Health Risks and Cancer

Mani… pedi… scarry? Recent research into nail dryers might make you wonder whether regular gel manicures and pedicures are worth the risk.

A study published by Nature Communications reveals findings that nail dryers emit radiation that can harm DNA and lead to cancerous changes in human cells. Ultraviolet A (UVA) light is commonly emitted by UV-nail polish dryers with recent reports suggesting that long-term use may increase the risk for developing skin cancer. UVA is also the same type of light that causes wrinkles, sun spots, and other types of premature aging.

Who knew? Well, as it turns out, some skin doctors did. They argue that these findings are not surprising when it comes to concerns about ultraviolet (UV) light from any source.

In reality, these results confirm why some dermatologists have altered their nail care habits or stopped getting gel manicures completely.

Dr. Julia Curtis, a dermatology assistant professor at the University of Utah, but not part of the study, told CNN, "The findings add to existing data on the harmful effects of UV radiation and demonstrate direct harm to cells and tissues that can result in skin cancer." She compared UV nail lamps to miniature tanning beds for your nails.

“The findings contribute to data already published regarding the harmful effects of (ultraviolet) radiation and show direct cell death and damage to tissue that can lead to skin cancer,” Curtis said. 

The UV light used in nail dryers is almost identical to the UV light in natural sunlight, but it can penetrate the skin at a deeper level. Researchers exposed human and mouse cells to this UV light, and even a short 20-minute session resulted in 20% to 30% of cells dying.

However, longer exposure caused up to 70% of cells to die, and the remaining cells suffered damage to their DNA.

Real life or lab life?

It's important to note that the study's main limitation is that it used cells in a lab dish, which isn't the same as studying the effects on living humans or animals, dermatologist Dr. Julie Russak said.

“When we’re doing it (irradiating) inside human hands, there’s definitely a difference,” Russak told CNN. “Most of the UV irradiation is absorbed by the top layer of the skin. When you irradiate cells in the petri dish directly, that’s slightly different. You don’t have any protection from the skin, from corneocytes or the top layers. It’s also very direct UVA irradiation.”

Taking precautions

Nonetheless, the study, along with previous cases of people developing skin cancer linked to UV nail dryers, highlights the importance of being cautious when exposing your hands and fingers to UV light.

To keep your hands safe from UV damage, The Skin Cancer Foundation recommends applying a broad spectrum sunscreen 20 minutes before a gel manicure. Despite this precaution, it does not prevent subungual (under the nail) squamous cell carcinoma, a rare but potentially aggressive form of skin cancer that has been known to show up in cats as “mouth cancer.”

If getting a regular manicure, your safest bet is to let your nails air-dry naturally – totally avoiding the drying lamps – or use an air blower or fan without UV lights.

Dr. Curtis also recommends applying broad-spectrum sunblock around your nails and wearing UV gloves with the fingertips exposed during the nail-curing process. Some salons use LED lights, which emit little to no UV light.

A new study conducted by researchers from Yale University explored how spending on cancer treatments globally affects the mortality rate. Their findings showed that the U.S. spends more than any country in the world on cancer care; however, six other countries spend less on these treatments and have better mortality rates. 

“There is a common perception that the U.S. offers the most advanced cancer care in the world,” said researcher Dr. Ryan Chow. “Our system is touted for developing new treatments and getting them to patients more quickly than other countries. We were curious whether the substantial U.S. investment on cancer care is indeed associated with better cancer outcomes.”

High costs may not improve health outcomes

The researchers analyzed data from nearly two dozen high-income countries. They looked specifically at costs related to cancer care and related deaths from September 2021, through March 2022. 

The team found that spending more on cancer didn’t yield the greatest health outcomes. The U.S. ranked first in spending on cancer care but did not have the best cancer mortality rate worldwide. There were six countries that spent less on cancer costs and had better mortality rates than the U.S. – Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, Korea, Finland, and Japan. 

“The U.S. is spending over $200 billion per year on cancer care – roughly $600 per person, in comparison to the average of $300 per person across other high-income countries,” said researcher Cary Gross. “This raises the key question: Are we getting our money’s worth?” 

The researchers also looked at how smoking affects cancer mortality rates around the world. Although the U.S. has lower smoking rates than other countries globally, its performance actually got worse when the researchers adjusted for this factor; there were nine countries with better cancer mortality rates than the U.S. after accounting for smoking status. 

The team hopes these findings highlight some of the ways that countries outside of the U.S. have managed to keep health care costs reasonable while also lengthening cancer patients’ lives. 

“The pattern of spending more and getting less is well-documented in the U.S. health care system; now we see it in cancer care, too,” said researcher Elizabeth Bradley. “Other countries and systems have much to teach the U.S. if we could be open to change.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Vermont explored how exposure to phthalates may affect kids’ long-term health. 

While the chemical is used in many everyday goods -- including perfumes, detergents, and fast food packaging -- the study findings show that exposure to phthalates may also increase children’s risk of cancer. 

“These results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that these ubiquitous chemicals have a negative impact on human health,” said researcher Thomas Ahern, Ph.D. “Our study characterized phthalate exposure based on prescription fills for phthalate-containing medications. While such exposures are typically much higher magnitude than what we would call ‘background’ environmental exposure, our findings warrant concern.” 

Assessing children’s cancer risk

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 1.3 million children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2017. They also looked at information from the Danish National Prescription Registry to understand how children were exposed to phthalates through prescriptions both in the womb and during childhood. The team compared both datasets to understand how phthalates affected kids’ cancer risk. 

The study showed that exposure to phthalates during childhood was linked with a 20% higher risk of cancer. The risk of lymphoma was twice as high for those exposed to higher levels of phthalates, and the risk of osteosarcoma was three times as high for those with the highest phthalate exposure. 

The team explained that the chemical significantly affects hormone levels. This can affect the function of several important organs over time, which may increase the risk of childhood cancer. 

“Although more studies are needed, exposure to phthalates has been linked to thyroid, breast, and other solid tumors,” said researcher Frances Carr, Ph.D. “Phthalates, like other plasticizers such as bisphenol A (BPA), are ubiquitous in the environment; age of exposure, as well as chronic low dose exposures, are significant risk factors for adverse health effects.” 

The researchers say the goal now is to work to minimize health risks by limiting kids’ exposure to phthalates. They hope to do more work in this area to better understand which specific chemicals pose the biggest risk to kids’ health. 

“While no direct correlation has been made between phthalates in our region and increased cancer risk, this study highlights the importance of environmental exposures and their relationship to cancer risk,” said researcher Dr. Randall Holcombe. “Ultimately, research like this will lead to a better understanding of how to mitigate the risks of environmental phthalates.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from Case Western University explored how pre-existing conditions may increase consumers’ risk of cancer. 

According to their findings, men living with HIV (MLWH) may have a higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer than those without the virus. 

“Using national Medicaid data, we observed an excess prevalence of cancer among MLWH, particularly for anal cancer, rectal cancer, and lymphoma,” the researchers wrote. “Overall, cancer prevalence was nearly twice as high in MLWH than in men without HIV enrolled in Medicaid.” 

HIV makes cancer more likely in men

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from Medicaid, which included information on over 7 million men without HIV and over 82,000 who had HIV. The team analyzed all of the participants’ health records and looked specifically at the risk of cancer both overall and for individual types of the disease. 

Ultimately, the risk of cancer was much higher for those living with HIV than for those without the virus. For men struggling with symptomatic cases of HIV, the risk of cancer was even higher. Additionally, younger men with HIV had a higher risk of developing cancer than older men with HIV. 

The researchers learned that these risks persisted among several different types of cancers, including lymphoma, rectal cancers, and anal cancers. The team believes this increased risk could be due to cancer-related risk factors that are common with HIV, including smoking and exposure to viruses like HPV, as well as a more rapid aging process that comes with HIV. 

With a better understanding of these risks, the researchers hope more work is done to start cancer screenings earlier, identify those with the highest risk, and encourage consumers to adopt healthier lifestyles. 

“Medicaid plays a key role in insuring people with HIV,” said researcher Siran Koroukian. “Our findings highlight the importance of the Medicaid program’s efforts to promote healthy behaviors and to promote vaccines against human papillomavirus in children and adolescents, as well as individualized cancer screenings.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins Medicine explored one of the risk factors that may contribute to colorectal cancer. Their work showed that taller consumers may be more susceptible to developing this condition than shorter consumers. 

"This is the largest study of its kind to date,” said researcher Dr. Gerard Mullin. “It builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor, and it should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.” 

How height impacts cancer risk

The researchers gathered information from nearly 50 earlier studies that included data on over 280,000 cases of colorectal cancer. They also looked at data from nearly 1,500 colonoscopy patients who were enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Colon Biofilm study. The goal was to understand the link between height and colorectal cancer risk by taking information from both datasets.

Ultimately, the link between height and colorectal cancer risk was clear. The researchers learned that taller patients had a higher risk of being diagnosed with the disease than shorter patients. 

“The findings suggest that, overall, the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than the shortest within the lowest percentile,” Dr. Mullin said. “Every 10-centimeter increase (about 4 inches) in height was found to be associated with a 14% increased risk of developing colorectal cancer and 6% increased odds of having adenomas.” 

The researchers speculate that this relationship between height and colorectal cancer risk may come down to organ size. They explained that taller people have larger organs, which may increase their risk of abnormalities that become cancerous. 

Identifying those at the highest risk

Age and genetics are currently the two biggest risk factors associated with colorectal cancer, so health care professionals analyze them to determine which consumers have the most risk. Based on these findings, the researchers hope that height is now used to identify patients who may be most likely to develop colorectal cancer. 

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” said researcher Dr. Elinor Zhou. “We need more studies before we can definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.” 

“Greater awareness by the public and the government will help promote more interest and funding for research, which ultimately could change guidelines for physicians to consider height as a risk for cancer,” Mullin added. “There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the American Academy of Neurology explored the risks associated with exposure to formaldehyde. Their findings showed that consumers may have a higher risk of cognitive impairment later in life if they are regularly exposed to the chemical. 

“We know that exposure to formaldehyde has been linked to certain cancers, and our results suggest that exposure to low amounts of formaldehyde also may be associated with lower levels of cognitive functioning,” said researcher Noemie Letellier, Ph.D. “People whose work exposes them to formaldehyde may want to take precautions, and companies may want to look at ways to reduce workers’ exposure to the hazardous chemical.” 

Long-term cognitive risks

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from more than 75,000 people in France enrolled in the CONSTANCES study. Participants reported on their formaldehyde exposure while at work and completed cognitive assessments throughout the study. 

Ultimately, less than 10% of the participants were exposed to formaldehyde while at work. However, those who were exposed to the chemical had a nearly 20% higher risk of struggling with cognitive function. This was true for all of the different measures of cognition, including memory, executive function, and language abilities. 

The researchers found that a higher rate of exposure led to a higher risk of cognitive decline. Those who spent 22 or more years exposed to the chemical at work were over 20% more likely to develop cognitive complications. Carpenters, nurses, and medical technicians were some of the most common workers that experienced formaldehyde exposure. 

The researchers hope more work is done to reduce exposure to formaldehyde so that consumers can avoid health risks. 

“The use of formaldehyde has decreased over the last few decades; however, our results highlight the fact that there are still thousands of people whose work exposes them to the chemical, and they may face the risk of cognitive impairment later because of it,” Letellier said. 

A new study conducted by researchers from Oregon State University explored some of the risks associated with certain kinds of sunscreens. 

Their work showed that sunscreens that contain zinc oxide may not be consumers’ best bet for long days in the sun. They learned that after two hours, these sunscreens may start losing effectiveness and become toxic. 

“Sunscreens are important consumer products that help to reduce UV exposures and thus skin cancer, but we do not know if the use of some sunscreen formulations may have unintended toxicity because of interactions between some ingredients and UV light,” said researcher Robyn Tanguay. “And sunscreens containing inorganic compounds like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, that block UV rays, are being marketed more and more heavily as safe alternatives to the organic small-molecule compounds that absorb the rays.” 

Toxic after only two hours

To better understand the impact of zinc oxide-based sunscreens, the researchers conducted an experiment on zebrafish. The team created five mixtures that contained the active ingredients in sunscreen and other creams that contain varying amounts of zinc oxide. Then they exposed the mixtures to UV light and observed them for changes. 

The researchers observed the biggest differences in sun protection and overall safety when the zebrafish were given sunscreens that contained zinc oxide in any amount. The researchers found that the ingredient was harmful after only two hours of sun exposure. When sunscreen becomes toxic to the skin, it makes consumers more vulnerable to light exposure. This can ultimately increase the risk of sunburn, blisters, or sun poisoning. 

“The zinc-oxide-induced photodegradation products caused significant increases in defects to the zebrafish we used to test toxicity. That suggests zinc oxide particles are leading to degradants whose introduction to aquatic ecosystems is environmentally hazardous,” said Claudia Santillan. 

While many consumers have started to use mineral-based sunscreens because of the ingredient lists, the researchers explained that any type of sunscreen that contains zinc oxide can pose a risk to consumers’ skin health. 

