According to a news source, the industry interests that lost their challenge to the listing of 4-MEI as a chemical known to California to cause cancer have filed an appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals. Cal. League of Food Processors v. OEHHA, No. C070406 (Cal. Ct. App., 3rd Dist., appeal filed February 10, 2012). The chemical is commonly found in foods such as soy sauce, roasted coffee and the caramel coloring added to colas and beer. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added the chemical to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list in January 2011, and a California Superior Court rejected the challenge filed by the California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and National Coffee Association in November. Additional information about the court’s ruling appears in Issue 420 of this Update. The plaintiffs reportedly argue that appellate intervention is needed “before…
Tag Archives cancer
A recent pooled analysis from 14 prospective cohort studies has reportedly confirmed “a suggestive, modest positive association” between sugar-sweetened carbonated beverage (SSB) consumption and increased pancreatic cancer risk. Jeanine Genkinger, et al., “Coffee, Tea and Sugar-Sweetened Carbonated Soft Drink Intake and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of 14 Cohort Studies,” Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, February 2012. After examining data from 317,827 men and 536,066 women, the study purportedly found that (i) “coffee consumption was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk overall”; (ii) “no statistically significant association was observed between tea intake and pancreatic cancer”; and, (iii) for modest intakes of SSBs, “there was a suggestive and slightly positive association . . . which reached statistical significance in certain subgroups of participants (e.g., nondiabetics, nondrinkers of alcohol).” These results evidently confirmed one Japanese cohort study as well as the Singapore Chinese Health Study covered in Issue 337 of this…
A meta-analysis of prospective studies has reportedly concluded that “dietary salt intake was directly associated with a risk of gastric cancer…, with progressively increasing risk across consumption levels.” Lanfranco D’Elia, et al., “Habitual Salt Intake and Risk of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies,” Clinical Nutrition, January 2012. Researchers apparently conducted a pooled analysis using seven adult-population studies that provided data from 10 cohorts, as well as additional analyses on “the effect of salt-rich foods on the rate of gastric cancer.” The meta-analysis overall involved information from dietary questionnaires completed by 268,718 participants from four countries. According to researchers, their findings indicated “a graded positive association between salt consumption and incidence of gastric cancer,” with “high” and “moderately high” salt intake associated with 68 percent and 41 percent “greater risk of gastric cancer, respectively, compared with ‘low’ salt consumption.” In addition, the meta-analysis purportedly revealed “a statistically significant positive…
A recent study has reportedly suggested a link between red and cooked meat consumption and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Carrie Daniel, et al., “Large prospective investigation of meat intake, related mutagens, and risk of renal cell carcinoma,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2011. Researchers apparently monitored approximately 492,000 participants over nine years using a “detailed dietary assessment linked to a database of heme iron, heterocyclic amines (HCA), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrate, and nitrite concentrations in cooked and processed meats.” According to the study abstract, the results revealed that participants who consumed approximately 2.2 ounces of cooked red or processed meat per 1,000 calories were 19 percent more likely to be diagnosed with RCC than those consuming less than 0.3 ounces per 1,000 calories. “Red meat intake may increase the risk of RCC through mechanisms related to the cooking compounds BaP and PhIP,” speculated the study’s authors, who…
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice addressing its amendment to “the calculation used to convert estimates of animal cancer potencyto estimates of human cancer potency, which is used to calculate no significant risk levels for carcinogens listed under Proposition 65.” According to the notice, the amendment took effect November 11, 2011, and will change “the existing regulatory provision to a ratio of human to animal bodyweight to the one-fourth power for interspecies conversion and delete[] the provision giving specific scaling factors for mice and rat data.” OEHHA has also announced that its Carcinogen Identification Committee has been asked to consider whether Dibenzanthracenes should be added to the Proposition 65 list. These substances are ubiquitous polyaromatic hydrocarbons that are the product of incomplete combustion, and human exposure may occur from contaminated food or water. Public comments are requested by January 10, 2012.…
According to a Citizens for Health alert, certain food companies are engaging in what the advocacy organization characterizes as “pinkwashing,” that is, supporting breast cancer action and initiatives while making and selling products purportedly posing cancer risks. The alert is based on an article recently appearing in Marie Claire. Titled “The Big Business of Breast Cancer,” the article contends, “Breast cancer has made a lot of people very wealthy.” While the article focuses on charities that may spend more on overhead and salaries than for breast cancer research or support for patients, it also suggests avoiding “pink-ribbon merchandise.” Among the questions the article proposes asking before contributing to or purchasing a “pink” branded product is whether the product itself is “contributing to the breast cancer epidemic.
A recent study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reportedly measured internal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from dietary sources, with results suggesting that the substance is, for the most part, metabolized and excreted by the body. Justin Teeguarden, et al., “Twenty-Four Hour Human Urine and Serum Profiles of Bisphenol A during High-Dietary Exposure,” Toxicological Sciences, September 2011. Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and Northwest Pacific National Laboratory apparently profiled the urine and blood serum of 20 healthy adults for 24 hours (24-h) after “high-dietary” BPA exposure via meals enriched with canned foods. “From a safety perspective, the most pressing fundamental question regarding BPA is whether human blood/tissue concentrations of BPA following typical daily exposures are similar to, above, or below blood/tissue concentrations causing demonstrably adverse effects in animal models,” wrote the authors. “The main objective of this study was…
If a D.C. federal court agrees to the unopposed litigation schedule filed in late July by the Styrene Information and Research Center, a decision about whether the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) properly added styrene to its list of possible carcinogens could be reached early in 2012. Styrene Info. & Research Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, No. __ (D.D.C., filed June 10, 2011). The industry trade group contends that the HHS National Toxicology Program (NTP) process that concluded with a determination to add the substance, which is used in plastic and foam food service packaging, to the 12th Annual Report on Carcinogens (RoC) was flawed, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law. The center seeks the removal of styrene from the RoC. In its complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, the center alleges that NTP’s scientific advisory panel members ignored studies showing…
The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) has issued a colorectal cancer report allegedly concluding “that red and processed meat increase risk of the disease.” Part of the groups’ Continuous Update Project, which in 2007 covered 749 papers on colorectal cancer, the 2011 report reviews 263 additional papers examining “the links between colorectal cancer risk and diet, physical activity and weight.” According to a May 23, 2011, press release, the findings provide “convincing evidence that both red and processed meat increase colorectal cancer risk,” while “foods containing fiber offer protection.” Billed by WCRF/AICR as “the most comprehensive and authoritative report on colorectal cancer risk ever published,” the meta-analysis also suggested that “ounce for ounce, consuming processed meat increases risk twice as much as consuming red meat.” WCRF/AICR recommends that “people limit consumption to 18 ounces (cooked weight) of red meat a week – roughly the equivalent of…
The Cancer Council Australia (CCA) Alcohol Working Group has published a position statement in the May 2011 Medical Journal of Australia, claiming that alcohol use causes cancer and that any level of consumption “increases the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.” According to the statement, an analysis verified by “external experts” found that “the level of risk increases in line with the level of consumption” and that an estimated 5,070 cases of cancer “are attributable to long-term chronic use of alcohol each year in Australia.” It also noted that “alcohol use may contribute to weight (fat) gain, and greater body fatness is a convincing cause of cancers of the oesophagus, pancreas, bowel, endometrium, kidney and breast (in postmenopausal women).” CCA recommends that consumers (i) reduce “the risk of alcohol-related harm over a lifetime” by drinking “no more than two standard drinks on any day,” and (ii) reduce the risk of…
