Calorie Count to Appear Soon on New York Menus

Did you hear that beginning March 31, all chain restaurants in New York City will have to prominently post calorie data on their menus?

Indeed, as noted here previously, the city's Board of Health voted unamimously last month to require this information in the hopes that it will help combat obesity, as CNN and CSPI pointed out.

About 54 percent of adults in New York City are overweight or obese.

The new regulation applies to restaurants with 15 or more outlets nationwide – or about 10% of all New York City restaurants.

This move has the backing of a number of health groups. In fact, the The Obesity Society just came on board to show support.

Not surprisingly, New York's restaurant lobby is against this requirement, and the group even filed a lawsuit suit last summer to stop it. (One of their arguments was that listing calories would make menus look too cluttered. Forgive me for smiling, but that strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous excuse.)

While it may be useful for New Yorkers - and people in other cities - to learn how many calories are in foods they're thinking of ordering, I think it would be useful to know sugar content, too.

As I've said previously, calories just don't tell the full picture.

But the big questions are these:

• Will this calorie information spur overweight or obese people to select options that are lower in calories?
• And if they're eating at a fast-food restaurant in the first place, do you really think weight loss is a big consideration for them?

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. But don't look for me at fast-food restaurants to gauge the effectiveness of this new regulation. (I just don't hang out at those places.)

Source: www.commonvoice.com

Study Ffinds Long Term Heavy Use of Cell Phones Does Increase Cancer Risk

It's not uncommon that studies done on the same subject often come to vastly different conclusions; and studies on the link between increased risk of cancer and cell phone usage are no exception.

A study published last year in American Journal of Epidemiology has shown that frequent cell phone users face a 50 percent higher risk of developing certain types of tumors. Specifically the risk of developing parotid tumors is increased by 50 percent. The parotid is the largest salivary gland and is located near the jaw and ear where cell phones are typically held.

A 50 percent increased risk of cancer sounds very serious, and any increased chance of cancer should be taken seriously. However, if you stand back and look at the actual numbers the chance of getting a tumor from using a cell phone is still incredibly minute.

A study performed by Mark Kidd showed that in heavy cell phone users the risk of parotid tumors increased from 0.003 percent to 0.0045 percent.

In September of 2007 DailyTech reported that the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme published a study stating that there was no short-term link between cancer and cell phone use. The report did say that more research was needed into the association of long term cell phone use and cancer.

A study by Dr. Siegal Sadetzki showed that using a cell phone for more than 10 years does in fact raise the risk of brain cancer and notes that children are particularly at risk because of their developing skulls. Sadetzki says, “While I think this technology is here to stay, I believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish the exposure and lower the risk for health hazards.”

Sadetzki recommends using a hands-free device at all times and holding the phone away from the body along with shorter less frequent calls. She also says limit the time kids spend on the phone.

Source: www.DailyTech.com

Obesity Increases Cancer Risk, Analysis Of Hundreds Of Studies Shows

Researchers from the University of Manchester, Christie Hospital and University of Bern in Switzerland have today published findings in the Lancet medical journal which further support the link between obesity and risk of developing cancer.

Following on from findings reported by the World Cancer Research fund last year, the study reveals that risk is increased not only in common cancers such as breast, bowel and kidney, but also in less common cancers such as blood cancers (myeloma and leukaemia) and melanoma (a form of skin cancer).

Dr Andrew Renehan and colleagues from the University of Manchester and Christie Hospital, did a meta-analysis (a combined analysis of 221 previous studies), looking at over 250,000 cases of cancer, to determine the risk of cancer associated with a 5kg/m2 increase in body mass index (BMI).

The researchers found in men, a 5kg/m2 increase in BMI raised the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma by 52%, thyroid cancer by 33%, and colon and kidney cancers each by 24%.

In women, a BMI increase of 5kg/m2 increased the risk of endometrial (59%), gallbladder (59%), oesophageal adenocarcinoma (51%) and kidney (34%) cancers.

They also noted weaker, but significant, positive associations between increased BMI and rectal cancer and malignant melanoma in men; postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid, and colon cancers in women; and leukaemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in both sexes. They found associations were stronger in men than in women for colon cancer - 24% in men compared with 9% in women.

The study looked at cancer data from all over the world, and while the results for North America, Europe, Australia and the Asia-Pacific region were broadly similar, there was a stronger link between increased BMI and both premenopausal and post menopausal breast cancers in Asia-Pacific populations.