“The findings would surprise many consumers who are misled by ‘nano free’ labels on mineral-based sunscreens that imply the sunscreens are safe just because they don’t contain those smaller particles,” Tanguay said. “Any size of metal oxide particle can have reactive surface sites, whether it is less than 100 nanometers or not. More important than size is the metal identity, its crystal structure, and any surface coatings.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from the American Association for Cancer Research explored how consumers’ lifestyles can impact their risk of developing cancer. According to their findings, adopting healthy habits may reduce the risk of developing cancer -- even when a genetic risk is present. 

For the study, the researchers were interested in determining participants’ risk of developing cancer based on their individual lifestyles and genetics. While a polygenic risk score (PRS) is typically used to gauge consumers’ risk of developing specific types of cancers, the team was more interested in figuring out the likelihood that participants would develop any type of cancer.

“A PRS indicating risk of a certain cancer is important but not enough,” said researcher Guangfu Jin. “We tried to create an indicator -- the cancer polygenic risk score (CPRS) -- to measure the genetic risk of cancer as a whole.” 

The team calculated CPRS for men and women separately and then utilized data from the U.K. Biobank to put their findings to the test. More than 200,000 men and 230,000 women answered questions about their lifestyles, including diet, physical activity, and drinking and smoking habits. The researchers also assessed the participants’ family backgrounds to determine the genetic component of their cancer risk. 

Healthy lifestyles lower cancer risk

The study showed that those with the most unhealthy lifestyles and the highest genetic risk of cancer were the most likely to develop the disease; women were nearly 2.4 times as likely to be diagnosed with cancer, while men were nearly three times as likely to receive a cancer diagnosis. However, having a higher genetic risk didn’t mean participants were guaranteed to develop cancer; the researchers found that healthy habits helped protect consumers. 

Women with healthy lifestyles and high genetic risks were 3.69 times as likely to develop cancer within five years, compared to women with unhealthy lifestyles who were more than 5.7 times as likely to get a cancer diagnosis in that time frame. Men with unhealthy lifestyles were the most susceptible to cancer, as poor health and a genetic predisposition made men more than seven times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer within five years. 

The findings highlight the importance of sticking to healthy habits, including regular physical activity, avoiding smoking, and maintaining a healthy diet. 

“This suggests that almost everyone is susceptible to at least one type of cancer,” Jin said. “It further indicates the importance of adherence to a healthy lifestyle for everyone.” 

A new report published by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is recommending that colorectal cancer screenings begin at age 45. 

The team explained that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) hasn’t updated its recommendations for colorectal cancer screenings since 2016, which suggest that consumers aged 50 and above should be checked for the disease. Now, in an effort to increase the likelihood of early detection, USPSTF experts are recommending that screenings should instead begin at age 45. 

“We are now seeing patients even younger than 45 -- in their 20s and 30s -- who are being diagnosed with this cancer and often at very late stages,” said researcher Dr. Kimmie Ng. “Clearly the USPSTF recommendation to start screening at age 45 will not be enough to catch those young people who are diagnosed.” 

Testing earlier can lead to better health outcomes

In 2018, the American Cancer Society lowered its recommendation for colorectal cancer screenings from age 50 to age 45. Now, experts at the USPSTF are looking to do the same. Based on the growing number of young people being diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer, the team hopes that lowering the age of screenings will get consumers the treatment they need at an earlier juncture. 

To better serve consumers, the task force analyzed all available data on the risks of colonoscopies, the rate of diagnoses, and how age plays a role in diagnosis and treatment. They determined that lowering the age comes at little risk to consumers, and it can effectively detect diseases at an earlier age. 

The official recommendation from the USPSTF would also be beneficial because it would require screening measures to be covered by insurance. Less than 70% of eligible consumers are actively keeping up with these screenings, and experts hope that these findings “will make colorectal cancer screening, which is so important, available to millions more people in the United States, and hopefully many more lives will be saved by catching colorectal cancer,” Dr. Ng said. 

Increasing incidence of colon cancer in young people

Experts from the USPSTF made these changes to their recommendations based on data from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group. They learned that the rates of both colon and rectal cancer are increasing most rapidly among 20- to 29-year-olds compared to 40- to 49-year olds. 

“A concerning increase in colorectal cancer incidence among younger individuals (ie, younger than 50 years; defined as young-onset colorectal cancer) has been documented since the mid-1990s, with 11% of colon cancers and 15% of rectal cancers in 2020 occurring among patients younger than 50 years, compared with 5% and 9%, respectively,” said Dr. Ng. 

While the cause for this uptick in colorectal cancers in young people remains unknown, experts hope that lowering the recommended age of screenings will allow more consumers to receive treatment in the earliest stages of the disease. 

Several studies have looked at the ways that loneliness can affect consumers’ mental and physical health. Now, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Eastern Finland has identified another health risk linked with loneliness. 

According to their findings, loneliness has been associated with an increased risk of cancer for middle-aged men. 

“It has been estimated, on the basis of studies carried out in recent years, that loneliness could be as significant a health risk as smoking or [being] overweight,” said researcher Siiri-Liisi Kraav. “Our findings support the idea that attention should be paid to this issue.” 

Health risks of loneliness

To understand the health risks associated with loneliness, the researchers analyzed results from over 2,750 men involved in a Finnish study. The study started in the 1980s, and the team has consistently followed up with the men and their long-term health outcomes. 

The study looked at several factors that can influence cancer risk, including sleep quality, body mass index (BMI), and age. Among the findings, the team found that loneliness increased the risk of cancer by 10%. 

The researchers learned that marital status played a significant role in these cancer cases. Those who were divorced, widowed, or unmarried had the highest likelihood of cancer mortality compared to other patients in the study. Additionally, those who were unmarried or uncoupled at the time of a cancer diagnosis were likely to have poorer health outcomes than those who had a spouse or significant other. 

Moving forward, the team hopes that more work is done to better understand how loneliness can weigh on consumers’ health and wellness. 

“Awareness of the health effects of loneliness is constantly increasing,” said Kraav. “Therefore, it is important to examine, in more detail, the mechanisms by which loneliness causes adverse health effects. This information would enable us to better alleviate loneliness and the harm caused by it, as well as to find optimal ways to target preventative measures.” 

Several recent studies have revealed that consumers who do shift work can be more susceptible to diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. 

Now, a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Waterloo has confirmed that shift work can increase consumers’ risk of health complications, but the findings show that men and women are affected differently. 

“Because our immune system is affected by the circadian clock, our ability to mount an immune response changes during the day,” said researcher Anita Layton. “How likely are you to fight off an infection that occurs in the morning than midday? The answer depends on whether you are a man or a woman, and whether you are among the quarter of the modern-day labour force that work an irregular schedule.” 

Disruptions to the circadian clock can impact health

Working in shifts disrupts the body’s natural circadian rhythm because waking and sleeping hours typically don’t line up with traditional morning and evening times. While other studies have found that this ultimately makes consumers more susceptible to illness, the team on this project wanted to see if men and women were affected differently.

The researchers created a computer-based model that simulated how both men and women would respond to shift work. They paid close attention to several key measures, including inflammatory markers, genes related to circadian rhythm, and the body’s overall immune response. 

The researchers learned that men’s and women’s immune systems respond differently to shift work, especially when an infection is present. They found that our bodies have a harder time fighting off infection during the nighttime hours, and men are more likely to struggle with this than women. 

They explained that in the time typically right before bed, our bodies are unable to produce the necessary defense against infections. When consumers are working during those hours, it can make the body even more vulnerable to illness. The study also demonstrated that shift workers generally had different immune responses than those who worked more traditional daytime hours. 

The researchers hope that these findings highlight the differences in how men and women respond to shift work and the overarching health risks associated with this type of work. 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently released new recommendations that detailed a plan for consumers to be screened for lung cancer starting at age 50, rather than at age 55. By starting earlier, health care professionals would be able to address concerns before they worsen, which would lead to better long-term health outcomes. 

However, experts from the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center are calling for even more inclusive measures. They explained that many of the inequities in cancer prevention are structural, as socioeconomic status and race are two key factors that need to be addressed to ensure that these prevention strategies are reaching those most vulnerable to disease.  

“The revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s [USPSTF] recommendations are sound and based on well-conceived evidence and modeling studies, but they alone are not enough, as we have seen limited uptake of the prior recommendations,” said researcher Dr. Ethan Basch. “Implementation will require broader efforts by payers, health systems and professional societies, and, in the future, a more tailored, individual risk prediction approach may be preferable.” 

Inequalities in the screening process

The experts cite three major factors that could impede the USPSTF’s new lung cancer screening recommendations: finances/insurance coverage, health care providers’ time, and racial disparities. They explained that widening the pool by starting these screenings at age 50 is a beneficial first step because more at-risk consumers will be eligible for preventative care; however, more steps need to be considered and taken to ensure that those at the greatest risk are factored in. 

In terms of finances and insurance coverage, those enrolled in Medicaid could end up paying out of pocket for lung cancer screenings. This is problematic for several reasons, not least of which is that the researchers learned that Medicaid recipients are more than two times as likely to smoke than those who have private insurance, which heightens their risk of lung cancer. 

“Medicaid is not required to cover the USPSTF recommended screenings and even when screening is covered, Medicaid programs may use different eligibility criteria,” said Louise M. Henderson, PhD. “This is a significant issue, especially in nine states where Medicaid does not cover lung cancer screening.” 

The experts also cite a lack of time in primary care physicians’ offices as a deterrent of this new screening process. They explained that many doctors already struggle to have enough time with their patients during appointments, and screening for lung cancer would require a lengthy, in-depth conversation. Not having time for these talks would ultimately affect how many patients ever learn about the opportunity for cancer screenings. 

Racial and gender inequalities in the screening process are also likely to persist despite including people from a younger age group. The researchers explained that the 2013 screening recommendations didn’t incorporate race or gender, and looking at other factors, like smoking status or family history, would widen the pool of eligibility for lung cancer screenings to include those at the highest risk.  

Making progress

Though the researchers believe more work needs to be done to get these lung cancer prevention strategies to be as strong as possible, they believe that these recommendations can be a positive stepping stone in cancer prevention. 

“Beyond implementation challenges, the future of screening strategies lies in individualized risk assessment including genetic risk,” the team wrote. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from Washington State University set out to explore the health risks incurred by night shift workers. 

According to the researchers, consumers can increase their risk for cancer when their body’s internal clock has days and nights consistently reversed. They explained that when the circadian rhythm is disrupted from its natural cycle, it damages consumers’ white blood cell DNA expression. This puts night shift workers at a higher risk of developing cancer. 

“There has been mounting evidence that cancer is more prevalent in night-shift workers, which led the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify night shift work as a problematic carcinogenic,” said researcher Shobhan Gaddameedhi. “However, it has been unclear why night shift work elevates cancer risk, which our study sought to address.” 

Circadian rhythm disruptions lead to genetic damages

To understand how night shift work can impact consumers’ health, the researchers had 14 participants stay in a sleep lab for one week. Half of the group spent three days on a day shift schedule while the other half spent three days on a night shift schedule.

The researchers analyzed blood samples collected from the participants during the study period and observed that those on the simulated night shift had significant differences in their white blood cells than those on the day shift schedule. 

The researchers explained that while the body has its own 24-hour circadian rhythm, individual cells throughout the body also operate on their own internal clocks. Their work revealed that disrupting the body’s natural biological clock by being awake during traditional sleeping hours also disrupted the white blood cells’ biological clocks. Operating on a night shift schedule left the white blood cells with more structural DNA damage, which is what increases the risk of cancer. 

“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said researcher Jason McDermott. 

The researchers’ next step is to see if these findings hold up in a trial of actual night shift workers. If they do, the goal would be to develop potential treatments that could be targeted to night shift workers to protect their long-term health. 

“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” said researcher Hans Van Dongen. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.” 

Cannabis-based products are no longer just for consumers struggling with cancer or other serious medical conditions. In fact, recent studies have found that many older adults have started using cannabis as a means of treating more traditional health care concerns. 

Now, researchers from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev have found that cannabis could play a role in helping older adults lower their blood pressure. 

“Older adults are the fastest-growing group of medical cannabis users, yet evidence on cardiovascular safety for this population is scarce,” said researcher Dr. Ran Abuhasira. “This study is part of our ongoing effort to provide clinical research on the actual physiological effects of cannabis over time.” 

Blood pressure improvements

To put cannabis to the test, the researchers had 26 participants all over the age of 60 involved in the study. The participants used cannabis for three months, and the researchers compared vital measurements -- blood tests, blood pressure readings, and ECG -- from the start of the study with results at the end of the experiment. 

The researchers learned that the effects of using cannabis occurred pretty quickly. Within just three hours of cannabis use, the participants recorded their lowest blood pressure readings. Overall, the researchers found that both systolic and diastolic readings were lower after the participants used cannabis long-term. On average, systolic readings dropped by 5 mmHg after cannabis use while diastolic readings were roughly 4.5 mmHg lower. 

