewed by vested interest by pointing out that articles are always accompanied by a statement of conflict of interest and, more recently, a statement of financial interest. Also, suspecting that I had little idea of what science is and does exactly, she sent me a handy idiot's guide via e-mail. It contained statements such as: "Science moves from observation to observation and you get scientific progress. There is no end point." And: "It is the nature of scientists to disagree with each other - that's how science moves on."

And finally, in answer to my bitter complaint about the conflicting research on health issues reported daily in the newspapers, she asked me to look at besttreatments.co.uk, a British Medical Association website on which the current consensus of scientific opinion on every possible aspect of human health has been put into layman's language by a panel consisting of the BMA's most notable members. It has tons of stuff about the effect of sunshine on the body. And when I typed in the word "melons", it even had something to say about them. High in potassium, it declared. Potassium is useful for lowering blood pressure, it says. Oh, they don't say?

daily telegraph. uk.

[britmaveric]

Tax - doctors change their minds every five minutes, so what today causes cancer, doesnt cause cancer tomorrow. Confusing isn't it??

[kat]

You never go wrong with green tea! Sorry to be redundant on the tea thing, but it probably gets repeated so often because it's true. I think the proof is in the pudding - so to speak - and you need look no further than Japan or populations that live in the mountains of Central Asia for natural longevity.

Don't stuff your gut, drink a lot of tea, and try to eat plenty of "live" food such as natural yogurt, nuts, grains, fish, and vegetables, *olives. Of course, since our planet is becoming more polluted, so will our food. That is the real issue and threat to human health, as far as I'm concerned.

*I added olives, because that was also mentioned as a staple for some Medditeranean cultures and proven to be very good. I think many of these people have simply become in-sync with their natural environment, and much of it has not been degraded by fast-food, pesticides, preservatives, and pollution. Even the European consumption of wine with meals in moderation has proven health benefits; chocolate is an anti-oxidant.

I think the key is to enjoy life, and eat only that which has a high nutritional or beneficial value, using the best or freshest ingredients. And then, just enjoy yourself, because you could eat the most sparingly, austere food in the name of health and get run over by a bus

** I also enjoy a good pint of Guinness every once-in-a-while, and I'm convinced that it does my body good.

Edited August 27, 2006 by kat

[tom yum goong]

I found this to be a great site which explains why particular types of food are healthier than others and also gives recipe ideas:

http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php