Soybean candles, however, did not. Which isn't to say that soybean candles escaped the fear factor entirely. According to George Thurston, Ph.D., an associate professor of environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine:

"Just lighting a match to start a candle creates sulfur pollution in the air." He adds, "It's one of the big sources of sulfur in the indoor environment, so using a lighter would probably be cleaner."

Study: Some types of candles may pollute indoor air [CNN] (Thanks to Shaula Evans!)

(Photo: brunkfordbraun)

But why? That is well covered:

In January 1976, then Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Schmidt testified before Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) that Hazleton Laboratories, under contract to Searle, had been charged with falsifying toxicological data on the sweetener.

The FDA subsequently convened a Public Board of Inquiry to review concerns on aspartame's carcinogenic effects in experimental animals. In 1980, the Board concluded that aspartame could "contribute to the development brain tumors." The FDA then recommended that, pending confirmation of these findings, this sweetener should no longer be used.

In 2006, based on highly sensitive and life long feeding tests in groups of about 200 rats and at doses less than usual human dietary levels, the prestigious Italian Ramazzini Foundation confirmed that aspartame is unequivocally carcinogenic. A high incidence of cancers was induced in multiple organs, including lymph glands, brain and kidney.

True, Nutrasweet conspiracy theories have grown up with the Internet. And we'll grant that there's no shortage of bad science over at HuffPo. But Dr. Epstein sounds like the real deal.

At any rate, as someone who has long found that Nutrasweet gives me headaches, I'm a believer. So down with Diet Coke! (Tab is better anyway.)

An Overdue Ban on a Dangerous Sweetener [Huffington Post]
(Thanks, Shaula Evans!)
[Photo: niallkennedy]

From today's story:

Previously, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessed sunbeds and sunlamps as "probably carcinogenic to humans". But it now says their use is definitively "carcinogenic to humans".

It made its decision following a review of research which concluded that the risk of melanoma - the most deadly form of skin cancer - was increased by 75% in people who started using sunbeds regularly before the age of 30.

In addition, several studies have linked sunbed use to a raised risk of melanoma of the eye.

What's funny about this news is it comes just a couple of weeks after a report that says the number of moles on your body, not sunlight, "is the most important factor in the risk of getting this dangerous form of skin cancer." From that story, dated July 12th:

The scientists involved in the study maintain that sunshine causes only a small proportion of melanoma cases, but in their opinion health warnings would be more useful if they focused on people who have more than 100 moles, and taught them to check regularly the moles for changes in shape, size or colour.

[...]

Dr Veronique Bataille, a researcher at King's College, London, and dermatologist at West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, argues that we have overemphasised the risk of sun exposure.

She said: "Let's keep sunshine in the picture because it does make you age and causes you wrinkles - we have never denied that. But let's move away from scaring people by saying they are going to die because they go in the sun."

What can we learn from these stories? Everything is trying to give you cancer. Go to bed.

"'No doubt' sunbeds cause cancer" [BBC]
"Sunshine warnings over skin cancer risk 'overstated'" [Yahoo!]
(Photo: Whatshername?)

Colby was a movie fan, [mom] Lisa Curtin said, and she latched onto Pixar's movies because she loved animals.

[On April 30] Colby's health began to worsen. On June 4 her mother asked a hospice company to bring a wheelchair for Colby so she could visit a theater to see "Up." However, the weekend went by and the wheelchair was not delivered, Lisa Curtin said.

By June 9, Colby could no longer be transported to a theater and her family feared she would die without having seen the movie.

At that point, Orum, who desperately wanted Colby to get her last wish, began to cold-call Pixar and Disney to see if someone could help.

Pixar has an automated telephone answering system, Orum said, and unless she had a name of a specific person she wanted to speak to, she could not get through. Orum guessed a name and the computer system transferred her to someone who could help, she said.

"Pixar grants girl's dying wish to see 'Up'" [OC Register] (Thanks to Mike!)