Another key finding came from the increase in participants who experienced a healthy dip in their blood pressure readings at night. The researchers explained that when the body is functioning normally, blood pressure should be about 10 to 20 percent lower at night than what it is during the day. At the start of the study, just over 27 percent of the participants were experiencing a healthy dip in blood pressure; however, after using cannabis, more than 45 percent of the participants were experiencing that healthy dip in blood pressure. 

As more and more states are legalizing cannabis use, it’s important for the medical benefits to be clearly communicated. The researchers hope that these findings provide insight into how cannabis can be used to achieve better health outcomes.

Diet is an important aspect when thinking about longevity, and now researchers from the American Heart Association are exploring what effect a popular spicy food could have on consumers’ lifespans. 

According to their findings, consumers who eat higher amounts of chili peppers tend to have longer lives and a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. 

“We were surprised to find that in these previously published studies, regular consumption of chili pepper was associated with an overall risk-reduction of all cause, CVD, and cancer mortality,” said researcher Dr. Bo Xu. “It highlights that dietary factors may play an important role in overall health.” 

Adding spice, improving health

To understand how chili peppers could yield better health outcomes, the researchers analyzed over 4,700 studies that included dietary records from over 570,000 people from four countries: Iran, Italy, the U.S., and China. The researchers were primarily concerned with looking at the health differences between those who regularly consumed chili peppers and those who didn’t. 

Ultimately, the researchers learned that those who favored the spicy food had better health outcomes than those who didn’t. The study revealed that the risk of death from any cause was 25 percent lower for those who regularly consumed chili peppers. 

When looking at the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, the researchers discovered that eating chili peppers was linked with a 26 percent lower risk and 23 percent lower risk, respectively. These findings are important because recent studies have shown how both cardiovascular disease and cancer risk can be affected by consumers’ diets. 

While the researchers are unsure why a relationship exists between chili peppers and risk of death, they plan to do more work to better understand how consumers can use their diets to their advantage. 

“The exact reasons and mechanisms that might explain our findings, though, are currently unknown,” Dr. Xu said. “Therefore, it is impossible to conclusively say that eating more chili pepper can prolong life and reduce deaths, especially from cardiovascular factors or cancer. More research, especially evidence from randomized controlled studies, is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.” 

A new study conducted by researchers from Queen’s University has found that delays in cancer treatment can be incredibly detrimental to patients’ health outcomes. According to their findings, the risk of death can increase by roughly 10 percent for each month that cancer treatment is stalled. 

“A four-week delay in treatment is associated with an increase in mortality across all common forms of cancer treatment, with longer delays being increasingly detrimental,” said researcher Timothy Hanna.

Increasing risk of death

To better understand why delays in cancer treatment exist, and what risk it poses to patients’ health, the researchers analyzed 34 studies that included data on over 1.2 million patients. The study focused on the most common types of the disease, which included cancers of the lung, colon, head, breast, rectum, neck, cervix, and bladder. Additionally, the researchers looked at three treatment plans: chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy. 

Ultimately, the researchers learned that delaying cancer treatment of any kind can increase patients’ risk of death, and the longer treatment is delayed, the more the risk of mortality increases. 

For example, delaying breast cancer surgery eight weeks was associated with a 17 percent increased risk of death; however, pushing that surgery back 12 weeks increased the risk of death by more than 25 percent. 

Importance of screenings and early detection

These findings are concerning for several reasons. Early detection is extremely important for treating many forms of cancer because patients have the best outcomes when the condition is addressed as quickly as possible. However, the researchers explained that the nature of health care systems often make it difficult for cancer patients to start treatments as quickly as they’d like. 

They also found that with the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals were forced to rearrange their surgery schedules and cancel or push back other types of treatments -- including cancer treatments. These findings make it clear that these delays put cancer patients at risk, and timing is really of the essence when it comes to having the best possible health outcomes. 

Moving forward, the researchers hope that these findings lead to policy changes that benefit cancer patients and prioritize their health and wellness. 

“In light of these results, policies focused on minimizing system level delays in cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes,” Hanna said. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the recall of a widely-used prescription drug used to treat diabetes. The manufacturer warns that an ingredient may cause cancer.

Marksans Pharma Limited, based in India, has recalled Metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, saying their levels of NDMA, which it labels a "probable human carcinogen," were present at higher than allowable levels.

The medication is normally prescribed to treat type 2 diabetes and has shown to be effective in lowering glucose levels. The recall applies to metformin tablets between 500 mg and 750 mg, sold under the brand name Time-Cap Labs, Inc.

“NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests,” the FDA said in a bulletin. “NDMA is a known environmental contaminant found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products and vegetables. Marksans Pharma Limited has not received any reports of adverse events that have been related to this recall.”

NDMA has also been found in other prescription medication, sometimes at unsafe levels. In 2018, major generic drug manufacturers recalled valsartan, a blood pressure medication, for that reason.

Marksans Pharma Limited is notifying its distributors and customers by issuing notification letters and a press release and is arranging for return/replacement of recalled product lots.

Patients who are taking metformin hydrochloride for type 2 diabetes or to lower blood sugar levels should contact their health care provider for instructions on what to do.

The FDA bulletin has a complete breakdown on the lots covered in the recall. You can check them out here,

The American Cancer Society has announced changes to the standing guidelines for cervical cancer screenings. 

Rather than perform a cervical exam on a routine basis, experts found that doctors can make the process more efficient by testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) more regularly, as the infection is one of the leading causes of cervical cancer. 

“These streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” said Debbie Saslow, PhD, an expert at the American Cancer Society. “They are made possible by some important developments that have allowed us to transform our approach to cervical cancer screening, primarily a deeper understanding of the role of HPV and the development of tools to address it.” 

Testing when necessary

Medical professionals from the American Cancer Society found that there are several ways to revamp the process of screening for cervical cancer. 

The previous guidelines recommended starting the testing process at age 21, with regular Pap tests to assess for any abnormalities. However, it’s been nearly a decade since these guidelines have been published, and data around HPV infections has changed. 

Not only are the levels of HPV infection going down thanks to several effective vaccines, but there has been no evidence indicating that starting testing at 21 is necessary. The report explained that the rate of women in their early 20s developing cervical cancer is incredibly low, and numbers are only expected to dip because of such widespread vaccine use. 

Now, the experts are calling for testing to begin at age 25. When it comes to performing the test, there are two recommended options for medical professionals: either a Pap test every three years or an HPV test and a Pap test every five years. They also explained that testing should continue through age 65 as long as there is no history of cervical cancer or any other related medical concerns. 

Representatives at the American Cancer Society believe these updated protocols will be beneficial in keeping cases of cervical cancer down. 

“We estimate that compared with the currently recommended strategy of cytology (Pap testing) alone beginning at age 21 and switching to co-testing at age 30 years, starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13 percent more cervical cancers and seven percent more cervical cancer deaths,” said Dr. Saslow. “Our model showed we could do that with a nine percent increase in follow-up procedures, but with 45 percent fewer tests required overall.” 

Early last year, researchers found that the cancer death rate has been declining for the last three decades. 

Now, experts from the American Cancer Society found that those figures continue to trend downwards. Between 2016 and 2017, the overall cancer death rate dropped 2.2 percent -- a history-making figure. The researchers point to progress made in lung and skin cancer treatments as one such reason for the positive results in recent years. 

“The accelerated drops in lung cancer mortality as well as in melanoma that we’re seeing are likely due at least in part to advances in cancer treatment over the past decade, such as immunotherapy,” said researcher Dr. William G. Cance. “They are a profound reminder of how rapidly this area of research is expanding, and now leading to real hope for cancer patients.” 

Evaluating progress

While the American Cancer Society frequently reports on trends in cancer research and deaths, this most recent iteration highlights the progress made between 2008 and 2017, which researcher Rebecca Siegel calls “mixed” overall.

For starters, the researchers discovered that the cancer death rate dropped 1.5 percent over the last decade. This figure may not seem significant, but the researchers explained that if the death rates had remained consistently high, nearly three million more deaths would have been reported. 

The study revealed that the melanoma death rate, which has been particularly tough for the older demographic, has seen improvements in recent years; the overall melanoma death rate steadily declined by seven percent each year between 2013 and 2017. 

The lung cancer death rate followed a similar trajectory, dropping five percent in men and four percent in women over the same time span. Many point to efforts made to tighten tobacco control programs, which have yielded successful results. 

Room for improvement

However, this study also showed that there is still room for improvement when it comes to detecting and treating prostate cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. These variations of the disease are among the most popular. With earlier detection, medical professionals can help consumers start a course of treatment that can attack the condition head-on. 

“The exciting gains in reducing mortality for melanoma and lung cancer are tempered by slowing progress for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers, which are amenable to early detection,” said Siegel. “It’s a reminder that increasing our investment in the equitable application of existing cancer control interventions, as well as basic and clinical research to further advance treatment, would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.” 

Anything can spark a bit of anger -- spilling your coffee in the morning or sitting in rush hour traffic -- but not too many consumers think of how that all-too familiar feeling can manifest itself in their health.

According to a new study conducted by the American Psychological Association, anger can increase inflammation throughout the body in older adults. Unfortunately, that can lead to an increased risk of diseases like cancer, heart disease, or arthritis.

“As most people age, they simply cannot do the activities they once did, or they may experience the loss of a spouse or a decline in their physical mobility and they can become angry,” said researcher Meaghan A. Barlow. “Our study showed that anger can lead to the development of chronic illnesses, whereas sadness did not.”

Physical effects of anger

To see how anger manifested itself in potential health complications, the researchers observed over 220 older adults between the ages of 59 and 93.

For research purposes, the participants were divided into different age groups; participants between the ages of 59 and 79 were considered “early old age,” and participants aged 80 and above were considered “advanced old age.”

The study spanned one week, during which the researchers gained insights about the participants’ current health standing, took blood samples to analyze their current inflammation levels, and had them complete questionnaires to evaluate their emotions, placing a particular emphasis on anger and sadness.

For the advanced old age group, the researchers found that anger became physically troublesome by contributing to higher levels of inflammation. They pointed out that this could lead to future health concerns.

The early old age group and those who reported feelings of sadness did not experience the same outcome; participants in the younger group who felt anger, and participants in both groups that reported feelings of sadness, did not experience the same inflammatory effects.

According to Barlow, age really was the biggest difference here. While the younger group can most likely use their anger as “an energizing emotion” that “can help motivate them to pursue life goals,” the older group wasn’t as lucky.

“Anger becomes problematic for adults once they reach 80 years old...because that is when many experience irreversible losses and some of life’s pleasures fall out of reach,” Barlow explained.

The researchers emphasized that knowledge is power in situations like these. They say that ensuring that older people have this information and tangible coping mechanisms to help deal with these emotions in healthy ways is crucial.

“If we better understand which negative emotions are harmful, not harmful, or even beneficial to older people, we can teach them how to cope with loss in a healthy way,” said Barlow. “This may help them let go of their anger.”

Managing emotions

While learning how to cope with emotions and maintaining a positive attitude is critical for consumers of all ages, recent studies have shown just how important it is for the older demographic.

Researchers have found that staying positive about aging can be the key to helping older adults handle stress.

According to researcher Shevaun Neupert, “the way we think about aging has very real consequences for how we respond to difficult situations when we’re older.” The study also revealed that consumers’ emotional responses can affect their health and quality of life.

Glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, increases the cancer risk of heavily-exposed individuals by 41 percent, according to a new analysis.

The latest findings, which were based on the results of six earlier studies on the herbicide, showed that the chemical significantly raised the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- the type of cancer affecting Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper who regularly used Roundup.

"All of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL," the authors of the University of Washington report wrote.

Previous research found a link between glyphosate and shorter pregnancies, and thousands of cancer patients have alleged that the weedkiller Roundup was a factor in their cancers.

Last year, a court awarded Dewayne Johnson nearly $300 million, later reduced to $78 million, in a lawsuit against Monsanto. The jury found that the company had failed to warn him and other consumers about the risks of the product.

‘There are some real concerns’

Bayer, the company that purchased Monsanto last year, has maintained that “hundreds of studies indicate glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.” The latest research appears to contradict that assertion.

"This research provides the most up-to-date analysis of glyphosate and its link with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, incorporating a 2018 study of more than 54,000 people who work as licensed pesticide applicators," co-author and doctoral student Rachel Shaffer said in a statement.

The researchers said they focused on people with the “highest exposure” to the herbicide because if Roundup wasn’t carcinogenic, as Bayer claims, even a high degree of exposure shouldn’t raise cancer risk.

“From a population health point of view, there are some real concerns,” said Lianne Sheppard, one of the study’s co-authors.

In a statement, Bayer said the new analysis "provides no scientifically valid evidence that contradicts the conclusions of the extensive body of science demonstrating that glyphosate-based herbicides are not carcinogenic."

The company said the analysis employed the use of "statistical manipulation" and that it contained "serious methodological flaws.”

The new research has been published in Mutation Research.

In both Canada and the United States, women have had little way of knowing until recently that certain breast implants are linked to cancer and other dangerous side effects.

Canada’s “erratic and secretive system of medical device incident reporting” meant that women who decided to undergo the elective procedure were never told about the risks of cancer, even as doctors and regulators were made aware of the issues, as the Toronto Daily Star recently reported.

