Podcasts about cancer iarc

Stacey Norman and J Sbu chatted with two oncologists from Netcare Parklands Hospital to commemorate World Cancer Day. This year's theme is United by Unique. This theme is aimed at highlighting individualised, patient-centred care in the fight against cancer. World Cancer Day noted that behind every diagnosis is a unique human story. “Cancer is more than just a medical diagnosis, it's a deeply personal matter,” their website reads. This year's theme looks at how fully integrating an individual's unique needs with compassion and care can lead to healthy outcomes. The campaign looks at various aspects of patient-centred cancer care and how a difference can be made in treatment. This a three-year campaign aimed at not just raising awareness but also taking action. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) projects that by 2050, there will be an astounding 35 million additional instances of cancer worldwide.

When we think about the deleterious effects of poor sleep, cardiovascular and cognitive/psychological consequences typically come first to mind. One of the less obvious and less understood effects is that of cancer which was listed as a probably carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007. Since that time, there has been considerable efforts to understand the role plays in cancer. In this episode we will:Evaluate the original research looking at sleep and cancer riskList the cancer types commonly associated with poor/inadequate sleepHighlight studies that cast doubt on this relationshipReview factors related to sleep and shift work that might influence riskSpeculate on possible mechanisms that lead to carcinogenicityTouch upon steps one can take to lessen cancer risk associated with poor sleepProduced by: Maeve WinterMore Twitter: @drchriswinter IG: @drchriwinter Threads: @drchriswinter Bluesky: @drchriswinter The Sleep Solution and The Rested Child Thanks for listening and sleep well!

High Fructose Corn Syrup's Profits over Health:  Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, July 24, 2024 There is an unseen culprit hiding in the shadows. It is a toxic poison contained in many of the foods and beverages that we commonly eat. A toxin that has been implicated in causing cancer, diabetes, heart disease, lowered cognitive function, addiction, depression, and obesity. The magicians and alchemists of the corporate food industry have cleverly disguised this ingredient and sing its praises.  If you are waiting for mainstream media to undertake an in-depth investigative report on this topic you will be waiting a long time. Back in 2015 Tufts University's department of nutritional sciences conducted a study published by the American Heart Association that documented the annual rates of global deaths directly due to over-consumption of beverages with high sugar content. The results estimated that 184,000 adults die annually from sugary drinks.  Dr. Gitanjali at Tufts analyzed data documenting sugar-related deaths across 51 countries between 1980 and 2010.  Deaths were compiled according to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various cancers. Based upon the data, the study concluded that sugar contributed to 45,000 annual deaths from cardiovascular disease, 13,000 deaths from diabetic complications, and 6,450 deaths related to cancer.  Credit Suisse's Research Institute published a scathing report that brought sugar's health risks into sharper focus.  The study revealed that upward to 40% of American healthcare expenditures could be directly tied to overconsumption of sugar in the average American diet.  Today, the US' national addiction to sugar contributes to $1 trillion in healthcare costs annually, which includes coronary heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. There are numerous studies published in reliable peer-reviewed medical journals associating sugar with each of these life threatening diseases. As far back as 1971, I began writing about the hazards of sugar. In 2002, my documentary Seven Steps to Perfect Health was premiered on PBS stations. During a special appearance on one station's fund drive, I poured sugar out of a bag. The amount I poured equaled the number of teaspoons that an average American teenager consumes daily. My general counsel, David Slater, verified the quantity by proper measurement according to scientific food and diet data.  After the initial airing of this special, I was informed by the station's program director that they could not rebroadcast the performance, even though it was the most successful program during the fund drive. I was informed that the station had received harsh criticism from the sugar industry. The program director explained that the information I presented about sugar's dangers, even though I provided full scientific verification of the facts, ran up against the president of the station board Sharon Rockefeller. I was told she had received a phone call from a sugar-lobbying group representing soft drink makers and sugar manufacturers.  Therefore the station made the decision to pull my program. I was never asked to return to the station. Not surprisingly, a subsequent investigation revealed Sharon Rockefeller sat on Pepsi's board at the time, one of America's largest manufacturers of sweetened soft drinks.    That was my first personal encounter with the political forces supporting sugar. I wrote letters to the sugar industry, the station board and Sharon Rockefeller contesting their suppression of my program and their claim that sugar was unrelated to the declining health of Americans. They were presented with dozens of peer-reviewed studies. However in recent decades, the sweetener industry has undergone a dramatic transformation with the introduction and widespread adoption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) throughout our food system. This shift from traditional cane sugar, which dominated my criticism earlier, to fructose corn sugars has led to deep human health and environmental concerns due to its economic benefits for food manufacturers.  High fructose corn syrup was developed in the late 1960s by Japanese scientists who discovered a method to convert glucose from cornstarch into fructose using enzymes. This innovation was spurred by the need to find a cheaper and more versatile sweetener as an alternative to the more labor-intensive production of traditional cane sugar. HFCS is made by milling corn to produce cornstarch. The starch is then hydrolyzed into glucose by adding the enzyme alpha-amylase. Finally the glucose is further processed into fructose. The result is a syrup that typically contains 42-55 percent fructose, with the rest being glucose. Some methods can produce fructose as high as 90 percent.  Today, HFCS production has been so optimized that it has become the most cost-effective and efficient means to produce sweeteners. Monsanto's genetically modified Round-Up Ready corn, enabling the use of more toxic herbicides and pesticides, has now made HFCS the cornerstone of the sugar industry.  However, the shift to HFCS has been fundamentally driven by economics and the agro-chemical industry and has absolutely nothing to do with creating a healthier sugar.  Since corn is one of the most extensively cultivated crops in the United States, which is heavily subsidized by the government, it has provided an enormous, inexpensive supply of the raw material needed for HFCS production. In addition, the enzymatic conversion process can result in a high yield of sweetener from a relatively small amount of corn.  HFCS is now a ubiquitous ingredient that permeates our entire modern food supply. Starting in the 1980s, the introduction of HFCS has gradually displaced traditional sweeteners such as natural cane sugar, glucose and honey. According to the USDA, HFCS can cost up to 50% less than cane and other traditional sugars. This cost differential is particularly significant in industries where sweeteners constitute a major portion of production costs such as in soft drinks, artificial fruit juices, sweet baked goods, snack foods and candy, breakfast cereals, condiments and sauces, sweetened dairy products such as yoghurt and ice cream, and a large variety of processed canned and prepared meals. A study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that HFCS accounts for over 40% increase of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages. Having a purview of the distribution of different sugars in the American diet helps to illustrate the dominance of HFCS in the food system. Approximately 45 percent of added sugars in the American diet come from HFCS and an additional 2 percent from pure fructose. Between 35-40 percent of sweeteners derive from sucrose, the common table sugar made from sugarcane and sugar beets -- the latter now being genetically modified. The production process involves crushing the plant material to extract the juice, which is then purified, concentrated, and crystallized to produce table sugar.  Not to be confused with HFCS, corn syrup is largely glucose and represents about 10-15 percent of the nation's sugar intake. It is the most common sugar used in baked goods and candy. Lactose and galactose each account for about 4-5 percent of consumed sugars. However they are typically not added sugars to foods but naturally present in all dairy products.  Finally, honey, which at one time was a common food ingredient, today only accounts for about 1-2 percent of sweeteners.  Moreover, according to FDA testing, a lot of commercial honey found in grocery stores has been adulterated with HFCS and other sweeteners, such sucrose derived from cane and GMO beet sugars and artificial honey-flavored imitators.  A general estimate is that 20-30 percent of honey sold is impure.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s when I frequently railed publicly against the sugar industry and the health risks of processed table sugar that then completely dominated the food industry, I would never have imagined that sucrose would be gradually replaced by HFCS. This replacement accelerated after the emergence of genetically modified (GM) corn. As noted above, the vast majority of HFCS produced in the United States, the world's larger corn producer globally, is derived from genetically modified (GM) corn. Estimates suggest that around 85-90% of the corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that approximately 85-90% of HFCS is derived from GM corn. As many court cases and exposes of corruption in the agro-chemical industry have cone to light, GM corn has dire implications for the production and consumption of HFCS, especially considering the associated health risks linked to the use of toxic herbicides such as glyphosate. Research has linked glyphosate to various health issues, including cancer. A decade ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen"; today, it is no longer probable but a medical fact. Several studies have detected glyphosate residues in food products containing HFCS. A study published in Environmental Health found glyphosate residues in a variety of food products, highlighting the widespread contamination of the food supply with this herbicide. In addition to glyphosate's carcinogenic potential, the toxin has also been shown to disrupt endocrine function and it has been implicated in gut dysbiosis, an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This disruption can lead to a range of health problems, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other gastrointestinal disorders. Research published in Current Microbiology indicates that glyphosate exposure can alter the composition of the gut microbiota, leading to adverse health outcomes. HFCS and traditional sugars like table sugar differ significantly in their composition and metabolic effects. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of equal parts glucose and fructose, while HFCS is a mixture of free glucose and fructose, with the fructose content higher than that in sucrose. This difference in composition affects how the body metabolizes these sugars. Briefly, HFCS poses more serious health risks than sucrose. The free fructose in HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than the bound fructose in sucrose, leading to quicker spikes in blood sugar and insulin levels. In addition, the high fructose content in HFCS places a greater burden on the liver, leading to increased fat production and storage, contributing to fatty liver disease and metabolic disorders. In contrast, the balanced glucose-fructose composition of sucrose is metabolized more evenly, posing lower risks. However, it is crucial to realize that excessive or even moderate consumption of any form of sugar can be detrimental to health. Extensive research has linked the consumption of HFCS to a range of adverse health effects. Key among these is metabolic disorders and cardiovascular diseases. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that high consumption of HFCS is associated with an increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome, which includes conditions such as obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. These conditions collectively elevate the risk of heart disease and stroke. HFCS has been directly implicated in America's obesity epidemic due to its high fructose content, which is metabolized differently than glucose. Fructose is primarily processed in the liver, where it can be converted into fat more readily than glucose. This process can lead to increased fat accumulation and insulin resistance, both of which are risk factors for obesity and type 2 diabetes. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition highlighted that high HFCS consumption is correlated with an increased risk of obesity and diabetes, particularly in children and adolescents. HFCS intake also leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Unlike glucose, which is metabolized by all cells in the body, fructose is metabolized almost entirely in the liver. High levels of fructose overwhelms the liver's capacity to process it, leading to fat accumulation and liver damage. Research published in Hepatology has shown a strong correlation between HFCS consumption and the progression to more severe liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Recent evidence reveals that HFCS has detrimental effects on cognitive function and mental health. Studies indicate that fructose impairs insulin signaling in the brain, which is crucial for maintaining cognitive functions. A study in the Journal of Physiology found that high-fructose diets can lead to insulin resistance in the brain, potentially increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Additionally, high sugar diets, including those high in HFCS, have been linked to mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety, as detailed in a review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. HFCS and other fructose-rich sugars can have profound adverse effects on the gut and digestive system. These sugars are known to disrupt the normal functioning of the gastrointestinal tract, contributing to various digestive disorders and altering the gut microbiome. Fructose, unlike glucose, is not directly absorbed by the body. It requires a specific transporter, GLUT5, to be taken up by the intestinal cells. Fructose interferes with these transporters, leading to malabsorption. Unabsorbed fructose travels to the large intestine, where it undergoes fermentation by gut bacteria. This process produces gases such as hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, which cause bloating, gas, and abdominal pain leading to malabsorption and the intestine's inability to absorb fructose efficiently. The gut microbiome, a complex community of trillions of microorganisms living in the digestive tract, is crucial for maintaining digestive health, immune function, and overall well-being. High intake of fructose negatively affects this delicate balance. Studies have shown that diets high in fructose can lead to an imbalance in the gut microbiota composition. This imbalance is characterized by a decrease in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli and an increase in harmful bacteria like Clostridia and Enterobacteria.  A study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that high fructose levels increase intestinal permeability, also known as "leaky gut." This condition allows harmful substances, such as toxins and bacteria, to pass from the gut into the bloodstream, triggering inflammation and contributing to the development of various diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Inflammatory bowel disease, which includes conditions like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is exacerbated by promoting inflammation and altering the gut microbiota. A study in the journal Gut reported that reducing fructose intake improved symptoms in individuals with IBS, suggesting a direct link between fructose consumption and IBS symptom severity. Finally we need to also consider the catastrophic effects of HFCS on children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with HFCS due to their higher consumption levels relative to their body weight. According to data from the CDC, the average American child consumes approximately 12-16 teaspoons of added sugars per day, a significant portion of which comes from HFCS. This high intake is largely driven by the consumption of sweetened beverages, snacks, and processed foods that are marketed specifically to children. The high consumption of HFCS among children is a major contributor to the rising rates of childhood obesity and metabolic disorders. Studies have shown that children who consume high levels of sugary beverages and snacks are more likely to develop obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. A study published in Pediatrics found that children who consume sugary drinks daily are at a significantly higher risk of developing obesity compared to those who consume them less frequently. There is also growing concern about the impact of HFCS on children's cognitive development and behavior. High sugar diets have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other behavioral issues in children. A study in the Journal of Attention Disorders found that excessive sugar consumption, including HFCS, exacerbates symptoms of ADHD and impair cognitive functions such as memory and learning. A deeper look at the politics of the sugar industry reveals that huge sums are being doled out by the government to support and subsidize sugar companies. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, health journalist Alexandra Wexler explains that American taxpayers are currently responsible for shelling out $280 million to cover the cost of loans from the USDA which sugar producers are unable to pay back. Given the undeniable evidence demonstrating the toxicity of HFCS and other commercial sugars and their enormous toll on the wellbeing of Americans, why is it that our health agencies and elected officials are not calling for an urgent overhaul of existing policies, which graciously support the domestic sugar industry to poison the population? Where is the outrage over bailing out the purveyors of what is likely the most dangerous staple in the American diet? For our answers we must follow the money-trail.

