Diet to bring down PSA

2

Comments

  • FaithnFuture
    FaithnFuture Member Posts: 2
    G.L.M_61 said:

    I did fowl up
    My son works for Whole foods and looked this up for me. Eggs are NOT dairy. My son sent me a link to a dairy free diet and recipe book that includes brownies, and many, many good meals. You know my personal E-mail so it you would like this like, E-mail me and I will reply with the link. I am a PC geek, LOL. but I can build a house with my eyes closed. :-)

    diet
    please post or send site regarding dairy free diet...thanks n God Bless
  • bdhilton
    bdhilton Member Posts: 813 Member

    Healthy Eating
    I swear...you all are way healthier than I when it comes to your diet....I have never been one to follow all the healthy advice. I believe in moderation as a rule when it comes to everything....do I subscribe to it religiously...nope...I drink too much beer, eat too many dairy products....and probably too much fat....however...my great grandmother lived an excellent life...very much without doctors....she finally passed at 98. lived by herself alone in a house until she was about 89 or 90. I truly believe much of our health is inherited and by luck. Look at jim fix....represented the great running start for millions and died of too much cholestoral in arteries....something running should have fixed or at least put off....he died at 52. Eulle Gibbions the Grape Nut Health expert...died at 64 of complications of marfan syndrome, an inherited disorder. Something is going to get all of us at some point! I know I need to start changing my ways and start moving to the healthier choices. I need to read here more maybe that will motivate me.

    To all who fight the beast....may your choice conquer!!

    Randy in Indy

    yes life is a lottery but we
    yes life is a lottery but we have control on diet, exercise and the fun we have...yea my grandparents on both sides ate eggs and bacon (eggs based in bacon fat) their entire lives...Life is a lottery
  • Scambuster
    Scambuster Member Posts: 973
    bdhilton said:

    yes life is a lottery but we
    yes life is a lottery but we have control on diet, exercise and the fun we have...yea my grandparents on both sides ate eggs and bacon (eggs based in bacon fat) their entire lives...Life is a lottery

    Great thread
    Excuse the barge in but it was nice to see you getting good results with PSA, cholesterol etc from the change in diet. Isn't it just amazing that your doctors were surprised !! The reason is they still (in the majority) refuse to believe diet is critical for our health and recover from cancer and many other disease. The fact is, Doctors do not study nutrition and run by the drug company fed information. Sad but true. (Well actually it was shown they study about 8 hours of diet and nutrition in their entire formal medical training).

    I am on the head & neck board. I am 15 months out now from treatment (Surgery/Rads Chemo), went Vegan and doing supplements and am doing very well though I have some nasty post radiation side effects but not as bad as many on my board. I am about the healthiest I have ever been.

    As for the dairy and meats etc, the evidence is there that all animal protein is not so good for us, that includes eggs and fish. While most people get away with it and yes, many till they are in their 90's, The fact is we didn't, we got cancer, changes the picture, so maybe we should do everything possible to get rid of it and not to get a recurrence.

    The way we metabolize animal protein leaves our bodies depleted in certain elements and enzymes as well as it leaving certain oxidases and other irritants which are know to be carcinogenic. They are very different to non animal proteins. If you have not read it yet, I would strongly suggest you read "The China Study' (Dr T. Colin Campbell). It will clarify exactly why you have all noticed changes in your health since you stopped dairy and cut down on meats.

    He ran extensive experiments with rats on high diets of Milk Protein and it showed 100% causal to progress of cancer. When they reversed the diets, the cancer stopped and regressed. Quite remarkable. He then went on and undertook the largest ever statistical study of human diet and related disease, and showed the Western Diet to be ..well pretty bad and hence the very high rates of Cardio vascular disease, diabetes and Cancer, far greater than existed in China. As Chinese people introduced the Protein rich foods, guess what happened ? Give up ? Well of course the results showed a direct correlation with increase in CV Disease, Diabetes and cancer. These are know as 'Western Diseases' or 'Diseases of Affluence'.

    I have an excerpt on my Blog of a key Chapter from the book and more info on my expression page.

    The bad news is we probably should eliminate all animal protein (sorry guys, that also means eggs). As for the white breads, well all processed foods which include white rice, white pastas, white breads are all simple carbs and have had the goodness and fibre stripped away, so they convert to sugars very quickly and it is now known that cancer likes sugar. While they are not so bad for us, they just don't much that is good. Whole grain food is the way to go - these are complex carbs.

    Back on the sugar, well, that is how they find it withe PET Scan, they piggy back the radioactive isotopes onto a sugar (FDG), inject into you and the tumors suck it up and it lights up on your scan. So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.

    In general, process foods, free sugars, fried foods and animal proteins are stuff we should avoid. You would have to try this big change in diet to appreciate it. Some of you have already noticed a big change just from eliminating Dairy. A quick side note on dairy is firstly you don;t need it and can get all the calcium etc elsewhere and also consuming dairy actually blocks the absorption of calcium. That is why the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the countries with the highest consumption of Dairy. A little known fact and one the Dairy boards of the world don't really want to advertise.

    It's not all bad, as there are plenty of good foods out there that are in fact all good for us. I hope you do check out the book. There is still too much resistance to using diet as major part of our treatment, recovery and survival by the main stream medical profession. As such, don't expect your doctor to give you accurate information about diet and nutrition. They treat cancer and most illnesses with intervention : Surgery and drugs. that's what they are trained in. Do yourselves a favor, read up as much about diet and nutrition in relation to your general health and especially cancer. Many adopt the 'Moderation and well my grandpa ate 20lb steaks every day etc and he lived till he was 110. I know, but each thing you do that is not so good for us, it changes the numbers and not in our favor.

    Anyway, thank you for reading this far, and i hope you are inspired to rad further on the impact diet will have on your health. Take it step by step and increase the number improvements rather than the shock of a complete change if that eases the transition. Keep learning and don't tale any one article or book as the end game, read it all and the truth will emerge.

    I wish you all long and healthy lives.

    Scambuster
  • Swingshiftworker
    Swingshiftworker Member Posts: 1,017 Member

    Great thread
    Excuse the barge in but it was nice to see you getting good results with PSA, cholesterol etc from the change in diet. Isn't it just amazing that your doctors were surprised !! The reason is they still (in the majority) refuse to believe diet is critical for our health and recover from cancer and many other disease. The fact is, Doctors do not study nutrition and run by the drug company fed information. Sad but true. (Well actually it was shown they study about 8 hours of diet and nutrition in their entire formal medical training).

    I am on the head & neck board. I am 15 months out now from treatment (Surgery/Rads Chemo), went Vegan and doing supplements and am doing very well though I have some nasty post radiation side effects but not as bad as many on my board. I am about the healthiest I have ever been.

