Category Archives: Other Cancers

Arsenic and Lead in our Juice (and You Thought Poisoned Apples Were only in Fairy Tales!)

Diet, Habits, & Other Behaviors, Other Cancers, Skin Cancer
Langan Denhard and Brandel France de Bravo, MPH, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Arsenic—it’s a scary word with dangerous connotations.Recent studies show that arsenic is present in many everyday beverages and food.In response, Congressman Frank Pallone and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill named Arsenic Prevention and Protection from Lead Exposure in Juice (APPLE) in early February 2012. If it becomes law, it would require the FDA to set limits within the next two years on the amount of arsenic and lead allowed in fruit juices and other foods.[1]

What are the Dangers of Chronic Arsenic Exposure?

There are two types of arsenic: organic and inorganic.Organic arsenic is usually non-toxic and harmless when consumed.However, the FDA has identified two strains of organic arsenic that can cause cancer: dimethyl arsenic acid (DMA) and monomethyl arsenic acid (MMA).Recent testing by the FDA found small amounts of these strains in apple juice. Inorganic arsenic has been linked to increases in bladder, skin, and lung cancers when consumed in high quantities.It also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, and weakens the body’s immune system, making it harder to fight respiratory infections and flu. Exposure to high levels of arsenic can cause diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, skin discoloration, and in rare instances, death. Very little research has examined what happens to children exposed to low levels of inorganic arsenic over a long period.A 2004 study led by Columbia University’s Joseph Graziano, PhD, suggests that children who consumed water with arsenic levels above 5 parts per billion (ppb) showed evidence of lowered IQ.[2]

What are the Current Laws in Place Concerning the Levels of Arsenic in Food and Drink?

 

There is surprisingly little regulation on the levels of arsenic allowed in food and drink.According to Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner of the FDA, 23 ppb is the “level of concern” for arsenic concentration in fruit juices but there is no legal limit. Information on the FDA site states, “[The] FDA is collecting all relevant information to evaluate and determine if setting guidance or other level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice is appropriate.”[3] The FDA and the EPA revised the federal limit for arsenic allowable in public water and bottled water to 10 ppb in 2006, noting that the safest level would be 0 ppb.[4] States have the authority to mandate limits below 10 ppb, and New Jersey has the strictest limits, with a maximum level of 5 ppb. State officials caution against consuming or cooking with water at any higher concentration.[5]

Do my Family Members Consume Arsenic?

In November 2011, Consumer Reports completed a study of 88 samples of apple and grape juice that found that 10% had arsenic levels surpassing the drinking-water standards.Of this, most of the arsenic found was inorganic.A sample Walgreen’s grape juice was found to have an arsenic concentration of 24.7 ppb—more than double than the legal limit for drinking water—and most of it (82.9%) was inorganic.Of the two harmful types of organic arsenic, MMA was found in higher concentrations in apple juice whereas DMA was more likely to be found in grape juice.Consumer Reports also found that 35% of children younger than 5 drink more juice than is recommended by pediatricians.[2]

On February 2012, another study, led by a research group from Dartmouth College, presented troubling new findings.In an effort to cut down on the use of high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, some manufacturers have been making the transition to organic brown rice syrup (OBRS).Because arsenic-based pesticides were once used in rice production, and rice plants are extremely effective in taking in the leftover arsenic from the soil, using syrup made from organic brown rice has resulted in arsenic in infant formula and other commonly used products.[6]

Currently, the only formula brand using OBRS is Nature’s One, which produces Baby’s Only Organic Dairy Toddler Formula and Baby’s Only Organic Soy Toddler Formula.These products were tested against 15 formulas that did not contain OBRS, and it was found that Nature’s One’s products had more than 20 times as much arsenic as the other brands.In a statement published on its web site, the company says, “An independent, third party testing laboratory completed testing on organic brown rice syrup used in formulas produced in 2011. The testing proved there are no safety concerns using the organic brown rice syrup ingredient.”The company has not released test results to the public, “to protect against inaccurate interpretations.”[7]