In this podcast episode, editors and co-hosts Maria Cohut and Yasmin Nicola Sakay discuss whether having tattoos can increase the risk of different types of cancer, particularly blood cancer, as recent evidence from a Swedish cohort has suggested. Special guest Dr. Milena Foerster, who researches the link between tattoos and cancer at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), explains what we do and do not know about this association.In Conversation is a Healthline Media original podcast. This episode was produced by Flamingo Media for Medical News Today.

Does the most widely used weed killer in the world cause cancer? On October 3, 2023, Film Movement and Fathom Events invite audiences to discover for themselves with a special one-night only nationwide theatrical release of INTO THE WEEDS, which follows the story of groundskeeper Lee Johnson and his fight for justice against agrichemical giant Monsanto (now Bayer, which bought the company in 2018), the manufacturer of the weed killer, Roundup. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” A year later, Johnson filed a lawsuit claiming that Ranger Pro, a commercial-grade variant of Roundup, was a substantial contributing factor in causing his Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Johnson's was the first “bellwether case” in a mass tort against Monsanto involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs: gardeners, golfers, farmers, groundskeepers, and ordinary people, following and trusting the instructions on the label. Director Jennifer Baichwal (Manufactured Landscapes, Anthropocene: The Human Epoch) seamlessly blends together interviews, testimonials, trial footage, news coverage, and vérité, the film follows the progression of this groundbreaking lawsuit, while also stepping back to consider the systemic impact of glyphosate-based herbicides on human health, our food systems, and the biodiversity of our planet. For more go to: intotheweedsimpact.com Check out: filmmovement.com/into-the-weeds

Have you seen the headlines? Social media and the internet at large are abuzz with the controversy surrounding the well-known artificial sweetener aspartame.  The recent classification of aspartame as a possible human carcinogen (category 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has sparked a new wave of discussions, concerns, and media sensationalism. In this episode, Alan Aragon helps unravel the complexities and provide a more balanced perspective on this hot topic. Alan is no stranger to the podcast, but in case you're not familiar with him, he's a nutrition researcher and educator who's been at the forefront of the evidence-based fitness movement for over a decade now and has helped countless fitness enthusiasts, professional athletes, and top coaches, and even influenced my own work. Alan has a knack for translating science into practical application, which you can see for yourself if you check out his research review, which was the first of its kind in 2008. In this podcast, you're going to learn about . . . The latest news and opinions on aspartame and its classification by the IARC The negative connotations associated with artificial sweeteners and why people often overlook their benefits Animal testing on artificial sweeteners and whether the findings can be applied to humans Practical considerations for the consumption of artificial sweeteners, their place in a balanced lifestyle, and how much is safe to consume And more . . . This episode offers valuable insights for anyone interested in artificial sweeteners, diet, and overall health, cutting through the confusion and fear to provide an evidence-based viewpoint. So, click play to listen and learn about aspartame and its effects on health. Timestamps: 0:00 - Please leave a review of the show wherever you listen to podcasts and make sure to subscribe! 06:36 - What is the latest news with aspartame? 13:30 - Do you have an opinion on what is going on with aspartame and the IARC? 18:28 - Do you think the negative findings of aspartame and artificial sweeteners has put a bad connotation on them? and prevents people from looking into the benefits of artificial sweeteners? 27:41 - My award-winning fitness books for men and women: https://legionathletics.com/products/books/ 29:41 - If animal testing shows an increase in cancer risk can that really be applied to humans? 57:16 - Where can people find you and your work? Mentioned on the Show: My award-winning fitness books for men and women: https://legionathletics.com/products/books/ Alan Aragon's Research Review: https://alanaragon.com/aarr/ Alan Aragon's Website: https://alanaragon.com/ Alan Aragon's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thealanaragon/

Have we soured on artificial sweeteners??Recently the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released statements about artificial sweeteners and potential risks to our health. The IARC went as far as to list aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”So, what's all the hubbub about? Are artificial sweeteners actually bad for us? Does data exist to support a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer? Metabolic disease? Any other health concerns?Do we have to stop drinking "sugar-free" beverages? Should we panic??NO!Listen to Your Doctor Friends! Let us help you understand the relevant data, and provide some context. We're your friends. Its what we're here for :)Major points-of-interest (i.e. SWEET SPOTS) in this episode include:Where do artificial sweeteners come from? Are they all "chemicals"?What does the WHO's statement on non-nutritive sweeteners mean? What's the context? What are the data origins which spurred this recommendation?Is there evidence that links artificial sweeteners to cancer? What kind of evidence?How does the IARC classify carcinogenicity of substances? What are examples of substances that are "Group 1- Carcinogenic to Humans" vs "Group 2A and 2B- Probably and Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans, respectively"?What is JECFA? How do they classify substances and determine "safe levels" to consume on a daily basis?What are stevia and monk fruit extract? Are they "better" for us since they're "natural"?What is lycasin and why are the reviews of "Sugarfree Haribo Gummi Bears" so hilarious??For more episodes, limited edition merch, or to become a Friend of Your Doctor Friends (and more), follow this link!Also, CHECK OUT AMAZING HEALTH PODCASTS on The Health Podcast Network(For real, this network is AMAZING and has fantastic, evidence-based, honest health information, and we are so happy to partner with them!) Find us at:Website: yourdoctorfriendspodcast.com Email: yourdoctorfriendspodcast@gmail.com Call the DOCLINE on 312-380-5005 and leave us a message. We will listen and maybe even respond/play it on the show! (Disclaimer: we will not answer specific medical questions or offer medical advice. Consult your healthcare professional with any and all personal health questions.) Connect with us:@your_doctor_friends (IG)@JeremyAllandMD (IG, FB, Twitter)@JuliaBrueneMD (IG)@HealthPodNet (IG)

The WHO's cancer-research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has decided that the commonly-used sweetener aspartame “possibly causes cancer”. It's been added to a long list of chemicals, activities, and occupations that are in some way carcinogenic. Apparently.But the list is really stupid. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask about the point of this list, when after all, the dose makes the poison. Is working a night shift as much of a cancer risk as using aloe vera skin cream? Does it even make sense to ask that question?The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We're very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you'll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The IARC list of carcinogens* The Dynomight explainer on aspartame, its chemical properties, and its safety* The French study of sweeteners and cancer risk* Context on the level of risk* Long review article on the effects of aspartame* Critique of two of the Rammazini Institute's aspartame studies* Tom's Twitter thread on aspartame* Stuart's article on aspartame* Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz's article on aspartame and the IARCCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

To start the episode, Ali and Asif discuss the controversy surrounding country singer Miranda Lambert chastising concertgoers for taking selfies (0:48). Then, after a brief digression on Dana Carvey's Joe Biden impression, Asif asks Ali about the surprise hit TV show ‘Jury Duty' (10:32). They discuss the background of the show and how it is a combination of ‘The Office' and ‘The Joe Schmo Show'. They then discuss how the show did not make much of a splash when it first debuted, but then gained buzz via TikTok. Ali and Asif then discuss the show's reception and  their thoughts on the show. They then discuss the Emmy nominations the show has received, including James Marsden for best supporting actor…for playing himself. Then the guys RE-discuss artificial sweeteners because of a new press-release issued by the WHO on the possible carcinogenic effects of aspartame (37:45). Asif explains how it was a joint press release, highlighting findings about   aspartame are released today by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Overall, Asif explains how the IARC found “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans aand classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans. He then explains that JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight (ie an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake). Asif clarifies how  the agencies' statements are "complementary" in that the two groups work differently, and have a different aim: while IARC flags a potential hazard based on even limited evidence, JECFA assesses the real-life risk.   A reminder that the pod will be taking a month off in August. Look for new episodes coming your way on Sept 8, 2023!   The opinions expressed are those of the hosts, and do not reflect those of any other organizations. This podcast and website represents the opinions of the hosts. The content here should not be taken as medical advice. The content here is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and because each person is so unique, please consult your healthcare professional for any medical questions.    Music courtesy of Wataboi and 8er41 from Pixabay   Contact us at doctorvcomedian@gmail.com   Follow us on Social media: Twitter: @doctorvcomedian Instagram: doctorvcomedian   Show notes: Miranda Lambert has a point: https://www.avclub.com/miranda-lambert-scolds-fans-at-show-backlash-1850651000 How Jury Duty Orchestrated the Trial of a Lifetime: https://www.vulture.com/article/jury-duty-interview.html How 'Jury Duty' completely faked a trial in real courtroom with a narcissistic James Marsden: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2023/04/08/jury-duty-feevee-series-fakes-civil-trial-james-marsden/11610571002/ Their Show Flew Under the Radar. TikTok Blew It Up: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/arts/television/jury-duty-freevee.html How Jury Duty became the surprise comedy breakout of the year: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jul/17/show-jury-duty-amazon-freevee-tiktok What is aspartame and what do the new WHO rulings mean? https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/what-is-aspartame-what-do-new-who-rulings-cancer-consumption-mean-2023-07-13/ Opinion: What the WHO aspartame findings mean for your diet: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/21/opinions/aspartame-sweetener-diet-world-health-organization-branca/index.html Does Aspartame Cause Cancer or Is It Safe to Consume? The Latest Evidence About the Artificial Sweetener: https://time.com/6294701/aspartame-cancer-sweetener-studies/ Ninety-sixth meeting - Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA): https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ninety-sixth-meeting-joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa) IARC Monographs Hazard Classification: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/IARC_MONO_classification_2023_updated.png Carcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00341-8/fulltext Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme's 134th Meeting, and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 96th meeting: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/summary-of-findings-of-the-evaluation-of-aspartame-at-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-(iarc)-monographs-programme-s-134th-meeting--and-the-joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa)-96th-meeting

Aspartame, the world's most popular artificial sweetener, has just been declared by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “possible carcinogen”. Does this mean that aspartame causes cancer? Ts. Norraini Eksan, Senior Director, Food Safety and Quality Division, Ministry of Health, and Prof Dr Teo Soo Hwang, Chief Scientific Officer, Cancer Research Malaysia, join us to discuss how food additives like aspartame are regulated for safety, and what we need to know about products that are a cancer hazard, versus contributing to the risk of cancer. And the million-dollar question: is aspartame safe to be consumed?Image Credit: Shutterstock

The artificial sweetener aspartame that's widely used in fizzy drinks has just been classified as “possibly” cancer-causing by UN scientists - but there's no cause for alarm.That's the key message from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), whose assessment of aspartame was carried out on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), by an expert panel of nutritional epidemiology and nutritional toxicology scientists.With more details on what these findings mean for all of us, UN News's Daniel Johnson spoke to IARC's Mary Schubauer-Berigan, who's head of the agency's Monographs Programme.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, declared aspartame may be a possible carcinogenic hazard to humans. R Sathyanathan, a veteran broadcaster, explains the news. Produced by RaySel. - Artificial sweeteners -செயற்கை இனிப்பூட்டிகளுள் ஒன்றான aspartame புற்று நோயை ஏற்படுத்தக்கூடும் என்று WHO – உலக சுகாதார அமைப்பு எச்சரிக்கை விடுக்க திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது. இந்த பின்னணியை விளக்குகிறார் பிரபல வானொலியாளர் இரா.சத்தியநாதன். அவரோடு உரையாடியவர்: றைசெல்.