    As for the dairy and meats etc, the evidence is there that all animal protein is not so good for us, that includes eggs and fish. While most people get away with it and yes, many till they are in their 90's, The fact is we didn't, we got cancer, changes the picture, so maybe we should do everything possible to get rid of it and not to get a recurrence.

    The way we metabolize animal protein leaves our bodies depleted in certain elements and enzymes as well as it leaving certain oxidases and other irritants which are know to be carcinogenic. They are very different to non animal proteins. If you have not read it yet, I would strongly suggest you read "The China Study' (Dr T. Colin Campbell). It will clarify exactly why you have all noticed changes in your health since you stopped dairy and cut down on meats.

    He ran extensive experiments with rats on high diets of Milk Protein and it showed 100% causal to progress of cancer. When they reversed the diets, the cancer stopped and regressed. Quite remarkable. He then went on and undertook the largest ever statistical study of human diet and related disease, and showed the Western Diet to be ..well pretty bad and hence the very high rates of Cardio vascular disease, diabetes and Cancer, far greater than existed in China. As Chinese people introduced the Protein rich foods, guess what happened ? Give up ? Well of course the results showed a direct correlation with increase in CV Disease, Diabetes and cancer. These are know as 'Western Diseases' or 'Diseases of Affluence'.

    I have an excerpt on my Blog of a key Chapter from the book and more info on my expression page.

    The bad news is we probably should eliminate all animal protein (sorry guys, that also means eggs). As for the white breads, well all processed foods which include white rice, white pastas, white breads are all simple carbs and have had the goodness and fibre stripped away, so they convert to sugars very quickly and it is now known that cancer likes sugar. While they are not so bad for us, they just don't much that is good. Whole grain food is the way to go - these are complex carbs.

    Back on the sugar, well, that is how they find it withe PET Scan, they piggy back the radioactive isotopes onto a sugar (FDG), inject into you and the tumors suck it up and it lights up on your scan. So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.

    In general, process foods, free sugars, fried foods and animal proteins are stuff we should avoid. You would have to try this big change in diet to appreciate it. Some of you have already noticed a big change just from eliminating Dairy. A quick side note on dairy is firstly you don;t need it and can get all the calcium etc elsewhere and also consuming dairy actually blocks the absorption of calcium. That is why the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the countries with the highest consumption of Dairy. A little known fact and one the Dairy boards of the world don't really want to advertise.

    It's not all bad, as there are plenty of good foods out there that are in fact all good for us. I hope you do check out the book. There is still too much resistance to using diet as major part of our treatment, recovery and survival by the main stream medical profession. As such, don't expect your doctor to give you accurate information about diet and nutrition. They treat cancer and most illnesses with intervention : Surgery and drugs. that's what they are trained in. Do yourselves a favor, read up as much about diet and nutrition in relation to your general health and especially cancer. Many adopt the 'Moderation and well my grandpa ate 20lb steaks every day etc and he lived till he was 110. I know, but each thing you do that is not so good for us, it changes the numbers and not in our favor.

    Anyway, thank you for reading this far, and i hope you are inspired to rad further on the impact diet will have on your health. Take it step by step and increase the number improvements rather than the shock of a complete change if that eases the transition. Keep learning and don't tale any one article or book as the end game, read it all and the truth will emerge.

    I wish you all long and healthy lives.

    Scambuster

    I Agree But . . .
    I don't doubt that what you've reported is probably correct but I have no intention of becoming a vegan, which is basically what you'd have to do to achieve the kind of diet you are talking about.

    I eat much better than I did before -- almost no dairy, much less sugar, caffeine, alcohol and fat and more fruit and veggies -- but I still like eggs for breakfast, sugar in my coffee, a nice rare steak and a tumbler of scotch now and then.

    Frankly, I don't think my eating habits "caused" my cancer and -- despite all of the research -- I don't think anyone really "knows" what causes cancer. There are a lot of statistical correlations between diet and cancer, but there's a big difference between a statistical correction and cause & effect.

    If I make any dietary changes, it will be for general health reasons (as I've done in the past) and not because I believe it will prevent cancer. So, unless someone can prove what I eat caused my cancer, I'm not planning any changes and will take the risk that I'll survive my cancer despite what I eat.
  • Beau2
    Beau2 Member Posts: 261

    I Agree But . . .
    I don't doubt that what you've reported is probably correct but I have no intention of becoming a vegan, which is basically what you'd have to do to achieve the kind of diet you are talking about.

    I eat much better than I did before -- almost no dairy, much less sugar, caffeine, alcohol and fat and more fruit and veggies -- but I still like eggs for breakfast, sugar in my coffee, a nice rare steak and a tumbler of scotch now and then.

    Frankly, I don't think my eating habits "caused" my cancer and -- despite all of the research -- I don't think anyone really "knows" what causes cancer. There are a lot of statistical correlations between diet and cancer, but there's a big difference between a statistical correction and cause & effect.

    If I make any dietary changes, it will be for general health reasons (as I've done in the past) and not because I believe it will prevent cancer. So, unless someone can prove what I eat caused my cancer, I'm not planning any changes and will take the risk that I'll survive my cancer despite what I eat.

    I also agree but ...
    Hey Swing,

    I'm just finishing the book "Ashes to Ashes, America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris".

    When I read your post I was immediately struck by the similarity of you comments and the legal arguments presented by the tobacco industry in defence of cigarettes. Their arguments were (is) that no one "knows" what causes lung-cancer and that a lot of statistical correlations betwen smoking and lung cancer do not establish cause & effect.

    I'm not saying you or the Tobacco Industry are wrong; however, I'd been thinking about the Tobacco Industries arguments and was surprised when I read you comments; they were so similar to theirs, and unfortunately apparently true. If only we knew the cause of cancer.
  • Swingshiftworker
    Swingshiftworker Member Posts: 1,017 Member
    Beau2 said:

    I also agree but ...
    Hey Swing,

    I'm just finishing the book "Ashes to Ashes, America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris".

    When I read your post I was immediately struck by the similarity of you comments and the legal arguments presented by the tobacco industry in defence of cigarettes. Their arguments were (is) that no one "knows" what causes lung-cancer and that a lot of statistical correlations betwen smoking and lung cancer do not establish cause & effect.

    I'm not saying you or the Tobacco Industry are wrong; however, I'd been thinking about the Tobacco Industries arguments and was surprised when I read you comments; they were so similar to theirs, and unfortunately apparently true. If only we knew the cause of cancer.

    It's Not The Same Thing
    I think there is no doubt that smoking is the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, based on a long history of research and anecdotal evidence that people who smoke (or who are exposed to smoke from people who do) get those diseases and people who don't smoke (and aren't exposed to smoke) don't get them.