Consumer Reports didn't test the Ferrell-faced product line, but they use the announcement as an opportunity to remind everyone to protect yourself outdoors, so we will too:

While we can't vouch for Will's products-they weren't part of our testing-we like the subtext: Don't forget to use sunscreen-at least 30 SPF-to prevent skin cancer. In our recent survey, two-thirds of respondents said they used sunscreen at least occasionally, and women were more likely than men to use it frequently. Respondents were less likely to use it during non-beach, non-swimming activities such as running, and were more diligent about putting it on their kids than themselves.

Don't forget to apply 15 to 30 minutes before going out in the sun to allow for absorption, and if you're swimming or sweating heavily, reapply every 2 hours.

But what really matters, when it comes to skin cancer, is style—and imagine how much you'll impress the beach hotties in Whale's Vagina* as you slather on some Will Ferrell lotion.

The sunscreen comes in 6 oz bottles for $11.99 each, which is competitively priced with other products, and contain the following active ingredients: Homosalate @ 8%, Oxybenzone @5%, Octisalate @4%, Avobenzone @ 3%, Octocrylene @ 2.4%. (Oxybenzone and Avobenzone provide UVA protection.) Shipping is $7.00.

*Thanks to Kieran Kelly for reminding me of the original name for San Diego.

"Will Ferrell Sunscreen" [CancerForCollege.org]
"Will Ferrell sells sun safety" [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: Randy Son Of Robert)

From the LA Times:

Residents of Golestan province in northern Iran have one of the highest rates of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the world. They don't drink alcohol or smoke — the two primary risk factors for the disease in the West — but they do consume tea. Lots of it.

Recent research from the remote Iranian province has shown that people who drink tea that is 158 degrees Fahrenheit are more than eight times as likely to get esophageal cancer than those who drink "warm" tea (140 degrees or under).

And those who don't wait before slurping really need to reconsider their patience levels. Because if you wait less than two minutes before imbibing then you are nearly five and a half times more likely to get esophageal cancer. You should wait the full four minutes. Or simply add milk!

Tea and cancer? Depends how hot [Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: drsuparna)

The government hasn't banned the use of dioxane in baby products or cosmetics, even though they can seep through lotions into the skin. The FDA believes that trace amounts of carcinogens are acceptable, and might even toughen up American babies to survive any financial downturn.

"The levels we've found are relatively low, and the industry often says there's just a little bit of carcinogen in my product," Malkan said. "The problem is, we're finding a little bit of carcinogen in many products. Many of these products are used every day, so we've got repeated and frequent exposure to these low levels of chemicals. They're not the safest and purest products, and parents ought to know that."

In addition, government studies have not examined the effect of chemical exposure on the particular vulnerabilities of infants and children, whose bodies are still developing, the advocates said.

So which products contain the probable carcinogens? Here's the full list:

Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries [The Washington Post]
Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries [The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics]
(Photo: bbaunach)

"Consumer advocate Clark Howard diagnosed with prostate cancer" [CNN]
(Photo: HLN)

According to the study, BPA, which is found in baby bottles, food storage containers, and can linings, might also be found in household dust, tap water, and receipt paper. The study also finds that BPA remains in the body about eight times longer than previously thought.

Previous studies have associated BPA with increased risks of various cancers, reproductive disorders, and interference with medication. The FDA maintains that BPA is safe, although another government entity, the National Toxicology Program, found that there was cause for some concern.

Study: Bisphenol-A, used in plastics, lingers in body [Detroit Free Press]
(Photo: Consumerist)

[Alcohol] increases the permeability of the mucosa to other carcinogens like nicotine," explains Professor McCullough. "But also the first breakdown product of alcohol with enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase is acetaldehyde. And acetaldehyde is a known human carcinogen."

[...]

He says there is enough evidence to suggest dentists should not be recommending long-term use, and earlier this evening the New Zealand Ministry of Health advised that it is not sensible to use alcohol-containing mouthwash long-term without advice from a dentist.

Smokers are still far more likely than mouthwash users to get oral cancer—fifty times more likely, according to some studies, so you shouldn't rush over to the oncologist's office at the first pangs of a new canker sore.

Dentists also say that you don't really need mouthwash if you brush and floss regularly and eat a healthy diet. Which, um, we all do, right?