And in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for years allowed breast implant manufacturers to report problems in bulk, making it appear as though thousands of grievances were just one.

That suddenly changed this fall, when the Associated Press found that the FDA’s system had more than 4,000 injury reports related to breast implants in the last half of 2017 alone. Another 8,000 injury reports were filed in the first six months of 2018. Previously, there had appeared to be only 200 reports filed annually about breast implants in the United States.

The data suddenly changed because the FDA last year instructed device\ makers that they needed to file individual reports for each case rather than filing in bulk. But the FDA only made that request to device makers due to an ongoing lawsuit over breast implants and an attorney’s motion for discovery for the case.

The agency is otherwise planning to continue to allow device makers to report problems in bulk, the AP reports, creating what some watchdogs say is a deceptive image that numerous devices are safer than they really are.

Fatal consequences

The flood of individual reports gave credence to concerns that textured saline breast implants can cause a rare blood cancer.

The FDA has been looking into the issue since 2011 and is now investigating more than 400 reports linking the textured implants to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), including nine reports that said the patients died.

Experts aren’t sure why textured implants seem to pose that cancer risk, but they suspect that the products may cause abrasions and other irritation internally. However, the manufacturers of such implants have no apparent plans to stop making them.

“As with any medical procedure or device, patients considering breast implants are encouraged to have a comprehensive conversation with their surgeon about all potential risks and benefits, allowing for a fully informed decision,” Allergan, one of the device makers, told NBC.

Textured implants were first linked to blood cancer by independent researchers back in the late ‘90s, but the issue received little attention.  The cancer takes approximately ten years to develop.

Ruptured implants and a resulting infection were another side effect described in the FDA’s database.

Some crayons sold at Dollar Tree stores across the U.S. have trace amounts of asbestos fibers, according to recent tests by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), a consumer advocacy group.

Playskool crayons tested positive for asbestos fibers, which can cause serious health problems -- including breathing difficulties, lung disease, lung cancer, and mesothelioma -- when the particles are inhaled or ingested.

"The good news is that when we were testing three years ago, all sorts of brands came back with asbestos," said Kara Cook-Schultz, toxics director at the U.S PIRG, a group that conducts annual tests of school supplies. "Now it's just this one."

In addition to Dollar Tree stores, Playskool brand crayons are also sold on Amazon.com, eBay, and DollarDays.com. In light of the test results, the organization is calling on these retailers to remove the crayons from their shelves and online listings.

“There is no reason to be exposing kids to a known carcinogen, especially in crayons," Cook-Schultz said.

Dollar Tree responds

In a statement regarding the test results, Dollar Tree executives said independent tests have shown that crayons on its shelves do not contain asbestos.

"The safety of our customers and associates is our top priority," Randy Guiler, vice president of investor relations, told The Washington Post. "We are aware of the report and have since re-verified that each of the listed products successfully passed inspection and testing."

A spokesperson for Hasbro, which owns the Playskool brand, told CBS News that it would investigate U.S. PIRG’s claims thoroughly, “including working with Leap Year, the licensee of the product.”

“We are aware of a report of trace amounts of asbestos being detected in a small amount of product testing conducted by a private group and are reviewing our own certified lab testing, which to our knowledge, passes all regulatory requirements and had no detectable asbestos,” added a spokesman for Leap Year.  

“We will issue a formal statement upon the completion of our review. Consumer safety is most important to Leap Year and we take these matters very seriously.”

Other brands tested

The advocacy group that issued the report also tested five other crayon brands. The following five were found to be free of asbestos:

• Crayola

• Target's Up & Up

• Cra-Z-Art

• Disney Junior Mickey and the Roadster Racers

• Roseart

Additionally, the report found that blue three-ring binders made by Jot and sold at Dollar Tree tested positive for phthalates. Phthalates were recently included on a list of chemicals that can be dangerous to children, due to the fact that they are linked with asthma, obesity and lower-IQ scores.

Dry erase markers made by Expo and The Board Dudes also tested positive for carcinogenic BTEX chemicals, such as benzene, xylene, and toluene.

A study produced by PinneyAssociates, a firm closely associated with the nicotine replacement industry, says U.S. consumers wrongly believe there is a link between nicotine and cancer.

It conducted a survey of adults that showed more than half believed that nicotine is the substance causing most of the cancer linked to smoking. Another 21 percent said they weren't sure whether nicotine was a carcinogen.

"That adults' misperceptions about the health effects of nicotine persist despite the long-term availability of FDA-approved over-the-counter nicotine replacement products is troubling and needs to be addressed with clear communications to the public—especially smokers—that nicotine is not what is causing smoking-related disease," said Karen Gerlach, the lead author on the study.

Questions about nicotine persist

But nicotine does not get a clean bill of health from many health experts. A study by the Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology study, published on a National Institutes of Health (NIH) website, says nicotine has its own health issues.

"There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders," the authors write. "There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer."

The study concludes that the use of nicotine needs regulation and its sale should be "under supervision of trained medical personnel."

The other side of the debate

But there are plenty of scientists who take the other side of the debate, arguing that smoking cigarettes is many times worse than using nicotine products. Some doctors say a person who gives up smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for nicotine gum has removed most of their previous health risk.

In a recent Reuters interview, Ann McNeill, a professor at King's College London, called for "de-demonizing" nicotine. She says the risks are complicated and relative, with cigarette smoking at one end and nicotine use on the other.

British and American health officials also differ on the benefits and/or risks associated with e-cigarettes. U.S. health researchers tend to highlight the risks.

Late last week, researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released a study of e-cigarettes and found small amounts of some toxic metals in the liquids before use, but much higher levels after the liquids had been exposed to the device’s heating coils.

But a 2014 British study looked favorably upon e-cigarettes, concluding that smokers who used them were more likely to improve their health because they had a much better chance of kicking the habit.

Previous studies have already examined many of the negative implications of eating processed foods, but a team of researchers from France and Brazil have now linked consumption of these products with increased risk of cancer.

In a new cohort study, the researchers warn that the trend of eating what they deem to be “ultra-processed” foods “may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades.”

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate and highlight an increase in the risk of overall – and specifically breast – cancer associated with ultra-processed food intake,” they said.

Processed foods increase cancer risk

The team based their conclusions on an observational study of over 100,000 adults. All participants were asked to participate in at least two 24-hour online dietary questionnaires that gauged their usual intake of approximately 3,300 food items.

Foods were grouped according to how much processing was required to manufacture them and how many cancer cases were identified with their consumption.

After compiling the information, the researchers found that a 10 percent increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods correlated with a 12 percent increased risk of overall cancer; the increased risk of contracting breast cancer was 11 percent.

Tests for less processed foods – such as canned vegetables, cheeses, and freshly unpackaged bread – showed no significant increased risk of cancer, and fresh or minimally processed foods (fruits, vegetables, meat, and fish) were associated with lower risks of overall cancer and breast cancer.

Further research needed

Although the results suggest that there is a meaningful link between processed foods and cancer rates, the researchers stress that their study is observational and only provides an initial insight into this issue. They say that further research will need to be conducted to confirm the findings.

“Further studies are needed to better understand the relative effect of the various dimensions of processing (nutritional composition, food additives, contact materials, and neoformed contaminants) in these associations,” they said.

The full study has been published in the The BMJ.

Within the next year, coffee sellers in California could be required to post a cancer warning in their stores.

A state list of chemicals with the potential to cause cancer includes acrylamide -- a chemical created when coffee beans are roasted, according to CNN.

Under California’s Proposition 65, businesses are required to warn customers if their products contain any of the 65 chemicals associated with obesity, birth defects, or other reproductive issues.

A lawsuit filed in 2010 by the nonprofit Council for Education and Research on Toxics alleged that in failing to give customers a “clear and reasonable warning” about the presence of a possible carcinogen, California coffee sellers are in breach of the law.

Reducing cancer burden

The suit aimed to get companies like Starbucks and 7-Eleven to post warnings about the chemical acrylamide and its potential to cause cancer. The group’s main goal was to get companies to reduce levels of acrylamide in coffee.

"We have a huge cancer epidemic in this country, and about a third of cancers are linked to diet,” said Raphael Metzger, the attorney representing the nonprofit. "To the extent that we can get carcinogens out of the food supply, logically, we can reduce the cancer burden in this country. That's what this is all about."

Around 13 companies have agreed to post warning labels on walls or store counters, including 7-Eleven. The nine remaining retailers will try to come to an agreement in a trial set for February 8.

Cancer risk

The defendants argue that the small amount of acrylamide present in coffee isn’t high enough to increase the risk of cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, acrylamide causes cancer in rats, but only when the rodents were exposed to doses 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average human might be exposed to in foods such as potatoes, baked goods, cereal, prune juice, or canned black olives.

According to the National Cancer Institute, people are exposed to "substantially more” acrylamide from cigarette smoke than from food.

So far, human studies have found “no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer.” However, more studies are needed to help determine the chemical’s relationship with human cancer risk.

Researchers say they’ve developed a new experimental blood test that can detect eight common cancers before the disease is even diagnosed.

The blood test, called CancerSEEK, was tested on 1,005 patients at John Hopkins University, whose cancers had already been diagnosed but had not yet metastasized. Ovarian, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers were detected in the blood samples of 70 percent of participants.

These cancers account for more than 60 percent of cancer deaths in the U.S., the researchers noted. Five of these tumor types -- ovarian, liver, stomach, pancreatic, and esophageal cancers -- currently have no screening tests.

"The use of a combination of selected biomarkers for early detection has the potential to change the way we screen for cancer, and it is based on the same rationale for using combinations of drugs to treat cancers," says Dr. Nickolas Papadopoulos, senior author and professor of oncology and pathology.

Early diagnosis key

In addition to testing for the general presence of cancer, the test can hone in on the location of the cancer within the body. In eight of 10 cases, CancerSEEK was able to determine the position of the cancer in the body.

The non-invasive test works by analyzing DNA mutations and protein biomarkers. Other cancer biomarkers -- such as metabolites, mRNA transcripts, miRNAs, or methylated DNA sequences -- could be added in the future to increase sensitivity and accuracy of cancer site localization, the researchers say.

The ultimate goal of this “liquid biopsy” is to detect cancer earlier -- even “before the disease is symptomatic,” Papadopoulos said. He says early diagnosis of cancer makes it “easier to kill...by surgery or chemotherapy,” which can help reduce cancer deaths in the long-term.

More research needed

While CancerSEEK represents an important step towards the development of a tool for routine cancer screening in healthy individuals, the researchers say more research is needed to get to that point.

In its current state, CancerSEEK was better at detecting later stage cancer compared to cancer in earlier stages. A larger study is already underway to see whether the test can pick up tumors in women who are seemingly cancer-free.

John Epling, a doctor with Carilion Clinic and the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, says a few additional steps will also be necessary before the test goes public.

"The next steps are to define how positives in this test are followed up for each of the cancers, and then to study this screening test on a group of patients without any symptoms of cancer," Epling, who was not involved in the study, told ConsumerAffairs.

"Ideally a study like this would be a randomized controlled trial of screening using this test vs. 'usual screening' to demonstrate benefit beyond the currently-employed tests for several of these cancers. The outcomes considered in such a study should not stop at cancer detection, but instead include improved quantity and quality of life over the long term," he said.

Papadopoulos and his colleagues hope commercial availability will follow additional evaluations of the test. The team believes the test could eventually cost less than $500 to run and could be easily administered by a primary care physician.

The full study has been published in the journal Science.

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds fewer than half the world's 50 busiest airports are completely smoke-free.

Twenty-three of those airports forbid smoking anywhere in the facility, but 27 have designated areas inside the terminals where smokers may light up. The findings are important because the CDC estimates that secondhand smoke causes 34,000 heart disease deaths and 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year in the U.S.

The government study, which measured current policies, found significant variations in smoke-free policy status by region. Airports in North America are most likely to have a comprehensive smoke-free policy, but only 18 percent of airports in Asia are smoke-free.

Designated smoking areas still dangerous

Among the 10 busiest airports in the world, Chicago O'Hare and Los Angeles International are smoke-free, while Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson International has a designated smoking area.

"The Surgeon General has concluded there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure‎," said Corinne Graffunder, director of CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. "Even brief exposure can have health consequences."

Thomas Carr, Director of National Policy at the American Lung Association, agrees. He says earlier CDC studies showed that air quality studies conducted just outside airport smoking rooms showed they were not adequate to protect others from secondhand smoke.

"The American Lung Association believes all airports in the U.S. and worldwide should remove their indoor smoking rooms to fully protect airport employees and travelers," Carr told ConsumerAffairs.

Unaware of the threat

Non-smokers traveling through airports may be completely unaware of whether the terminal has a smoking area or not. Carr says that means they are largely unaware of the threat if they are being subjected to secondhand smoke.

"This is what makes the release of this CDC report timely," Carr said. "With the start of the holiday travel season it provides an opportunity to better educate and warn travelers about the dangers these indoor smoking rooms in airports pose. No one should be exposed to secondhand smoke."

Cliff Douglas, Vice President of Tobacco Control at the American Cancer Society, says it's not only travelers but airport workers who have to worry about daily secondhand smoke exposure.