Did you know that pesticide manufacturers deliberately discredit reputable scientists and employ a host of other corrupt practices to protect sales of their products? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Stacy Malkan, co-founder and managing editor at US Right to Know, a non-profit investigative research group working globally to expose corporate wrongdoing and government failures that threaten our health, environment, and food system.  Malkan investigates and reports on pesticide and food industry PR and lobbying operations, and is the lead author of a new report, “MERCHANTS OF POISON: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide - A case study in disinformation, corrupted science, and manufactured doubt about glyphosate.”Malkan reveals the tactics used by pesticide manufacturers (and the food industry) to protect their profits, including efforts to discredit reputable scientists. The report includes a case study of Monsanto's efforts to suppress the findings of an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) panel on cancer concerns associated with the herbicide glyphosate. US Right to Know also shares the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) new report investigating how industry influences health research: https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/how-sponsor-bias-impacts-health-research/Related website:  www.usrtk.org 

Oncologist Dr David Eades joins Mike to discuss a report created by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a body of The World Health Organisation (WHO) that is due to be released to declare this artificial sweetener a carcinogen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

W H O 'S Cancer Research Agency To Say Aspartame Sweetener A Possible CarcinogenREUTERS One of the world's most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health body, according to two sources with knowledge of the process, pitting it against the food industry and regulators. Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars' Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer research arm, the sources told Reuters. The IARC ruling, finalised earlier this month after a meeting of the group's external experts, is intended to assess whether something is a potential hazard or not, based on all the published evidence. It does not take into account how much of a product a person can safely consume. This advice for individuals comes from a separate WHO expert committee on food additives, known as JECFA (the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives), alongside determinations from national regulators. However, similar IARC rulings in the past for different substances have raised concerns among consumers about their use, led to lawsuits, and pressured manufacturers to recreate recipes and swap to alternatives. That has led to criticism that the IARC's assessments can be confusing to the public. JECFA, the WHO committee on additives, is also reviewing aspartame use this year. Its meeting began at the end of June and it is due to announce its findings on the same day that the IARC makes public its decision – on July 14. Since 1981, JECFA has said aspartame is safe to consume within accepted daily limits. For example, an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda – depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage – every day to be at risk. Its view has been widely shared by national regulators, including in the United States and Europe. An IARC spokesperson said both the IARC and JECFA committees' findings were confidential until July, but added they were "complementary", with IARC's conclusion representing "the first fundamental step to understand carcinogenicity". The additives committee "conducts risk assessment, which determines the probability of a specific type of harm (e.g. cancer) to occur under certain conditions and levels of exposure." However, industry and regulators fear that holding both processes at around the same time could be confusing, according to letters from U.S. and Japanese regulators seen by Reuters. "We kindly ask both bodies to coordinate their efforts in reviewing aspartame to avoid any confusion or concerns among the public," Nozomi Tomita, an official from Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, wrote in a letter dated March 27 to WHO's deputy director general, Zsuzsanna Jakab. The letter also called for the conclusions of both bodies to be released on the same day, as is now happening. The Japanese mission in Geneva, where the WHO is based, did not respond to a request for comment. DEBATE The IARC's rulings can have huge impact. In 2015, its committee concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic". Years later, even as other bodies like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) contested this, companies were still feeling the effects of the decision.Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) in 2021 lost its third appeal against U.S. court verdicts that awarded damages to customers blaming their cancers on use of its glyphosate-based weedkillers. The IARC's decisions have also faced criticism for sparking needless alarm over hard to avoid substances or situations. It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is. The first group includes substances from processed meat to asbestos, which all have convincing evidence showing they cause cancer, IARC says. Working overnight and consuming red meat are in the "probable" class, which means that there is limited evidence these substances or situations can cause cancer in humans and either better evidence showing they cause cancer in animals, or strong evidence showing that they have similar characteristics as other human carcinogens. The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing". Like aspartame, this means there is either limited evidence they can cause cancer in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, or strong evidence about the characteristics. The final group - "not classifiable" - means there is not enough evidence. "IARC is not a food safety body and their review of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive and is based heavily on widely discredited research," Frances Hunt-Wood, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), said. The body, whose members include Mars Wrigley, a Coca-Cola (KO.N) unit and Cargill, said it had "serious concerns with the IARC review, which may mislead consumers". The International Council of Beverages Associations' executive director Kate Loatman said public health authorities should be "deeply concerned" by the "leaked opinion", and also warned it "could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no- and low-sugar options." Aspartame has been extensively studied for years. Last year, an observational study in France among 100,000 adults showed that people who consumed larger amounts of artificial sweeteners – including aspartame – had a slightly higher cancer risk. It followed a study from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy in the early 2000s, which reported that some cancers in mice and rats were linked to aspartame. However, the first study could not prove that aspartame caused the increased cancer risk, and questions have been raised about the methodology of the second study, including by EFSA, which assessed it. Aspartame is authorised for use globally by regulators who have reviewed all the available evidence, and major food and beverage makers have for decades defended their use of the ingredient. The IARC said it had assessed 1,300 studies in its June review. Recent recipe tweaks by soft drinks giant Pepsico (PEP.O) demonstrate the struggle the industry has when it comes to balancing taste preferences with health concerns. Pepsico removed aspartame from sodas in 2015, bringing it back a year later, only to remove it again in 2020. Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, said the sources close to the IARC, which will help agencies, consumers and manufacturers draw firmer conclusions. But it will also likely ignite debate once again over the IARC's role, as well as the safety of sweeteners more generally. Last month, the WHO published guidelines advising consumers not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control. The guidelines caused a furore in the food industry, which argues they can be helpful for consumers wanting to reduce the amount of sugar in their diet. For more News and Features from A. I. Radio/TV News, visit, www. airadiotvnews. ca

And so we have reached the fourth and final episode featuring  Professor David Purser, a leading expert in fire toxicity. In this episode, we explore the complexities of nitrogen in fires, the impact of fire retardants on fire atmospheres, and the long-lasting hazards related to the consurgents and carcinogenic properties of smoke. We'll be discussing the different hazard zones associated with fire smoke and the potential risks they pose to people, buildings, and the environment. Discover how fire retardants can lead to higher yields of toxic products, and learn about the acute and chronic exposure risks of fire smoke in various scenarios. Professor Purser also shares his knowledge on the dangers of hazardous materials released in fires, such as organic nitrogen phosphorus materials, metals, mineral fibers, and radioactive polonium.Lastly, we'll delve into the carcinogenic substances found in fire smoke and their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). From hydrocarbons to ethylene oxide, we'll reveal the potential risks of these toxic compounds and their impact on our health. If you would like to first catch up on previous episodes (highly recommended!): https://www.firescienceshow.com/096-smoke-toxicity-part-1-why-fires-used-to-be-less-toxic-in-1950s-with-david-purser/https://www.firescienceshow.com/097-smoke-toxicity-part-2-asphyxiants-and-irritants-with-david-purser/https://www.firescienceshow.com/105-how-much-smoke-is-made-in-fires-and-how-we-measure-that-with-david-purser/

In May 2019, the husband and wife Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a federal court case against Monsanto. Both of them had developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow abnormally throughout the body. The farmers worked decades with the herbicide, which Monsanto claimed is safe to use. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as a “probable carcinogen.” And this was the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favour of the couple. Bayer AG had to pay a fine of $2 billion because it had acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup. One year after the merger, BAYER's share price was still cut in half.  The pharmaceutical giant had signed up for an ever-increasing burden of legal battles. In 2019, 18.000 lawsuits were pending in the US. Most of them due to cancer cases potentially linked to Roundup.  For numerous decades, Monsanto marketed their herbicide as safe to use for farmers and individuals. Most regulatory bodies categorize glyphosate as safe, including - Health Canada Why does the International Agency for Research on Cancer come to a different conclusion than all the other agencies? Possibly because they only consider “publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.” But apparently, the amount of independent studies on glyphosate-based pesticides is rather limited. How can the world's most-used pesticide have so few independent studies? Is this really a coincidence? The full script with all sources for this episode: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VO05Vrh37BUA9UoLnAOSJz1pdCF3tzkl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115780270029914491641&rtpof=true&sd=true !! Find other sources, key takeaways and links on our blog: ⁠⁠https://redtogreen.ghost.io/what-monsanto-teaches-us-about-biotech/⁠⁠ Support Red to Green ⁠ https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen⁠ Get funding for your food science research: ⁠https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung⁠ More info and links to resources on⁠ https://redtogreen.solutions/  ⁠ Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987 Connect with the host, Marina ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/⁠ Connect with the host, Frank ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/⁠ Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes!

Episode 50: In this episode, host Angie Gust talks about a new report on pesticides called "Merchants of Death". The authors, Stacy Malkan, Kendra Klein, and Anna Lappé, show that the pesticide industry has used disinformation, and a PR strategy including institutions, and often, the same individual players as that of the fossil fuel industry. In 2015, glyphosate was designated as a probable carcinogen by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Recent science has also linked glyphosate to lower birth weights among babies, reproductive health impacts, and other serious health concerns.  Turning to a related environmental issue. Did you know insect and bird populations are declining?  They are.  You can be part of the solution by creating more habitat for birds by planting native species and not overly tidying your yard. In recent years, conservation-minded landscapers came up with new ideas on the way yards should look. Consider starting a trend and make your back or front yard a real wildlife habitat.

Stacy Malkan, co-founder and managing editor of U.S. Right to Know, discusses a report she recently co-authored, Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide (2022) which uncovers astroturfing operations that Monsanto has exacted around the planet to embolden its hold over the agro-chemical industry. Malkan expounds on how Monsanto uses its wealth to saturate its agenda through universities, Nobel laureate scientists, professors, lawyers, and journalists in what she classifies as a “lockstep army.” Discussing California's Proposition 37, a 2012 ballot measure that would have required the labeling of genetically engineered food, Malkan notes how Monsanto threw $45 million in the space of one month in order to saturate media with its propaganda, reversing public support against this measure for which there had previously been 70% public support in favour. Detailing how Monsanto orchestrates its astroturf operations—fake grassroots groups that are intended to look real but which are in reality managed by third-party PR firms to give the veneer of independence—Malkan elaborates how Freedom to Farm was one such operation that emerged in the European Union in the aftermath of the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ruling that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Malkan fleshes out how how this astroturf operation was the creation of the PR firm FleishmanHillard whereby it employed 90 people across the EU “to recruit or look like or create the impression” that Freedom to Farm was a genuine grassroots effort led by farmers who warned of the “threat to farming” posed by restricting the use of glyphosate, when in fact this was all a massive PR theatre. Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe

Glyphosate is one of the most common ingredients in herbicides, and the main ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto's infamous weedkiller: Round Up. The latter is one of the worlds most widely used herbicides with various applications including: weed control in agriculture, vegetation control, as a crop desiccant, in consumer home gardens and lawns, and in massive aerial spraying to control illegal crops. It is also used extensively in home gardens and lawns, landscape, ornamental nursery, forestry, roadside and turf management. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in humans"; studies had confirmed it caused cancer in lab animals. However, the EPA maintains that glyphosate is safe for human use, despite multiple studies demonstrating otherwise. RoundUp and glyphosate-based products have had devastating impacts on our food systems, agriculture, public health, and ecosystem in the broadest sense. Join Kelly Ryerson as she reveals truths about glyphosate, what we need to do about it, and how we can create the better world we seek. While glyphosate continues to be a planetary health emergency, we as a collective, can catalyze change by making informed consumer choices and advocating against chemical products and farming practices that cause irreparable harm. While several plaintiffs have recently succeeded in winning massive verdicts in court, to redress harms they suffered from Roundup, it will take many more of us to fully eradicate not only Glyphosate, but all toxic chemicals for the sake of planetary health. Kelly Ryerson, Founder of Glyphosate Facts [http://www.glyphosatefacts.com], works at the intersection of agriculture, nutrition and health as a writer, speaker and policy consultant. She started the news site Glyphosate Facts as an educational resource to help spread awareness of the health impacts of chemical agriculture. She has a BA from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Carry Kim, Co-Host of EcoJustice Radio. An advocate for ecosystem restoration, indigenous lifeways, and a new humanity born of connection and compassion, she is a long-time volunteer for SoCal350, member of Ecosystem Restoration Camps, and a co-founder of the Soil Sponge Collective, a grassroots community organization dedicated to big and small scale regeneration of Mother Earth. For an extended interview and other benefits, become an EcoJustice Radio patron at https://www.patreon.com/posts/kelly-ryerson-of-77995849 Podcast Website: http://ecojusticeradio.org/ Podcast Blog: https://www.wilderutopia.com/category/ecojustice-radio/ Support the Podcast: https://www.patreon.com/ecojusticeradio Executive Producer: Jack Eidt Hosted by Carry Kim Intro By: Jessica Aldridge Engineer and Original Music: Blake Quake Beats Episode 162 Photo credit: Kelly Ryerson

All wireless devices including cell phones emit pulsed microwave radiation and electromagnetic frequencies or EMF's in order to connect with the network tower and communicate with other devices.  There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies linking prolonged EMF exposure to numerous negative health outcomes like DNA damage, infertility, depression, diabetes, heart irregularities and multiple types of cancer.    The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) and the World Health Organization classify EMF radiation as a Class 2B Carcinogen.  Also in 2018 a study done by the US National Toxicology Program(NTP) found “clear evidence” that mobile phone radiation led to an increased rate of cancer and genetic damage in rats.  United States Magazine Consumer Report, recommends that nobody should keep a phone in their pocket.  If phones were tested in pockets they would exceed the as tested exposure guidelines.    Today on DTH we will be discussing the history of EMF frequencies and how they effect our health. We'll be diving into the EMF time line starting from when it first rolled out and the notable illness statistics that coincide with it. We'll be learning more about the newest 5g rollout. And finally what we can do in our homes to mitigate frequency exposure as well as other solutions and super foods that can help support our bodies to mitigate EMF damage.  My guest joining me today is Matt Roeske, founder of Cultivate Elevate. Their mission is to bring back information that has been suppressed, that has caused our society to become sicker and weaker, through educating and empowering individuals to rise above the state of fear and realize that there are always solutions.    Discussion Topics: EMFs - what are they and when they became a mainstay in society How EMFs alter and affect our health EMF timeline and the relation to illness. Including notable corresponding events throughout the EMF rollout through today  5g roll out -what we need to know How to mitigate frequencies in our homes Solutions or superfoods that can help support and strengthen our bodies and help mitigate the damage from EMFs   PLEASE SUPPORT our work. It takes time and effort to make these videos. Every little bit helps!  **To donate/tip our channel, below through our Paypal. Paypal Donation Link: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6YECDNX33L4KQ   Contact Matt Roeske and check out his Super Food Products Here: Website: www.cultivateelevate.com Instagram: CultivateElevate2 Telegram: https://t.me/ElevateThyMind   My Epoch Times Article- Electrolytes and Covid: https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/electrolyte-deficiencies-provide-warning-signs-for-severe-covid_4949184.html   Books: The Invisible Rainbow https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Rainbow-History-Electricity-Life/dp/1645020096 The Zapping of America https://www.amazon.com/Zapping-America-Microwaves-Deadly-Coverup/dp/0393064271 Stay In Touch with Us! Instagram:   @DiscoveringTrueHealth Twitter:        @DTrueHealth  Facebook:   @discoveringtruhealth Rumble:      Discoveringtruehealth   Listen On:  Apple Podcast Spotify   Watch On: YouTube   www.discoveringtruehealth.com     LINKS: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf   https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html   https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY   https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ab/2014/198609/#conclusion   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20483835/   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118301403   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/       Medical disclaimer: Discovering True Health LLC does not provide medical advice. Discovering True Health and the content available on Discovering True Health's properties (discoveringtruehealth.com, YouTube, and other channels) do not provide a diagnosis or other recommendation for treatment and are not a substitute for the professional judgment of a healthcare professional in diagnosis and treatment of any person or animal. The determination of the need for medical services and the types of healthcare to be provided to a patient are decisions that should be made only by a physician or other licensed health care provider. Always seek the advice of a physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you have regarding a medical condition.