    My father died of complications from emphysema "caused" by smoking; ie., if he never smoked he would have never developed emphysema. So, while it's easy to isolate smoking as the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, isolating one's diet as the CAUSE of whatever cancer they acquire is not so easy.

    My father also had PCa. Was that CAUSED by his diet? No one knows. My mother also had breast and uterine cancer. Did what she eat cause her cancer? No one knows. I got PCa, but my sister (who's 70 now) has never had any cancer. If what we ate caused our cancers, why hasn't my sister developed cancer too, given that all of us ate/eat very similar diets. No one knows.

    So, it's not the same thing.

    I'm not saying that improving your diet will not have health benefits and "may" reduce your risk of cancer. I have changed my diet in order improve my health BUT there really is no PROOF that if you eliminate all of the evil things -- like salt, fat, sugar, meat and diary -- from you diet that you will still not get cancer. Even vegans, who don't each such things, still get cancer. Why is that? Frankly, no one knows. And, if becoming a vegan doesn't prevent cancer, why bother to deny yourself the pleasures of a "normal" diet?

    IMHO, until there is such proof, the BEST you can do is eat a "relatively" healthy diet (based on your own medical needs) and exercise regularly. These 2 things will definitely improve your health and prolong your life, regardless of the effect that they may or may not have in reducing your "risk" of cancer.

    Just my opinion. I won't "debate" you any further on the topic. You can believe and do as you like and I will likewise.

    Ciao! EOM.
  • Scambuster
    Scambuster Member Posts: 973

    It's Not The Same Thing
    I think there is no doubt that smoking is the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, based on a long history of research and anecdotal evidence that people who smoke (or who are exposed to smoke from people who do) get those diseases and people who don't smoke (and aren't exposed to smoke) don't get them.

    My father died of complications from emphysema "caused" by smoking; ie., if he never smoked he would have never developed emphysema. So, while it's easy to isolate smoking as the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, isolating one's diet as the CAUSE of whatever cancer they acquire is not so easy.

    My father also had PCa. Was that CAUSED by his diet? No one knows. My mother also had breast and uterine cancer. Did what she eat cause her cancer? No one knows. I got PCa, but my sister (who's 70 now) has never had any cancer. If what we ate caused our cancers, why hasn't my sister developed cancer too, given that all of us ate/eat very similar diets. No one knows.

    So, it's not the same thing.

    I'm not saying that improving your diet will not have health benefits and "may" reduce your risk of cancer. I have changed my diet in order improve my health BUT there really is no PROOF that if you eliminate all of the evil things -- like salt, fat, sugar, meat and diary -- from you diet that you will still not get cancer. Even vegans, who don't each such things, still get cancer. Why is that? Frankly, no one knows. And, if becoming a vegan doesn't prevent cancer, why bother to deny yourself the pleasures of a "normal" diet?

    IMHO, until there is such proof, the BEST you can do is eat a "relatively" healthy diet (based on your own medical needs) and exercise regularly. These 2 things will definitely improve your health and prolong your life, regardless of the effect that they may or may not have in reducing your "risk" of cancer.

    Just my opinion. I won't "debate" you any further on the topic. You can believe and do as you like and I will likewise.

    Ciao! EOM.

    Initiation, promotion and progress of Cancer
    HI Swing & Beau,

    I should have been a little more explicit in my earlier post. Let's forget for a moment how we got cancer as we know it's very hard to be definite but suffice it to say it could be any combination of : genetics, your general health, the environment, an episodic event (ie. Exposure to radiation) and of course lifestyle - meaning diet and our personal habits of exercise and abuse (Alcohol and tobacco). Getting it is classed as 'initiation'. This is a separate topic to what I intended.

    My main intended point is that we already have the cancer, therefore what do we know 'progresses' and 'promotes' cancer ? I think there is indisputable proof that the dietary influence mentioned earlier are in fact proven to cause progress and promotion of cancer, by cell growth by gene expression & cell division and subsequent tumor formation and expansion. The example given and quoted from Campbells book has proven 100% that milk protein 'Promotes' Cancer. The further studies cited cover other aspect of diet and the metabolic overview of how and why it happens. This is no trivial study.

    The multitude of other studies now accessible, have shown similar results with meats and sugars and processed foods have the same effect. Whether you are more or less susceptible, is again the luck of genes, general health and ability of your body to combat cancer with it's natural defenses.

    The bottom line is the numbers do change considerably either in your favor or against you, depending on how far you take the dietary approach. Reducing all the things we discussed is obviously a good thing. As such the 'more good things' we do, the better our relative numbers will be. If your diet consists of 20% + of animal protein (Meat, dairy etc) and fatty foods and high sugar intake, then your chances of either progression or recurrence will increase. If you keep the consumption below 5%, your chances of recurrence drop dramatically. if you eliminate them all together, then you benefit from a further improvement in the numbers.

    There is no doubt changing ones habits, and removing some of our comforts is never an easy thing Swing. My approach has been rather dramatic because i want my chances to be the best I can make them. My motivation is I have 2 tiny kids ages 1 and 3. One was born between my surgery and the start of chemo and rads. I have made a personal commitment to do everything I can to ensure I am still around to watch them grow up and for them to have a Daddy. For a while that didn't look like it was going to happen. I am also not sure I could cope with going through what I went through last year again.

    The comparison Beau makes with the tobacco industry does ring a familiar note, and the arguments were the same for many many years. There were always many small isolated studies showing the harm from tobacco, yet the industry and the medical profession refused to admit the harm. In those days, your Doctor might tell you to 'reduce your smoking'. The industry said "there is not conclusive proof..".

    Today we know Doctors say 'STOP' smoking because is has been 'proven' to be harmful. They nailed the DNA affected by nicotine. Today they also say "reduce your intake of red meats and fatty foods". Sound familiar ? Swing, the studies are there, the proof is there. It is in isolated pockets but growing in volume and eventually all the dots will be joined up, the lobby groups will be asked to stand aside and there will be a wide scale shift in views from within the medical profession.

    As you say, we don't ned to start a peeing contest here, and that is also not my intent, just to encourage a little further research. If you are comfortable with what you are doing and where you, I fully respect that too, and wish you the very best with continued recovery and a full and happy life. That's what we all hope for here on these boards.

    All the best to you.

    Scambuster
  • HeartofSoul
    HeartofSoul Member Posts: 729 Member

    Great thread
    Excuse the barge in but it was nice to see you getting good results with PSA, cholesterol etc from the change in diet. Isn't it just amazing that your doctors were surprised !! The reason is they still (in the majority) refuse to believe diet is critical for our health and recover from cancer and many other disease. The fact is, Doctors do not study nutrition and run by the drug company fed information. Sad but true. (Well actually it was shown they study about 8 hours of diet and nutrition in their entire formal medical training).