"It is well understood that designated smoking areas, including ventilated rooms, do not fully eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke by non-smoking bystanders and passersby," Douglas told ConsumerAffairs. "The air pollution levels from secondhand smoke outside such smoking areas have been found to be five times higher than levels in smoke-free airports."

He says smokers using the designated smoking rooms may also be unaware that the air pollution in those designated areas are up to 23 time greater than levels found in smoke-free airports.

Health scientists have made huge strides in recent years in diagnosing and treating cancer.

Some promising developments have panned out, but many others haven't. Researchers at Boise State University hope their recent discovery turns out to be one that puts science a step closer to a cure.

The National Cancer Institutes (NCI) has what it calls the NCI-60 panel of cancer cells, a list of 60 different cancers that can affect nine organ systems in the human body. Boise State researchers have developed a series of drugs they say will kill 58 of the 60 cancer cells.

Biological sciences professors Abdelkrim Alileche and Greg Hampikian identify the two drugs as 9R and 9S1.

Absent protein sequences

Over the last decade, the scientists have worked to identify a complete list of “shortest absent protein sequences for all sequenced life on earth.” Connecting the dots, they then determined that when these short sequences are absent, it can negatively affect the human genome.

“We realized this is exactly how the human immune system works, looking for short sequences that don’t exist in the human genome – and killing them,” said Hampikian.

So they started playing around with DNA, creating combinations that did not exist in nature. It might sound scary, but the scientists were convinced they were onto something.

In the lab, the researchers experimented, using some of the absent protein sequences to try to kill human cancers. They say one worked very well, so they used it to create the two experimental drugs. The drugs, they say, have been shown to take out all but two of the types of cancer cells in the NCI panel.

“There really is no similar type of protein, effective against solid tumor and blood cancers, from all nine organ systems in the NCI-60 panel – including kidney, ovary, skin melanoma, lung, brain, lung, colon, prostate and the hematopoietic system,” said Alileche. “While there are toxic effects against some normal cell lines, several cancers are more sensitive than normal cells.”

Could hold promise

That leads to hope that drugs harnessing the proteins could hold promise for combating cancer in humans.

Previously, researchers have had some success using the body's immune system to attack and kill cancers. At the time, it represented a sharp departure from previous methods of treating cancer.

This method represents yet another departure, and the two scientists say much more research will be required to tell if this development is as promising as they hope it is.

While this treatment holds promise for fighting cancer in humans, the team is beginning new studies and predicts it will be a few years before testing advances to that stage.

Of all the types of cancer out there, perhaps one of the hardest to detect and treat is pancreatic cancer. The disease, which is diagnosed in over 53,000 people in the U.S. every year and is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death, often can’t be diagnosed until it is in an advanced stage when surgically removing tumors is no longer an option.

However, a new discovery by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine might change that. In a recent study, they were able to identify two blood biomarkers that may allow medical professionals to detect the disease much earlier and save lives.

"Early detection of cancer has had a critical influence on lessening the impact of many types of cancer, including breast, colon, and cervical cancer. A long-standing concern has been that patients with pancreatic cancer are often not diagnosed until it is too late for the best chance at effective treatment," explains Dr. Robert Vonderheide. "Having a biomarker test for this disease could dramatically alter the outlook for these patients."

Earlier detection

The researchers came upon their discovery after using a human-cell model of pancreatic cancer progression first developed in 2013. With the tool, they genetically modified late stage cancer cells and reverted them back to their stem-cell states. The process enabled them to reprogram the cells to progress to an early cancerous state, which revealed the presence of biomarkers.

The researchers said that tests for one of the biomarkers, called plasma thrombospiondin-2 (THBS2), along with a known later-stage biomarker called CA19-9 allowed a commercially available protein-detection assay to reliably detect the presence of pancreatic cancer in patients.

"Positive results for THBS2 or CA19-9 concentrations in the blood consistently and correctly identified all stages of the cancer," said team leader Dr. Ken Zaret. "Notably, THBS2 concentrations combined with CA19-9 identified early stages better than any other known method."

The researchers believe that doctors will be able to use these early-detection biomarkers to test the blood of pancreatic cancer patients and those at high risk for developing pancreatic cancer, especially those who have a first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer, are genetically predisposed to the disease, or have a sudden onset of diabetes after the age of 50.

The full study has been published in Science Translational Medicine.

You still need sunscreen, but a new study says that a daily tomato or two may help prevent skin cancer. And no, you don't smear it on your skin, you eat it.

The study by researchers at The Ohio State University fed male mice a diet of 10 percent tomato powder and exposed them to ultraviolet light daily for 35 weeks. Another group of mice got the ultraviolet but not the tomatoes.

The result: the tomato eaters had 50 percent fewer skin cancer tumors. 

The theory behind it is that dietary carotenoids, the pigmenting compounds that give tomatoes their color, may protect skin against UV light damage, said Jessica Cooperstone, co-author of the study and a research scientist in the Department of Food Science and Technology in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences at Ohio State.

Gender difference

Female mice were also tested but showed no difference in tumor numbers. That may be because male mice develop tumors earlier after UV exposure and their tumors are more numerous, larger, and more aggressive.

“This study showed us that we do need to consider sex when exploring different preventive strategies,” said the study’s senior author, Tatiana Oberyszyn, a professor of pathology and member of Ohio State’s Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“What works in men may not always work equally well in women and vice versa.”

Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common of all cancers, with more new cases — 5.4 million in 2012 — each year than breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers combined, according to the American Cancer Society.

Despite a low mortality rate, these cancers are costly, disfiguring, and their rates are increasing, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The new study of how nutritional interventions can alter the risk for skin cancers appeared online in the journal Scientific Reports.

California today officially listed glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, as a chemical known to cause cancer under the state’s Proposition 65 law. The widely used herbicide must now carry a label warning California consumers that it can cause cancer in people.

It's the first time a governmental authority anywhere in the world has issued a regulation based on Roundup’s potential carcinogenicity. The state had earlier announced its intention to do so but was delayed by a court challenge filed by Monsanto, which manufactures Roundup. The challenge was dismissed last week.

Monsanto issued a statement in response to the court's ruling, calling it "unwarranted on the basis of science and the law."

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) still must set a limit for acceptable daily exposure to the herbicide. Scientists at the agency have proposed a limit of 1.1 milligrams a day – 127 times less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s legal allowance for the average-sized adult.

Good but not enough?

The Environmental Working Group urged the state to go further and set much lower exposure limits to protect the health of children and fetuses.

“With this action today listing glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical, California continues to lead the nation in implementing laws to protect human health and the environment,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “This is a significant blow to Monsanto, but a victory on behalf of the public, which could set the stage for similar actions in other states across the nation.”

EWG said the state should set a much lower limit for glyphosate – no more than 0.01 milligrams per day – which would protect all Californians, including children.

“While we applaud today’s action, we do believe the state can take additional steps to further protect its most vulnerable populations from this dangerous chemical,” said Cook.

Targeted by environmentalists

Glyphosate has been a target of environmentalists and some health officials since the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a finding in 2015, saying the substance is “probably carcinogenic.”

Monsanto sued California 18 months ago to block it from adding Roundup to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive damage. Prop. 65 requires the state to label all substances identified as carcinogenic or dangerous to the reproductive process.

Monsanto filed the suit in Fresno County, Calif., maintaining glyphosate is not harmful. The use of the chemical has increased in recent years, as agricultural operations have used it on a variety of crops. Consumers are likely most familiar with it as the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup, used to control unwanted vegetation in suburban lawns and driveways.

The company said California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment tested glyphosate in 1997 and 2007 and found it did not present a cancer risk to humans.

Doctors were among the first to sound the alarm over high prescription drug prices.

In 2015 doctors at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center concluded that most of the preferred drugs used to treat blood cancers are too expensive to even be considered cost-effective. Since then, a number of health organizations have joined a concerted effort to roll back prescription drug prices.

The Florida Society of Rheumatology, New York State Rheumatology Society, and California Rheumatology Alliance this week became the newest members of the Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP). Specifically, the group is focusing on the role of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in escalating drug prices.

“The California Rheumatology Alliance is concerned about the additional expense that PBMs add to the cost of medications,” said Dr. Robin Dore, president of the California Rheumatology Alliance. “It is imperative that we shine light on this process so that we can try to pass on any savings to our patients.”

ATAP charges PBMs with increasingly absorbing drug rebates and discounts so that patients rarely benefit from the savings.

Industry response

PBMs, meanwhile, deny they are responsible for the higher drug costs consumers pay. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) released a report earlier this month it said demonstrated that drug prices rise, regardless of whether they have rebates or not.

“This study definitively shows that drugmakers set and raise prices unrelated to the rebates they negotiate with PBMs,” said PCMA CEO Mark Merritt. “In fact, many high-priced drugs like Sovaldi, which initially cost $84,000, involved no rebates until other competitors came to market.”

The conflict between drug companies and PBMs has sharpened as the debate over drug prices has intensified. It became an issue last year when Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, testifying before Congress, blamed PBMs for steep price hikes for the EpiPen, a charge PBMs hotly denied.

Executive order panned

Meanwhile, consumer group Public Citizen doesn't think much of the Trump administration's proposed executive order to lower drug prices. Peter Maybarduk, director of the group’s Access to Medicines Program, says the proposal outlined by The New York Times this week suggests "Big Pharma" has captured the administration.

"The Donald Trump who promised to make medications more affordable, ease Americans’ pain and take on the giant corporations is nowhere to be seen," Maybarduk said in a statement. "Instead, the draft Trump executive order, formed in significant part by pharma lobbyist Joe Grogan, would increase profits at the expense of patient safety while failing to reduce costs – and even potentially raising them."

Maybarduk says the government should authorize generic competition with unattainable patented drugs as a way to reduce costs for public health programs.

The dangers of heavy alcohol consumption have been well documented, with consumers who imbibe too much facing increased risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, and various forms of cancer. But a new study shows that drinking even a moderate amount can lead to serious health complications.

Researchers from the University of Oxford and University College London have found that drinking between 14-21 units of alcohol per week -- the equivalent of a medium glass of wine each night, plus a little more on the weekends, according to CNN -- can result in hippocampal atrophy, a form of brain damage that affects memory and spatial navigation. This is a startling finding, since current federal guidelines say that drinking even more than this amount is safe for some consumers.

“Our findings…call into question the current US guidelines, which suggest that up to 24.5 units a week is safe for men, as we found increased odds of hippocampal atrophy at just 14-21 units a week, and we found no support for a protective effect of light consumption on brain structure,” the researchers said.

Causes brain damage

The study used data that measured weekly alcohol intake and cognitive performance over the course of 30 years for approximately 550 healthy men and women who took part in the Whitehall II study, with the researchers adjusting for factors like age, sex, education, social class, physical and social activity, smoking, stroke risk, and medical history.

Over the study period, the researchers found that higher consumption of alcohol was associated with higher incidences of hippocampal atrophy, decreased language skills, and poorer white matter integrity, which is essential for the brain to process information.

While the heaviest drinkers had the greatest risks in all of these cases, the researchers say that even moderate drinkers were causing lasting damage to their brain function; participants who drank moderately were found to be at three times the risk of hippocampal atrophy when compared to light drinkers or those who abstained from alcohol.

"Normal" habits could be harmful

While the study is only observational and cannot produce any firm conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers say they also found no protective effect of light drinking on brain structure. In a linked editorial, neuropsychiatrist Killian Welch said the findings “strengthen the argument that drinking habits many regard as normal have adverse consequences for health.”

“We all use rationalizations to justify persistence with behaviours not in our long term interest. With publication of this paper, justification of moderate drinking on the grounds of brain health becomes a little harder,” he said.

The full study has been published in The BMJ. 

Consumers have been aware for years that smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer. While awareness of the issue has led to declines in overall lung cancer rates, experts say one particular type of lung cancer called adenocarcinoma has continued to flourish – and now they may know why.

Dr. Peter Shields, from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, says that the small holes on the filters of many cigarettes increase risk of adenocarcinoma.

“Adenocarcinoma, which is today the most common type of lung cancer, is continuing to increase. There is mounting evidence that tiny holes found near the filter of certain cigarettes are largely to blame,” he said.

Dangers of “light” cigarettes

The findings may come as a bit of a shock to smokers of light cigarettes who believed that the filters on their preferred products made them safer. Experts point out that the tiny holes on these products were originally intended to give cigarettes a smoother taste and to make consumers think that the products were less harmful.

However, Shields says that isn’t the case. “The public health community thought that those holes might a good thing originally. Unfortunately, it’s becoming clear there are some consequences with the design that make cigarettes more dangerous and cause people to die in increasing numbers,” he said.

The increased danger, he explains, is due to the fact that the holes allow the cigarette to burn slower and at a lower temperature. And, because the smoke is diluted with more air, smokers who use these cigarettes are also more likely to inhale more deeply and force more toxic chemicals into their lungs.

Increased regulations

The researchers are now urging lawmakers to consider placing more regulations on “filtered” cigarettes to reduce the number of adenocarcinoma cases.