Dr. Jeff Burgess from the University of Arizona speaks with host Jim Burneka about the recent announcement from the World Health Organization on the occupation of firefighting and cancer. Dr. Burgess was one of 25 international experts that traveled to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) located in Lyons Paris this June to review the occupational classification of firefighting. On July 1, it was released that the occupational exposures obtained as a firefighter, has been upgraded to a Group 1 Carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans). More information on the recent IARC findings can be found here.

The global obesity rate has almost tripled since 1975. The World Health Organization reckons that worldwide 39% of adults are overweight, and 13% are obese. Too much body fat increases a person's chances of developing illnesses such as cancer. More than a dozen types of cancer are linked to excess body weight. Usually, obesity results from inherited, physiological and environmental factors, combined with diet and physical activity choices.Fortunately, even modest weight loss can improve or prevent the health problems associated with obesity. Public health actions to support healthier lifestyles include education, advertising bans, and higher taxes on sugar and food labels.Dr Elisabete Weiderpass, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) joins us for this episode of Let's Talk Cancer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Alcohol Alert, brought to you by The Institute of Alcohol Studies. In this edition:Public Health England releases a report that shows the shocking death statistics from alcohol in 2020, particularly due to alcoholic liver diseaseA Lancet study shows the huge number of cancer cases caused by alcohol across the world 🎵 Podcast feature 🎵An aspirational alcohol and cancer risk campaign launched in Australia 🎵 Podcast feature 🎵A study suggests early football matches lead to more drinking and subsequently more domestic violence The South African alcohol industry continues to battle the bansNew handbook released refuting the 7 main industry argumentsWe hope you enjoy our roundup of stories below: please feel free to share. Thank you.Subscribe to our podcastOur podcast is now available on all major platforms including Apple, Spotify, and Stitcher. Subscribe now and don’t miss any future releases. The ‘Listen to podcast app’ link above should take you to your preferred platform. Consumption, hospital admissions and mortality: Public Health England report on alcohol during the pandemicPublic Health England (PHE) released a report entitled ‘Monitoring alcohol consumption and harm during the COVID-19 pandemic’ on 15 July, which highlights the increase in alcohol harm during 2020. What it says about alcohol consumption With a shift from on-trade alcohol sales to home drinking, off-trade sales increased by 25% from 2019. The largest increase was beer sales, at a 31% increase, however all types of alcohol sales rose:Volume sales increase by alcohol type:With the heaviest 20% of drinkers accounting for 42% of the increase in purchasing, the report states that “This may present a risk that alcohol harm persists or worsens among people already at risk of experiencing harm”. PHE suggests that drinking patterns were polarised, with most people drinking the same as before the pandemic, and similar proportions of people drinking less and more. How did this affect hospital admissions?Admissions due to alcohol highlight the complexities around access to healthcare during the pandemic. Although unplanned admissions decreased by 3.2%, that does not suggest a reduction in harm. Instead, it is likely due to the ‘lockdown effect’ of people wanting to ease pressure on the NHS and also being fearful of catching COVID in hospital.Whereas admissions due to alcohol-related mental and behavioural disorders fell, unplanned admissions for alcoholic liver disease increased by 13.5%. The impact on mortality This increase in alcoholic liver disease admissions led to a dramatic 20% increase in alcohol-specific deaths, with 33% of deaths being among the most deprived societal group. Despite hospital admissions for mental and behavioural disorders seeing a drop, there was a 10.8% increase in deaths from these disorders caused by alcohol. Alcohol poisoning deaths also saw an increase – of 15.4%. Dr Katherine Severi, Chief Executive, Institute of Alcohol Studies, said:“The evidence to support policy action is clear: tackling ultra-cheap alcohol through minimum unit pricing (MUP) and alcohol duty reforms will save lives and reduce costs for the NHS. Scotland has already witnessed a reduction in alcohol-specific deaths following the introduction of MUP in 2018, and with Wales adopting this measure it makes no sense for England to be left behind.”“We also need to see better information provided to consumers about the health risks linked to alcohol, including the risk of breast and bowel cancer. The Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines must be present on all alcohol labels and adverts, to ensure the public are fully-equipped to make informed decisions about their drinking.”The authors of the report concluded that:“Tackling alcohol consumption and harm must be an essential part of the UK government’s COVID-19 recovery plan, given that tackling geographic health disparities are part of the government’s Build Back Better plans.”741,300 cancer cases a year worldwide attributable to alcohol🎵 Podcast feature 🎵 Researchers at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (part of the World Health Organization), have found that over 740,000 cancer cases each year, or – 4.1% – are directly caused by alcohol consumption. In the UK this means 17,000 cases each year. Alcohol causes cancer in a number of ways, including altering DNA, damaging carcinogen metabolites, and altering hormone regulators. The study found that men accounted for 568,700 of the cases, or 77%. Most of the difference can be explain by different levels of consumption, with men globally consuming over double the amount of alcohol that women consume –  1.7 daily drinks compared to 0.73. Of course, this varies across world regions, as do the levels of consumption.Comparison of men and women’s alcohol consumption and attributable cancer casesHowever, the report highlights that with an increase in women involved in employment across the world, and therefore increased resources, women are consuming more alcohol. If this continues, we could see a shift in the proportion of cancer cases. This is particularly poignant when you consider the alcohol industry’s targeting of women as a market for growth, especially in emerging markets such as India. Professor Jeff Collin discussed this at our sustainability seminar, which can you watch from here. We spoke to lead author Harriet Rumgay on our podcast, who said:“Alcohol industry lobbying parallels the tactics of the tobacco industry. It took so long for any kind of sanctions against the tobacco industry after we knew for decades about its links to harm. We need to make policymakers aware of how important it is for our environments to support healthy choices, and to not have such pressures from the industry.”An important point that the report makes is that these cancer cases are not simply among those who drink heavy or risky amounts (>60g and 20-60g of ethanol a day respectively). Moderate drinking accounts for 14% of the cancer cases, showing that when it comes to cancer risk, there is no safe level of consumption. The authors draw attention to WHO’s ‘best buys’ for tackling non-communicable diseases, including policies to increase taxation, limit availability, and reduce marketing of alcohol brands. Rumgay said that a top-down approach is required by governments to increase awareness regarding cancer risks and to reduce harm. Dr Sadie Boniface, Head of Research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, said: “The results are in line with other studies, and scientists already knew that alcohol causes seven types of cancer. However there is low public awareness of this risk, particularly for breast cancer. The forthcoming consultation on alcohol labelling will be a real opportunity to introduce independent health information on alcohol products, so consumers can make fully informed decisions about their drinking.”A top-down approach in Australia raises awareness of cancer risk: ‘Alcohol & Cancer Go Together’🎵 Podcast feature 🎵 A health campaign that aims to educate the public about the risk of alcohol attributable cancer is expanding across Australia, with the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) leading the campaign. The stated focus is to “reduce alcohol use by increasing awareness of alcohol-caused cancer”. In 2010 Western Australia launched an alcohol and cancer risk campaign called ‘Spread’, which received international recognition for its effects on behaviour change. An independent study of 83 English-language alcohol harm reduction ads found that ‘Spread’ was the most motivational at reducing alcohol consumption. Following the success of Western Australia’s campaign, Victoria state launched its own version, and now Australian Capital Territory is following suit with the campaign ‘Alcohol & Cancer Go Together’. FARE is building upon the previous successful campaigns and incorporating the new alcohol guidelines, which suggest consuming no more than 10 standard drinks a week and no more than four standard drinks in one day. The campaign will launch for an initial 10-week period across TV, social media, Spotify, YouTube, and outdoor media, to:We spoke to FARE’s Chief Executive, Caterina Giorgi, who highlighted that the dominant messaging in Australia comes from the alcohol industry and has been particularly focused on drinking to cope with COVID. She argues that:“These awareness campaigns that point to the risk and reasons why reducing drinking is so important, are vital to counter that excessive [alcohol] marketing that goes on.” Earlier football matches lead to increased alcohol consumption and domestic violence incidents A team at London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance analysed police data to better understand how football matches affect domestic violence, and whether a change in violence is due to heightened emotional states or increased alcohol consumption.They found that earlier football matches allow more drinking time and subsequently increase domestic violence. As the Guardian points out, “the findings raise questions about previous police requests to have some contentious games played earlier in the day”.The data consisted of police calls and crime over an eight-year period in the Greater Manchester area and was compared to data on Manchester United and Manchester City football matches. This totalled almost 800 games. The LSE team found that during the two-hour duration of the game, domestic violence incidents decreased by 5%, which they said suggests a “substituting effect of football and domestic violence”. However following the game, incidents increased by 2.8% each hour and peaked 10-12 hours later. As there was no change in domestic violence relating to the outcome of the game (win or loss), and no change caused by sober perpetrators, the team concluded that the increase in violence is due to the increase in alcohol consumption. There was no increase in violence when games kicked-off at 7pm, so the researchers say: “Scheduling games later in the evening and implementing policies that reduce drinking can prevent a majority of the football related abuse from occurring.”This study highlights the multitude of factors that need to be considered when implementing policies aimed at reducing violence. As study author Tom Kirchmaier said:“what we actually substitute is a kind of visible crime for invisible crime. You have less crime around the stadium and so on, but you have issues more than eight hours later at home”. There will undoubtedly be studies that look at the Euro 2020 Championship, alcohol consumption, and domestic violence. With the COVID-19 pandemic meaning matches were predominantly watched from home, it will be interesting to see how domestic violence incidents were affected.  Alcohol industry in South Africa: an ongoing battleAt the end of June, South Africa implemented its fourth alcohol ban – which was then extended in mid-July – as the country continues to struggle to tackle coronavirus infections.A few days later, the South African Medical Research Council released a study that found that full restrictions of alcohol reduced unnatural deaths by 26%, around 42 deaths a day. Where there was no full restriction, unnatural deaths were not significantly reduced. The study did state that:“while complete restrictions on sale of alcohol might avert unnatural deaths, long-term implementation of this policy would require significant trade-offs in terms of economic activity, as well as lives and livelihoods”.Professor Charles Parry, co-author of the study, said the study adds to the body of evidence that shows policymakers should be adopting evidence-based strategies known to reduce alcohol harm:“These include stricter advertising and promotions restrictions, minimum unit pricing, increased excise taxes, raising the minimum drinking age, and restrictions on container sizes among others.”The alcohol industry was quick to hit back against the government ban, employing a number of known tactics aimed at undermining the scientific rationale and muddying the argument. These claims have been widely publicised, and touch on a point made by Aadilelah Maker Deidericks (Southern African Alcohol Policy Alliance, SAAPA) during the IAS sustainability seminar regarding the media exposure the industry gets compared to alcohol policy advocates – watch from here. The South African industry tactics and arguments include:The stated aim of the ban is to reduce hospital admissions due to alcohol-related trauma, in order to ease pressure on healthcare services and allow them to focus on tackling the pandemic. The industry argued that the Government did not consult with them when deciding on the ban, and that their research was ignored. The judge who dismissed South African Breweries’ court claim said that in a state of disaster the government has the legislation to ban alcohol and that a lack of full and proper consultation is justified.Arguments relating to looting and illicit sales are far more complex than simply due to the alcohol ban, and points at the disingenuous position the industry takes. For instance, since the imprisonment of ex-President Jacob Zuma, there has been widespread violence and rioting in the country after initial protests at his imprisonment turned into a wave of looting. The looting wasn’t directly due to the alcohol ban. Maurice Smithers of SAAPA in late June argued that the main issue was of on-trade alcohol (pubs, bars, and restaurants) and not so much off-trade. He argued that people should be allowed to take alcohol home, as it is when people drink out that “the virus spreads, where people get involved in interpersonal violence and end up in hospital with alcohol-related trauma incidents”.  ‘The Seven Key Messages of the Alcohol Industry’A new publication looks at the strategies and arguments used by the alcohol industry to defend their products and prevent or delay effective harm reduction policies.The book states that “certain projects and strategies look constructive, but are ultimately aimed at preventing or delaying government action”. If you’d like a hard copy of the book, please follow this link. The UK Alcohol Alert (incorporating Alliance News) is designed and produced by The Institute of Alcohol Studies. Please click the image below to visit our website and find out more about us and what we do, or the ‘Contact us’ button. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit instalcstud.substack.com