    I am on the head & neck board. I am 15 months out now from treatment (Surgery/Rads Chemo), went Vegan and doing supplements and am doing very well though I have some nasty post radiation side effects but not as bad as many on my board. I am about the healthiest I have ever been.

    As for the dairy and meats etc, the evidence is there that all animal protein is not so good for us, that includes eggs and fish. While most people get away with it and yes, many till they are in their 90's, The fact is we didn't, we got cancer, changes the picture, so maybe we should do everything possible to get rid of it and not to get a recurrence.

    The way we metabolize animal protein leaves our bodies depleted in certain elements and enzymes as well as it leaving certain oxidases and other irritants which are know to be carcinogenic. They are very different to non animal proteins. If you have not read it yet, I would strongly suggest you read "The China Study' (Dr T. Colin Campbell). It will clarify exactly why you have all noticed changes in your health since you stopped dairy and cut down on meats.

    He ran extensive experiments with rats on high diets of Milk Protein and it showed 100% causal to progress of cancer. When they reversed the diets, the cancer stopped and regressed. Quite remarkable. He then went on and undertook the largest ever statistical study of human diet and related disease, and showed the Western Diet to be ..well pretty bad and hence the very high rates of Cardio vascular disease, diabetes and Cancer, far greater than existed in China. As Chinese people introduced the Protein rich foods, guess what happened ? Give up ? Well of course the results showed a direct correlation with increase in CV Disease, Diabetes and cancer. These are know as 'Western Diseases' or 'Diseases of Affluence'.

    I have an excerpt on my Blog of a key Chapter from the book and more info on my expression page.

    The bad news is we probably should eliminate all animal protein (sorry guys, that also means eggs). As for the white breads, well all processed foods which include white rice, white pastas, white breads are all simple carbs and have had the goodness and fibre stripped away, so they convert to sugars very quickly and it is now known that cancer likes sugar. While they are not so bad for us, they just don't much that is good. Whole grain food is the way to go - these are complex carbs.

    Back on the sugar, well, that is how they find it withe PET Scan, they piggy back the radioactive isotopes onto a sugar (FDG), inject into you and the tumors suck it up and it lights up on your scan. So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.

    In general, process foods, free sugars, fried foods and animal proteins are stuff we should avoid. You would have to try this big change in diet to appreciate it. Some of you have already noticed a big change just from eliminating Dairy. A quick side note on dairy is firstly you don;t need it and can get all the calcium etc elsewhere and also consuming dairy actually blocks the absorption of calcium. That is why the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the countries with the highest consumption of Dairy. A little known fact and one the Dairy boards of the world don't really want to advertise.

    It's not all bad, as there are plenty of good foods out there that are in fact all good for us. I hope you do check out the book. There is still too much resistance to using diet as major part of our treatment, recovery and survival by the main stream medical profession. As such, don't expect your doctor to give you accurate information about diet and nutrition. They treat cancer and most illnesses with intervention : Surgery and drugs. that's what they are trained in. Do yourselves a favor, read up as much about diet and nutrition in relation to your general health and especially cancer. Many adopt the 'Moderation and well my grandpa ate 20lb steaks every day etc and he lived till he was 110. I know, but each thing you do that is not so good for us, it changes the numbers and not in our favor.

    Anyway, thank you for reading this far, and i hope you are inspired to rad further on the impact diet will have on your health. Take it step by step and increase the number improvements rather than the shock of a complete change if that eases the transition. Keep learning and don't tale any one article or book as the end game, read it all and the truth will emerge.

    I wish you all long and healthy lives.

    Scambuster

    sugar is cancer food? So we
    sugar is cancer food? So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.?

    If sugar can cause cancer, then God help us as we would have tens of millions of people dx with cancer yearly. As it is now, 1.5 milion are dx a yr in US.


    Cancer Loves Sugar – Truth or Rumor?
    This familiar saying, "cancer loves sugar" has been around since the 1924 publication of Dr. Otto Warburg's paper, "On metabolism of tumors." Warburg was a Nobel Prize winning cell biologist who wrote, "Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." Many people who referred to his work in later years misquoted Warburg's statement by saying, "cancer loves sugar."

    Warburg's hypothesis stated that cancer growth was caused when cancer cells converted glucose into energy without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvate and oxygen. The pyruvate is oxidized within a healthy cell's mitochondria, and Warburg theorized that since cancer cells don't oxidize pyruvate, cancer must be considered a mitochondrial dysfunction.

    Now that we know more about the genetics of cancer, we know that cancer is not a mitochondrial dysfunction, but is caused by genetic mutations, such as appear on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. It is true that healthy cells and cancer cells convert their food to energy in different ways, but that difference is an effect, and not a cause, of cancer.



    Sugar and Cancer: Is There a Connection?
    The facts about sugar and cancer can be confusing. They often are presented in a way that is misleading and anxiety-producing for people with cancer. However, if you learn a bit about the science behind the connections between what we eat and cancer risk, you can make wise nutrition choices for better health.

    The concept that sugar feeds cancer is not useful. Sugar feeds every cell in our bodies. Our bodies need glucose, or simple sugar, for energy. Even if you cut every bit of sugar out of your diet, your body will make sugar from other sources, such as protein and fat.

    So cancer cells need sugar to grow, just like healthy cells. It helps to remember that there is nothing particular about sugar that “feeds” cancer cells any more than sugar feeds all cells in our body.

    Do I need to be concerned about sugar?
    Even though sugar doesn’t exactly “feed” cancer cells, it is a good idea to limit the amount of simple sugar you eat. This is because when you eat a lot of sugar, your body produces a lot of insulin.

    Insulin is a natural substance made by the body. Insulin can tell cells to grow. In simple terms, insulin can “rev up” cell growth. For healthy cells, this is a good thing. This is because the cells in your body grow, divide, die, and are replaced as part of the natural process of living. However, cancer cells can be encouraged to grow more, too, when our bodies produce too much insulin. So while some insulin in the body is normal, excess insulin may encourage cancer cells to grow more, which is not a good thing (1-6).

    This is the downside of insulin: Our bodies need it to function, but it’s unhealthy if we make too much of it.

    In summary, sugar does not “feed” cancer cells. However, a lot of sugar can cause our bodies to produce too much insulin, and this is not good for health.
  • BRONX52
    BRONX52 Member Posts: 156

    It's Not The Same Thing
    I think there is no doubt that smoking is the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, based on a long history of research and anecdotal evidence that people who smoke (or who are exposed to smoke from people who do) get those diseases and people who don't smoke (and aren't exposed to smoke) don't get them.

    My father died of complications from emphysema "caused" by smoking; ie., if he never smoked he would have never developed emphysema. So, while it's easy to isolate smoking as the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, isolating one's diet as the CAUSE of whatever cancer they acquire is not so easy.