Research shows some mouthwashes may cause cancer [3 News] (Thanks to Shaula!)
Mouthwash linked with increased cancer risk [ABC]
The role of alcohol in oral carcinogenesis with particular reference to alcohol-containing mouthwashes [Australia Dental Journal Abstract]

Drug maker Wyeth paid ghostwriters to write medical journal articles that were favorable to its female hormone replacement therapy drug, according to Congressional letters referenced in an article in the NYT.

The letters, sent electronically Friday by Senator Charles E. Grassley, ask Wyeth and DesignWrite, a medical writing firm, to disclose payments related to the preparation of journal articles and the activities of doctors who were recruited to put their names on them for publication.

The letters are part of a continuing investigation by Mr. Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, into drug industry influence on doctors.

“Any attempt to manipulate the scientific literature, that can in turn mislead doctors to prescribe drugs that may not work and/or cause harm to their patients, is very troubling,” Mr. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, wrote Friday to Wyeth’s chairman and chief executive, Bernard J. Poussot.

One article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommended a hormone replacement therapy drug that now carries a cancer risk warning. The article claimed that there was "no definitive evidence" that the drug caused breast cancer.

According to the NYT, the documents show that the drug company executives came up with ideas for the articles, titled them, paid writers to write the manuscripts, "recruited academic authors and identified publications to run the articles — all without disclosing the companies’ roles to journal editors or readers."

At least 10 of the articles seem to have been written before they were submitted to the "author" to review. In all cases, the drug company had final say before the articles were published.

Drug Maker Said to Pay Ghostwriters for Journal Articles [NYT]

The six companies that won't pretend to cure cancer anymore include:

• Ni-Gen Nutrition of Troy, Mich., which allegedly marketed an electrolyte liquid and apricot seeds as cures.
• Westberry Enterprises of Pineville, La., which the agency said sold teas that contained algae and other ingredients.
• Jim Clark's All Natural Cancer Therapy of Louisville, Ky., which allegedly sold digestive enzymes and coral calcium as treatments.

• Omega Supply of San Diego, which allegedly sold hydrazine sulfate, a substance classified by the government as a potential cancer-causing agent.
• Herbs for Cancer, which allegedly sold 16 types of teas to fight specific cancers, plus a 17th type for "cancers not on our list."

FTC cracks down on bogus online cancer cures [The Los Angeles Times]
FTC Sweep Stops Peddlers of Bogus Cancer Cures [FTC]
Cure-ious? Ask. [FTC]
(Photo: Getty)

Acrylamide forms naturally when starchy foods are baked or fried. Studies have shown the chemical, which also has industrial uses, causes cancer in lab animals and nerve damage to workers who are exposed to high levels. The Food and Drug Administration is researching whether acrylamide in food poses a health risk.

''Everybody's trying to figure out how to lower levels (of acrylamide) without significantly, adversely affecting taste,'' said Michele Corish, an attorney for Lance, which produces Cape Cod chips.

Corish said the modified snacks will be available nationwide. Messages left with the other three companies were not immediately returned Friday night.

The attorney general's office said the levels of acrylamide in most Cape Cod chips are already near the compliance level as defined by the settlement. However, Brown said Cape Cod Robust Russets contain 25 times the acceptable amount.

Corish said ''Robust Russets'' chips are no longer being sold.

Pringles was not included in the settlement because they are not potato chips, and Proctor & Gamble along with McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and KFC agreed back in 2005 to either "properly label their products or lower levels of the chemical."

Settlement will reduce carcinogens in potato chips [AP]
(Photo: Getty)

1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The amplitude of the electromagnetic field is one fourth the strength at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100th of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone. Use of a hands-free ear piece attachment may also reduce exposures.

3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.

4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on “flight” or “off-line” mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.

5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, make sure that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from your rather than through you.

6. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes, as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.

7. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure.

8. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.

9. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body.

10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by different manufacturers are available by searching for “sar ratings cell phones” on the internet.