“We think there is enough evidence now that the Food and Drug Administration can ban the holes that encircle the filters in an effort to protect consumers, and in doing so, help drive down the number of cases and deaths from lung cancer,” Shields said.

The full study has been published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Previous studies have shown just how beneficial eating a handful of nuts per day can be to consumers’ health. But a new study shows that doing so may be particularly beneficial to consumers who have faced colon cancer.

Researchers working with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have found that colon cancer patients who eat two ounces or more of tree nuts per week had a 42% lower chance of cancer recurrence and a 57% lower chance of all-cause mortality than those who don’t eat them. ASCO president Daniel F. Hayes says the findings reinforce how a healthy diet should not be overlooked when it comes to cancer treatment.

“This study shows that something as simple as eating tree nuts may make a difference in a patient's long-term survival…Nut consumption and a healthy diet are generally factors that clinicians and patients should perhaps pay attention to as they design the approach to treatment for colorectal cancer," he said.

Tree nut benefits

The observational study examined questionnaire answers from 826 patients with stage III colon cancer who were asked about chemotherapy and their dietary intake, with a special focus on whether they ate any kind of nuts.

With those reports, the researchers analyzed associations between nut consumption and the risk of cancer recurrence and death. The findings showed that approximately 19% of all patients reported nut consumption of at least two ounces per week; those same patients were found to have a 42% lower chance of cancer recurrence and a 57% lower chance of death compared to their peers, with results remaining consistent across all ages, BMI scores, genders, and common genomic changes in tumors.

The researchers said that tree nuts were the main contributors to these statistics, since peanut and peanut butter consumption did not appear to impart any significant benefits. Tree nuts include staples such as almonds, cashews, chestnuts, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachios, pine nuts, walnuts, and Brazil nuts, among others.

Decreasing chances of cancer recurrence

The researchers emphasize that nut consumption should not be considered a substitute for standard chemotherapy for colon cancer, but they do admit that including these foods in patients' diets could provide remarkable benefits.

“Patients with advanced disease who benefit from chemotherapy frequently ask what else they can do to reduce their chances of recurrence or death, and our study is an important contribution to the idea that modifying diet and physical activity can be beneficial,” said lead author Dr. Temidao Fadelu.

“Patients with colon cancer should be optimistic, and they should eat a healthy diet, including tree nuts, which may not only keep them healthier, but may also further decrease the chances of the cancer coming back," added Hayes.

Further research needed

Going forward, the researchers say that they will continue to look at the positive impact that tree nut consumption has on colon cancer.

“Ultimately, we need to understand how nuts confer this protective effect, as well as possibly conduct a randomized, controlled clinical trial where diet recommendations are given at the start of the study to prove that tree nuts can reduce recurrence and death after treatment for colon cancer," said Fadelu.

The full study is scheduled to be presented at the upcoming 2017 ASCO Annual meeting in Chicago.

This is one of those rare stories that may actually save your life. A new study finds that patients with pancreatic cancer survive longer when they go to a major cancer center for treatment. Not many patients do that, however.

"We wanted to know: if you live in a rural area, does it benefit you to travel to a high-volume academic medical center for your cancer operation?" said Dr. Raymon H. Grogan, M.D., assistant professor of surgery at the University of Chicago Medicine.

The answer is a pretty clear "yes," Grogan and associates say in an article published on the American College of Surgeons website. "There is a well-established relationship between a surgeon's high volume of operations and patients' improved outcomes for pancreatic and thyroid cancer, and most high-volume surgeons in the United States practice in metropolitan settings and academic referral medical centers."

To understand the effect of travel on the overall survival rate and quality of care, Dr. Grogan and co-investigators focused on two types of cancer with different chances for cure. One, papillary thyroid cancer, is the most frequent type of thyroid cancer and is usually slow growing and its treatments are associated with a low complication rate. The other, the most common form of cancer of the pancreas, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, tends to be aggressive with a much worse survival rate.

Using patient records entered into the National Cancer Database (NCDB), the authors analyzed data for 105,677 patients with papillary thyroid cancer and 22,983 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. They studied how far those patients traveled for treatment and correlated the results with the outcome of that treatment.

Pancreatic cancer

Among patients with pancreatic cancer, those living in rural and urban areas who traveled to an academic medical center for their care had longer overall survival compared with patients who underwent cancer operations near their home communities, the researchers reported. Overall survival is a measure of the length of time from a person's cancer diagnosis to the time of his or her death, regardless of the cause of death. 

Patients with this aggressive pancreatic cancer lived two months longer on average if they traveled for care, Dr. Grogan reported.

Thyroid cancer

As expected, the researchers found no survival differences by travel in patients with thyroid cancer, which Dr. Grogan said has an average five-year survival rate of 97 percent. Importantly, however, patients who traveled were more likely to receive care that followed cancer treatment guidelines from the American Thyroid Association and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an indicator of quality of care, he stated.

"Our data do not necessarily show that patients who don't travel for cancer care receive suboptimal care," Dr. Grogan stressed. "Rather, patients who travel more often receive the gold standard care -- care that more often conforms with evidence-based recommendations."

Not many travel

Despite the advantages of traveling to a major medical center, only 9 percent of patients with thyroid cancer and approximately 25 percent of pancreatic cancer patients traveled for their surgical care, the data showed.

"Although we found that travel is associated with better outcomes, the vast majority of these cancer patients are not traveling for their care," Grogan said.

Noting that lengthy travel to a cancer treatment center may have disadvantages as well as the observed advantages, Dr. Grogan said their study gives patients with cancer more information to decide what is important to them.

Whether patients travel for surgical cancer care or not, he recommended that they ask their surgeon two important questions: "How many of these operations do you perform each year?" and "What is your complication rate when performing this operation?"

Cancer is a dreaded disease. Though survival rates have improved in recent years, the treatment is long, painful, and expensive.

The recent focus on the high cost of prescription drugs has included specialty drugs to treat cancer. In 2015, researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted an analysis of drugs used to treat blood cancer and concluded the costs could not be justified, even when they prolonged a patient's life.

Last year, researchers at the University of North Carolina found that a month's worth of treatment with the newest cancer drugs, on the market since 2014, were, on average, six times more expensive than the launch prices of similar drugs introduced in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation.

But it gets worse. As the cost of treatment goes up, researchers at the University of Georgia (UGA) found that when a husband or wife is diagnosed with cancer, the household income declines an average of 5%.

That's often because the caregiver's income goes down too. For men, it's an average decline of 5%. For women it's 9%.

Losing $5,000 to $9,000

“The average annual household income for the working-age couples we studied was about $100,000, so the loss of income per family is about $5,000 to $9,000, which is a pretty substantial decline,” said Vincent Pohl, assistant professor of economics at UGA . “In a situation where one household member has a devastating diagnosis, it leads to the whole household suffering economically.”

Often the person who has cancer can't work as much. But Pohl says the "caregiver effect" is when one one family member reduces his or her employment in order to support another.

“We thought that the household’s lessened income could happen in one of two ways,” Pohl said. “One is that the person who is diagnosed might not be able to work because they are getting treatment or they’re too sick to work. The second is what happens to their spouse: Does the spouse work more to make up for the lost income or does the spouse also reduce his or her labor supply in order to take care of the spouse that is diagnosed with cancer?"

The researchers found it's the latter. Pohl says spouses reduce their labor supply and therefore have lowered income levels, which leads to the household having lower income levels as well.

Contributor to bankruptcy

Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the largest contributor to bankruptcy was medical bills -- and in many cases it was bills for the treatment of cancer. Pohl says policymakers need to think about the implications of illness -- particularly chronic diseases like cancer.

He says disability insurance might cover the person with cancer, but it doesn't help the spouse who sacrifices his or her career.

“It doesn’t take into account that family members might have to take care of an individual and therefore might also lose their job or reduce their working hours and thus their income,” he said.

Cancer of any form can be devastating, and unfortunately some forms of treatment can take their toll too.

One example can be seen in men who go through external beam radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer. Side effects vary for each person, but many report issues such as frequent, difficult, and painful urination, abdominal cramping, sexual dysfunction, and greater overall fatigue.

However, a new study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that yoga can help alleviate some of these symptoms.

The researchers began their study by splitting up two groups of men who underwent 6-9 weeks of external beam radiation therapy. During that period, one group participated in yoga classes twice a week and the other served as the control group.

Each yoga class lasted for 75 minutes, with participants taking part in a variety of breathing exercises, centering techniques, and positions meant to encourage flexibility and strength. During the trial period, every participant was asked to report their level of fatigue and how it affected their daily life. Logs of these reports were kept and repeated throughout the study period.

Improved health outcomes

By the end of the study, the researchers were surprised to find that those who participated in yoga classes were less fatigued than their counterparts. Other measures, such as urinary function, also improved in this group.

"Levels of patient-reported fatigue are expected to increase by around the fourth or fifth week of a typical treatment course, but that did not happen in the yoga group. Both the severity of the fatigue as well as the patients' ability to go about their normal lives appeared to be positively impacted in the yoga group," said principal investigator Dr. Neha Vapiwala.

"Yoga is known to strengthen pelvic floor muscles, which is one of several postulated theories that may explain why this group did not demonstrate declining scores, as seen in the control group. That may also explain the yoga patients' improved urinary function scores, another finding of this trial."

In addition to urinary function and fatigue improvements, the researchers found that the yoga classes helped participants overcome sexual dysfunction symptoms associated with radiation therapy. Participant who practiced yoga also reported higher levels of emotional well-being than the control group.

The full study has been published in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology.

It’s hard to understate the health benefits that can be imparted by eating blueberries. Previous reports have shown that they can help prevent cell damage linked to cancer, reduce inflammation in the body, and stave off problems associated with diseases like cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, and diabetes.

Now, a study shows that they can also improve brain function in older adults. Researchers from the University of Exeter had older consumers drink concentrated blueberry juice and observed how it affected their physical health. They found that the concoction increased blood flow to the brain and improved overall cognitive function.

"In this study, we have shown that with just 12 weeks of consuming 30ml of concentrated blueberry juice every day, brain blood flow, brain activation and some aspects of working memory were improved in this group of healthy older adults," said Dr. Joanna Bowtell.

Countering cognitive decline

The study used 26 healthy participants between the ages of 65 and 77. Twelve were asked to consume the equivalent of roughly 230 grams of blueberries every day, while the remaining members were given a placebo. After a 12-week period, the researchers examined specific brain areas of each participant and found that those who drank the blueberry juice had increased brain activity.

The researchers state that the findings corroborate past studies which show that plant-based foods can increase brain function. This is important, they say, because of the tendency for older consumers to experience cognitive decline. They suspect the positive effect of blueberries is derived primarily from their flavonoids, which are most closely linked to antioxidant and anti-inflammatory health benefits.

The full study has been published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism.

Medical technology has progressed at a remarkable pace in recent years, allowing consumers to live longer and have higher-quality lives. Younger generations will likely benefit most from these advances because they will be able to use them more extensively, but a new study shows that Baby Boomers still hold a health edge over Gen X’ers and Millennials in some matters.

Researchers from the American Cancer Society (ACS) have found that colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates are rising for young and middle-aged adults. They point out that three in ten rectal cancer diagnoses are now happening to patients under the age of 55.

The trend started to develop in the 1970s and 1980s, but recent research shows that CRC cases are now rising at an historic pace and rival rates seen in 17^th century.

“Trends in young people are a bellwether for the future disease burden. Our finding that colorectal cancer risk for millennials has escalated back to the level of those born in the late 1800s is very sobering,” said Rebecca Siegel, an investigator for the ACS.

Rates increase over time

CRC incidence rates were not always out of control; in fact, they had been on the decline until the mid-1980s. However, rates began to rise by 1-2 percent on an annual basis in adults between the ages of 20 and 39, and by 0.5-1 percent in adults 40-54.

Cases of rectal cancer, in particular, grew rapidly between 1974 and 2013. The disease rose in incidence by 3% annually for adults in their 20’s. The same rate of growth was recorded for adults between the ages of 30 and 39 between 1980 and 2013.

The rise in cases is somewhat baffling because the study shows that older consumers are affected at far lower rates than their younger counterparts. The researchers found that, compared to people born around 1950, those born in 1990 are twice as likely to develop colon cancer and four times as likely to develop rectal cancer.

Earlier screening and healthier lifestyles

While further explanation is still wanting for what caused CRC rates to increase among younger people at such an astonishing rate, the researchers say that there are proactive steps that can be taken. They suggest that health professionals initiate screening for the diseases earlier and actively promote healthier lifestyle choices for their patients.

“Educational campaigns are needed to alert clinicians and the general public about this increase to help reduce delays in diagnosis, which are so prevalent in young people, but also to encourage healthier eating and more active lifestyles to try to reverse this trend,” said Siegel.

The full study has been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 

It's to be expected that corporations do not like it when government agencies say their products could cause cancer. When California regulators, for example, attempted last year to add glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, to a state list of possible carcinogens, the agrochemical giant sued the state.

California’s decision on glyphosate dates back to a panel organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization. In a move that angered many in the industry, the world cancer agency in 2015 concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.

