Smoking Alters the Expression of Your DNA

For decades, society has been aware of the dangers of smoking, and more people are quitting the toxic habit every year. For those who haven't already, here's one more reason to quit, and one reason why it causes cancer: smoking can change the expression of certain genes, affecting both you and your children (if you want to have them).

It's a new day.

Epigenetics refers to how a wide range of factors "change" genes by affecting their expression, but without altering the basic code. They are either substances or triggers for the production of substances that attach to genes, turning them on or off. Sometimes, they can even affect future generations, despite these children having no contact with the original expression-altering factor. Negative factors shorten life, speed aging and promote disease, while positive triggers do the opposite. This is now known to be one reason why smoking is so damaging to the body, causing problems including lung cancer; stroke; cardiovascular disease; infertility and diabetic neuropathy. Cigarettes contain over 700 mostly dangerous chemicals, and half of all smokers die as a result of their habit. Second hand smoke raises the risk of lung cancer, stroke and cardiovascular disease by 30%, so smokers are not just hurting themselves.

For this study, researchers exposed lung cells to a quantity of cigarette smoke equal to someone smoking one or two packs a day. They found a 2-4 times higher than normal level of an enzyme that suppresses or damages gene expression after three months - and if the genes with suppressed expression were genes that prevented cancer, the consequences could be catastrophic. Surely enough, within the first year to 15 months, researchers found that some of the hundreds of suppressed genes were anti-cancer genes. However, if you do quit smoking, your risk of heart disease halves after one year, among other life-extending benefits.

How powerful are external, modifiable factors on our genes? Well, research has found that even the smallest diet changes are able to change gene expression. In this case, the genes affected by these changes affect circadian rhythm; a well-balanced circadian rhythm helps to guard against inflammation, cardiovascular issues and diabetes. Perhaps it is controversial, but even the genetic disorder Huntington's Disease may be at least somewhat controllable by natural epigenetic means. Oxidative stress plays a large role in disease progression, and the resulting loss of glutathione causes a shortage of the amino acid methionine, which is required for the methylation function that suppresses the abnormal gene. Genes are not destiny, and we are only just discovering how much this is the case.

Going Organic Benefits Everyone

Usually when we start eating organic food, it's for our own health, and often also the health of a future baby. However, adoption of an organic diet can benefit people we don't even know, such as those working in the agricultural industry.

Source: Walter Baxter (CC: 2.0)

As part of the Agricultural Health Study, researchers tested 1,234 men who worked with pesticides on farms or other environments. They all filled out extensive surveys on what pesticides they had used throughout their working lives, and how frequently. A total of 48 pesticides, including the now-illegal DDT, were included on the list. Researches also collected cheek swabs, containing old cells, from the inside of their mouths in order to analyse these for telomere length. The more often the men used pesticides, the shorter their telomeres were. Some pesticides were more strongly associated with telomere shortening than others, including DDT, alachlor (sold under names such as Crop Star), permethrin (known as Nix, among others) and toxaphene.

Telomeres are an important marker for aging, as they shorten with each division without the aid of telomerase, and if they get too small the cell can no longer replace itself and the tissue deteriorates.
Some people think that longer telomeres mean a greater cancer risk, but this is an excessively reductionistic idea, as the worst seven pesticides for telomere shortening are linked with the greatest cancer risk. For example, alachlor is linked with a higher risk of lymphatic cancer, and chlorpyrifos is linked with a greater brain cancer risk. Even children of farming families can have higher risks of developing cancer!

Increasing adoption of an organic diet may shift the availability of agricultural work to safer jobs, or change the nature of the work to something that won't poison business owners and employees. While chronic illnesses are the result of years of personal or familial exposure, it doesn't always take long to begin clearing pesticides from the body. In a small study of thirteen people, just one week of eating an at least 80% organic diet resulted in an 89% reduction in the level of urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolites. Of course, some types of pesticides and other chemicals may take longer to be cleared from the body, but this does show how rapidly things can start to improve. Overall, going organic is the right choice for the health of humanity and the world, not just the individual, but it will take a major shift for everyone to reap the full benefits.

Are Parabens a Breast Cancer Threat?

There is no denying it, we live in a toxic world. Fortunately, people are waking up to just what it is that we are doing to our health, longevity and the environment, as the first step is always awareness. One type of artificial chemical that the world is now turning its attention to is parabens, and it turns out that they are a cause of one of our most common types of cancer - breast cancer.

