 |
| Scientists suggested on Thursday a link between cancer and "ultra-processed" foods |
Scientists
suggested on Thursday a link between cancer and "ultra-processed"
foods such as cookies, fizzy drinks and sugary cereals, though outside experts
cautioned against reading too much into the study results.
Researchers
from France and Brazil used data from nearly 105,000 French adults who
completed online questionnaires detailing their intake of 3,300 different food
items.
This was
compared to cases of diagnosed cancer among the group.
"The
results show that a 10-percent increase in the proportion of ultra-processed
foods in the diet was associated with increases of 12 percent in the risk of
overall cancer and 11 percent in the risk of breast cancer," said a press
statement from The BMJ which published the research.
No
significant association was found for prostate or colorectal cancer.
Foods on
the list included packaged breads, buns, pizzas and cakes, crisps,
industrially-produced desserts, sodas, fish and chicken nuggets, instant
noodles and soups, and frozen ready meals.
Previous
research had linked processed foods high in sugar, fat, and salt to obesity,
high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but firm evidence for increased
disease risk has been "scarce", the team said.
They
stressed their research showed no more than a correlation between a diet high
in ultra-processed foods and cancer. This could be coincidental, and does not
prove conclusively that these types of food actively cause cancer.
Ian
Johnson, a nutrition researcher from the Quadram Institute Bioscience in
England, said the authors identified "some rather weak associations, of
low statistical significance."
"The
problem is that the definition of ultra-processed foods they have used is so
broad and poorly defined that it is impossible to decide exactly what, if any,
causal connections have been observed," he said in comments via the
Science Media Centre.
Tom Sanders
of the King's College London agreed that the term "ultra-processed
food" was "difficult to define".
"The
definition excludes many home-made or artisanal foods such as bread, cakes,
biscuits, butter, meat, cheese, tinned fruit and vegetables as well as sugar
and salt used in domestic food preparation," he said.
"From
a nutritional standpoint, this classification seems arbitrary and based on the
premise that food produced industrially has a different nutritional and
chemical composition from that produced in the home or by artisans. This
is not the case."
Related Articles:
(13) Question: Dear Kryon, I’m very concerned about the obesity epidemic, particularly in the U.S. Around me I see people getting bigger and more unhealthy, all for the sake of convenience and saving time. You mentioned at one point a famine, and I suspect the famine won’t be from a lack of food, but from an abundance of food that has no nutritional value.
I wonder how we can honor the Earth by eating nothing that comes straight from it? Of course this involves caring for the lands and oceans as part of a bigger issue and making that connection, too. Is this what it will finally take for people to switch to a healthier way of living?
Its amazing how detached people are from the food they eat. We don’t even honor our digestive processes, the way we combine foods. Whatever happened to nutrition? Atkins is no solution; there is no balance in it. Gastric bypass is all about quantity reduction, not quality increase. When will people make the direct connection between what/how they eat and their health? Is a change in diet and lifestyle part of the upcoming shift?
Answer: The shift has little to do with it. It’s a culture-specific problem and has to do with consciousness of health. Go study the cultures on your planet that have very few overweight Humans. Start with the Japanese. They have some of the same western work ethics and live in very sophisticated industrial-based environments. Yet they aren’t overweight. It’s about the core food groups and the combination of them.
(39) Question: Dear Kryon: I've noticed how many children are developing severe allergies to foods (my daughter included). When I've researched this, it seems that most of the allergies are essentially to seeds, grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy. I've noticed that these foods all hold the potential for life, or in the case of dairy, are essentially used to sustain the first stages of life in an animal's baby. My feeling is that because we're not releasing the life force within these foods (that is, sprouting, etc.), they're becoming harmful to us. I would like your impressions of this.
Answer: For thousands of years, these foods have worked for humanity. In these cases you speak about, the main culprit continues to be the way in which these foods are collected and processed. You won't find these allergies in third-world countries, and you won't find them within the children who work on farms, where they eat the foods directly. There will eventually have to come a day when you relax some of your efficiency attributes and go back to the way food was meant to be collected and eaten. And yes... there are effects from how the dairy animals are treated, too. Going back to some basics will help, and so will eliminating some of the procedures that supposedly create a "safer food." These procedures have instead made them begin to look like foreign food to the Human body.
(15) Question: Dear Kryon, please help us understand the increase of allergies. What can we do to heal this phenomenon?
Answer: Reduce the steps in your food chain, which are adding chemistry to fresh food.
No comments:
Post a Comment