Nicolas Pineault is the man behind ElectroSmogRx and he joined us today to talk about the damaging effects of 5G, wireless radiation and most specifically how EMF (electromagnetic fields) radiation is affecting our cellular biology. As a culture there's no questioning anymore about what's offered to us. If some new technology gets released to the public the adoption rate is just about 100%. Nobody questions if it's something we should add to our lives. We just start using it with no forethought about how this new technology is going to affect us. We didn't even talk much about blue light and how the blue light being emitted from the screens is affecting the DHA levels in our bodies and how that affects the voltage in the mitochondria. We also didn't talk about how cell phones are being used to track everything we do. These companies are spying you on my friends. Something else to consider is how this is affecting our brains, our nervous system (constantly seeking new dopamine hits) and our posture (have you ever heard of text neck?). All of what I said above doesn't even take into consideration the actual content of what's being viewed on the screens themselves. This issue is multilayered my friends. Nicolas and I talked for over and hour just about the radiation coming off the screens is affecting our health. Technology (especially smartphone and wireless technology) is so deep and it's affecting our health on many layers that nobody is talking about. In this show with Nicolas Pineault we explore some of these issues but my recommendation to you is to dramatically reduce the time each day that you uses these devices. Cancer was first associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in 1979 when Wertheimer and Leeper reported that children dying from cancer resided more often in homes believed to be exposed to higher EMF than did healthy control children. In 2002, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (12). The Working Group classified ELF-EMFs as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies in relation to childhood leukemia. In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks reviewed electromagnetic fieldsExit Disclaimer in general, as well as cell phones in particular. It found that, overall, epidemiologic studies of extremely low frequency fields show an increased risk of childhood leukemia. Even though we only talked about the EMF radiation part of all this, we still barely even scratched the surface! I hope you enjoy this show. Thanks for listening and please pass it on to your friends! One Last Thing! As always your support via your donations and bookmarking our Amazon link to use each time you purchase is how we keep our show going. Thank you for bookmarking our Amazon link even if you're not buying anything right now! :) About Nicolas Pineault Nicolas Pineault is a health journalist who has published more than 1,500 online articles through a daily newsletter called Nick & Gen's Healthy Life. In 2017, he authored The Non-Tinfoil Guide To EMFs — an unconventional book which combines common sense and humor to tackle the very serious topic of electromagnetic pollution and its effects on human health. http://www.electrosmogrx http://www.NonTinfoilEMF.com Sponsor For This Episode: Extreme Health Academy Use code EHR14 to start your free 14 day trial Cymbiotica DHA BARF World Raw Dog Food Biomat For Healing Qigong Energy Course The Relax FAR Infrared Sauna IMRS PEMF Healing Pad Links For This Episode: Cell Tower Radiation Is Linked To Type Of Damage In Human Blood That Predicts Cancer Power density of the "Provision" TSA Scanners

High-fiber diet may play a role in controlling the inflammation associated with COVID-19 In vitro treatment of cells with these molecules reduced the expression of a gene that plays a key role in viral cell entry and a cytokine receptor. University of Campinas (Brazil), March 30, 2021 A study conducted at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, shows that compounds produced by gut microbiota (bacteria and other microorganisms) during fermentation of insoluble fiber from dietary plant matter do not affect the ability of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 to enter and replicate in cells lining the intestines. However, while in vitro treatment of cells with these molecules did not significantly influence local tissue infection, it reduced the expression of a gene that plays a key role in viral cell entry and a cytokine receptor that favors inflammation. An article reporting the findings is published in the journal Gut Microbes. Up to 50% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Such symptoms are detected in 17.6% of severe cases. They are partly associated with viral entry into intestinal cells resulting in alterations to their normal functions. In addition, recent studies point to major changes in patients’ gut microbiota, including a decrease in levels of bacteria that secrete short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) by fermenting dietary fiber. SCFAs are important to colon health and maintenance of intestinal barrier integrity. The researchers decided to confirm whether SFCAs directly affected the infection of intestinal cells by SARS-CoV-2. Previous studies had suggested alterations in gut microbiota and its products could modify an infected subject’s immune response. “In earlier research, we found in animals that compounds produced by gut microbiota help protect the organism against respiratory infection. The model used there was respiratory syncytial virus [RSV], which causes bronchiolitis [inflammation of the small airways in the lung] and frequently infects children. Similar results have been obtained by other research groups in studies of different respiratory diseases,” said Patrícia Brito Rodrigues, who has a doctoral scholarship from FAPESP and is joint first author of the article with postdoctoral fellow Livia Bitencourt Pascoal. Rodrigues conducted the research as part of her doctorate at UNICAMP’s Institute of Biology (IB) with a scholarship from FAPESP.  In the latest study, healthy colon tissue and epithelial cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory and subjected to a battery of tests. “Viral load wasn’t reduced and was the same in cells and tissue treated with SCFAs and in untreated samples. However, treated intestinal biopsy samples displayed a significant decrease in expression of the gene DDX58 [an innate immune system receptor that detects viral nucleic acids and activates a signaling cascade that results in production of pro-inflammatory cytokines] and the interferon-lambda receptor, which mediates anti-viral activity. There was also a decrease in expression of the protein TMPRSS2, which is important to viral cell entry,” said Raquel Franco Leal, a professor at UNICAMP’s School of Medical Sciences (FCM), supported by FAPESP and co-principal investigator for the study with Marco Aurélio Ramirez Vinolo, a professor at IB-UNICAMP, also supported by FAPESP. Protection against inflammation The researchers took colon tissue samples from 11 patients without COVID-19. They also tested epithelial cells that line the intestines and are in close contact with gut microbiota. Tissue and cell samples were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in IB-UNICAMP’s Laboratory of Emerging Virus Studies (LEVE), a Biosafety Level III (BSL-3) facility led by José Luiz Proença Módena, a professor at IB-UNICAMP and a co-author of the article. The tissues and cells were treated with a mixture of acetate, propionate and butyrate, compounds produced by gut microbiota metabolization of SCFAs present in dietary fiber. The treatment did not alter viral load in colon biopsies or cells, nor were there any changes in cell wall permeability and integrity.  “That doesn’t exclude the possibility of significant action by SCFAs on infection by SARS-CoV-2. The anti-viral effects could depend on interaction with other cells in the organism,” Rodrigues said. “We’ll continue our investigation in animal models since the action of these compounds on the infection could depend on a more complete system than the samples we used in vitro [isolated cells and tissues].” Other tests involving non-treated infected biopsy samples showed an increase in expression of the gene DDX58, which encodes an important viral receptor, and of interferon-beta (IFN-beta), a pro-inflammatory molecule that participates in the cytokine storm associated with severe cases of COVID-19. “Alterations in genes associated with virus recognition and response during intestinal infection may be relevant to the onset of the inflammatory chain,” Leal said. “In this context, it will be important to deepen the analysis of the effects of SCFAs with these parameters, as this could be significant in severe stages of the disease.”     Glycine-NAC combo improves multiple defects in aging to boost strength and cognition in older humans Baylor School of Medicine, March 29, 2021 A pilot human clinical trial conducted by researchers at Baylor College of Medicine reveals that supplementation with GlyNAC—a combination of glycine and N-acetylcysteine as precursors of the natural antioxidant glutathione—could improve many age-associated defects in older humans to improve muscle strength and cognition, and promote healthy aging. Published in the journal Clinical and Translational Medicine, the results of this study show that older humans taking GlyNAC for 24 weeks saw improvements in many characteristic defects of aging, including glutathione deficiency, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, insulin resistance, endothelial dysfunction, body fat, genomic toxicity, muscle strength, gait speed, exercise capacity and cognitive function. The benefits declined after stopping supplementation for 12 weeks. GlyNAC supplementation was well tolerated during the study period. "There is limited understanding as to why these defects occur in older humans, and effective interventions to reverse these defects are currently limited or lacking," said corresponding author endocrinologist Dr. Rajagopal Sekhar, associate professor of medicine in the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism at Baylor. For the last 20 years, Sekhar and his team have been studying natural aging in older humans and aged mice. Their work brings mitochondria, known as the batteries of the cell, as well as free radicals and glutathione to the table in discussions about why we age. Mitochondrial dysfunction and aging Mitochondria generate energy needed for supporting cellular functions by burning fat and sugar from foods, therefore mitochondrial health is critically important for life. Sekhar believes that improving the health of malfunctioning mitochondria in aging is the key. As mitochondria generate energy, they produce waste products such as free radicals. These highly reactive molecules can damage cells, membranes, lipids, proteins and DNA. Cells depend on antioxidants, such as glutathione, the most abundant antioxidant in our cells, to neutralize these toxic free radicals. Failing to neutralize free radicals leads to harmful and damaging oxidative stress that can affect mitochondrial function. Interestingly, glutathione levels in older people are much lower than those in younger people, and the levels of oxidative stress are much higher. Animal studies conducted in the Sekhar lab have shown that restoring glutathione levels by providing GlyNAC reverses glutathione deficiency, reduces oxidative stress and fully restores mitochondrial function in aged mice. "In previous work we showed that supplementing HIV patients with GlyNAC improved multiple deficits associated with premature aging observed in those patients," Sekhar said. "In this study, we wanted to understand the effects of GlyNAC supplementation on many age-associated defects in older adults." GlyNAC improves several hallmark defects in aging The world population of older humans is rapidly increasing and with it comes an increase in many age-related illnesses. To understand what causes unhealthy aging, scientific research has identified nine hallmark defects which are believed to contribute to the aging process. "It is believed that correcting these aging hallmarks could improve or reverse many age-related disorders and help people age in a healthier way," Sekhar said. "However, we do not fully understand why these hallmark defects happen, and there are currently no solutions to fix even a single hallmark defect in aging." This is where Sekhar's trial results become encouraging, because GlyNAC supplementation for 24 weeks appears to improve four of the nine aging hallmark defects. To further understand whether GlyNAC holds the keys to mitochondrial recovery and more, Sekhar and his team conducted this pilot clinical trial. "We worked with eight older adults 70 to 80 years of age, comparing them with gender-matched younger adults between 21 and 30 years old," Sekhar said. "We measured glutathione in red-blood cells, mitochondrial fuel-oxidation, plasma biomarkers of oxidative stress and oxidant damage, inflammation, endothelial function, glucose and insulin, gait-speed, muscle strength, exercise capacity, cognitive tests, gene-damage, glucose-production and muscle-protein breakdown rates and body composition. Before taking GlyNAC, all these measurements were abnormal in older adults when compared with those in younger people." The older participants took GlyNAC for 24 weeks, and then stopped it for 12 weeks. Sekhar and his colleagues repeated the above measurements at the halfway point at 12 weeks, after 24 weeks of taking GlyNAC, and again after stopping GlyNAC for 12 weeks. "We are very excited by the results," Sekhar said. "After taking GlyNAC for 24 weeks, all these defects in older adults improved and some reversed to the levels found in young adults." The researchers also determined that older adults tolerated GlyNAC well for 24 weeks. The benefits, however, declined after stopping GlyNAC supplementation for 12 weeks. "I am particularly encouraged by the improvements in cognition and muscle strength," Sekhar said. "Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are serious medical conditions affecting memory in older people and leading to dementia, and there are no effective solutions for these disorders. We are exploring the possibility that GlyNAC could help with these conditions by conducting two pilot randomized clinical trials to test whether GlyNAC supplementation could improve defects linked to cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease and in MCI, and possibly improve cognitive function." "The overall findings of the current study are highly encouraging," Sekhar said. "They suggest that GlyNAC supplementation could be a simple and viable method to promote and improve healthy aging in older adults. We call this the 'Power of 3' because we believe that it takes the combined benefits of glycine, NAC and glutathione to reach this far reaching and widespread improvement. We also have completed a randomized clinical trial on supplementing GlyNAC vs. placebo in older adults and those results will be forthcoming soon."   Association found between consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks and colorectal cancer risk Barcelona Institute for Global Health (Spain), March 23, 2021 Consumption of ultra-processed foods and drink could increase the risk of developing colorectal cancer. This was the conclusion of a large study undertaken by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), a centre supported by the "la Caixa" Foundation, based on questionnaires about food behaviours completed by around 8,000 people in Spain. The study, the first of its kind in the country, also analysed the relationship between ultra-processed food and drink products and two other cancers; while no association was observed with prostate cancer, in the case of breast cancer a higher risk was observed in the sub-group of former and current smokers who reported a diet high in ultra-processed products. Social, economic and industrial changes have driven a rise in ultra-processed food and drink consumption, which currently accounts for between 25% and 50% of the total energy intake in diets in Europe and in high- and middle-income countries. The Nova classification system groups all foods and drinks into four categories according to how much processing they undergo. Ultra-processed foods--those that undergo the most processing--are industrial formulations with more than five ingredients which usually contain additional substances, such as sugar, fats, salt and additives. Examples of products in this category include sugary soft drinks, ready meals and mass-produced industrial baked goods.  Several studies have linked the consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks to health risk factors, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and an increased risk of premature death. There are only a few studies on the relationship of these food products with cancer and the results are not entirely conclusive. A French study found an association between the consumption of ultra-processed foods and an increased cancer risk. A Canadian study found an increased risk of developing prostate cancer with a higher intake of processed foods, but not with ultra-processed foods.  The aim of the present study was to assess whether the consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks is associated with an increased risk of colorectal, breast or prostate cancer. To this end, the researchers undertook a case-control study of 7,843 adults living in different Spanish provinces: half of the participants had a diagnosis of colorectal (1,852), breast (1,486) or prostate cancer (953); and the other half were people with the same characteristics who did not have cancer. Data were obtained from the multicase-control study MCC-Spain. Dietary data was collected using a validated questionnaire designed to evaluate the frequency of consumption of usual food and drink items over a one-year period. The results were then classified according to the level of processing using the Nova classification.  The study, published in Clinical Nutrition, concluded that the consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer: a 10% increment in the consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks was found to be associated with an 11% increase in the risk of developing colorectal cancer.  Dora Romaguera, first author of the study and researcher at ISGlobal, the Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Illes Balears (IdISBA) and the CIBEROBN, says that this relationship can be explained, in part, "by the low intake of fibre, fruits and vegetables, which are known to offer protection against colorectal cancer, among people who eat a lot of ultra-processed foods, but also by the additives and other substances with carcinogenic potential typically used in processed food products." In the case of breast cancer, no strong relationship was found, but an association was observed in the group of current and former smokers. Romaguera explains that "smoking is a risk factor for breast cancer, and smoking and certain dietary factors, such as the consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages, are known to have synergetic effects on cancer development." No association was found between prostate cancer and a diet high in ultra-processed products. "This finding is not surprising and is consistent with the results of previous studies of dietary factors and prostate cancer risk, in which no link was found," adds Romaguera. Colorectal and Breast Cancer Cases: Less Healthy Diets The results of the study showed that people with breast and colorectal cancer, but not those with prostate cancer, reported less healthy diets than people without cancer in the control group. "We found differences in terms of their intake of energy, fibre, energy density and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages was higher among colorectal and breast cancer cases than in the controls", says ISGlobal researcher Sílvia Fernández, joint first author of the study. The food groups that accounted for the largest proportion of ultra-processed food consumption were sugary beverages (35%), sugary products (19%), ready-to-eat foods (16%) and processed meats (12%). Processed meats have already been classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, according to Pilar Amiano, researcher at the Guipúzcoa Public Health Service, which coordinated the study: "ultra-processed foods and drinks in general are not yet classified as carcinogenic because the aim of the IARC was not to assess the overall risk of an individual's diet, but rather to focus on specific components that might be dangerous, such as processed meats".  She goes on to say that, in light of the results of the present study and the current scientific evidence on the health risks associated with ultra-processed foods and drinks, in particular with respect to cancer, the authors believe "that food and public health policies and the IARC should already be taking food processing into account and discouraging the consumption of ultra-processed products".     Hyperbaric oxygen therapy impact on telomere length and immunosenescence Tel Aviv University (Israel), March 23, 2021   In a scientifically verified approach, signalling an important breakthrough in the study of aging,  Tel Aviv University and The Sagol Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Research at Shamir Medical Centerannounced today that, for the first time in humans, two key biological hallmarks of aging, telomere length shortening, and accumulation of senescent cells, can be reversed. The prospective clinical trial, published in peer-reviewed Journal Aging,  utilizes Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy protocols to demonstrate cellular level improvement in healthy aging adults. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy targets aging as a reversible disease The prospective clinical trial is part of a comprehensive aging research program taking place in Israel. It was conducted by Prof. Shai Efrati, MD, from the Faculty of Medicine and Sagol School of Neuroscience at Tel Aviv University, and Amir Hadanny, MD, Chief Medical Research Officer of The Sagol Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Research and co-author of the study. Using a specific protocol of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), telomere length was significantly increased and senescent cells were reduced in a population of healthy aging subjects. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Aging. Titled: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Increases Telomere Length and Decreases Immunosenescence in Isolated Blood Cells: A Prospective Trial. A significant breakthrough in the study of aging The biological deterioration of aging is cited as a major risk factor for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease. At the cellular level, two key hallmarks of the aging process are: The shortening of telomere length of approximately 20-40 bases per year, which is associated with a variety of serious life-threatening illnesses; and The accumulation of senescent cells, the so-called “old malfunctioning cells,” inhibit cell proliferation. The accumulation of senescence contributes to many age-associated conditions and illnesses, while the elimination of those cells can reverse them, as shown in previous animal studies.    The first study to evaluate telomere length and senescence This is the first study to evaluate whether hyperbaric oxygen therapy can affect telomere length and senescence using a specific HBOT protocol. The trial included 35 healthy independent adults aged 64 and older. They did not undergo any lifestyle, diet, or medication adjustments. How was the study conducted? Each patient received 60 daily hyperbaric oxygen therapy sessions over the course of 90 days. Whole blood samples were collected prior to treatment, at the 30th and 60th session, and one to two weeks following the last HBOT session, to assess peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs) telomere length and senescence. The holy grail of the biology of aging “After dedicating our HBOT research to exploring its impact on the areas of brain functionality and age-related cognitive decline, we have now uncovered for the first time in humans hyperbaric oxygen therapy’s biological effects at the cellular level in healthy aging adults,” said Prof. Shai Efrati. “Since telomere shortening is considered the ‘Holy Grail’ of the biology of aging, many pharmacological and environmental interventions are being extensively explored in the hopes of enabling telomere elongation.” Significant improvement of telomere length “The significant improvement of telomere length shown during and after these unique hyperbaric oxygen therapy protocols provides the scientific community with a new foundation of understanding that aging can, indeed, be targeted and reversed at the basic cellular-biological level.” Improvement in just three months Results found that the telomere length of T helper, T cytotoxic, natural killer, and B cells increased significantly. They rose by over 20 percent, following HBOT. The most significant change was in B cells, which increased during the 30th session, 60th session, and post HBOT by: 25.68%±40.42 (p=0.007) 29.39%±23.39 (p=0.0001) 37.63%±52.73 (p=0.007) In addition, there was a significant decrease in the number of senescent T helpers by -37.30%±33.04 post-HBOT (P