Parabens are primarily used for their anti-bacterial and antifungal properties. As preservatives, they are found in many personal care products such as makeup, deodorants and other skincare items in order to extend shelf life. But if they're legal, they must be safe, right?

Source: KaurJmeb (CC:3.0).

Actually, parabens may contribute to breast cancer development in many ways. Research has found parabens in 99% of breast tissue samples, and that they can behave like oestrogens and stimulate cancer cell growth at realistic concentrations. In a dose-dependent manner, they can also help damaged cells to survive instead of committing the "cell suicide" necessary to stop them from turning cancerous. Long-term exposure increases the ability of breast cancer cells to invade tissues. And if you are a breast cancer survivor, you may need to know that parabens have been shown in lab studies to block the effects of tamoxifen.

Similar results were found in another study using oestrogen-sensitive breast cancer cell lines. Exposure to parabens over 20 weeks resulted in worsened ability of these cells to migrate and invade other tissues. Use of long-term exposure more closely matches the real lives of women, as we are around parabens all the time. When growth factors are included, which are naturally present in human breast tissue, parabens can stimulate the oestrogen receptors at levels that other lab studies have deemed "safe".

Who is most at risk? Pregnant women, foetuses and children are at the greatest risk of harm from parabens, as tissue growth is at its fastest. In the USA, women, high-income individuals and African Americans have the highest concentrations of parabens in their bodies because they use the products that contain them most often. You do not have to go makeup and deodorant-free, however, as there are plenty of natural products that do not contain parabens. Always read the label, and do research on labeling requirements, before making decisions. We have choices, we have control, often even when it doesn't feel like the case.

Could Vitamin C Help Prevent Cancer?

We know that we need to consume foods containing vitamins every day (preferably natural, unprocessed food), and in some cases take supplements for specific health issues. We are told, especially by natural health circles, that vitamins can help prevent disease and benefit our longevity overall. But how do they work? Recently, a study has uncovered one of the mechanisms behind how vitamin C may prevent at least some cancers.

This study found that vitamin C could "communicate" with faulty bone marrow stem cells, triggering them to die once the damage becomes too great. Damaged cells that cannot repair or kill themselves may "immortalise" themselves and ramp up proliferation, leading to cancer. Vitamin C in high doses was found to act like an enzyme known as TET2, which helps limit the number of times a marrow stem cell can divide as part of regular cell turnover. About 10% of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) have genetic issues which impair TET2. This figure is around half for those with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. As for all cancers, about 2.5% of patients in the USA may have developed TET2 issues, including those with solid tumours and lymphomas.

Research on humans has already found that vitamin C may help to prevent and beat cancer. An epidemiological meta-analysis on lung cancer found that, compared to the lowest category of intake, people with the highest vitamin C intake had a 17% lower risk of developing the disease. Each 100mg increase in daily vitamin C consumption was linked to a 7% lower lung cancer risk. While this may not seem like much, remember that the best ways to prevent lung cancer are to avoid smoking and, as a global community, reduce air pollution. A review of the cases of nine cancer patients in Singapore found that intravenous vitamin C was safe, compatible with other treatment choices, led to improved quality of life and extended life beyond the original prognosis. In the 1970s, research by Linus Pauling found that 10g (10,000mg) of vitamin C every day, administered by injection, increased survival by about five times among terminally ill patients. By 1978, all 1000 control patients receiving conventional treatments had died, but 13 of the 100 vitamin C patients were still alive. A study in Japan showed that those taking 5-30g of vitamin C daily lived six times longer, and one in Canada found that they lived ten times longer on average. Unfortunately, the Mayo Clinic "discredited" all of this research, by stopping vitamin C after 75 days and only using oral supplements as opposed to intravenous therapy. Perhaps it's time to bring back the correct use of vitamin C for serious illness into the world of research, and at least eventually, clinical practice for the first time.

Switzerland May Ban Aluminium in Deodorants

If you've been to Switzerland, you know that it is an absolutely beautiful country, especially if you are into snow- or lake-related sports. Now, we may have another reason to love them: on the 5th of May, their National Council voted to approve a bill instructing their Federal Council to ban the use of aluminium in deodorants, based on research that the mineral could cause cancer.