    My father also had PCa. Was that CAUSED by his diet? No one knows. My mother also had breast and uterine cancer. Did what she eat cause her cancer? No one knows. I got PCa, but my sister (who's 70 now) has never had any cancer. If what we ate caused our cancers, why hasn't my sister developed cancer too, given that all of us ate/eat very similar diets. No one knows.

    So, it's not the same thing.

    I'm not saying that improving your diet will not have health benefits and "may" reduce your risk of cancer. I have changed my diet in order improve my health BUT there really is no PROOF that if you eliminate all of the evil things -- like salt, fat, sugar, meat and diary -- from you diet that you will still not get cancer. Even vegans, who don't each such things, still get cancer. Why is that? Frankly, no one knows. And, if becoming a vegan doesn't prevent cancer, why bother to deny yourself the pleasures of a "normal" diet?

    IMHO, until there is such proof, the BEST you can do is eat a "relatively" healthy diet (based on your own medical needs) and exercise regularly. These 2 things will definitely improve your health and prolong your life, regardless of the effect that they may or may not have in reducing your "risk" of cancer.

    Just my opinion. I won't "debate" you any further on the topic. You can believe and do as you like and I will likewise.

    Ciao! EOM.

    Just a short comment. I have
    Just a short comment. I have queried several physicians on this diet debate and most agree that the jury is still still out out on the effect it has on cancer. They also pointed out that a reduction in psa through diet doesn't always equate to an overall effect on cancer. PSA is only one of many indicators used to measure cancer progression. Even with the use of hormone therapy, although psa may drop drastically, many cancer cells are immune to this therapy and continue to spread even though the psa drops. One doctor even told me that you can't unring the bell when it comes to cancer. Diet may prevent it but once you have it diet can't make it go away. Sobering thought, and I am not sure if I believe all that they told me. One thing that they did agree on was that a heart healthy diet can prevent several other diseases and lead to a longer life. But when it comes to cancer all bets are off---it's a crap shoot. So what I gather from all all of this is that a change to a more healthy diet can have positive overall effects, but the effect on cancer is still debatable !!---go figure----just my thoughts and observations
  • VascodaGama
    VascodaGama Member Posts: 3,593 Member

    sugar is cancer food? So we
    sugar is cancer food? So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.?

    If sugar can cause cancer, then God help us as we would have tens of millions of people dx with cancer yearly. As it is now, 1.5 milion are dx a yr in US.


    Cancer Loves Sugar – Truth or Rumor?
    This familiar saying, "cancer loves sugar" has been around since the 1924 publication of Dr. Otto Warburg's paper, "On metabolism of tumors." Warburg was a Nobel Prize winning cell biologist who wrote, "Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." Many people who referred to his work in later years misquoted Warburg's statement by saying, "cancer loves sugar."

    Warburg's hypothesis stated that cancer growth was caused when cancer cells converted glucose into energy without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvate and oxygen. The pyruvate is oxidized within a healthy cell's mitochondria, and Warburg theorized that since cancer cells don't oxidize pyruvate, cancer must be considered a mitochondrial dysfunction.

    Now that we know more about the genetics of cancer, we know that cancer is not a mitochondrial dysfunction, but is caused by genetic mutations, such as appear on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. It is true that healthy cells and cancer cells convert their food to energy in different ways, but that difference is an effect, and not a cause, of cancer.



    Sugar and Cancer: Is There a Connection?
    The facts about sugar and cancer can be confusing. They often are presented in a way that is misleading and anxiety-producing for people with cancer. However, if you learn a bit about the science behind the connections between what we eat and cancer risk, you can make wise nutrition choices for better health.

    The concept that sugar feeds cancer is not useful. Sugar feeds every cell in our bodies. Our bodies need glucose, or simple sugar, for energy. Even if you cut every bit of sugar out of your diet, your body will make sugar from other sources, such as protein and fat.

    So cancer cells need sugar to grow, just like healthy cells. It helps to remember that there is nothing particular about sugar that “feeds” cancer cells any more than sugar feeds all cells in our body.

    Do I need to be concerned about sugar?
    Even though sugar doesn’t exactly “feed” cancer cells, it is a good idea to limit the amount of simple sugar you eat. This is because when you eat a lot of sugar, your body produces a lot of insulin.

    Insulin is a natural substance made by the body. Insulin can tell cells to grow. In simple terms, insulin can “rev up” cell growth. For healthy cells, this is a good thing. This is because the cells in your body grow, divide, die, and are replaced as part of the natural process of living. However, cancer cells can be encouraged to grow more, too, when our bodies produce too much insulin. So while some insulin in the body is normal, excess insulin may encourage cancer cells to grow more, which is not a good thing (1-6).

    This is the downside of insulin: Our bodies need it to function, but it’s unhealthy if we make too much of it.

    In summary, sugar does not “feed” cancer cells. However, a lot of sugar can cause our bodies to produce too much insulin, and this is not good for health.

    Hi Bronx52
    Hi Bronx52,

    I do not know if your doctors are correct in their views, but I like your observation. Surely I am the reverse of what it is commented about “good” diets and “good” supplements to fight prostate cancer. As a Portuguese, I grew up with the famous “Mediterranean diet” until my mid-twenties, then I moved to Japan and were fed for 30 years with the famous “low cancer risk oriental diet”, drunk kiloliters of green tea, had lots of “take” mushrooms and soy products, etc, etc, ….you name it. Back to my country lavished again with the Med-diet based on tomatoes, fish, fresh vegetables and fruits, olive oil and excellent red wines, every day. Nevertheless, nothing of that prevented me of having prostate cancer.
    I recall the so famous PC-SPES, an Oriental Medicine of Chinese herbs, in 2000 claiming to be effective in the treatment of prostate cancer, because it lower the PSA, and then it was proven that its composition included the estrogen DES .
    Well, it is hard to trust recommendations on treatments based on “good” diets.

    Take care,
    VGama
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member

    Hi Bronx52
    Hi Bronx52,

    I do not know if your doctors are correct in their views, but I like your observation. Surely I am the reverse of what it is commented about “good” diets and “good” supplements to fight prostate cancer. As a Portuguese, I grew up with the famous “Mediterranean diet” until my mid-twenties, then I moved to Japan and were fed for 30 years with the famous “low cancer risk oriental diet”, drunk kiloliters of green tea, had lots of “take” mushrooms and soy products, etc, etc, ….you name it. Back to my country lavished again with the Med-diet based on tomatoes, fish, fresh vegetables and fruits, olive oil and excellent red wines, every day. Nevertheless, nothing of that prevented me of having prostate cancer.
    I recall the so famous PC-SPES, an Oriental Medicine of Chinese herbs, in 2000 claiming to be effective in the treatment of prostate cancer, because it lower the PSA, and then it was proven that its composition included the estrogen DES .
    Well, it is hard to trust recommendations on treatments based on “good” diets.