รายการ Dr.Amp Podcast เรื่องเล่าสุขภาพดี กับ หมอแอมป์ ตอน "5 เคล็ดลับสุขภาพดี เปลี่ยนคุณเป็นคนใหม่" โดย นพ. ตนุพล วิรุฬหการุญ -ประธานเจ้าหน้าที่ปฏิบัติการ และ ผู้อำนวยการ BDMS Welness Clinic -ผู้อำนวยการ RoyalLife โรงพยาบาลกรุงเทพ -นายกสมาคมแพทย์ฟื้นฟูสุขภาพและส่งเสริมการศึกษาโรคอ้วน กรุงเทพ (BARSO)

Cell phones outnumber people globally and they have become an important conduit through which we interact with our world, both personally and professionally. Day or night, it’s rare that our cell phone is not by our side, and yet it’s likely that you’ve been told to do precisely the opposite, due to concerns that cell phones might increase your risk of developing cancer. These concerns are partly grounded in the decisions of health authorities, including the classification of the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Whether cell phones put our health at risk is an epidemiologic question that has been hotly debated for well over a decade. In this episode, host Bryan James is joined by Arijit Nandi and special guest Dr. David Savitz, a Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University, to distill this evidence and discuss some of the most recent recommendations regarding the health effects of cell phone use.

In 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) pubished a report declaring red meat as "probably carcinogenic". Everyone assumes they had good reasons for making such a statement, backed up by rigorous scientific research utilizing the best available evidence. Everyone is wrong on that one. Tim Rees, registered nutritionist, published an article (https://tim-rees.com/why-is-the-world...) that rigorously takes apart the science used to lead to the...

In 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) pubished a report declaring red meat as "probably carcinogenic". Everyone assumes they had good reasons for making such a statement, backed up by rigorous scientific research utilizing the best available evidence. Everyone is wrong on that one. Tim Rees, registered nutritionist, published an article (https://tim-rees.com/why-is-the-world...) that rigorously takes apart the science used to lead to the...

In 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) pubished a report declaring red meat as "probably carcinogenic". Everyone assumes they had good reasons for making such a statement, backed up by rigorous scientific research utilizing the best available evidence. Everyone is wrong on that one. Tim Rees, registered nutritionist, published an article (https://tim-rees.com/why-is-the-world...) that rigorously takes apart the science used to lead to the...

Ludwina Dautovic, Founder and CEO of The Room Xchange, in conversation with Maz Compton - Author of The Social Rebellion.Maz and Ludwina talk about our relationship with alcohol and how sometimes you need a break and sometimes you need a break-up!In this episode we discuss:5.51 - Maz landing her first dream job at MTV7.00 - Landing her next dream jobs on National Drive Radio and Sydney Breakfast Show10.00 - Alcohol became part of her job description14.00 - Realisation that alcohol will not change your situation or circumstances16.10 - You don't need to hit rock bottom to have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol18.00 - On one end of the scale you have sobriety on the other end you have alcoholism. The majority of the population are somewhere in between. 19.33 - Alcoholic beverages are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 1 carcin​​​​ogen19.58 - Alcohol can increase the chance of breast cancer in woman by 40%21.29 - 'This Naked Mind' by Annie Grace talks about the neurological approach to alcohol consumption22.58 - Maz described her relationship with alcohol as if it were a person she was in a relationship with 24.45 - Sometimes you need a break and sometimes you need a break up26.21 - Why do we give our power over to substances? 27.00 - Alcohol has become a right of passage. It needs to shift.28.12 - I love being the social rebel29.05 - One of the reasons she drank is because she felt lonely29.56 - Maz is the least bored she's ever been and is incredibly productive. 30.00 - She's more creative since she stopped drinkingAbout Maz ComptonWhat started out as a passion for music and entertaining, gloriously landed her a dream job as a VJ with MTV. Maz was the original host of its flagship show Total Request Live (TRL). During her 5 years with MTV, Maz travelled the globe attending music festivals and interviewed pretty much every celebrity including her girl crush Sandra Bullock, super producer and hip hop star Kanye West, from the biggest bands including Coldplay, Foo Fighters and Red Hot Chili Peppers to pop icons Lady Gaga and Katy Perry and Aussie stars Wolfmother, Guy Sebastian and Margot Robbie. Back in Australia she anchored the MTV Video Music Awards and ARIA Red Carpet Specials and was nominated for most popular female presenter in 2008.Maz found herself on a late night radio show in 2010 and rose to the heights of radio fame in just a few. By 2014 she was crowned Cosmopolitan's Women of the Year in Radio, then in 2015, Maz headed to the US for RedBull TV to host the their global live TV events and launched her own digital interview series as the entertainment specialist with rebranded digital platform Yahoo 7 Be. and A couple of years later she wrote a book about her time in the spotlight, UnEdited. After over a decade of fun making headlines and memories in media, Maz has redirected her attention to health and wellness. She is a qualified Wellness Coach, owns a fitness studio and is currently studying a degree in psychology. Her second book, The Social Rebellion, has been instrumental in the alcohol-free living movement. Written to empower people to redefine their relationship with alcohol, The Social Rebellion has had countless messages of praise.

Reference: 1.Lupton JR, Brooks J, Butte N, Caballero B, Flatt J, Fried S. Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA. 2002;5:589-768. 2.Janpaeng J, Santivarangkna C, Suttisansanee U, Emsawasd V, editors. Effect of probiotic fermentation on bioactivity in fermented soy milk. The International Conference on Food and Applied Bioscience proceeding book; 2018: Agro-Industry, Chiang Mai University Thailand. 3.Turner ND, Lupton JR. Dietary Fiber. Advances in Nutrition. 2011;2(2):151-2. 4.McDougall J. Plant foods have a complete amino acid composition. Circulation. 2002;105(25):e197. 5.Eating more plant protein and dairy instead of red meat may improve heart health. American Heart Association EPI | LIFESTYLE 2020 Scientific Sessions. Available at: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/eating-more-plant-protein-and-dairy-instead-of-red-meat-may-improve-heart-health [Accessed 5 May 2020]. 6.Kim H, Caulfield LE, Garcia‐Larsen V, Steffen LM, Coresh J, Rebholz CM. Plant‐Based Diets Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, and All‐Cause Mortality in a General Population of Middle‐Aged Adults. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2019;8(16):e012865. 7.Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. (2015). World Health Organization: WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ [Accessed 7 May. 2020] 8.Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO. (2015). [ebook] Health editor, BBC News website. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621 [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 9.IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. (2015). International Agency for Research on Cancer: IARC. Available at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media- centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 10.Known and Probable Human Carcinogens. (2016). The American Cancer Society. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 11.Plutonium radioactive. (2006). National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Available at: https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+6465 [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 12.สารหนูและแคดเมียม ในอาหารทะเล…ปลอดภัยต่อการบริโภคหรือไม่?. นุชนาถ รังคดิลก, สุมลธา หนูคาบแก้วและจุฑามาศ สัตยวิวัฒน์. (2015). http://www.eht.sc.mahidol.ac.th/article/1657 [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 13.Marsh KA, Munn EA, Baines SK. Protein and vegetarian diets. Med J Aust. 2013;199(4 Suppl):S7-S10. 14.Rice, brown, with beans. (2020). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service. Available at: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/786365/nutrients [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 15.Ruairi Robertson. (2017). The 9 Healthiest Beans and Legumes You Can Eat. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/healthiest-beans-legumes [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 16.Rizzo G, Baroni L. Soy, soy foods and their role in vegetarian diets. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):43. 17.Han KK, Soares Jr JM, Haidar MA, De Lima GR, Baracat EC. Benefits of soy isoflavone therapeutic regimen on menopausal symptoms. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;99(3):389-94. 18.Seaweed, spirulina, dried. 19.Chia Seeds. (2019). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service. Available at: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/578073/nutrients [Accessed 7 May. 2020]. 20.Hemp Seed. (2019). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service. Available at: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/515011/nutrients [Accessed 7 May. 2020].