In response, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment decided to label glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, the state’s law that lists and labels products that potentially cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive problems. As a result, Monsanto shortly after filed a lawsuit against the agency. 

Now the industry is setting its sights beyond California and looking at the bigger picture.

Industry campaign targets WHO

The American Chemistry Council is a trade group representing a long list of corporations that produce and work with synthetic chemicals, from ExxonMobil to Eli Lilly to Monsanto. The trade group has a history of enthusiastically defending the safety of various chemicals and lobbying health agencies to do the same. 

On Wednesday, the American Chemistry Council announced the launch of its new campaign, one that it claims will promote "Credibility in Public Health Research," or CAPHR for short. The target of the CAPHR campaign is the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, the same agency that had listed glyphosate as a carcinogen. 

"In particular, CAPHR will seek reform of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monographs Program, which evaluates the carcinogenic hazard of substances and behaviors," writes the American Chemistry Council in a press release. "IARC’s Monographs Program suffers from persistent scientific and process deficiencies that result in public confusion and misinformed policy-making."

While that assessment is debateable, the American Chemistry Council correctly notes that IARC’s decisions "have a significant impact on U.S. public policy and marketplace deselection...IARC classifications have also been used by retailers as justification to phase out certain substances." Of course, it’s perfectly legal for retailers to phase out “certain substances” and for consumers to follow suit, but such “marketplace deselection” clearly hurts the pocketbooks of industry giants. 

The trade group further accuses the IARC's decisions of leading to "dubious and misleading news coverage."

American Chemistry Council has also defended formaldehyde

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), unlike the World Health Organization’s cancer agency, have often sided with industry leaders in debates over controversial chemicals.

For example, the EPA has repeatedly ruled that glyphosate does not cause cancer. And when it organized another scientific panel into the matter last year, the agency agreed to remove one researcher whom the pesticide industry felt was too critical. The FDA, for its part, has long maintained the safety of Bisphenol-A in food packaging, despite petitions from some food safety groups asking to have it removed. 

But American federal regulators and chemical producers don't always see eye-to-eye either. In July of last year, the EPA finalized rules meant to protect workers from formaldehyde exposure. "Exposure to formaldehyde can cause adverse health effects including eye, nose and throat irritation, other respiratory symptoms and cancer," the EPA explained, backing up a long history of research into the matter.

The American Chemistry Council has continued to insist that formaldehyde exposure is perfectly safe and has similarly taken the EPA to task for stating otherwise.  

"The truth is, formaldehyde is a natural part of our world," the American Chemistry Council wrote in one report, "and the illogical findings of IRIS," or EPA’s draft Integrated Risk Information System, "are not."

Tanning beds are dangerous for everyone but a new study may surprise some people. It found that the health risks of tanning were nearly as great for gay black male teens as for heterosexual white women.

Earlier studies have shown sexual minority males have one of the highest known prevalence rates of skin cancer, with up to twice the risk of heterosexual males.

"Contrary to popular thought, racial and ethnic minorities engage in indoor tanning and it appears to be particularly concentrated among sexual-minority adolescent boys," said San Diego State University researcher Aaron Blashill, whose study was recently published in the journal JAMA Dermatology.

Confusion over why people with darker skin might use indoor tanning stems from an incomplete understanding of why people tan in the first place, Blashill said.

Coping strategy

"Many only think of indoor tanning as something people do to darken their skin, so the idea that a black individual would tan at all is hard for some to grasp," he said. "But if we think of indoor tanning as a coping strategy, then the findings begin to make more sense."

Because UV exposure can induce relaxation through the release of natural opioids in the brain, it's possible that non-heterosexual black and Hispanic teenage boys engage in indoor tanning to help regulate psychological distress, which could be the result of discrimination, prejudice, and victimization based on their sexual orientation and ethnicity, Blashill explained.

The data comes from the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a nationally representative survey that examines the prevalence of risky health behaviors among 9th- to 12th-grade public and private school students.

While indoor tanning is banned for minors in California and several other states, Blashill said these restrictions are not 100-percent effective.

"It is important to understand what's driving indoor tanning among these boys so we can develop future skin cancer prevention and education campaigns targeted at the high-risk group."

Here's something to chat about next time you find yourself in a crowd of white-wine-sipping elitists: a new study finds that white wine is associated with higher rates of invasive melanoma.

The study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, found that all types of alcohol carried a higher risk but white wine carried the most significant association, expecially for body parts that receive less sun exposure.

The study's author -- Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor of dermatology and epidemiology at Brown University -- said it was surprising that white wine was the only drink independently associated with increased risk of melanoma.

The reason is unknown, although research has shown that some wine has somewhat higher levels of pre-existing acetaldehyde than beer or spirits. While red and white wine may have similar amounts of pre-existing acetaldehyde, the antioxidants in red wine may offset the risks, Cho said.

However, Cho pointed out that modest alcohol intake has been connected with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

"For drinkers, risks and benefits of alcohol consumption have to be considered individually, including the risk related to skin cancer," she said.

3.6 percent

Approximately 3.6 percent of cancer cases worldwide have been attributed to alcohol, most typically cancers of the aerodigestive tract, liver, pancreas, colon, rectum, and breast. Previous research has suggested that alcohol can cause carcinogenesis as the ethanol in alcohol metabolizes into acetaldehyde, which damages DNA and prevents DNA repair.

In Cho's study, overall alcohol intake was associated with a 14 percent higher risk of melanoma per drink per day. Each drink per day of white wine was associated with a 13 percent increased risk of melanoma. Other forms of alcohol -- beer, red wine, and liquor -- did not significantly affect melanoma risk.

Bacon, ham, hot dogs, and other processed meat and poultry products should carry labeles warning that they can cause cancer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) insists.

The non-profit organization wants the U.S. Department of Agriculture to require a warning label to inform consumers that eating those foods is associated with an increased risk of cancer of the colon and rectum (colorectal cancer). 

A petition filed with the department today cites the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded in 2015 that processed meat is “carcinogenic to humans.” 

Eating 50 grams per day of processed meat raises one’s risk of colorectal cancer by about 18 percent. A typical serving of ham, sausage, bologna, or hot dog weighs about 55 grams (about 2 ounces), CSPI said.

Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and will cause about 49,150 deaths in 2016, according to the American Cancer Society, which advises consumers to “minimize consumption of processed meats such as bacon, sausage, luncheon meats, and hot dogs.”  

“Consumers deserve these warning labels to help them make informed choices about the foods they eat,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson.  “Consumers who want to reduce their cancer risk may avoid processed meats or eat them much less often; other people may simply ignore the label. But without question, USDA should give people that choice.”

CSPI is asking for labels of all meat and poultry products preserved by smoking, curing, salting, and/or the addition of chemical preservatives to bear this message:

“We recognize that the chances of the Trump administration taking advantage of this opportunity to protect the public health are slim,” said CSPI director Michael Jacobson.  “But at CSPI we’re used to taking the long view. We will continue pushing for regulatory measures that will protect the health of Democrats, Republicans, and all others.”

Recent congressional attention on prescription drug prices has focused mostly on older drugs, those purchased by pharmaceutical companies who immediately triple or quadruple the price.

But a study at the University of North Carolina has taken a close look at the cost of new drugs – specifically, pills used to treat cancer. It finds these pills are “dramatically more expensive” when they hit the market, compared to similar drugs launched 15 years ago.

The researchers on this project found that a month's worth of treatment with the newest cancer drugs, on the market since 2014, were, on average, six times more expensive than the launch prices of similar drugs introduced in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation.

Put another way, pills winning Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2000 cost an average of $1,869 per month. Similar drugs introduced in 2014 cost $11,325 per month.

Study author Stacie Dusetzina says the big take-away is that these drugs are just getting more expensive over time.

Patients beginning to pay

She says the last decade has seen a push toward developing orally-administered drugs for cancer patients. As their costs skyrocket, she says those rising costs will increasingly come out of patients' pockets.

The study shows that imatinib, also known as Gleevec, launched in 2001 at the price of $3,346 per month. The cost is now $8,479 – an annual increase of 7.5% at a time when inflation averaged around 2%.

Until recently, patients with a good prescription drug benefit were mostly insulated against these costs. The costs were paid by an insurance company which spread the increase through higher premiums for everyone, including those who purchased no prescriptions.

Dusetzina says patients are now starting to pay more for these high-cost specialty drugs, even though many health plans have picked up most of the cost for orally-administered cancer drugs.

"Patients are increasingly taking on the burden of paying for these high-cost specialty drugs as plans move toward use of higher deductibles and co-insurance - where a patient will pay a percentage of the drug cost rather than a flat copay," she said.

Other research

A recent report from IMS Health appears to confirm the North Carolina findings. That report focused on specialty drugs – a category that includes orally-administered cancer drugs.

As we reported last June, researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, raised a similar alarm about surging cancer drug costs. They noted that the increase in price did not come from improvements or refinements in the drugs, but simply a matter of the drug companies charging more.

The IMS Health report found specialty drug spending nearly doubled over the last five years, making up more than two-thirds of total drug spending between 2010 and 2015. Last year, it found specialty drug spending rose 21.5%, to $150.8 billion. In comparison, spending on all types of prescription drugs rose by around 9%.

Monsanto is suing California to try to block it from adding Roundup to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive damage.

The state has been planning to add glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, to its Prop. 65 list since last September, following a finding by the World Health Organization that the chemical is a probable human carcinogen.

Prop. 65 requires the state to label all substances identified as carcinogenic or dangerous to the reproductive process, but St. Louis-based Monsanto argues in a lawsuit filed in Fresno County that the substance is not harmful, Courthouse News Service reported. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also reported to be taking another look at glyphosate. The agency declared it a carcinogen in 1985 but later reversed that decision. The chemical is up for review this year.

Use of glyphosate has increased dramatically in recent years, and it is now used on a variety of crops that are grown for consumers. These include wheat, corn, soybeans, and many other foods we eat everyday. If California adds gyphosate to its carcinogen list, many of those foods might have to carry the familiar Prop. 65 warning label.

Although the labels are legally required only in California, most manufacturers include them on the labels of products sold elsewhere because of the cost and complexity of having separate labels for different states.

Might hurt sales

Monsanto says requiring the warning on foods grown with Roundup, the nation's most popular herbicide, would hurt sales. Roundup generated nearly $5 billion in revenue for Monsanto in 2015.

Besides scaring off consumers, the classification would require some municipalities to stop using Monsanto, since many cities and towns have local ordinances requiring them not to use substances included on the Prop. 65 list.

Monsanto disputes the World Health Organization finding and claims that "[n]umerous regulatory agencies and independent scientists have evaluated glyphosate over the course of its more than 40 years of use and have concluded that glyphosate does not present a carcinogenic risk to humans."

Monsanto further argues that California's own Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) tested glyphosate in 1997 and 2007 and found it did not present a cancer risk to humans. 

In its suit, Monsanto says the Prop. 65 listing would "create unfounded consumer fear, causing farmers, government agencies, and other users of glyphosate-based herbicides to switch to other products and/or processes for vegetation management that may not provide the same level of safety, effectiveness, or reliability."      

Pressure is mounting

But activists have been stepping up their efforts to ban glyphosate.

“For decades now, the public has been exposed, unknowingly and against their will, to glyphosate, despite mounting evidence that this key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is harmful to human health and the environment,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Monsanto has been given a free pass to expose the public to this dangerous chemical, because individuals, until now, [have] been unable to go to their doctor’s office or local water testing company to find out if the chemical has accumulated in their bodies, or is present in their drinking water.

OCA last year announced that it was launching the world’s first glyphosate testing for the general public. The project, with specific focus on women and children in the U.S., offered the first-ever validated public glyphosate testing for urine and water.

The testing program was recently suspended, however, because of what OCA said was higher-than-anticipated demand. It says the testing will resume when it contracts with a larger testing laboratory.

In August, doctors gave former President Jimmy Carter what amounted to a death sentence. A rare form of melanoma had started in his liver and spread to his brain.

Over the weekend, Carter stunned the medical world by announcing that he is now cancer-free.

How did he do it? The brief statement from the Carter Center revealed he has been receiving a new immunotherapy drug called pembrolizumab.

As we have previously reported, immunotherapy is a recent cancer treatment trend in which doctors use forces within a patient's own body to fight the disease. According to the American Cancer Society, immunotherapy stimulates the patient's immune system to work harder, or smarter, to attack cancer cells, or it might introduce man-made immune system proteins to strengthen the immune system.

Humanized monoclonal antibody

Pembrolizumab, the drug Carter received, is an example of the latter type of immunotherapy. It is a humanized monoclonal antibody injected into the patient to strengthen the immune system. The drug won Food and Drug Administration approval in September 2014.

Image Guided Cancer Specialist (IGCS), a Florida medical group specializing in the treatment of cancer using the combinations of immunotherapy with image guided ablation, calls the immunotherapy Carter received “one of the greatest advances in cancer treatment.”

But while these treatments are true miracle drugs, IGCS cautions that the cost is a real concern. It says the average cost for using these drugs in combination at a standard dose is about $300,000 per year. The higher doses being used in the current research could mean that figure might climb to $1 million annually.