Switzerland. Source: Andrew Bossi (CC: 2.5)

One of the studies that this proposed law is based on suggests a link between aluminium and breast cancer. First, the Swiss scientists exposed normal human breast cells to aluminium, and over time exposure caused some to turn into cancer cells. Then, injecting small amounts of aluminium into mice had the same effect: the mice developed tumours, which grew and spread to other areas of the body. Their earlier research was met with scepticism, but increasing evidence showing that aluminium could be a carcinogen meant that follow-up studies were easier to publish. While the study does not completely confirm that it causes cancer, co-author Andre-Pascal Sappino still stated that "I think we should avoid all deodorants containing aluminium salts". He draws an analogy between aluminium and asbestos, as they are both cheap and have attractive industrial potential, and despite all of the research condemning asbestos as a dangerous carcinogen, it took 50 years for the substance to be banned. Fortunately, it is now banned in Switzerland and across the European Union, as well as other countries like Australia. But this doesn't change the fact that so many people died of cancer before this link was confirmed and asbestos was banned. Also like asbestos, aluminium does not cause genetic mutations in bacteria, but they do in animals. And like the tobacco industry, the oncologists who performed this research now expect backlash from the cosmetics industry, who are likely to say that proof in humans is lacking.

Another recent study adds further weight to the link between aluminium and breast cancer. Partly because of the use of deodorants, aluminium has been found in higher concentrations in the breast than in the blood. Aluminium can cause instability in the genome, inappropriate cell division, and increase migration and invasion of already-established breast cancer cells. Additionally, it can act like an oestrogen, despite being a mineral. The most common benign disorder of the breast is gross cystic breast disease, and there is even evidence that aluminium could cause this too. To make things even worse, aluminium has been implicated in Alzheimer's disease too. The brain tissue of people with Alzheimer's disease generally contains a much higher concentration of aluminium than that of age-matched controls. In people with early-onset Alzheimer's disease, the concentration is even higher.

As you could tell, the Switzerland love doesn't stop there. A recent referendum (their democracy is also very well-developed) voted in favour of phasing out nuclear power, which will be replaced by clean renewable energy. No new licenses will be given to nuclear plants, and when the existing ones reach the end of their lifespan, they will not be replaced. Nuclear power generates just over a third of Switzerland's electricity, and clean renewables generate almost two-thirds, so while there is a lot of work to do, their goal is achievable. Overall, there is hope for a world where we can live longer, healthier lives without this current cancer epidemic, but often we have to look to other nations for inspiration.

Air Pollution May Be an Ignored Cause of Cancer

When you try to convince your chain-smoking uncle or fast food-addicted cousin to make healthier choices in order to prevent cancer and other diseases, they probably will point to a "healthy" person who did "everything right" and still got cancer. Oh, but my mum ate so healthy! Oh, but Farrah Fawcett was so fit! The truth is, however, that cancer prevention isn't totally an individual effort. There are things that we as a society must address, such as air pollution.

This lil' bug may just save your life. Source: Danrok

For this recent study, the US EPA's Environmental Quality Index, a county-level measure of over 200 environmental variables, was compared to SEER state cancer profiles. Data on cancer rates was available for 85% of the over 3100 US counties. The average age-adjusted cancer rate in the US is 451 cases for every 100,000 people. The counties with poor environmental quality had, on average, 39 more cases per 100,000 people than those with high environmental quality. The main factors linked with higher cancer rates were air pollution, the presence of highways and the availability of housing and public transport. Of course, highways, public transport and the location of houses are factors that affect air pollution too. Urban areas showed the strongest associations, most likely because there are more things like cars which consume fossil fuels. As for which cancers were most affected by air pollution, breast and prostate cancers have the strongest associations. Maybe instead of the "early detection is the best protection" line used to promote mammograms (which sounds quite like propaganda), how about "environmental protection is the best prevention"?