Comer los restos de un alimento florecido es una mala idea y puede ser perjudicial para la salud, explican en la OCU, la Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios. Los típicos floridos verdes, blancos o tirando a negras que invaden los alimentos son hongos que los colonizan y se nutren a su costa, y llegan a penetrar profundamente en su interior a través del micelio, unas ramificaciones finas difíciles de percibir a simple vista.El problema de los floridos no es en la parte visible, sino a las micotoxinas. Las micotoxinas son sustancias tóxicas producidas por algunos hongos (Aspergillus, Penicillium y Fusarium). Las esporas de los hongos se encuentran por todas partes. Los hongos tienen la capacidad de crecer en los alimentos que tienen una actividad de agua muy baja (la actividad de agua mide la cantidad de agua disponible para que los microorganismos desarrollen entonces ... ").Algunas micotoxinas son consideradas por la International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) y "se han clasificado como sustancias cancerígenas, en especial la aflatoxina B1, considerada como cancerígeno de nivel 1 en la tabla de la IARC. Otras micotoxinas también han sido consideradas con la clasificación 2B, que indica que pueden ser posiblemente carcinogénicas.Pero este no es el único riesgo o peligro de ingerir las micotoxinas originadas los hongos. Las toxinas que puede producir el moho pueden provocar problemas en el organismo a largo plazo: las toxinas de origen fúngico causan intoxicaciones crónicas en su mayoría, es decir, que la toxina se acumula en el organismo y causa efectos adversos con el tiempo, si se acumula. También hay intoxicaciones agudas de origen fúngico como la conocida Amanita muscaria, que causa problemas poco tiempo después de que la ingerimos. Entre los efectos que pueden causar estas toxinas en nuestro cuerpo está la nefropatía, la hepatitis, el ergotismo o el cáncer esofágico.Fuente: https://www.rac1.cat/societat/20200121/473027765807/treure-florit-aliment-menjar-resta-formatge-fruita-salsa-melmelada.html

Comer los restos de un alimento florecido es una mala idea y puede ser perjudicial para la salud, explican en la OCU, la Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios. Los típicos floridos verdes, blancos o tirando a negras que invaden los alimentos son hongos que los colonizan y se nutren a su costa, y llegan a penetrar profundamente en su interior a través del micelio, unas ramificaciones finas difíciles de percibir a simple vista.El problema de los floridos no es en la parte visible, sino a las micotoxinas. Las micotoxinas son sustancias tóxicas producidas por algunos hongos (Aspergillus, Penicillium y Fusarium). Las esporas de los hongos se encuentran por todas partes. Los hongos tienen la capacidad de crecer en los alimentos que tienen una actividad de agua muy baja (la actividad de agua mide la cantidad de agua disponible para que los microorganismos desarrollen entonces ... ").Algunas micotoxinas son consideradas por la International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) y "se han clasificado como sustancias cancerígenas, en especial la aflatoxina B1, considerada como cancerígeno de nivel 1 en la tabla de la IARC. Otras micotoxinas también han sido consideradas con la clasificación 2B, que indica que pueden ser posiblemente carcinogénicas.Pero este no es el único riesgo o peligro de ingerir las micotoxinas originadas los hongos. Las toxinas que puede producir el moho pueden provocar problemas en el organismo a largo plazo: las toxinas de origen fúngico causan intoxicaciones crónicas en su mayoría, es decir, que la toxina se acumula en el organismo y causa efectos adversos con el tiempo, si se acumula. También hay intoxicaciones agudas de origen fúngico como la conocida Amanita muscaria, que causa problemas poco tiempo después de que la ingerimos. Entre los efectos que pueden causar estas toxinas en nuestro cuerpo está la nefropatía, la hepatitis, el ergotismo o el cáncer esofágico.Fuente: https://www.rac1.cat/societat/20200121/473027765807/treure-florit-aliment-menjar-resta-formatge-fruita-salsa-melmelada.html

Episode 9 is here! DiaMEATes!!! GET THIS! Recent development in nutritional research has shown that the chronic intake of meat, dairy, and eggs is strongly correlated with a significantly increased risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), or more appropriately termed, Diameates! It appears, dear Rioteers, that the culprits responsible for thrusting our meat-eating counterparts into metabolic derangement are higher levels of heme iron, saturated fat, sodium (as found in preserved meats, sulfur-containing amino acids. All of these rascals are abundantly present in the products we take from the animal kingdom. Additionally, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has categorized processed meat as a carcinogen. 
 So I ask you, Rioteers, what the hell are we doing? What are we eating, and why are people still consuming these poisons? While several studies have consistently shown that meat, dairy, and egg consumption should be moderated to avoid the development of chronic disease, most of the United States fails to adopt a healthy and balanced diet sufficient in varied protein sources, including tofu and legumes. 
 Follow the mettlesome trio as they examine the current science surrounding how animal products may be the primary catalyst for chronic diseases such as T2DM, both in America and internationally. 
 Join Dan, Brian, and Mike as they peek behind this curtain of secrecy and decode the dietary deceptions to arm listeners with more information concerning their diet and health.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015”. Then in March 2019 in the US a man claiming Roundup was involved in his cancer case was ultimately awarded $26 million, leading to Costco to stop stocking that product on their shelves. While the Judge in the appeal case said the evidence was equivocal, he found that it also “easily supported a conclusion that Monsanto was more considered with tamping down safety inquiries and manipulating public opinion than it was with ensuring its product is safe.” The judge also said that Monsanto showed “a lack of concern about the risk that its product might be carcinogenic.” Major issues have grown around pesticides and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Understorey reports on the food and pesticide industry and The Poison Papers: a vast online resource revealing a secret history of poor regulation, research misdirection, and toxic health and environmental effects. Adrian Glamorgan speaks to Dr Jonathan Latham, Director of the Poison Papers, about what this database of once-buried documents means for citizens, the scientific community, regulators and the environment. (Photo A.Glamorgan)

As of 2017, there were more than 273 million smartphones in use in the country and 5 billion subscriber connections worldwide.“This is a big, big business,” says Joel Moskowitz, the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health. “This is an industry that’s probably been unparalleled by any other industry in the world, in terms of reach.”Moskowitz gave a talk last spring called “Cell Phones, Cell Towers and Wireless Safety” for Be Well at Work, a University Health Services program at UC Berkeley.Moskowitz, who has conducted research on disease prevention programs and policies for more than 30 years, says that with the influx of smartphones has come hundreds of thousands of cell towers. These towers receive and transmit radio frequencies called microwaves — the same waves used in microwave ovens.In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on studies of cell phone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans.“Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would work a stronger classification,” says Moskowitz, an adviser to the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 240 scientists who publish peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic radiation. “Many scientists today feel that it’s time for IARC to re-review the literature given all the research that’s been published since 2011 to upgrade this to at least probably carcinogenic to humans, if not actually carcinogenic.”Read the transcript on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode Terry Gorman, 3M’s Occupational Hygienist for the Personal Safety Division in Australia and New Zealand joins us to discuss welding fume … a known carcinogen.  In early 2017, welding fume was reclassified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from a classification of Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 1, Carcinogenic to humans. This change was mostly related to the effects of UV exposure on the skin and eyes, for lung cancers and limited evidence for kidney cancer, from welding fume exposures.

Glyphosate has facilitated major productivity increases and reduced environmental stress due to over-cultivation over the last 50 years. However, it has been classified as “probably cancer causing agent” by the International Agency for research on Cancer (IARC). How was this classification decided and what does it mean? Agricultural Scientist, Chris Russell, speaks to Cancer Epidemiologist and member of (IARC), Professor Lin Fritschi, who explains how and why glyphosate was classified as a “probably cancer causing agent” by this sub-group of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and what this means for farmers.

Live Right Now - Episode 009 – Soy: Perfect Food or Evil Imposter? What’s square, white, jiggles, weighs about eight ounces, can make you gag, and often can clear a room in ten seconds? The answer is, tofu, or soy bean curd. This often-maligned product has been known to strike dread in the hearts of the bravest culinary souls, paralyzing them in fear at its mere mention. (Not wholly unlike the feeling you might get when receiving notification of an IRS audit.) Flash back to the flower children of the mid and late 1960s, when a rumor wafted through the grease-filled air that the Golden Arches folks used a sinister form of fibrous soybeans as filler in their burgers. “Ai-ee! Hack! P-tooey! We’ve been poisoned!” In retrospect, what we should have protested instead was the saturated-fat-laden bovine tallow used to deep-fry those golden, salt-covered French fries. (Just as an FYI, though, McDonalds and Taco Bell have indeed been using soy products as filler for decades. Nevertheless, don’t expect to see the International House of Bean Curd popping up soon.) So how many centuries have people been eating tofu? Tradition has it that tofu was invented by Liu An (179–122 B.C.), a prince of the Han Dynasty, supposedly while searching for a substance to help him achieve immortality. But way before then, in 2838 B.C., Chinese Emperor Cheng Nung developed soy cultivation. Soybeans did not, however, grace American soil until Samuel Bowen brought it to the continent and Henry Yonge planted the first soy crop on his farm in Thunderbolt, Georgia, in 1765. Did Henry know when he sowed the seeds of soy he would be saving us from the sorrow of serious sickness and senility? Somebody let a snake loose? New findings are out about tofu and soy products, however, and as I painfully sift through the mountains of information on the subject, I have to ask myself, “Is it actually—gasp!—bad for us?” After decades of aggressive research and marketing and touting the wiggly curd as a miracle cure-all for many of humanity’s maladies, I wonder, alas, is the honeymoon over?  Is mass tofu-phobia justified? Can tofu really make your brain shrivel and encourage dementia and breast cancer? What’s with that? For a substance that has been providing nourishment for humans for so many years, this Rodney Dangerfield of food is getting no respect. But what I’m placing in your to-go bag is whether we should be alarmed about these new studies regarding the safety of eating tofu, or is this junk science? Is it safe to continue making tofu a foundation of our diet? Ignorance may be bliss, but information is a powerful tool, so let’s look objectively at both sides of the issue, and, as my Mom would have said, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” We need to encourage more funding for further studies and season our own judgment with a generous helping of knowledge. I'd like to emphasize that in every study I looked at showing beneficial effects, the study was either sponsored by the soy industry, or the authors had some kind of financial ties to the soy industry. Follow the money, as they say. When asked about the validity of tofu-phobia, the Indiana Soybean Board responded passionately with this reassurance: “Wendell, I think the important thing is that overreacting and taking things out of context is the biggest problem...Asians have been eating soy foods for centuries and undoubtedly there is no evidence that they have less cognitive function.” Yes, but they were not GMO! And, contrary to what you may have heard, Asians do not consume large amounts of soy. They use small amounts as a condiment (about two teaspoons daily), but not as a primary protein source. And the type of soy they consume is traditionally fermented soy. Soybean crops are also heavily sprayed with chemical herbicides, such as glyphosate (Round-up), which researchers have found to be carcinogenic. The herbicide has been the subject of controversy for years once it became known it causes serious health problems, including endocrine disruption, allergies, asthma, autism-spectrum disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, rhinitis, obesity, leukemia, lymphoma, and other forms of cancer. One of the primary reasons it would be wise for you to avoid soy is more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified. Since the introduction of genetically engineered foods in 1996, we’ve had an upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems in the U.S., and animal studies have shown devastating effects from genetically engineered soy including allergies, sterility, birth defects, and offspring death rates up to five times higher than normal. Soybean crops are also heavily sprayed with chemical herbicides, such glyphosate which a French team of researchers have found to be carcinogenic. Glyphosate, the world’s most widely (vilified) used herbicide linked to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically engineered crops, has been found at alarming levels in a wide range of best-selling foods across the U.S., Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project announced Monday. The results published in this report are from the first independent glyphosate residue testing of popular American food products performed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), the regulatory recognized “gold standard testing methods at an FDA registered laboratory. These newest findings also come as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) postponed hearing which were due to explore glyphosate’s link to cancer in humans. Last year, 17 leading global cancer experts from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) sparked a firestorm when they classified glyphosate as a class 2A “probable human carcinogen. On the heels of the growing controversy surrounding glyphosate’s safety, this unique testing project  that started in 2015, has so far found alarming levels of glyphosate in General Mills’ Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran and Frosted Flakes and PepsiCo’s Doritos Cool Ranch, Ritz Crackers and Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips, as well as many more  famous products at levels that present significant risks according to the latest independent peer-reviewed science on glyphosate. Detoxproject.org Soybeans — even organically grown soybeans — naturally contain “antinutrients” such as saponins, soyatoxin, phytates, trypsin inhibitors, goitrogens and phytoestrogens. Traditional fermentation destroys these antinutrients, which allows your body to enjoy soy’s nutritional benefits. However, most Westerners do not consume fermented soy, but rather unfermented soy, mostly in the form of soymilk, tofu, TVP, and soy infant formula. Mercola.com Fermented Soy Probiotics versus Unfermented Many types of fermented foods are very good for our gastrointestinal tracts, helping to keep points A through Z flowing and in good working order, which is imperative for optimum health. Soybeans are among those foods that are best whether fresh or fermented. Fermented non-GMO organic soy products such as tempeh and miso are much easier for our Earth Suits to digest than processed silken tofu products. Tempeh, a fermented soybean product that comes in cakes, is made from whole soybeans and has a nutty, smoky flavor and is similar to mushrooms in texture. At our home we us it to cook sloppy joes, barbecue, Cajun “steaks,” Caesar salad protein, spaghetti sauce, taco filling, and chili. The grandkids love it, and sneaky chef that I am, I don’t tell them how good it is for them! Four ounces of cooked tempeh contains 17 grams of protein, a mere 204 calories, 15 grams of carbohydrates, and 8 grams of (good) fat. Plus, it’s full of calcium, iron, zinc, and fiber. It’s so much better for you than the same size portion of steak, and doesn’t contain artery-clogging saturated fats, antibiotics, and growth hormones so commonly found in factory farmed beef. A plethora of reasons to make soy the center of our diets abounds. In 2001 in San Diego, California, at the Fourth International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease, a mutually agreed-upon conclusion was reached: Non-GMO, organic Soy may possibly have a positive effect on cognitive function. Two preliminary research studies presented at the symposium showed that soy actually improved several aspects of cognitive function, especially verbal memory. Hopefully, this good news will alleviate any concerns you’ve had about the soy-and-dementia issue. The Soy Board reminds people to keep things in perspective. The negative effects were found only in an epidemiological study; however, animal studies suggest just the opposite—soy has beneficial effects on cognitive function.” Hmm? This is somewhat contrary with what Dr. Lon Wright of the Pacific Health Research Institute presents. He has conducted a study of 3,734 middle-aged Japanese-American men that indicates that eating tofu more than twice a week may be linked to dementia. White’s theory is that the phytoestrogens in tofu interfere with the brain’s estrogen receptors and keep the brain from properly using estrogen. His article appeared in an edition of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. But listen to this:  He says, “I would be violating a cardinal rule if I said my data says you shouldn’t eat tofu [or other soy foods].” Ah-hah! White emphasizes this data can’t be turned into sweeping conclusions, and the findings must be considered preliminary. And according to Beverly Creamer, staff writer for a Honolulu advertiser newspaper, “It’s the first time scientists have labeled a dietary risk factor for the disease that affects 2 percent of the nation’s sixty-five-year-olds and up to 16 percent of eighty-year-olds.” Finally, White’s study was based on processed tofu, which is not fermented, and which could be considered another endorsement for the fermented forms of the bean or edamame. Here’s more spice for the health stew: University of Minnesota scientist Mindy Kurzer, Ph.D., who does extensive research on the humble bean, assures us that there are no data connecting soy and cancer. “There is a theoretical risk that processed soy might promote breast cancer in some way,” Kurzer added, “but it’s purely theoretical at this point.” Forgo the ubiquitous protein bars made with protein isolate. Side effects of soy protein isolate: In animal studies, soy isolate has been linked to allergies, thyroid problems, and even brain damage. Soy has been labeled one of the top seven allergens for people to avoid, as soy isolate is found in a lot of processed foods, including bread and baked goods, soups and sauces, and breakfast cereals and protein bars. There have also been several studies on soy protein and age-related dementia, although many of those studies have been inconclusive. Wellnesstoday.com Perhaps the problem is our American lifestyle. Otherwise-healthy Asians who come to live in America ultimately succumb to the same health maladies as native-borns. Is it the pineal gland-trashing fluoridated water, the pesticides, food coloring, preservatives, fungicides on our produce, or our overly polluted environment? Or is it a disconnection from earth. Consider the negative findings. Until then, open your mind as well as your mouth to the healthy virtues of unprocessed, non-GMO, organic soy products, but don’t go overboard and follow the American mantra, “More is better.” Most of the time, less is more. Sweet and Spicy Peanut Noodles with Avocado and Kale                                                                     (Recipe from: Eat Right Now with Chef Wendell Fowler: The Divinity of Food-2017 Lulu Press)   1 package tempeh (can substitute firm Tofu if preferred) - cut into cubes-protein 3 tbs. coconut oil 2 tbsp. wheat-free soy (Tamari) 2 tbs. maple syrup or brown rice syrup 1 # brown rice noodles or rice noodles 2 avocados 4 cups chopped kale 1 cup fresh or frozen peas Green onion, chopped Ground flax or chia seed   Sauce: 2/4 cups peanut butter 3 tbsp. fresh grated ginger 2 garlic cloves, minced 3 tbsp. wheat-free soy (Tamari) Hot pepper flakes to taste Juice of two fresh limes 2 tbsp. toasted sesame oil   To Prepare: Cook pasta per package instructions, drain and reserve. Cut tempeh into 1/2 inch cubes In a large sauté pan, heat the coconut oil over medium heat and add the tempeh cubes. Sauté gently till the edges begin to brown. Add the soy and syrup and cook 4- 5 minutes longer. Set aside to cool. Keep warm however. Cook noodles to package instructions To make dressing, whisk together the peanut butter, ginger, syrup, soy, lime and sesame oil to a mixing bowl.  Too thick?  Add water. To assemble the dish, fill four bowls with noodles and top with kale, peas, and avocado quarters. Pour about 1/4-1/3 cup of dressing of each and garnish with sesame seeds, chia / flax, avocado wedges and green onion.   Live Right Now theme music is “future soundtrack II” by Adam Henry Garcia from the Free Music Archive licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0  

