Can Using Sunscreen Cause Cancer?

When I was in high school and college, I spent my summers as a lifeguard. Exposing my skin to the sun was an occupational hazard. Fortunately, I tan very dark but I still covered up with hats, umbrellas, sunglasses and sunscreen. Little did I know that sunscreen would protect me from getting burned but would not protect me from getting cancer.

Suscreen came on the scene in the 1940's. Improved tanning lotions came on the market in the early 1960s, and a few years after that, the melanoma rate zoomed up (refer to the chart on the left). Sales figures jumped from $18 million in 1972 to $500 million in 1996. Public health authorities became concerned, and melanoma became news. Seeing a commercial opportunity, the makers of tanning lotions repositioned their products as "sunscreen," and the now familiar sermonizing began. Since then, melanoma has become the nation's fastest-rising cancer and sunscreen sales have continued to climb. Ozone depletion may play a role in the higher melanoma rate, as some scientists say, but melanoma cases began to go up long before ozone depletion became an issue.

There are three main kinds of skin cancer: basal cell, squamous cell, and malignant melanoma. The first two are common (about 1 million cases a year) and almost always medically minor. The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute don't even count them in the nation's cancer statistics. Melanoma is much less common (40,300 diagnoses last year), but often fatal (7,300 deaths).Of the three different kinds of skin cancer, malignant melanoma causes the most concern. If not caught in time, it can metastasize (spread destructively) easily and is often fatal.

According to a survey of new research by epidemiologist Marianne Berwick of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, there is no evidence that sunscreen offers any real protection against malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. "It's not safe to rely on sunscreen," Berwick told the press.

The first thing to know: Ultraviolet light from the sun comes in several wavelengths: UVA, UVB and the rarely discussed UVC (which is blocked out by the Earth's ozone layer). UVB, which damages the outer layer of the skin, has been recognized for decades as the cause of sunburn and as a major contributor to skin cancer and skin aging. UVA rays — while not contributing to sunburns — damage deeper layers of the skin and probably play an important role in wrinkling, spotting, lost elasticity and, most ominously, the dangerous skin cancer melanoma.

When sunscreens were developed, they were made to prevent sunburn and targeted only UVB. An SPF number refers to the UVB burning protection a product offers (one with an SPF of 15, used correctly, allows the user to stay in the sun 15 times longer without burning). So, instead of staying in the sun for 30 minutes, you could stay in the sun for 7.5 hours. Thinking that you are safe, you unknowingly expose your skin to damaging UVA rays for an extended period of time. By blocking the UVB rays, you block your skins ability to produce vitamin D which could prevent cancer and you are letting in dangerous amounts of UVA rays that could promote cancer. Although scientists have known for several years that UVA penetrates more deeply into the skin than UVB, they believed that less of it was absorbed by DNA, causing fewer dangerous mutations. However, an Australian-US study shows that UVA causes more genetic damage than UVB in skin cells where most skin cancers arise - the keratinocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. UVB tends to cause damage in more superficial epidermal layers.


Even if sunscreen blocked UV-A completely, almost no one uses it in the way that grants real protection against sunburn. For sunscreen to live up to its hype, you have to slop it on real thick and reapply it every few hours. We're talking at least one full bottle per person per day at the beach. Meanwhile, the vast majority of sunscreen users apply a thin layer once or twice.

Around 1981, an ingredient called "Avobenzone" (Parsol 1789) was developed . It was an additive to sunscreen that was designed to block some of the dangerous UVA rays. The only problem with it is that it broke down in the sun and had to be reapplied constantly. Now there are additives that have increased it's stability such as mexoryl, octocrylene and oxybenzone. These have increased the protective abilities of sunscreen but at what cost to the health of your body and skin?

A team of researchers from the University of California has found that sunscreen can do more harm than good once it soaks into the skin. The sunscreen is supposed to be applied as a layer on the skin. When it is rubbed in, it penetrates to the deeper layers and promotes formation of harmful compounds. Thus sunscreens ironically cause the same damage against which they are meant to protect. Further, the chemicals present in commercial sunscreen products have also been found to be toxic and said to actually promote some forms of cancer.

Click on the following link to watch a short news clip from CBS about many of the toxic chemicals that are found in our personal care products.

CBS NEWS - Sunscreen Concerns

The sunscreen lotion is usually massaged into the skin. It penetrates into the deeper layers. The chemicals in the sunscreen are acted upon by the cells in the skin to produce free radicals and superoxides. These damage the skin structure and function resulting in aging.