Cereal bars and “energy shots” are other possible daily sources of arsenic. A little less than half of all cereal bars contain organic brown rice syrup, and when tested, those with OBRS listed in the top five ingredients had the highest concentration of arsenic. At least half of the arsenic tested was inorganic and any organic arsenic was classified as DMA, one of the two harmful forms of organic arsenic.[6]

The Bottom Line

The drinking water limit on arsenic was set at a low level because water is frequently consumed on a daily basis throughout one’s life.For that reason, higher arsenic levels in foods consumed less often are of less concern.Fortunately, arsenic is usually excreted within 2-3 days of consumption.Nevertheless, some experts believe that the arsenic level allowed in water may be too lax, and additional sources of arsenic can add to those risks, especially for children and pregnant women.We need more research to know whether or not it is safe to consume low-levels of arsenic every day.

Meanwhile, the two things you can do are:

  1. make sure your drinking water meets the federal limit of 10 ppb of arsenic, especially if you have a private well or live in a rural area, and
  2. protect your children, whose bodies are smaller and still developing, from unnecessary exposure to arsenic.

It is especially important to protect infants from arsenic exposure until further research is conducted, so avoid formulas and baby foods containing rice products as a main ingredient.Most pediatricians advise against giving your children juice regularly because even when it has no added sugar, it delivers a lot of calories with little nutrition.The presence of arsenic is another reason to ration the juice!

If you are worried about your water supply, call your local health department for a list of labs certified to test for arsenic.The cost of testing ranges from $20-$35[8] NSF International provides extensive information on how to treat your home water.

References:

  1. Congresswoman Rosa L DeLauro. US House of Representatives. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Fight to Protect Children from Arsenic in Apple Juice.Congresswoman Rosa L DeLauro: Representing the Third District of Connecticut. 8 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
  2. “Arsenic in Your Juice:How Much Is Too Much? Federal Limits Don’t Exist.”ConsumerReports.org. Consumers Union, Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
  3. “Questions & Answers: Apple Juice and Arsenic.” FDA: US Food and Drug Administration. US Department of Health and Human Services, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm271595.htm>.
  4. “Basic Information about Arsenic in Drinking Water.” EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm>.
  5. Buchanan, Gary A. “NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.” The Official Web Site for The State of New Jersey. 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/arsenic/guide.htm>.
  6. Jackson, Brian P., Vivien F. Taylor, Margaret R. Karagas, and Kathryn L. Cottingham. “Arsenic, Organic Foods, and Brown Rice Syrup.” Environmental Health Perspectives (2012). Web. 21 Feb. 20
  7. “ORGANIC BROWN RICE SYRUP CONCERNS.” Nature’s One . Nature’s One, Inc. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.naturesone.com/brown-rice/>.
  8. “Arsenic in Private Drinking-Water Wells.” Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine. ATSDR, 6 Aug. 2008. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/arsenic/>.

Can Sleeping Pills Cause Cancer?

Colon Cancer, Diet, Habits, & Other Behaviors, Lung Cancer, Medical Treatments with Cancer Risks, Other Cancers, Prostate Cancer
Brandel France de Bravo, MPH, Kousha Mohseni, MS, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

When we hear “sleeping pills,” most of us think of prescription drugs such as Ambien (generic name zolpidem), Restoril (temazepam), and Lunesta (eszopiclone).  While prescription sleep medications are big business — more than $41 billion/year in the U.S. many people with trouble sleeping turn to over-the-counter antihistamines such as Tylenol PM and Benadryl.[1]  However, the use of these drugs may take a nosedive in light of the findings of a study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal. Led by researchers at the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center in California, the study shows that people who take these drugs are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with cancer or to die within the next two and a half years than people who don’t take them. Author Dr. Daniel Kripke estimates that these popular sleep medications could cause 320,000 to 507,000 deaths in just one year.

The researchers looked at 10,529 primary care patients who were prescribed sleeping pills between 2002 and 2007 and compared the health of each of them to at least two very similar patients without such prescriptions who were the same sex, ethnicity, marital status, smoking status, and had similar health conditions, alcohol use and BMI (which measures if a person is overweight). The patients were followed for 2.5 years on average, and were from a Pennsylvania clinic that serves a mainly low-income population.