Ben Greenfield is the author of the New York Times bestseller Beyond Training and one of the country's leading personal trainers and wellness consultants. He also host The Ben Greenfield Fitness Podcast, which I highly suggest you listen to – it's one of the most listened to podcasts in the fitness and wellness industry, and for good reason.   I had the pleasure of hearing Ben talk at a conference last year about the 5 invisible variables that will make or break your mind, body, and spirit, and I'm excited to share those with you today.   Air Air pollution is one of the most studied types of pollutions, and unfortunately it's unavoidable in many areas of the world. Large particulates triggers inflammation in our bodies, which can then lead to worse disease. The NASA Clean Air Study found that certain common indoor plants may provide a natural way of removing toxic agents such as benzene, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene from the air. Certain nutrients, including omega-3 fats and B vitamins, may buffer some of the health effects of air pollution. Air diffusers, combined with essential oils, can also be valuable. Pine, cinnamon, and mint are great for diffusing in office or home. Lavender, rose, and bergamot are good for diffusing in bedroom.   Water The average office, gym, and (unfortunately) average person's home is usually void of clean, pure, electrically charged water. A Reverse osmosis filter with remineralization or structured water filter can more effectively filter your water. Avoid additional chemicals from plastic by using a glass bottle for your water, at home or on the go.   Electricity Every time you use electricity and electrical appliances, you are exposed to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), sometimes referred to as “dirty electricity.” This radiation can cause headaches, vision problems, anxiety, irritability, depression, nausea, fatigue, disturbed sleep, and poor physical performance. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/emf-safety-tips.aspx ( cell phones a Class B Carcinogen). You can protect yourself with negative ion generators, dirty electricity filters, himalayan rock salt lamps, faraday shields, and by limiting your exposure to things like wi-fi signals using timers. You can learn more in Ben's eBook, How To Biohack the Ultimate Healthy Home.   Light We are exposed to a non-natural lights throughout our day. These are not only harmful to your eyes – they can even be a potential carcinogen. Iris and f.lux can help block out the blue light and flickering from a computer screen Blue light blocking glasses can… well, block blue light. You can use biological LEDs in your home, instead of flourescent. You can't hack everything, though – you also need to get outside and expose yourself to natural light.   Emotions In The Blue Zones of Happiness: Lessons From the World's Happiest People, Dan Buettner looked at a few areas of the world where the people live longer than average. What he found was that, consistently, these populations place a high value on love, relationships, and societal interactions. “You need to surround yourself with people you can love and laugh with. You need to go to bed without anger or hatred or bitterness in your heart… Live your life in a spirit of forgiveness and love. Start your day with gratitude, and end your day with prayer and thankfulness.” --     Resources: Learn more about Ben at GreenfieldFitnessSystems.com Connect with Ben: Twitter | Facebook | Instagram Beyond Training by Ben Greenfield How To Biohack the Ultimate Healthy Home by Ben Greenfield The Blue Zones of Happiness: Lessons From the World's Happiest People by Dan Buettner   Do you want more to empower yourself through healthy living? Is your busy lifestyle an...

September is the gold ribbon month - marked as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month; this is a time where globally, countries honour and remember children and families affected by this rare disease, and help rally awareness on the early warning signs of childhood Cancer. Globally, for a rare disease, childhood cancer is on the rise. New estimates by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) show that the global occurrence of childhood cancer is higher than previously assessed. Worldwide, approximately 215 000 cancers are diagnosed per year in those younger than 15 years and about 85 000 cancers in those aged 15-19 yearsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der Zuwanderung Allenthalben ist die Rede von "Flüchtlingskrise" und enormen "Kosten", die durch Zuwanderung entstünden. Tatsächlich fließen die staatlichen Ausgaben direkt in die Wirtschaft und das gleich mehrfach. Alexander Betts bei TED Organisation für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD) Glyphosat im Bier und überall sonst auch Das Umweltinstitut München hat gängige Industriebiersorten untersucht und darin Rückstände von Glyphosat entdeckt. Die Reaktionen sind kontrovers. DieEuropean Authority for Food Safety (EFSA) und dasBundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) halten das für harmlos, die Weltgesundheitsorganisation und die International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) sind hingegen der Auffassung dass die gemessenen Werte bedenklich für die Gesundheit sind. Der Grund: Sie sind sich nicht darüber einig, ob Glyphosat krebserregend ist oder nicht. Davon abgesehen zeigte eine weitere Untersuchung des Umweltinstituts München, das Glyphosat sich bie 99,5 Prozent der Menschen inzwischen auch im Urin nachweisen lassen. Umweltinstitut München untersucht Bier auf Glyphosat Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung relativiert Studie Umweltinstitut weist Glyphosat in Menschen nach Der Masernprozess Die designierten Spendenempfänger haben sich vermutlich schon auf die 100000 Euro gefreut, die Dr. David Bardens ihnen überlassen wollte, nachdem Impfgegner Stefan Lanka in erster Instanz verloren hatte. Er hatte das Geld als Preis ausgelobt für den ersten, der ihm eine Studie zeigt, welche die Existenz des Masernvirus belegt und seine Abmessungen beschreibt. Das Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart hat das Urteil des Landgerichts aber revidiert, weil Bardens zwar beide Fakten belegen konnte, jedoch nicht in einer einzigen, sonder sechs verschiedenen Studien. Damit hat er die Wette aus formalen Gründen verloren. Die Existenz des Masernvirus bleibt aber natürlich weiterhin auch gerichtlich erwiesen. Bardens ./. Lanka -- Der Masernprozess Dr. Bardens gewinnt am Landgericht Dr. Bardens verliert am Oberlandesgericht Mythos des Monats, die Wahrheit Angeblich kann man sich vor dem Kater nach Alkoholgenuss schützen, wenn man dazu Zwiebeln isst. Das ist insofern zutreffend, als dass sich die Katersymptome dadurch mildern lassen. Die durch den durch Alkohol gesteigerte Ausscheidung von Urin geht mit einem Verlust an Kalium einher, das durch die Zwiebeln wieder ergänzt wird. Zudem helfen die Schwefeloxide, nicht nur beim Heuelen, sondern unterstützen die Leber beim Abbau giftiger Substanzen. In Zwiebeln vorhandenes Quercetin, sowie Phenole können Kopf- und Muskelschmerzen verringern. Am sichersten lässt der Kater sich aber natürlich durch Enthaltsamkeit verhindern.

Menschliche Gene sind keine patentwürdige erfinderische Leistung Zum Thema Patente gibt es gute Nachrichten aus Australien: Australiens höchstes Gericht erklärt Gene für nicht patentierbar. Das ist deswegen von großer Bedeutung, weil damit ein weiteres oberstes Gericht eines Landes den Parmakonzernen eine Abfuhr erteilt hat, als sie versuchten sich exklusive Nutzungsrechte an einem menschliches Gen zu sichern. Nachdem sie in USA bereits verloren hatten, bedeutet die Entscheidung Australiens dass es nun keine ernsthafte Perspektive mehr für dieses Ansinnen gibt. Religion macht Kinder keineswegs zu besseren Menschen Eine umfangreiche Studie an fast 1200 in USA, Kanada, Türkei, Südafrika und China hat nachgewiesen, dass Religion Kinder nicht zu besseren Menschen macht. Ganz im Gegenteil hat sich gezeigt, dass Kinder aus atheistischen Haushalten eher bereit sind, mit anderen zu Teilen als Kinder aus religiösem Umfeld. Außerdem zeigten sich religiös erzogene Kinder wesentlich härter bei der Auswahl von und der Forderung nach Bestrafungen. Eine Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse findet sich auf "The Origonian" in Form des Artikels Religious kids are harsher and less generous than atheist ones, study says. Die frei zugängliche Studie ist bei Current Biologie erschienen. Filmtipp Alles steht Kopf ist ein Animationsfilm vom Pixar, der die Basisemotionen Freude, Kummer, Angst, Wut und Ekel als Zeichentrickfiguren in den Köpfen einer Familie darstellt und zeigt wie sie mit- und gegeneinander agieren. Die Wurst des Todes: Was die Metaanalyse über den Zusammenhang von verarbeitetem Fleisch und Darmkrebs wirklich sagt Apokalyptische Meldungen über den Darmkrebs verursachenden Verzehr von Wurst machten kürzlich in der Presse die Runde. Vor allem die Blut- und Sperma-Postille mit den großen Buchstaben sorgte für Verunsicherung. Ebenso schlimm wie Rauchen soll die Wurst wirken. Darauf kann man aber nur kommen, wenn man wirklich keine Ahnung hat, was in der Metaanalyse eigentlich steht. Unter anderem finden wir heraus, dass es fünf mal wahrscheinlicher ist an den Folgen von Umweltverschmutzung zu sterben als an einem Paar Wiener Würstchen. Lancet Oncology über den Einfluss des Verzehrs von verarbeitetem Fleisch auf das Risiko an Darmkrebs zu erkranken. Die International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) bietet Fragen und Antworten (PDF) und eine Pressemitteilung (PDF) zum Thema. Alfed Nobel Gedächtnispreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften 2015 Angus Deaton bekam dieses Jahr den Alfred-Nobel-Gedächtnispreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften verliehen. Ein Wirtschaftswissenschaftler der seine Forschung nicht auf nackte Zahlen beschränkt, sondern sehr nah am Menschen betreibt und sehr großen Wert auf Soziales legt. Und außerdem stammt er aus Edinburgh!  

The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently came out with a report classifying red meat as a “group 1” carcinegen. Dr Tim Byers is Director of the Center for Public Health Practice at the Colorado School of Public Health and Professor at the University of Colorado. He joins me today to help... The post EP 161 – Dr Tim Byers on How to Prevent Colorectal Cancer appeared first on Greed for Ilm.