What's even worse is the fact that both chemical sunscreens (methoxycinnamate, padimate-o and the like) and physical sunblocks (titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) generate free radicals when exposed to sunlight, which then can attack the nuclei of your skin cells and cause mutations. That's right: they can cause skin cancer. Furthermore, sunscreen chemicals have been found to pass through the skin and mimic the effects of estrogen, which may disrupt the delicate balance of the body's natural hormones.

Titanium dioxide is now being used as a new treatment for window glass because it attacks and degrades anything that touches it, thereby helping to keep windows clean. You probably don't want to have anything attacking your skin! My recommendation: Loose-fitting clothing, big hats and shady trees.

The only proven way to prevent melanoma is to cover up. Our forebears did so in the days before sunscreen. Clearly it worked because melanoma was so rare. It's also what people now do in Australia. White Australians come largely from light-skinned British/Irish stock. Queensland province, in northeastern Australia, has the highest melanoma rate in the world, but as the SCF proudly pointed out when it rebutted Berwick's study, melanoma rates there have started to flatten. What the SCF did not mention is that while the Queensland public health authorities began a big-budget PR campaign promoting sunscreen in 1981, they shifted the campaign's focus a few years ago to strongly encourage people to cover up and stay in the shade.

Another problem with sunscreen and sun avoidance is that UVB rays are responsible for creating vitamin D in our body. Sunscreens with a sun protection factor of 8 or greater will block UV rays that produce vitamin D. If you’re young, fair, scantily clad and near the equator, 10 to 15 minutes of peak sunshine produces 20,000 IUs if vitamin D.

There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.

Vitamin D works inside the cell nucleus as a basic building block to help turn genes on or off. Starting in the 1970s, researchers began finding the receptor for vitamin D in a huge variety of cells that have nothing to do with bone growth, including breast, colon, lung, brain, prostate and white blood cells. More recently studies using DNA chips have found that vitamin D can raise or lower the activity of at least 1,000 genes, says McGill University molecular biologist John White.

How vitamin D might ward off cancer is murky. But it's known that vitamin D stimulates white blood cells to produce a powerful natural antibiotic called cathelicidin. In the Mar. 24, 2006 issue of Science, scientists led by ucla dermatologist Robert Modlin found that when white blood cells were mixed with blood serum samples from African-Americans (who are prone to low vitamin D levels), they produce 63% less of this antibiotic than if the cells were mixed with blood samples from Caucasians. So, says Georgetown University immunologist Michael Zasloff, "Vitamin D has the capacity to turn on powerful antimicrobial genes." He predicts there will be new ways of staving off infections by modulating vitamin D levels.

So, getting a little unfiltered sun on your body is not a bad thing as long as it is done in moderation. It is a good thing. Your skin can handle it. The trick is not to get a sunburn. It is like alcohol consumption. A glass of wine with dinner can provide antioxidants and resveratrol which is very good for your body. Your liver can handle that but four bottles of wine is way to much and can lead to health problems.

Here are some tips for safe sun exposure:

• Look to get at least 20-30 minutes of unfiltered sun on as much of your body as you can every day. Regular and moderate unprotected sun exposure in the early morning or late afternoon will help maintain a protective tan and keep your vitamin D stores at an optimum level.

• Do Not try to get a tan by visiting a tanning studio. The rays from their UV lamps are extremely harmful and the tan produced does not have the protective effect of a sunlight-induced tan.

• A sunblock with SPF 8 reduces the skin’s vitamin D production by 95 percent. Getting a sun tan through glass does the same thing. If you wear sunscreen ‘properly,’ you’ll become vitamin D deficient.

• DO wear protective clothing and a wide-brimmed hat when you are outside. Avoid sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM if at all possible. Remember that UV rays, particularly UVA, are present even on cloudy days.

• DO wear sunglasses that filter out 100% of the ultraviolet light to protect yourself against the development of cataracts.

• DO make sure you get enough vitamin D3 and beta-carotene, if necessary through supplementation. Recent research has shown that taking 30 mg of beta-carotene a day protects against the suppression of the immune system by UVA rays.

• DO make sure to supplement your diet with antioxidants. Vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium can be used as a protection against the damages of excessive ultraviolet radiation. Try to get daily dosages of 1000 mg or more of vitamin C, 800 IU of vitamin E, and 200 micrograms of selenium (l-selenomethionine). Vitamins C and E also protect against cataract formation.