Skyrocketing costs

Dr. Leonard Saltz, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, is on the record with his concerns about skyrocketing costs for miracle drugs.

“The typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost about $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000,” he wrote in a 2012 op-ed in The New York Times. “Two of the new cancer drugs cost more than $35,000 each per month of treatment.”

At a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting, Saltz estimated the total cost to treat all metastatic cancer patients in the United States would be an “unsustainable” $174 billion per year.

IGCS said it is working on ways to reduce costs. It says one of its researchers, Dr. Jason Williams, has suggested the immunotherapy drugs directly into the cancerous tumor and combine it with image-guided cryoablation.

Lowering the cost of treatment, IGCS says, could make it accessible to more patients.

A consumer group wants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prohibit the sale of ginko biloba following a federal study that found the popular supplement causes liver cancer in mice. 

"It used to be the case that the only problems associated with Ginkgo were the unfounded and deceptive claims by manufacturers that it helped memory," said Michael F. Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). "Now we know these make-believe benefits are far outweighed by a real risk of cancer."

Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) fed the stuff to rats and mice over a two-year period and found that the rodents were more likely to develop thyroid and liver tumors than those who had managed to steer clear of the stuff.

In a shorter, three-month test, rats and mice who were given ginkgo showed early signs of tumor growth.

The supplement industry argued that the NTP used an extract of Ginkgo not used in supplements sold in the United States, but the NTP says the composition of the extract it tested falls within the range of what is sold.

Citing the NTP report, the FDA has already told one beverage maker, Stewart Brothers, Inc., that Ginkgo is not generally recognized as safe in food. It is harder for the agency to remove supplement ingredients from the market, but it may if it finds that an ingredient poses an unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

Ginkgo is found in single-ingredient supplement pills made by Natrol, GNC, Solaray, Now, and Nature's Way, as well as in multi-ingredient products such as Bayer One A Day Women's 50 Plus Advantage.

It is also used in some energy drinks, such as several varieties of Rockstar and Hansen's Energy Pro, Guru, and Steven Segal's Lightning Bolt, and in Redco Foods' Salada "Brain Boost" green tea and Yogi Tea's Ginkgo Clarity.

Many modern-day baseball stadiums prohibit smoking, but cancerous danger apparently still lurks around the corner: an anti-meat consumer group alleges in a class-action that hot dogs pose serious health risks and need to carry warning labels.

The lawsuit was filed by The Cancer Project in Essex County, New Jersey on Wednesday. Among the named defendants are Nathan's Famous, the well-known hot dog chain; Kraft Foods, which manufactures Oscar Mayer wieners; Sara Lee; ConAgra, which makes Hebrew National franks; and Marathon, manufacturer of Sabrett, the frankfurter New Yorker's [sic] relish.

The plaintiffs envision a warning label similar to the one currently on cigarette packages. The wording would look something like: Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.

The suit notes that a two-year-old study from the American Institute for Cancer Research suggests that the amount of processed meat in a single hot dog about two ounces increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent. That study recommends limiting red meat consumption to 18 ounces per week, and avoiding processed meats altogether (this includes bologna and similar cold cuts). Another study, released this year by the National Cancer Institute, found that individuals who eat large amounts of red and processed meats are more likely to die, especially from cancer or heart disease.

Nitrites, used to keep hot dogs fresh, are the main culprit, according to the suit. They join themselves to naturally-occurring amines, forming carcinogenic compounds.

The action was brought on behalf of John O'Donnell, Ruthann Hilland, and Michele DeScisciolo, three New Jersey residents who bought hot dogs oblivious to the link between processed meats and colorectal cancer.

Despite its generic name, The Cancer Project, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., is focused on promoting a healthy diet that decreases the risk of cancer. The group specifically recommends a diet that is free of animal products, high in plant foods, and low in fat.

According to The Cancer Project, Americans ate 1.5 billion pounds of hot dogs in 2006. Equally (or more) disgustingly, the average person eats 32 pounds of processed meat every year. Sixty-two percent of Americans eat some form of processed meat. It's no wonder, then, that 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with colorectal cancer every year.

The hot dog is a quintessentially American food with a long and storied history. The exact origin of the meat is in dispute, although it popped up in America in the 1870's, when a German immigrant began selling them on Coney Island in Brooklyn. The same location has since become the site of the most famous annual hot dog eating contest, sponsored by Nathan's and held every fourth of July. This year, three-time champion Joey Chestnut downed 68 franks. He'd be well advised to keep up on his colonoscopies.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to throw out a number of class-action lawsuits that challenge radiation emissions from cell phones.

With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, the court refused to consider an appeal from cell phone manufacturers, who wanted the high court to overturn a decision by the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Class-action lawsuits currently pending in Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania allege that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors. The suits allege the manufacturers are aware of the danger and have deliberately kept consumers in the dark.

The suits seek to force phone manufacturers to reduce the amount of radiation produced by phones, and to advise users of the alleged health hazards.

In 2004, Judge Catherine Blake dismissed five of the lawsuits. But in March the appeals court ruled 2-1 that four of the five cases must be sent back to lower courts for trial.

Motorola, Nokia, Nextel Communications, Sprint and Cingular Wireless are among defendants named in the lawsuits.

Texas Attorney General Greg has halted the unlawful marketing and sales of thermal massage beds sold in Texas that a company and its franchises deceptively claimed would treat or cure cancer and a range of other serious ailments and diseases.

The settlement ends an investigation against Ceragem International Inc. of California, which operates franchises and company-owned stores in several Texas cities, including Houston, the Dallas/Fort Worth area, El Paso, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and McAllen.

Most of the distributors sold the beds to Spanish-speaking consumers. Texas is the first state to take legal action against the company for its deceptive marketing practices.

"This company made inflated and unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of its products, which were intended to exploit consumers who may have actually needed professional medical services," said Abbott. "This really amounted to orchestrated consumer health fraud, all without physician involvement, and I am pleased the company will cease these deceptive practices."

The investigation alleged consumers were falsely led to believe the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the devices for a range of ailments such as cancer, epilepsy, heart disease, ovarian cysts and other maladies.

The company's Web site also featured the deceptive use of an FDA seal and, when viewed as a whole, suggested the devices utilized methods of acupressure and acupuncture to accomplish the therapy.

Dr. Eduardo J. Sanchez, commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, which referred this case to the Attorney General, concurred with Abbott: "Our investigators documented an alarming incidence of false health claims associated with Ceragem's beds. Consumers should not rely on these claims. These beds are not substitutes for prescribed medicines and treatments."

The equipment is manufactured by Ceragem Co. Ltd., of South Korea, which provides machines to Ceragem International and independent franchises. According to the investigation, distributors host up to 14 live presentations per day for up to 50 consumers each.

The Attorney General's undercover investigation and video revealed speakers repeatedly claiming the $2,400 "Ceragem-C Thermal Massager" was instrumental in the treatment of a range of medical conditions, including diabetes and obesity. "Testimonials" about cures by previous customers were encouraged.

Although the FDA has approved the device for the temporary relief of minor muscle and joint pain, and pain associated with arthritis, the agency has not approved the device for most of the uses described by the distributors during presentations in Spanish about the product. Representations regarding the treatment and cure of diseases was evidence the company misled consumers and marketed what amounted to an illegal device.

According to the investigation, the defendants transformed retail locations into the equivalent of large therapy clinics without physicians involved at any point.

The practice increased the risk to consumers who may have had serious ailments because they were led to believe the devices could take care of health problems, and as a result, they might not have sought the medical attention they actually needed.

The settlement also provides for restitution to compensate consumers for losses based on false claims about the health benefits of Ceragem's beds.

Ceragem Co. of South Korea sells the thermal massage beds in 22 countries and supports more than 500 independent retail distributors worldwide.

California-based Ceragem International, which authorizes distributorships for North America, reported sales of $18 million a year, according to a 2004 Dunn & Bradstreet report.

Company Responds

November 14, 2006
We received the following response to the attorney general's action from Paul Choi of Ceragem International, Inc.

The contents of your posting have a lot of false information that will mislead the consumers. Our website does not not have any FDA logos that misrepresent or mislead any of our customers. The only reference/link that we have referring to the FDA on our website is the 510(k) clearance notice that we received from the FDA.

Your posting also states that the investigation was against company-owned stores which is a wrong statement. The investigation was against independently owned stores. In addition, the recording with the person making statements regarding the mitigation or treatment of diseases was never established to be a store employee.

We can not control or dictate the testimony of a customer. We monitor the marketing and advertising contents regarding our product and our corporate office sends out quarterly memorandums reminding our distributors to stay within the product claim guidelines as described by the FDA regarding our product, as it is a Class II 510(k), medical device.

We also request all of our distributors to submit any and all advertising material and documents to our corporate office for approval prior to distribution of the documents. Our centers never at any point claimed to be a clinic or treatment center and we are avid about our customers obtaining consultation from their doctor or physician regarding their conditions.

We remind all of our customers that we are not doctors and our centers are neither treatment centers nor clinics. Therefore, if they have any medical conditions, they need to consult their doctor. In conclusion, we want you to state that both parties acknowledged (according to AVC) that we did nothing wrong and NONE of our Ceragem stores, whether Corporate or independently owned, had to close or cease the operation of the business or its sales.

In fact, we had customers by the hundreds protesting the Attorney General, Greg Abbott's comments and protested his actions. Please! update or revise your posting according to the facts.

Editor's Note: Our story is based on an official press release from the Attorney General's office.

A Swedish study finds that users of digital phones in rural areas may be at greater risk of brain cancer. Its authors say the link is troubling, although they acknowledge that the amount of data is small and wider research is needed to amplify the findings.

The researchers said that incidence of brain tumors in rural areas of Sweden was much higher among users of GSM cell phones than among rural residents who were not cell phone users. The rate was also higher than among GSM users in urban areas.

The chance of developing a malignant brain tumor was roughly eight times higher for cell phone users in the Swedish countryside than in urban areas. The risk of developing any brain tumor was four times higher for country dwellers using mobile phones for five years or more, compared with those who did not use the devices.

The study suggests that mobile handsets in rural areas deliver a higher dose of electromagnetic radiation because they have to transmit a stronger signal to distant transmission towers, whereas towers are closer together in urban areas, resulting in phones transmitting a weaker signal.

The study was conducted by Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology at university hospital in Orebro, Sweden. It was published on today in a British journal, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Researchers looked at more than 1,400 adults aged 20 to 80 who had been diagnosed with a malignant or benign brain tumor between 1997 and 2000. The brain cancer patients were compared with a similar number of healthy adults living in the same area. Each group was asked to recall their daily use of mobile and cordless phones.

"Clearly our results support the notion that exposure may differ between geographical areas," Hardell said. "But there is no information on the exact difference between geographical areas."

You may not think of cell phones as dangerous but as their use rises, so does the risk of fires and other unexpected mishaps. There've been scattered reports of cell phones exploding and catching fire and even of cell phones emitting sparks that ignite gasoline fires. In response, the industry and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have issued some safety tips.

Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) batteries, which are commonly found in todays cellular phones, have a lot of energy in a small package, the commission notes. Li-Ion batteries are more sensitive to physical stress than alkaline batteries found in toys and flashlights and need to be treated with more care.

Neither CPSC nor the cell phone lobbyists made any mention of British researchers' warnings that children should avoid using cell phones because of the risk of brain tumors from long-term exposure to radio frequency emissions.

Here are the safety tips from the CPSC and the cell phone industry's lobbying arm:

1. Do not use incompatible cell phone batteries and chargers. Some Web sites and second-hand dealers, not associated with reputable manufacturers and carriers, might be selling incompatible or even counterfeit batteries and chargers. Consumers should purchase manufacturer or carrier recommended products and accessories. If unsure about whether a replacement battery or charger is compatible, contact the manufacturer of the battery or charger.

2. Do not permit a battery out of the phone to come in contact with metal objects, such as coins, keys or jewelry.

3. Do not crush, puncture or put a high degree of pressure on the battery as this can cause an internal short-circuit, resulting in overheating.

4. Avoid dropping the cell phone. Dropping it, especially on a hard surface, can potentially cause damage to the phone and battery. If you suspect damage to the phone or battery, take it to a service center for inspection.

5. Do not place the phone in areas that may get very hot, such as on or near a cooking surface, cooking appliance, iron, or radiator.

6. Do not get your phone or battery wet. Even though they will dry and appear to operate normally, the circuitry could slowly corrode and pose a safety hazard.

7. Follow battery usage, storage and charging guidelines found in the users guide.

CPSC handled three recalls last year -- the Kyocera Smartphone, Kyocera Slider, K400 and 3200 Series and Verizon Wireless LG-brand cell phones.

"CPSC has received reports of incidents and injuries involving cell phones batteries and chargers in a variety of environments," said CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton. "CPSC will continue to do its part by investigating and recalling batteries that present a safety hazard, and we ask that consumers do their part by following some basic safety steps in their day-to-day use of cell phone batteries."

CPSC also urges consumers to properly dispose of their old batteries and equipment. All major carriers have recycling programs. For more information, go to www.recyclewirelessphones.com.