Sleeping Pills, Death, and Cancer

Patients who were prescribed sleeping pills were at least three to five times more likely to have died during the study than were the patients not prescribed sleeping pills. Even the patients who were prescribed fewer than 18 pills per year were at higher risk of dying: 3.6 times higher. Patients who were prescribed more than 132 pills a year were more than five times as likely to die.

The researchers were careful to exclude from the study patients who were diagnosed with cancer before the study or very early in the study. Heavy users of sleeping pills (over 132 pills prescribed per year) had a 35% greater risk than those with fewer pills prescribed.  Among those with prescriptions for sleeping pills, the increased risk of their developing lymphoma, lung cancer, colon and prostate cancer was greater than the risk from being a current smoker.

Before this study, there were at least 18 other studies showing an increased risk of death for people taking sleeping pills, and several also showed an increased risk of cancer.  However, this study is especially well-designed and the only one that includes the newer, short-acting class of popular sleeping pills known as nonbenzodiazepines. These were generally believed to be safer than previous generations of sleeping pills because they wear off more quickly. In fact, before this study it was believed that the worst side effect was weight gain due to night time raids on the refrigerator while sleep walking.

Among study participants, the most commonly prescribed sleeping pill was zolpidem (sold as Ambien, Edluar, or Zolpimist), followed by temazepam (a benzodiazepine sold as Restoril). However, prescriptions for the use of any sleep aid was associated with a significant increase in the risk of death, including eszopiclone (”Lunesta”), zaleplon (”Sonata”), barbiturates, as well as antihistamines such as diphenhydramine (the active ingredient in Benadryl), which is also used in many over-the-counter sleep aids. The average age of patients was 54, but the study found harm associated with sleeping pill use in every age group.[2]

All the sleeping pills showed a similar increased risk of death except Lunesta, which showed a more than 500% increased risk compared to any of the other sleeping pills.  However, Lunesta was a relatively new drug at the time of the study, and relatively few people took it. For that reason, it is not possible to say whether the risk of Lunesta is really that high.  Also important to note: This study did not evaluate cancer among patients taking Belsomra, a newer sleeping aid with numerous side effects.[3]

One shortcoming of the study is that getting a prescription for a sleeping pill is not the same as taking sleeping pills.  It is possible that some of the people with prescriptions, especially for small numbers of pills, never took any of them. It is also possible that people who did not have prescriptions for sleeping pills took Benadryl or other over-the-counter antihistamines to help them fall asleep, instead of the prescription version of the same pills.  However, those shortcomings would tend to underestimate the risk of sleeping pills, rather than overestimate the risks.

In addition to the major study cited above, there is other evidence linking sleeping pills to cancer.  For example, a study of Taiwanese patients published in 2012 found that Ambien promoted viral infections, which reflects a weakening of a person’s ability to fight off infections and diseases.[4]  That could explain the increased risk of cancer.

Also, a study published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine in 2018 found that sleeping pills were strongly associated with esophageal, kidney, prostate, liver, stomach and pancreatic cancers. Of all the sleeping pills in the study, Ambien most strongly predicted a diagnosis of cancer.[5]

But Why?

What could possibly explain these increased risks?  Are people who are prescribed sleeping pills more anxious or stressed out? There is evidence that they are more likely to have car accidents or to fall down, probably because of the residual effects of the drugs during the day.  Other studies show an increase in infections among people taking sleeping pills, and that can also increase the risk of cancer and death from other causes. These other studies all suggest that sleeping pills really do increase the risk of dying and there are no logical explanations to explain away the substantial increased risks found in this study, especially the increased risk of cancer.

While the researchers can’t say for sure that the sleeping pills caused death or cancer, many people who used to take these medications should think about these new research findings and consider other, safer ways to fall asleep.  The sleep specialists who conducted the research suggest that since these sleeping pills have limited benefits, old-fashioned sleep aids like warm milk, as well as cognitive-behavioral approaches that can be taught and used for the rest of your life, would be excellent alternatives.  If you decide to toss your sleeping pills, be sure to see our article Drugs in the Drinking Water for tips on safe medicine disposal.