• Cut down on the fried foods and saturated fat in your diet. Recent research has shown that patients with non- melanoma skin cancers can reduce their risk of developing additional actinic keratoses (precursors to skin cancer) by switching to a low fat diet. Use healthier oils like Olive oil, coconut oil, walnut oil or grape seed oil.

• DO cover up by wearing a wide brimmed hat or a physical sunscreen with a SPF of 15 if you absolutely must be out in the sun for extended periods of time. Physical sunscreens containing titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or talc work by reflecting the UV radiation rather than by absorbing it. Sunscreens that are tested by using artificial UV light and a screen with a SPF of 30 are not twice as effective as one with a factor of 15. Also, reapplying sunscreen during the day does not extend the period of protection. Even "broad-spectrum" sunscreens are not very good in filtering out UVA rays. A natural suntan is probably more effective.

• DO see your health care provider if you spot any unusual moles or growth on your skin - particularly if they are irregular in shape, bleed, itch, or appear to be changing. Most skin cancers can be cured if caught in time.

*If you would like to check your suntan lotion or any other personal care products to see if there are any harmful chemicals in them, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org

Here is a list of the top ten sunscreens according to the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Data Base. Click Here to read.

Helpful Sources:

Creighton Study Shows Vitamin D Reduces Cancer Risk

Sunbathers: Beware the A-ray

Sunscreens Promote Some Forms Of Cancer

Sunscreens and Cancer

Winning The War On Cancer. For Real, This Time.

I watched intently last night as Elizabeth Edwards, Lance Armstrong (cancer survivor) and entrepreneur Steve Case appeared before Congress to give testimony about renewing the war on cancer. All three of them urged our government to make a new plan to deal with cancer on a more comprehensive basis. Over 560,000 people died from cancer last year alone.

Evidently, the war on Cancer has been going on since 1971 when president Nixon first declared it. That's 37 years! Let's take a look at a few other wars that we have been in. Here are the total American casualties from our last six wars.

Iraq war – 4000+ and counting

Vietnam war - It lasted 9 years from 1964 to 1975.

• 90,209 Americans were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served.

• During the Vietnam War the national debt increased by $146 billion (1967-1973). Adjusted for inflation, the debt in 1992 dollars was $500 billion. If you adjusted for inflation for 2008, the number would be much higher.

The Korean war lasted for three years between 1950 and 1953

• 36,940 died in theater during the war

• 54,246 deaths from all causes

World War II lasted 6 years from 1939 to 1945

• From 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945 in Europe the Allies had 200,000 dead and 550,000 wounded

• Total U.S. Casualties came to 405,399

World war 1 = 116,516
Civil War= 498,332

Total wars = 1.2 million

If at least 500,000 people have died from cancer every year (for the last three years), that would equal 1.5 million people. More people than have died in our last six wars combined!

Our government has spent over 1.3 trillion dollars on the war on cancer in the last 37 years and over 800 million on the war in Iraq in the last few years. It is interesting to hear the politicians rant and rave about the failed policies in Iraq. What about the failed policies in the war on cancer?

If you listen to the propaganda from the cancer establishment, you would think that we are winning the war on cancer. They report that survival rates are increasing and cancer is more treatable than ever before. According to Dr. Ralph Moss, nothing could be further from the truth. He writes two articles that expose the shell game that we have been fed.