    Take care,
    VGama

    The recent posts on this thread exhibit a refreshing level of discourse with well articulated points of view that highlight the nuances of dealing with a cancer diagnosis.

    We may never know for sure what causes our cancers but I personally don’t believe we will be able to pinpoint a single causative factor with any degree of certainty. In my own cancer journey I have become very suspicious of those who spout bumper sticker solutions to these very complex problems. Perhaps when we are conceived a process is launched that eventually results in our demise. Maybe there are an infinite number of environmental factors and lifestyle choices that combine to create varying levels of vulnerability. Maybe it’s all part of some master plan by our creator to teach us something in this life that we can’t yet comprehend. Maybe it is none of these things but whatever causes prostate cancer at this relatively mature stage of our lives we must all face fundamental decisions about how we choose to treat it (or not) and how we will live the rest of our days.

    I think much of the hype surrounding diets and supplements are misplaced. We should not be treating PSA. Instead we should be treating the disease itself. We all know the nuances of what a PSA reading might mean. Is it before or after treatment? Did we have sex before the blood draw? Did we go bicycle riding or do we have a urinary tract infection? Is it an indolent form of cancer producing the antigen or a more sinister breed of cancer which has cells that are no longer capable of making PSA? Treating PSA is like the government giving unemployment benefits to those who have lost their jobs…it does something but fails to address the fundamental reasons for the loss of jobs in the first place.

    My personal belief is that dairy in particular creates a chemical environment in our bodies where cancer is encouraged to grow beyond what our natural defense mechanisms can handle. I also think that too much red meat (or poultry or pork) from animals fattened in feed lots with artificially enhanced additives and growth hormones create similar chemical environments. The imbalance in our chemical stoichiometry has been shown to be related to Insulin Growth Factors (IGFs) which come from dairy products and to a lesser extent from the meat of the animals that provide our dairy products. In my own case, eliminating dairy resulted in a rapid decrease in my PSA readings and similar results have been experienced by countless others who embark on a no-dairy diet. I suspect that eliminating dairy brings the chemical balance around the prostate (or other areas where cancers form) back into a balance where our own immune system can contain or reduce the tumors and cancer cells that are producing the PSA. I disagree with doctors who dismiss dietary factors with condescending euphemisms. And I believe that some of these dietary choices can cause cancer to reverse itself. It is not just a scalpel or a radiation beam that can kill cancer.

    As far as all the supplement cocktails others swear to, I just don’t know. My personal belief is that we shouldn’t need all of these supplements if our diet is balanced. It seems to me that the chemical interactions that surround the growth of healthy versus cancerous cells is just too complicated to state with any degree of certainty what any single supplement (much less a combination of supplements) might have on treating cancerous growths.

    The other aspect of this is our whole approach to living with cancer. What Swing alluded to in his post was that his decisions about lifestyle choices trumps following a rigid vegan diet. I agree with Swing completely on this issue. We all made choices (either consciously or unconsciously) about how to treat our cancer based on our view of life and how we wanted to live after treatment. My personal view is that quality of life is more important to me than quantity of life. I suspect that Swing (and others) has reached similar conclusions. Others may choose quantity over quality with respect to life and that is fine too. We all have to make these choices and there is no right or wrong answer. At the end of the day, I believe that it is not how long we live that matters but rather how we choose to live and whether or not the world is a better place for our being here.

    Personally I find it too hard, given the life I lead at present, to follow a purist diet such as some have described here. I do what works for me which is to avoid dairy, reduce meat consumption, increase soy intake, and try to exercise more and remain active. I too enjoy a tumbler of fine scotch (or a dirty Grey Goose martini), an occasional Cuban cigar, a perfectly cooked steak (maybe once or twice a month) and consider these things part of the lifestyle I consciously choose to have. I hope that each man in this forum makes these decisions consciously and not by accident.

    Again, a great discussion. I hope we have more of these in this forum in the future.
  • steckley
    steckley Member Posts: 100
    Kongo said:

    The recent posts on this thread exhibit a refreshing level of discourse with well articulated points of view that highlight the nuances of dealing with a cancer diagnosis.

    We may never know for sure what causes our cancers but I personally don’t believe we will be able to pinpoint a single causative factor with any degree of certainty. In my own cancer journey I have become very suspicious of those who spout bumper sticker solutions to these very complex problems. Perhaps when we are conceived a process is launched that eventually results in our demise. Maybe there are an infinite number of environmental factors and lifestyle choices that combine to create varying levels of vulnerability. Maybe it’s all part of some master plan by our creator to teach us something in this life that we can’t yet comprehend. Maybe it is none of these things but whatever causes prostate cancer at this relatively mature stage of our lives we must all face fundamental decisions about how we choose to treat it (or not) and how we will live the rest of our days.

    I think much of the hype surrounding diets and supplements are misplaced. We should not be treating PSA. Instead we should be treating the disease itself. We all know the nuances of what a PSA reading might mean. Is it before or after treatment? Did we have sex before the blood draw? Did we go bicycle riding or do we have a urinary tract infection? Is it an indolent form of cancer producing the antigen or a more sinister breed of cancer which has cells that are no longer capable of making PSA? Treating PSA is like the government giving unemployment benefits to those who have lost their jobs…it does something but fails to address the fundamental reasons for the loss of jobs in the first place.

    My personal belief is that dairy in particular creates a chemical environment in our bodies where cancer is encouraged to grow beyond what our natural defense mechanisms can handle. I also think that too much red meat (or poultry or pork) from animals fattened in feed lots with artificially enhanced additives and growth hormones create similar chemical environments. The imbalance in our chemical stoichiometry has been shown to be related to Insulin Growth Factors (IGFs) which come from dairy products and to a lesser extent from the meat of the animals that provide our dairy products. In my own case, eliminating dairy resulted in a rapid decrease in my PSA readings and similar results have been experienced by countless others who embark on a no-dairy diet. I suspect that eliminating dairy brings the chemical balance around the prostate (or other areas where cancers form) back into a balance where our own immune system can contain or reduce the tumors and cancer cells that are producing the PSA. I disagree with doctors who dismiss dietary factors with condescending euphemisms. And I believe that some of these dietary choices can cause cancer to reverse itself. It is not just a scalpel or a radiation beam that can kill cancer.

    As far as all the supplement cocktails others swear to, I just don’t know. My personal belief is that we shouldn’t need all of these supplements if our diet is balanced. It seems to me that the chemical interactions that surround the growth of healthy versus cancerous cells is just too complicated to state with any degree of certainty what any single supplement (much less a combination of supplements) might have on treating cancerous growths.