All articles are reviewed and approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff.

References:

  1. Consumer Reports. Why Americans Can’t Sleep. ConsumerReports.org. https://www.consumerreports.org/sleep/why-americans-cant-sleep. Updated January 14, 2016. Accessed October 15, 2018.
  2. Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. British Medical Journal. Open 2012;2:e000850 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850
  3. Kripke, D. F. (2015). Is suvorexant a better choice than alternative hypnotics? F1000Research, 4, 456. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6845.1
  4. Kao, C.-H., Sun, L.-M., Liang, J.-A., Chang, S.-N., Sung, F.-C., & Muo, C.-H. (2012). Relationship of Zolpidem and Cancer Risk: A Taiwanese Population-Based Cohort Study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 87(5), 430–436. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.012
  5. Kim, D.-H., Kim, H.-B., Kim, Y.-H., & Kim, J.-Y. (2018). Use of Hypnotics and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 39(4), 211–218. http://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.17.0025

FDA Review Indicates Possible Association Between Breast Implants and a Rare Cancer

Breast Cancer, Other Cancers
January 26, 2011

This FDA press release was published on January 26, 2011 and was copied from its original location here.

Agency requesting health care professionals to report confirmed cases.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced a possible association between saline and silicone gel-filled breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), a very rare type of cancer. Data reviewed by the FDA suggest that patients with breast implants may have a very small but significant risk of ALCL in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant.

The FDA is requesting that health care professionals report any confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants.

In an effort to ensure that patients receiving breast implants are informed of the possible risk, FDA will be working with breast implant manufacturers in the coming months to update their product labeling materials for patients and health care professionals.

“We need more data and are asking that health care professionals tell us about any confirmed cases they identify,” said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., chief scientist and deputy director for science in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We are working with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and other experts in the field to establish a breast implant patient registry, which should help us better understand the development of ALCL in women with breast implants.”

According to the National Cancer Institute, ALCL appears in different parts of the body including the lymph nodes and skin. Each year ALCL is diagnosed in about 1 out of 500,000 women in the United States. ALCL located in breast tissue is found in only about 3 out of every 100 million women nationwide without breast implants.

In total, the agency is aware of about 60 cases of ALCL in women with breast implants worldwide. This number is difficult to verify because not all cases were published in the scientific literature and some may be duplicate reports. An estimated 5 million to 10 million women worldwide have breast implants.

The FDA notification is based on a review of scientific literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 and information from other international regulators, scientists, and breast implant manufacturers. The literature review identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with both saline and silicone breast implants.

Most cases reviewed by the FDA were diagnosed when patients sought medical treatment for implant-related symptoms such as pain, lumps, swelling, or asymmetry that developed after their initial surgical sites were fully healed. These symptoms were due to collection of fluid (peri-implant seroma), hardening of breast area around the implant (capsular contracture), or masses surrounding the breast implant. Examination of the fluid and capsule surrounding the breast implant led to the ALCL diagnosis.

The FDA is recommending that health care professionals and women pay close attention to breast implants and do the following:

  • Health care professionals are requested to report all confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants to Medwatch, the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program. Report online1 or by calling 800-332-1088.
  • Health care professionals should consider the possibility of ALCL if a patient has late onset, persistent fluid around the implant (peri-implant seroma). In cases of implant seroma, send fresh seroma fluid for pathology tests to rule out ALCL.
  • There is no need for women with breast implants to change their routine medical care and follow-up. ALCL is very rare; it has occurred in only a very small number of the millions of women who have breast implants.  Although not specific to ALCL, health care providers should follow standard medical recommendations.
  • Women should monitor their breast implants and contact their doctor if they notice any changes.
  • Women who are considering breast implant surgery should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care provider.

The FDA published its literature review in a document posted on FDA’s website site today titled “Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) in Women with Breast Implants: Preliminary FDA Findings and Analyses.”

The FDA also plans to provide an update on its review of silicone gel-filled breast implants in the spring of 2011. This update will include interim findings from ongoing post-approval studies for silicone gel-filled breast implants currently sold in the United States, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, and a review of the scientific literature on these products.