Three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics. LOSING THE WAR ON CANCER Here is an excerpt from one of these articles: The US News article further claims that "nearly 10 million Americans are living with cancer. Most were diagnosed five or more years ago; many who would have died just 15 or 20 years ago are alive today.." This is highly misleading. As the Fortune article showed, it is METASTATIC cancer that kills the great majority of those who die, and for the most common forms of the disease (such as cancers of the breast, colon, lung, and prostate) metastasis is still the relentless killer it always was. There has been virtually NO change in the survival from metastatic cancer over the last 50 years. The apparent improvement in the survival figures has mainly been due to the earlier detection of illness: people appear to be living longer, whereas in fact what has often happened is that they have received a diagnosis earlier, and have been officially on record for longer before metastasis overtakes them. In other words, many of them are the beneficiaries of a statistical artifact. Sophisticated screening and early detection tests have also succeeded in finding many patients who have conditions that are not life-threatening (for example, some very early precancerous or encapsulated lesions of the breast or prostate). These people are often labeled as cancer patients, thereby weighting the statistics to make it appear that people with cancer are living longer overall. But many if not most of these people would not have died of cancer even if their tumors had not been detected. Of course, none of these statistical irregularities is a secret to the biostatisticians who are the gatekeepers of data analysis in the cancer field. But these are not the sort of facts that it is considered wise to share with the general public, upon whose generosity vast enterprises such as the American Cancer Society depend. According to an article in Fortune magazine, author Clifton Leaf explains “Why We Are Losing The War On Cancer.” Leaf gives some facts about cancer that are well known to insiders but will come as a shock to many readers: --More Americans will die of cancer in the next 14 months than have died from every war that the US has fought combined. --Cancer is about to replace heart disease as the number one US killer. It is already the biggest killer in many age groups. --Even adjusting for age, the percentage of Americans dying from cancer is about the same as it was in 1971 (when Nixon declared the war on cancer) or even back in 1950! Meanwhile, age-adjusted deaths from heart disease have been slashed by 59 percent and from stroke by 69 percent during that same half-century. --The much-vaunted improvement in survival from cancer is largely a myth. "Survival gains for the more common forms of cancer are measured in additional months of life," says Leaf, "not years." --Most of the improvement in longevity of cancer patients can be attributed to life style changes (the promotion of which has not been a conspicuous priority for the National Cancer Institute) and especially to early detection. --The few dramatic breakthroughs (such as in Hodgkin's disease) mainly occurred in the early days of the war on cancer. There has been little substantial progress in recent decades despite nearly ubiquitous claims to the contrary. --According to one biostatistician at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, long-term survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung "has barely budged since the 1970s." --According to Andy Grove, the chairman of the Intel corporation and a major "player" in funding research, "It's like a Greek tragedy. Everybody plays his individual part to perfection, everybody does what's right by his own life, and the total just doesn't work." Today, Leaf concludes, the cancer effort is "utterly fragmented - so much so that it's nearly impossible to track down where the money to pay for all this research is coming from." And what money! Leaf estimates that US $14.4 billion is spent each year on cancer research. "When you add it all up, Americans have spent close to $200 billion, in inflation-adjusted dollars, since 1971." It is certainly justifiable to ask for an accounting of that one-fifth of a trillion dollars. The Cancer industry and the Pharmaceutical industry have gotten rich off of their cancer treatments and drugs. If a real cure for cancer ever came along, I wonder if they would embrace it or try to bury it? If cancer dropped by 20%, I wonder how much of a hole that would put in their wallet? It seems to me that there are two things that would go a long way towards finding a cure or at least lowering the incidence of cancer to a significant degree. Support and fund promising new treatments. As I wrote in another post, there are several new treatments out there that might save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. By funding the research, we could get these treatments to the public in a much more timely manner. I mentioned a few of these at Cancer: Hope For A Cure. Prevention. Teaching people how to eat in order to lower the chances of cancer is very important. Exercise and supplementation with nutrients that have been shown to have a positive effect on cancer should be part of the curriculum of every grade school and high school. Vitamin D3 could even be the answer to lowering cancer by 60% according to some doctors. Click here to read an article about this from Science Daily. The last time we as a nation declared war on Cancer, it was a political move by a savvy politician to get more votes. If we have any failed policies on war, it was the 37 year failure to barely make a dent in the progress we need to defeat this foe. Unlike, the Iraq war, we cannot afford to walk away from this one. We need to take it serious this time.

Dr. Oz and the "Last Lecture" Reprise on Oprah Show

If you knew that you only had 3-6 months to live, how would you live your life differently? If you could stand up and give a speech that would be recorded and shared with future generations, what would your final words be? What would you say to the people that you love?

This may be theory for most of us, but for Randy Pausch, it is a reality. Randy is married father of three and a very popular professor at Carnegie Mellon University who has pancreatic cancer. Although he is currently pursuing treatment, his doctors have told him that he may only have three to six months to live. This is the kind of cancer that Micheal Landon and Patrick Swayze were dealing with.

Randy appeared on the Oprah show recently with Dr. Oz to give the final lecture that he gave at Carnegie Mellon University. Here is the replay of that show.




My mother died last year from Alzheimer's disease. I held her little lost hand throughout the experience as I walked with her up to death's door. My father is almost 90 and I walk with him now as he has Parkinson's disease and dementia. The passing of a loved one causes you to take a hard look at your life and your priorities. Like Randy, I believe that we most regret the things we did not do versus the things we did. I will never regret the choice that I made to take care of my parents. The personal sacrifice will be worth it in the end.