Of course, science doesn't actually know for certain whether cellphones are safe or whether they cause debilitating brain tumors. "Further research is needed" is a common refrain, though this is the sort of thing that will work itself out over the next decade as more, um, tumors data become available.

Important Precautionary Advice Regarding Cell Phone Use [University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute via firedoglake] (Thanks to Shaula!)
(Photo: Getty)

WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Perhaps this is why the lamp is on clearance?

Why does this seem like the beginning of a not-so-good horror movie? Oh my gosh, it's just like when the Brady Bunch went to Hawaii and they found that tiki thing and it gave them bad luck...

What do you think of warning labels like this? Would you risk purchasing the cancer lamp?

Mikey Tiki [Disney Outlet]

Two days before the transplant, the hospital called Drew to tell him that his half brother, Michael, had mononucleosis and that it would be months before he could be up to the surgery required for his donation. Devastated, Drew dialed Alexa to tell her the news. She didn't skip a beat. "I'll be your donor, Eric," she said. Two days before Christmas, Drew received Alexa's stem cells through a catheter in his chest. It would be three months before he would know if the stem cells had grafted, and he knew the odds were low. But he had no idea how low he could get.
 
During his treatment in Seattle, he began getting strange calls from credit card companies thanking him for his application. Drew shrugged it off as best he could until the collection agents started arriving at his door. There were a half dozen accounts opened in his name, with almost $10,000 in charges. "Please stop this!" Drew told one of the banks on the phone. "I'm in a hospital dying!"
 
But there was no stopping this thief. Here Drew was, on the verge of death, and someone was stripping away his last shred of humanity. He felt that his identity was being taken on every level. The disease was robbing him of his life. Some criminal was stealing his identity.

The revelation raises several questions, including whether the tobacco company influenced the study, who knew the real source of the funding, and whether Weill Cornell Medical College—where Dr. Henschke is a faculty member—implicitly supported the foundation's creation to hide the source of the funding. Two Cornell officials who sat on the board of the foundation have denied any knowledge of Liggett's involvement.

Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest, said he believed that Weill Cornell had created the foundation to hide its receipt of money from a cigarette company. "You have to ask yourself the question, 'Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?' " Dr. Kassirer said. "They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that's outrageous."

RELATED: PacifiCare Capitulates to Latest Patient Revolt [California Nurse's Association]
PREVIOUSLY: Teen Being Murdered By UnitedHealth Spreadsheet

Pacificare denies 17-year-old cancer patient lifesaving treatment [DailyKos] (Thanks to Evan!)

This is Nick's older brother, Ricky, and I want to ask all of you for a huge favor. Our insurance company, PacifiCare, denied Nick to go to Kansas City for a special treatment of radiation for his cancer (this could save his life). Nick has suffered with cancer for 4 years of his life and he has exhausted every avenue to get better, but nothing worked. This is our last effort and this procedure has worked before with people in Nick's situation. I think it is our duty to stand up for Nick and tell PacifiCare that what they are doing is wrong.

I am putting together a demonstration in front of the PacifiCare building at 5701 Katella Ave Cypress, CA 90630. Tuesday, March 25th, at 10:00 a.m. We are getting the media to step in and put pressure on (kcal9 and newspapers).

If we can at least get 300 people there I know they will have to say something about it. I know that my brother isn't the only one suffering because of America's poor healthcare system.

If you guys know anyone else that is suffering because of this, have him or her come out too. We need to let not only PacifiCare but America know that what they are doing is wrong and we need change.

Thank all of you so much.

Ricky Colombo

The error occurred in diagnosis before the surgery took place. The surgery staff followed all appropriate safety protocols, including marking the surgical site and pausing before surgery to confirm the final details.

Unfortunately, the side of the affected kidney was incorrectly identified in the medical chart several weeks before the surgery took place.

"The fact is, my kid has leukemia, and if he doesn't get this treatment, he will die," Robert Mitchell said. "The way they made me feel was that they were pressuring us to take him home and let him die. We'll try anything that has a chance of succeeding, and I will not give up fighting for it to be covered.

"Go to their Web site, and their mission statement says they treat each person with compassion," he said. "I think that's a bunch of hoopla."