    The other aspect of this is our whole approach to living with cancer. What Swing alluded to in his post was that his decisions about lifestyle choices trumps following a rigid vegan diet. I agree with Swing completely on this issue. We all made choices (either consciously or unconsciously) about how to treat our cancer based on our view of life and how we wanted to live after treatment. My personal view is that quality of life is more important to me than quantity of life. I suspect that Swing (and others) has reached similar conclusions. Others may choose quantity over quality with respect to life and that is fine too. We all have to make these choices and there is no right or wrong answer. At the end of the day, I believe that it is not how long we live that matters but rather how we choose to live and whether or not the world is a better place for our being here.

    Personally I find it too hard, given the life I lead at present, to follow a purist diet such as some have described here. I do what works for me which is to avoid dairy, reduce meat consumption, increase soy intake, and try to exercise more and remain active. I too enjoy a tumbler of fine scotch (or a dirty Grey Goose martini), an occasional Cuban cigar, a perfectly cooked steak (maybe once or twice a month) and consider these things part of the lifestyle I consciously choose to have. I hope that each man in this forum makes these decisions consciously and not by accident.

    Again, a great discussion. I hope we have more of these in this forum in the future.

    More refreshing food for thought
    Since this thread is discussing food and cigarettes you may want to remember that Philip Morris (Marlboro Country) bought General Foods AND Kraft while RJR bought Nabisco. At the time these were among the biggest buyouts in US history and placed big tobacco in charge of a huge share of what is placed on grocery store shelves.

    Kongo believes that dairy products encourage cancer ... I can't think of a larger producer of dairy products than Kraft. You might want to read the labels on the General Foods and Nabisco labels and see if they contain any of the "foods" you want to avoid. I can remember the more recent past when some food companies resisted lableing (especially of transfat) similar to big tobacco's succesful resistance to labeling cigarettes.

    My point, to a large extent big food has been run by big tobacco ... if these companies did the research and found out that their ingredients caused cancer do you think they might be a bit cautious with the information? Wouldn't that expose them to possible huge liabilities ... such as those faced by big tobacco?

    My bottom line, you might want to focus on fresh foods and not processed ... and maybe organic, but organic's are another story.
  • bdhilton
    bdhilton Member Posts: 813 Member

    Hi Bronx52
    Hi Bronx52,

    I do not know if your doctors are correct in their views, but I like your observation. Surely I am the reverse of what it is commented about “good” diets and “good” supplements to fight prostate cancer. As a Portuguese, I grew up with the famous “Mediterranean diet” until my mid-twenties, then I moved to Japan and were fed for 30 years with the famous “low cancer risk oriental diet”, drunk kiloliters of green tea, had lots of “take” mushrooms and soy products, etc, etc, ….you name it. Back to my country lavished again with the Med-diet based on tomatoes, fish, fresh vegetables and fruits, olive oil and excellent red wines, every day. Nevertheless, nothing of that prevented me of having prostate cancer.
    I recall the so famous PC-SPES, an Oriental Medicine of Chinese herbs, in 2000 claiming to be effective in the treatment of prostate cancer, because it lower the PSA, and then it was proven that its composition included the estrogen DES .
    Well, it is hard to trust recommendations on treatments based on “good” diets.

    Take care,
    VGama

    VGama
    Is the glass half full or half empty? Attitude has a whole lot to do with not only survival but living a healthy and productive life in general. Did you ever think how aggressive your PCa would have been without these life time diets of yours?

    Since you do not mention how your heat is doing I would assume great because of your diets…Cancer or heart related problems get most folks in the end…We all die but I choose to die as healthy as I can be…and guys get PCa in Asia and the Mediterranean countries that live on these diets too...just not in the same numbers...Peace
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member
    steckley said:

    More refreshing food for thought
    Since this thread is discussing food and cigarettes you may want to remember that Philip Morris (Marlboro Country) bought General Foods AND Kraft while RJR bought Nabisco. At the time these were among the biggest buyouts in US history and placed big tobacco in charge of a huge share of what is placed on grocery store shelves.

    Kongo believes that dairy products encourage cancer ... I can't think of a larger producer of dairy products than Kraft. You might want to read the labels on the General Foods and Nabisco labels and see if they contain any of the "foods" you want to avoid. I can remember the more recent past when some food companies resisted lableing (especially of transfat) similar to big tobacco's succesful resistance to labeling cigarettes.

    My point, to a large extent big food has been run by big tobacco ... if these companies did the research and found out that their ingredients caused cancer do you think they might be a bit cautious with the information? Wouldn't that expose them to possible huge liabilities ... such as those faced by big tobacco?

    My bottom line, you might want to focus on fresh foods and not processed ... and maybe organic, but organic's are another story.

    Interesting Observation
    Steckley, you make some interesting observations with respect to linking food production in the United States to the tobacco companies. What I always believed was that the tobacco companies diversified to food products because they had mountains of cash from cigarette sales but saw declining revenue potential in the USA after the Surgeon General report directly linked tobacco use to lung cancer.

    The inference you draw is that there is something sinister about a tobacco company owning a large food company. Maybe there is. Certainly obesity in this country can be directly correlated to the rise in processed foods and fast foods as part of our diet. I would also think that like any large company (or bank) that is basing future revenue projections on a variety of market factors, big food companies are loathe to see any government oversight or regulation that might affect their botton line. I don't know if there is a conspiracy afoot here or not but I do agree that unprocessed, organic foods are better for you. They also just taste better.
  • steckley
    steckley Member Posts: 100
    Kongo said:

    Interesting Observation
    Steckley, you make some interesting observations with respect to linking food production in the United States to the tobacco companies. What I always believed was that the tobacco companies diversified to food products because they had mountains of cash from cigarette sales but saw declining revenue potential in the USA after the Surgeon General report directly linked tobacco use to lung cancer.

    The inference you draw is that there is something sinister about a tobacco company owning a large food company. Maybe there is. Certainly obesity in this country can be directly correlated to the rise in processed foods and fast foods as part of our diet. I would also think that like any large company (or bank) that is basing future revenue projections on a variety of market factors, big food companies are loathe to see any government oversight or regulation that might affect their botton line. I don't know if there is a conspiracy afoot here or not but I do agree that unprocessed, organic foods are better for you. They also just taste better.

    Good point
    Kongo,

    Don't get me wrong, I very much support free enterprise and free markets. Any company should be able to purchase any other company, and tobacco's diversification efforts (especially Philip Morris') were spot on.

    What I feel is sinister is what the tobacco companies did (and are still doing) in order to protect their earnings; and quite frankly, I feel they would do the same thing to protect their earnings from the food enterprises. It is one issue to be aggressive in keeping government out of your business, it is quite another to put your business in front of the health of your customers.