Like Randy, I believe that life is all about the choices we make. If you sew good seeds in life, you will reap good things. If you choose to be negative and angry, you will reap the results of those choices. Choosing to be positive and hopeful will let you reap those rewards too. I like his analogy about choosing to be a "Tigger" or an "Eeyore."














Life is just to short to spend it complaining, worrying, criticizing others and being angry about everything. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is the one that says,

"The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:7-8

The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything;
they just make the best of everything they have.

'Life isn't about how to survive the storm
but how to dance in the rain.'


Father Larry, OFM

Cancer: Hope For A Cure

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in our country leaving half a million families every year without a mother, father, spouse or children. Since 1971, over one trillion dollars has been spent on conventional cancer research and treatment. The current cost is at least $110 billion a year -- over ten percent of all U.S. medical expenditures and two percent of the entire Gross National Product. Can you imagine what would happen to our economy if a simple and inexpensive cure for cancer were to hit the market? Doctors, nurses and pharmaceutical companies would take a serious blow to their wallet. Wait a minute!! Have we lost our focus here? What about the cancer patient? Have we forgotten about him/her? What would happen to them if cancer became mostly curable? Here is a video clip of Glen Beck, a popular news reporter, talking about a possible breakthrough in the fight against cancer.



Possible Cure For Cancer But You Can't Have It! - video powered by Metacafe

Canadian researchers have developed a new cancer treatment that is an alternative to chemotherapy. "DCA" has undergone some trials on human cancer cells and shows a lot of promise, but not enough to be approved by the FDA. Don't miss the point! If this new drug had a patent, drug companies might be all over it with tons of money to put towards doing research. Profit is the bottom line for them. The difference between DCA and chemotherapy is that DCA kills the cancer cells and not the other healthy cells that are destroyed throughout the body. Chemo is known to weaken your immune system and lower your white blood cell count. This is condition called neutropenia (new-truh-pee-nee-ah) – which can put you at risk for severe infections or treatment interruptions. Click here for a list of possible side effects of chemotherapy and what can be done about them.

In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists.

The National Cancer Institute published a list in 1971 of the cancers that chemo was most effective with. One of those was Embryonal Testicular Cancer, for which cyclist Lance Armstrong is the poster boy. On the other hand, some doctors want to prescribe chemo for every kind of cancer. The fact is that some types of cancer NEVER responded to chemo or radiation!

What if there was a way to cure cancer without the use of chemotherapy or radiation? No more throwing up and no more hair loss? What if that therapy could be proven to work as well or better than conventional treatments offered by your doctor? Would you want to know about it or would you rather your doctor kept it a secret from you?

A few years back, I ran across a doctor that has been successfully treating many forms of cancer for over 30 years. The curious part is that he does it without chemo or radiation. He uses a non-toxic therapy that does not have the side effects of chemo or radiation. His name is Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.

Burzynski's work was reported on positively on the probing network television investigative series 20/20 (ABC-TV, October 22, 1981) and Street Stories (CBS-TV, July 23, 1993), and more recently, ABC-TV's Nightline and CBS This Morning (April and March, 1995, respectively).


Look at the following clip from Fox News. It is Jody's story of how she was diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer. Her chances of survival were almost nil. She went to see Dr. Burzynski and now she has a different ending to her story.


For more information, check out some of his web sites:
Burzynski Research Institute, Inc.

Burzynski Clinic

Burzynski Patient Group



Dr. Burzynski - His Credentials and Biography


Dr Burzynski’s discovery threatens one of the largest and most lucrative industries in the history of mankind, the cancer treatment industry.

• All those radiation machines and doctors who run them
• All those chemotherapy drugs and the doctors who prescribe them
• All those so called studies that just juggle the doses of chemo & radiation
  
• All those surgeons who have been flailing at cancer for over a 100 years.
  

The cancer industry in general, has a mindset that their way is the only right way. If you challenge that, you are merely a dangerous quack. In short, these beliefs are that cancer can only be treated with therapies that mutilate, poison, or burn the patient, in the hope that they "kill" the cancer…..Therefore, each patient who is miraculously cured by Burzynski’s nontoxic therapy is not viewed as a breakthrough, or even as something good, but rather as a dangerous messenger of heresy, a terrible threat to their beliefs.