Paul Tate, a spokesman for Primary Physician Care, said the company is not authorized to discuss Paxten's case.

(Thanks to Adam!)

"Insurance won't cover child's critical leukemia treatment" [Asheville Citizen-Times]

RELATED
www.primaryphysiciancare.com
(Photo of Paxton Mitchell: Citizen-Times)

I made an electronic payment online with my one of my bank's check card. Turns out this was the wrong one, and I immediately canceled the payment (as there's a very easy to find and large button allowing you to do this immediately as well), and resubmitted it through the correct bank. So, to sum up, the payment was made, about two weeks before it was due. I figured all was cool and I was being a good customer for paying more than the minimum balance, way ahead of the due date, online, so there wouldn't be any "problems" with a check or the postal service. Then I look on my statement and I've been charged a $35 Returned Payment Fee.

WTF?! was the first thought that went through my mind. Since I was close to my limit, they didn't even count my payment and assessed this fee, putting me over my (meager) limit. I sent an email to Customer Service explaining everything and had planned to call, but the cancer medication I take had other plans and I spent all day in bed in the worst pain imaginable. (Sorry to whine or to fish for support here...)

Their first email back read:

We are writing to you in response to your inquiry regarding your Account ending in **** issued by HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to remove the returned check fee from your account. According to your Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement, you agree to pay a fee each time a check is returned unsatisfied by your financial institution for any reason.

Unfortunately I paid this neither with a check and it wasn't returned by MY bank - I voluntarily canceled the transaction and used a VISA Check Card. Says nothing about a $35 fee in the Cardholder Agreement about that.

That was Monday morning, when I placed my WONDERFUL call to Customer Service who blamed everything on me. I sent a second email back, a little bit of a tear jerker, and I got something that might have gotten a little lost in translation....

"We are sorry to hear about your difficult situation. As a courtesy, the return payment fee in the amount of $35.00 has been credited to your account. The fee reversal will appear on one of your next two billing statements."

In full disclosure, my "difficult situation" is that I'm dying from the presence of a malignant brain tumor, which is inoperable, and while I might be lucky enough to see the next two billing statements, I probably won't see my 26th birthday in December. Yeah, I guess that's the outsourcing way of handling a difficult situation. They even spelled my name wrong. Talk about adding insult to injury. But I may get lucky and endless rounds of chemo and radiation therapy, with gamma knife treatment will get rid of it (don't flame me here, I'm not a neurosurgeon, and I've kind of stopped listening for a while now, so I don't know the exact methods).

Anyway, I plan to give one more call to HSBC Customer Service, then I'm going to sleep for the night. I've dealt with Sprint, Chase and Apple (with bodily in injury as you can recall) and come out on top. If I can muster the strength to get this with HSBC (and my ongoing clusterfuck with BofA), I'm taking a well-deserved vacation...or something. Please feel free to post this struggle I've had with HSBC - no wonder you released a study ranking them the lowest, um, ranked credit card company. All of this, on top of my supposed "girlfriend" dumping me for another girl today has made it one of those days where I'm ready to give up. But I see everyone else getting screwed over and I'm going to try to gather the energy to fight two more battles. New Orleanians, especially those who work tirelessly for non-profits are fighters, and don't like seeing the little man screwed. Today, that's me.

Much, much NOLA love,
Brian

And in a related story, Lyods TSB of London was found to have a secret manual instructing customer service reps on the art of denying refunds for overcharges unless the customers were "very ill" - or dying."

According to the press release:

The researchers began their investigation when two patients being seen by UT Southwestern doctors developed aggressive prostate cancer within months of starting daily consumption of the same dietary supplement. Both men purchased the same product, one to develop stronger muscles and enhance sexual performance, the other to gain muscle.

Dr. Roehrborn, Dr. Shahrokh Shariat, a resident in urology and the study's lead author, and their colleagues analyzed the supplement, which is not named in the study. They found that the product's label listed ingredients that were not present, misrepresented the concentrations of the ingredients present and failed to list all the steroid hormones contained in the product.