    I agree with you about unprocessed food taste ... however, at times I crave processed food (taco chips)... I think its the salt load ... now where did I put that Twinki?
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member
    steckley said:

    Good point
    Kongo,

    Don't get me wrong, I very much support free enterprise and free markets. Any company should be able to purchase any other company, and tobacco's diversification efforts (especially Philip Morris') were spot on.

    What I feel is sinister is what the tobacco companies did (and are still doing) in order to protect their earnings; and quite frankly, I feel they would do the same thing to protect their earnings from the food enterprises. It is one issue to be aggressive in keeping government out of your business, it is quite another to put your business in front of the health of your customers.

    I agree with you about unprocessed food taste ... however, at times I crave processed food (taco chips)... I think its the salt load ... now where did I put that Twinki?

    Agree
    I think we're in perfect agreement. I too am all in favor of capitalism...but when companies break the law, their CEOs should go to jail. I also think any business sell consumer products, whether it's a TV set, an I-Pad, or food has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public from faulty products that could impair their health to the best extent reasonable technogy can provide. I have a lot of qualms about the "nanny state" aspects of too much government oversight (I don't wear a bicycle helmet) but most of these laws stem from someone somewhere screwing it up and the public demanded the laws.

    My weakness is Taco Bell but I can usually get them to make me a bean burrito without cheese!
  • mrspjd
    mrspjd Member Posts: 694 Member
    steckley said:

    Good point
    Kongo,

    Don't get me wrong, I very much support free enterprise and free markets. Any company should be able to purchase any other company, and tobacco's diversification efforts (especially Philip Morris') were spot on.

    What I feel is sinister is what the tobacco companies did (and are still doing) in order to protect their earnings; and quite frankly, I feel they would do the same thing to protect their earnings from the food enterprises. It is one issue to be aggressive in keeping government out of your business, it is quite another to put your business in front of the health of your customers.

    I agree with you about unprocessed food taste ... however, at times I crave processed food (taco chips)... I think its the salt load ... now where did I put that Twinki?

    thought provoking discussion
    Steckley and Kongo,
    Great talking (writing) points. Besides being highly educated consumers when it comes to purchasing heart/prostate healthy foods, wondering what suggestions anyone might offer on how we might impact our representatives in Washington related to the food industry/lobbyists concern for profit over health? This is a particularly interesting discussion, especially in light of the First Lady's recent national campaign in the "fight against obesity."
  • mrspjd
    mrspjd Member Posts: 694 Member
    Kongo said:

    Agree
    I think we're in perfect agreement. I too am all in favor of capitalism...but when companies break the law, their CEOs should go to jail. I also think any business sell consumer products, whether it's a TV set, an I-Pad, or food has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public from faulty products that could impair their health to the best extent reasonable technogy can provide. I have a lot of qualms about the "nanny state" aspects of too much government oversight (I don't wear a bicycle helmet) but most of these laws stem from someone somewhere screwing it up and the public demanded the laws.

    My weakness is Taco Bell but I can usually get them to make me a bean burrito without cheese!

    fast food vs slow food
    Sorry to have to tell you this, but you may be better off with the cheese (not) and not the beans, at least from Taco Bell--those beans are most likely cooked in lard and is probably why they taste so good. The TB basic tacos aren't too bad once in a while (everything in moderation), but heaven knows what the "meat" is and I'm better off not knowing...and why did they ever discontinue those white meat soft chicken tacos (please hold the sauce)--those were the best! Probably because they were too healthy and, therefore, not selling well...
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member
    mrspjd said:

    thought provoking discussion
    Steckley and Kongo,
    Great talking (writing) points. Besides being highly educated consumers when it comes to purchasing heart/prostate healthy foods, wondering what suggestions anyone might offer on how we might impact our representatives in Washington related to the food industry/lobbyists concern for profit over health? This is a particularly interesting discussion, especially in light of the First Lady's recent national campaign in the "fight against obesity."

    Complex Problem
    mrspjd:

    You pose a daunting challenge: How to fix the system. In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that the rules governing drugs, foods, levels of acceptable toxin, definitions of what is organic and what isn't, and so forth are not subject to a legislative agenda but are administrative rulings that have the force of law and are handed down by a plethora of federal agencies such as FDA, EPA, CCDC, Department of Agriculture, trade agreements, and many others of similar ilk. The number of federal regulations in this area is truly staggering and I've seldom seen a regulation put in place by bureaucrats that was taken away. They only grow in volume.

    While I'm no expert in this area, there are probably enough laws on the books at both the state and federal levels to protect consumers from having big businesses foist unsafe products on unsuspecting consumers. In the medical field, for example, there are strict laws against practicing without a license or using unapproved procedures, but almost daily we hear of doctors being banned in one state and simply moving to another to set up practice again. The paper trail gets lost much too easily.

    I think one thing we should do as a matter of priority is to upgrade the tools regulatory agencies need to monitor and enforce the existing regulations. This may take the form of better database utilizaton, digitizing medical records for medical professionals as well as patients, ensuring that patients can't go from doctor to doctor to get harmful dosages of medication, and so forth.

    We also have to have a way of monitoring and overseeing the production of products that do not add unreasonable hidden costs to price of doing business. Sarbanes Oxley, for example, which was enacted after the Enron debacle did a lot of good things with respect to required reporting requirements to the SEC for public companies but the cost of implementing these regulations, particularly for large businesses was enormous.

    Just a few thoughts here but I don't know how we can legislate or direct common sense.
  • steckley
    steckley Member Posts: 100
    mrspjd said:

    thought provoking discussion
    Steckley and Kongo,
    Great talking (writing) points. Besides being highly educated consumers when it comes to purchasing heart/prostate healthy foods, wondering what suggestions anyone might offer on how we might impact our representatives in Washington related to the food industry/lobbyists concern for profit over health? This is a particularly interesting discussion, especially in light of the First Lady's recent national campaign in the "fight against obesity."

    Consumer actions
    Hey mrsjpd,

    Over the years our representatives have not had a very good record of adressing consumer problems; and they (the representatives) will most likely address an issue if consumers file suits that threaten the earnings of the companies that the representatives represent (lot of "represent" in that sentence!). I feel that consumer advocate groups that bring suits are more likely to effect change than are well intentioned representatives.

    Also, passing new laws and developing new regulations will help only if there is funding to enforce the regulations. Currently funding to FDA, EPA, etc. is not adequate to enforce the existing plethora of regualtions. For several sets of regulations, enforcement has been passed down to the states, and many states are short of funds.

    As you pointed out being a "highly educated consumer" is a persons best defence when buying food or addressing health issues. Someone will always be willing to sell us anything we want to buy ... even if it kills us.