Much to the chagrin of the FDA and the cancer industry as a whole, his cancer treatments are now in phase 2 of clinical trials as found on the National Cancer Institute page. In the past, the cancer industry and the FDA have worked to destroy Dr. Burzynski. They went into his office and seized all his records and tried to have him shut down and put in jail. After all, his innovative ideas threatened conventional wisdom and the very cancer industry itself.

When Nicolaus Copernicus proved that the earth was not the center of the universe, he was opposed by conventional wisdom and the Church. Galileo was imprisoned for the rest of his life for agreeing with Copernicus and was accused of grave heresy. Galileo had gotten off lightly. Another Copernican, Giordano Bruno, had been prosecuted in Rome by the same Cardinal Bellarmine and on February 17, 1600, burned at the stake as a heretic.

Dr. Burzynski was vindicated of all charges after a 14 year battle. The courts have now forced the FDA to work with him as clinical trials on his protocol move forward. Here is the chronicle of his story. Click on the following link:

The Burzynski Saga

Dr. Burzynski And The Abuse Of The FDA

"The FDA 'protects' the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies.
People think that the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."

Dr. Herbert Ley Former U.S. FDA Commissioner

The Healthiest Onions

Read It And Weep

Onions are a very healthy food. If you study cultures and lands that regularly consume onions and garlic, you will find that they have lower rates of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and cancer. I try to incorporate garlic and onion, as well as their elegant cousin, the shallot (Allium ascalonicum), a small but subtly flavored relative of the onion, into my diet whenever possible.

But, as you may have noticed, there have been changes in the onion business that bear watching. I went to the grocery last night and noticed that the price of onions has been on the rise. Where I used to pay 39 cents per pound, the price has jumped to over a dollar a pound! Shallots are $4 per pound. The "Sweet" varieties like the Vidalia onion used to be novel and more expensive. Now they are running at less than a dollar a pound.

Originally, the only variety of sweet onion available in most markets was a form of yellow granex known by the name Vidalia. Traditionally, these were harvested in southeast Georgia from late April till mid-June and were available only during the summer months. Now the Vidalia season has been extended for several months by use of controlled atmosphere (CA) storage. The principal characteristic of CA storage is a modification of the atmosphere in the storage facility. This involves decreasing the oxygen content of the air to 3 percent and maintaining the onions at a temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit. So there are now Vidalia and other sweet onions available in many markets year-round.

Vidalia onions have a very mild taste and do not make your eyes water when you cut them up. In time Vidalia was joined on the shelves by other varieties of sweet onions - Maui, Walla Walla, and Maya. These are all delicious. Some are available all year long and at 50 percent lower cost than standard yellow or red onions.

Chemical analysis has shown that the reason that these onions are so sweet is because of a lack of sulfur in the soil in the particular counties in which they are grown. Sulfur is necessary to produce the characteristically sharp taste and odor of typical onions. But therein lies the problem. Do these sulfur-lacking sweet onions convey the same health benefit as typical sharp onions? After all, we also know that sulfur is involved in the production of some of the very phenolic and flavonoid compounds that give the onion family its health benefit. (I am thinking in particular of organic allyl sulfur, the most desirable compound in onions and garlic.)

This question has been answered by food chemists at Cornell University and the results will not come as welcome news down in Jeff Davis County.

These Cornell scientists, led by Dr. R.H. Liu, compared the phenolic and flavonoid content of 10 varieties of onion that are commonly available in the United States, as well as shallots. The ten varieties were as follows:

1. Empire Sweet
2. Imperial Valley Sweet; and
3. Mexico
4. New York Bold
5. Northern Red
6. Peruvian Sweet
7. Texas 1015
8. Vidalia
9. Western White
10. Western Yellow

These were evaluated for their total phenolic and flavonoid content as well as their antioxidant and antiproliferative (i.e., anticancer) activity. Shallots had the highest total phenolic content among all the varieties tested, with a 6-fold difference observed when compared to Vidalia onions. Western Yellows exhibited the highest total flavonoid content of all the onion varieties tested, with an 11-fold difference when compared to the phenol-poor Western Whites. Shallots exhibited the highest total antioxidant activity.