RELATED
"Hormonal dietary supplements might promote prostate cancer progression" [EurekAlert]
(Photo: Getty)

Polycarbonate plastic, which can only be produced by using B.P.A., creates bottles that are transparent and almost as hard as glass, but particularly shatter-resistant.

Recently, however, the use of B.P.A.-based plastics in food containers has questioned in Canada by Environmental Defence , a Toronto-based group. Environmentalists in the United States are also raising concerns about the chemical.

Last year, San Francisco's board of governors passed a local law banning the use of the chemical in children's products. B.P.A. was removed from the ordinance before it went into effect, however, after an industry lawsuit.

Critics point to studies dating back to 1936 showing that the chemical can disrupt the hormonal system.

While there is little dispute about that, the plastics industry, supported by several studies from government agencies in Japan, North America and Europe, contends that polycarbonate bottles contain very little of the chemical and release only insignificant amounts of B.P.A. into the bodies of users.

Canadian Retailer Bans Some Plastic Bottles [NYT]

The report compared how often the plans, along with about 200 physician groups, met 31 clinical quality standards, such as immunizing infants and screening adults for cancer, in 2006.

It found that almost one-third of middle-aged women hadn't had a mammogram to screen for breast cancer in the last two years, for example, and that almost half of plan members older than 50 hadn't been tested for colorectal cancer.

"As standards of care, they pretty much should happen 100% of the time," said Ted vonGlahn, director of consumer engagement for the Pacific Business Group on Health, which helped prepare the report. "When you look at the averages, it's pretty sobering."

Each health plan's individual rating was determined by comparing its performance on the 31 care standards with national averages. The overall clinical quality rating was expressed on a scale of one to four stars. No health plan received four stars, or an "excellent" rating.

Health Net and Kaiser Permanente each received the highest score for overall clinical quality, notching three out of four stars, or a "good" rating.

The rest — Aetna Health, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Cigna, PacifiCare and Western Health Advantage — were given two stars, for "fair."

HMOs not meeting national standards in basic areas, report says [L.A. Times]
2007 Heath Care Quality Report Card [State of California]
(Photo: maessive)

"Because aspartame is so widely consumed, it is urgent that the FDA evaluate whether aspartame still poses a 'reasonable certainty of no harm,' the standard used for gauging the safety of food additives," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But consumers, particularly parents, shouldn't wait for the FDA to act. People shouldn't panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame."

The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to [aspartame] begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased

The FDA responded to the CSPI in an email to Reuters, claiming not to have reviewed the study:

"However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies," Herndon said in an e-mail.

"Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."

FDA Should Reconsider Aspartame Cancer Risk, Say Experts [CSPI]
FDA says unmoved by aspartame/cancer report [Reuters]
Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats [Environmental Health Perspectives]

• abdominal pain

• feeling full quickly when eating

• and feeling a frequent or urgent need to urinate.

Women who experience these symptoms nearly every day for two or three weeks should see a doctor. ABC News medical editor Dr. Tim Johnson says, "If you have all those symptoms together and they're new, that's another big clue," he said. "If they're new symptoms and they're persistent, absolutely talk to your doctor." —MEGHANN MARCO

Ovarian Cancer Symptoms Identified [ABC News]
(Photo: Wikipedia)

Benzene can form in soft drinks containing vitamin C, also called ascorbic acid, and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. Scientists say factors such as heat or light exposure can trigger a reaction that forms benzene in the beverages.

Coca-Cola will no longer sell the two products in question with both sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid as ingredients.

Coca-Cola settles lawsuits over benzene [MSNBC]
(Photo: nickgreywfu)

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks...DCA can cause pain, numbness and gait disturbances in some patients, but this may be a price worth paying if it turns out to

be effective against all cancers. The next step is to run clinical trials of DCA in people with cancer. These may have to be funded by charities, universities and governments: pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to pay because they can't make money on unpatented medicines. The pay-off is that if DCA does work, it will be easy to manufacture and dirt cheap.

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers [New Scientist]

Mobile phone use 'linked to tumour' [Telegraph via Gizmodo]