The senior author on the study, Dr Andrew Renehan, said: "This was a hugely comprehensive piece of research looking at 221 different studies in 20 types of cancer. For some cancer types, associations differ between sexes and populations of different ethnic origins and this should inform the exploration of biological mechanisms that link obesity with cancer."

He added: "Over the past five years, there was been increasing proof that obesity is linked with cancer risk, but despite this, we do not know whether weight reduction in people protects them against cancer. The findings of this study are important to address these issues and explore ways to prevent cancers in the future."

In an accompanying comment, Dr Susanna Larsson and Dr Alicja Wolk, Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, say: "The number of deaths per year attributable to obesity is about 30000 in the UK and ten times that in the USA, where obesity has been estimated to have overtaken smoking in 2005 as the main preventable cause of illness and premature death."

They conclude: "Efforts will be needed to increase education on diet and physical activity, train health professionals, restrict advertisements of high-calorie and low-nutrient foods, limit access to unhealthy foods in schools and workplaces, levy taxes on sugary drinks and other foods high in calories, fat, or sugar, lower the prices of health foods, and promote physical activity in schools and workplaces. National cancer plans should include all these factors to reduce obesity, and thus decrease cancer incidence and increase survival."

Source: www.sciencedaily.com

Many Prostate Cancers Will Not Need Treatment

One of the largest studies of its kind concludes that most older men with early prostate cancer do not shorten their survival odds if they adopt a "wait-and-see" approach to the disease.

In fact, most such patients will die of other causes or they simply won't develop any complications from the cancer, the researchers found.

"Many elderly men with lower risk cancer may do well with conservative management," concluded study author Grace Lu-Yau, a cancer epidemiologist at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, and an associate professor at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and School of Public Health.

"Each patient facing a treatment decision has to ask himself what is the potential survival benefit of various treatments and the potential side effects of various treatments, then compare this potential risk of side effects with the potential risk of cancer complications if the cancer is left untreated - and ask themselves which treatment option is their personal preference," Lu-Yau said.

She presented the findings to reporters at a special teleconference Tuesday, part of the 2008 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium taking place in San Francisco.

The question of whether to treat or not treat prostate cancer has long absorbed experts.

Although one in six men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime, many of the malignancies are slow-growing, and there is currently no reliable way to identify which men will benefit from treatment. Better knowledge of the natural history of the disease (i.e., what happens without any treatment) would help guide treatment decisions, Lu-Yau said.

This study is one of the first to look at the natural history of prostate cancer since PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood testing has become commonplace. PSA tests can detect a prostate cancer six to 13 years earlier than previous methods.

Lu-Yau and her colleagues looked at data on more than 9,000 men with Stage I or II prostate cancer diagnosed between 1992 and 2002 who did not undergo treatment. The mean age of participants was 77 years.

Seventy-two percent of these men died of other causes or didn't have enough cancer progression to warrant surgery or radiation, the researchers found. For the remaining 2,675 men who did receive treatment, the median time between diagnosis and start of therapy was more than 10 years.

Not surprisingly, men with less aggressive disease survived longer than those with more aggressive tumors.

"For elderly men with localized prostate cancer, the potential survival benefit for treatment is most likely modest, therefore it is very critical to weigh the risk of having side effects of various treatments with the risk of developing cancer-related complications down the road," Lu-Yau said. "The majority of patients will die of other causes or remain alive without significant major complications."

A second study presented at the conference found that giving salvage radiation therapy (SRT) to men whose PSA levels rise after having their prostate removed can reduce their risk of dying from the cancer by more than 60 percent.

SRT is typically given only after a recurrence, not after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer, noted study lead author Dr. Bruce Trock, associate professor of urology, epidemiology, oncology and environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Existing studies have either not been large enough or long enough in duration to determine if SRT prolongs survival.

In this retrospective analysis of 635 men who had experienced a recurrence after having their prostate removed, 62 percent of those who did not receive any salvage therapy were still alive after 10 years, versus 86 percent of those who received SRT and 82 percent of those who received SRT plus hormone therapy.

Men whose PSA doubling time (the amount of time it took for PSA levels to double from when in first becomes detectable) was six months or less had the greatest benefit.

"If another study was able to replicate our data, it could lead to clinical trial that would eventually support a way to determine who should get immediate adjuvant radiation and who could wait until the time of recurrence to have SRT," Trock said. "The question is, could a benefit be achieved in some of these men if you waited to see whether they recurred or not?"

Source: www.washingtonpost.com