Leaving aside the antioxidant-rich shallots, the onions were ranked as follows for antioxidant activity:

1. Western Yellow
2. New York Bold
3. Northern Red
4. Mexico
5. Empire Sweet
6. Western White
7. Peruvian Sweet
8. Texas 1015
9. Imperial Valley Sweet
10. Vidalia

The Cornell scientists also exposed various cancer cell lines to these onion varieties to see what effect the onions had on cell proliferation. The most effective of all in inhibiting cancer cells were - again - shallots, followed by New York Bold, Western Yellow and Northern Reds. The rest of the varieties all demonstrated weak anti-proliferative activity against these cancer cell lines. "These results may influence consumers toward purchasing onion varieties exhibiting greater potential health benefits," the authors wrote.

I know these results will influence my own shopping habits. The next time I purchase onions I will be looking for Western Yellow, New York Bold and/or Northern Red (a particularly good variety for salads). I will also get some shallots when my budget can afford them and they look nice and plump. Sweet onions, such as Vidalias or Maya, are indeed delicious and relatively inexpensive. But they simply do not convey a fraction of the health benefits of yellow or red onions, or of shallots.

HEART DISEASE STARTS IN CHILDHOOD

According to a 1998 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, heart disease starts in childhood.



Ages 16-20 (30% affected)

Ages 21-25 (50% affected)

Ages 26-39 (75% affected)



Cancer and Heart disease are not limited to older people any more! There is often 10-20 years of DNA damage that is done before cancer is even detected. A recent study (August 2007) reported in the Journal of American Pediatrics said that Metabolic Syndrome in children is a strong predictor of adult cardiovascular (heart) disease 25 years later.

1 in three women and 1 in 2 men will get cancer in their lifetime.

My mother had cancer in her 60's. That means it probably started when she was in her 30's or 40's. She got it again in another place when she was in her 70's!

A new report shows the number of kids taking statin drugs shot up 68% in just 5 years.1

It’s great that younger people are focusing on heart health. And it’s certainly alarming that health problems related to heart disease are showing up at younger ages than ever before. But statin drugs aren’t the answer. As I’ve pointed out before, they pose serious health risks, including

Inability to concentrate
Depression
Confusion
Impotence
Amnesia
Lowered sex drive
Disorientation
Weakened immune system
Shortness of breath
Liver damage
Fatigue
Kidney failure
Nerve pain
Death
Muscle weakness
Rhabdomyolysis (painful bursting of muscle cells)


Study after study has demonstrated the potentially debilitating effects of statin drugs. They can produce confused states similar to Alzheimer’s disease. They may increase the risk of cancer death. And putting the blame on LDL cholesterol, they don’t even help solve the underlying problems that cause heart disease.

Cholesterol is the great red herring of mainstream medicine’s take on heart health. Despite twenty years of propaganda from the heart health industry, the fact is that LDL cholesterol levels are still a terribly poor predictor of whether or not you’re going to have a heart attack. It may surprise you to learn that 75% of heart attack victims have normal cholesterol levels.

And this is old news. The myth of cholesterol’s role in heart disease has been thoroughly debunked.
Debunking The Cholesterol Myth
The Cholesterol Conspiracy

My advice is to forget about cholesterol and statin drugs and focus instead on the true indicators of heart health. Here’s what you should really be looking out for if you want to know whether you’re at risk:



Triglycerides
Insulin
Blood Pressure
Fasting Blood Glucose
Waist Size

Triglycerides are the kind of fat in your bloodstream that clogs your arteries. You can lower them safely and naturally by getting more omega-3 and vitamin D. Cod liver oil’s a great source of both. Lean meats, fish, and eggs are also rich in omega-3s. You can also get your vitamin D from supplements – 1,000 IEUs per day will do the trick.

Insulin is the hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. And high blood sugar levels lead to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. If your insulin levels are high, you may be developing insulin resistance, the cause of diabetes.

Glycemic Index

Dr David Ludwig of Boston's Children's Hospital has done several studies on overweight teenagers.

In one, he tested the idea that a high-GI breakfast makes people hungrier at lunch. A dozen obese boys were fed three different breakfasts, all with the same calories - a low-GI vegetable omelet and fruit, medium-GI oats or high-GI instant oatmeal.

At noon, they could eat as much as they wanted. Those who started the day with instant oatmeal wolfed down nearly twice as much as those getting the veggie omelet.

Ludwig says overweight people do not need to starve themselves. On a low-GI diet, they can eat enough to feel satisfied and still lose weight.

In a pilot study, he tested this on 14 overweight adolescents. They were put on two different regimens - a standard low-cal, low-fat, high-carb diet and a low-GI plan that let them eat all they wanted. After one year, the low-GI volunteers had dropped three kg of pure fat. The others had put on nearly two kg. Now he is repeating the study on 100 heavy teenagers.


Blood Pressure is another indicator of heart disease risk. You can easily lower it through exercise, diet, and supplements. Coenzyme Q10, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin C have all been shown to benefit people with high blood pressure. Garlic and cayenne pepper also contain natural ingredients that reduce hypertension.

Fluoride and Bone Cancer in Boys

The Fluoride controversy has been heating up in the news again this week. It seems that a student at the Harvard Dental school submitted her thesis in which she raised very serious concerns about fluoride's safety and its potential to cause bone cancer in teenage boys. The findings raise fundamental questions about the wisdom of adding fluoride to tap water. Click here to read her 27 page thesis. Her advisor, Dr. Chester Douglas, is alleged to have covered up the facts and/or lied about the results of her work when reporting the results of his federally funded research to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Dr. Douglas is on the payroll of Colgate. Click on the following article to read more:
Harvard Study:
Strong Link Between Fluoridated Water and Bone Cancer in Boys
Department Chair With Industry Ties Misrepresented Results to Federal Authorities

Fox News: Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer in Men

Obviously, this is not the first time that someone has tried to make this connection.
Click on the following article from the Taipei Times: Fluoridated water can cause bone cancer in boys - June 2005

Newsweek (2/5/90)Don't Drink the Water? . . . studies indicate that fluoride might be a carcinogen.

The Fluoride Bombshell. Oakland Tribune (2/16/90)

HEALTH EFFECTS: Fluoride & Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)

Fluoride Linked To Bone Cancer in Boys

I will be following this story and will let you know what happens next.

Lycopene and Prostate Cancer

Benefits of Lycopene

Red tomatoes contain lycopene, an antioxidant that has been much in the news. There are in fact over 450 scientific articles linking lycopene to the prevention of cancer. Perhaps the most exciting of these was a randomized trial at Wayne State, Detroit, that tested the effect of adding lycopene to the diets of men undergoing conventional treatment for prostate cancer. Twenty-six men who had been newly diagnosed with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive a tomato extract containing 30 mg of lycopene or no supplementation for three weeks before the complete removal of their prostates (radical prostatectomy).

Nearly twice as many men who took lycopene had small tumors compared to those who didn't get the tomato extract (80 vs. 45 percent). Men who took lycopene were also nearly four times more likely to have the disease confined to the prostate than those who didn't take it (i.e., 73 vs. 18 percent had organ-confined disease). When it came to the widespread involvement of the prostate in cancer-like changes, 33 percent of the controls had this vs. zero percent of the lycopene group! And the average prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were also lower in the lycopene group compared with the controls. (Kucuk 2002) Those are impressive numbers that should be tested in larger, more rigorous studies.

You can of course buy lycopene supplements, and you might need to in order to get huge therapeutic doses. But for most purposes dietary sources of lycopene are readily available: tomato, tomato products and some other fruits and vegetables, such as watermelon. But make sure to drizzle your tomatoes with olive oil, the way the Italians generally do, since lycopene needs some oil to be properly digested and absorbed. Although I generally favor raw vegetables, scientists tell us that processed tomato products are rich in lycopenes. This includes tomato paste, tomato sauce and, of course, ketchup, which beneficially contains some oil.


Benefits of Organic

Talking of ketchup, a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study from the end of 2004 showed that organic ketchup has three times as much lycopene as some commercial brands. It also contains organic cane sugar as opposed to high-fructose corn syrup, which could be a boon to people with corn allergies. The USDA group tested 13 commercial ketchups – six popular national brands, three organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains. They found that the organic brands were the most abundant in lycopene: one contained at much as 183 micrograms per gram of ketchup. By contrast, non-organic brands averaged 100 micrograms per gram. In fact, one fast-food brand contained a mere 60 micrograms per gram. Happily, Heinz is now marketing an organic ketchup in supermarkets. (Ishida 2004)

Choosing a tomato product for its lycopene content is relatively easy. First of all, read the label. Reject any product that uses artificial coloring, flavoring or preservatives. Then hold the bottle up to the light. Look for the darkest red color. Since lycopene is the natural red pigment in the tomato, the deeper the shade of red, the more of this phytonutrient you are likely to get.

A word of caution, though: one should use ketchup in moderation – even the organic brands are generally loaded with sugar. Despite what President Reagan thought, ketchup is not a vegetable, although I'm sure he would have taken comfort from this latest USDA finding.