This is not the only study linking air pollution to cancer. In 2012, the IARC confirmed that diesel exhaust does cause cancer. In the USA alone, diesel fuel use causes over 50,000 deaths every year, and it's nowhere near as dirty as the diesel used in other countries! This doesn't just include cancer, but also emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease and severe asthma attacks. There is also a link between acute lymphocytic leukaemia (ALL) and living close to oil and gas wells. On the other hand, when air quality regulations in California caused the level of diesel pollution to drop by 68%, the risk of developing cancers from the toxins in diesel dropped by three quarters! Cancer incidence in general has declined in the USA too, due in no small part to "personal" air pollution, i.e. smoking, falling out of fashion. While 451 per 100,000 is still too many, the age-adjusted cancer rate was 511 per 100,000 in 1992, when incidence peaked. So when someone develops cancer, it may not be all their fault. It may be society's responsibility to clean up the world, so we can all live long, healthy lives, and make what diseases that would remain easier to treat.

The Benefits of Coffee Strike Again

Coffee has been conventionally seen as a vice, something that busy business types drink as a stimulant and performance enhancer, until adrenal burnout catches up with them. While yes, too much coffee can be harmful to your health, there is much research showing the health benefits of moderate consumption. The latest study takes us to Italy, and finds a relatively simple way to prevent one of the most common chronic illnesses in men.

Old macchinetta. Source: Rafiq Sarlie

The illness that I'm talking about is prostate cancer, something associated with much fear, embarrassing symptoms, and embarrassing tests to check for it. We have known for years that lifestyle changes can reduce men's risk of developing it, but whether or not coffee can help out had been up for debate. That is where this study comes in. Researchers analysed the coffee consumption and prostate cancer incidence among almost seven thousand men in Italy, where prostate cancer risk is much lower than other developed countries. Over the four-year study period, men who drank three or more cups of coffee every day had a 53% lower risk of prostate cancer than men who only had two or less.

But...why coffee? The researchers then looked at the effects of coffee extracts on prostate cancer cells in the lab. Caffeinated extracts were able to reduce the ability of prostate cancer cells to grow, divide and spread, while decaffeinated extracts could not. This is most likely caused by a synergistic reaction between caffeine and other bioactive, antioxidant compounds in coffee.

Unfortunately, however, not all coffee is created equal. Most of the men in this study would have been drinking Italian-style coffee, which is prepared differently to coffee in countries like the USA. The use of filters is common in the USA, which can reduce the amount of beneficial nutrients and compounds that actually make it from the ground beans to what we drink. As you can see in these instructions, optimal extraction of compounds such as essential oils also requires high pressure and hot to boiling water. The most expensive macchinetta machines, found in espresso bars, produce about 9 atmospheres (900kPa) of pressure, but the more traditional ones for home use go to about 1.5 atmospheres (150kPa). Boiling the water causes it to rise through the coffee grounds, extracting the caffeine and other phytochemicals, and into an upper chamber. It is not as simple as pouring water on any old instant coffee, but whether you're drinking it for the flavour or health benefits, it's worth it!

Some Cleaning Products May Be a Thyroid Cancer Risk

The chemical industry has a lot to answer for already, and to add to this, a new study shows that occupational exposure to common chemical disinfectants, sanitisers, sterilisers and deodorisers may increase the risk of developing thyroid cancer. Those who work with these chemicals have an estimated 65% higher risk of developing the disease compared to those who don't, according to Yale University researchers.

Brand irrelevant, for image purposes only. Source: Genuine500

This new research studied the risk of thyroid cancer in relation to workplace exposure to agricultural pesticides and biocides used as cleaning products. For this study, almost five hundred thyroid cancer patients were compared to almost five hundred "healthy" controls who were otherwise similar in factors such as age. Unlike some previous studies, there was no link between pesticide use and thyroid cancer. However, women who had worked in jobs that involved use of biocide cleaning products for at least one year had a 48% higher risk of thyroid cancer, while men had triple the risk after exposure. The risks were similar when the researchers only the papillary cancers or well-differentiated ones. Stronger risks were seen with the highest exposures, as well as smaller tumours. Jobs most related to use of these chemicals were building cleaners, and ironically, health aides and health care providers involved in diagnosing and treating patients.  While the exact mechanisms behind these chemicals' cancer-causing effects are not clear, they are most likely harmful because of effects on thyroid hormone production and function. For example, triclosan, widely used in home and workplace cleaning products, has been shown to reduce the levels of two thyroid hormones needed for metabolism and growth. Another chemical, a wood preservative known as pentachlorophenol, has also been found to lower thyroid hormone levels in rats.

Thankfully, action has already begun on some of these chemicals. In September 2016, the USA's Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule banning nineteen chemicals in over-the-counter, consumer antiseptic products. Manufacturers were not able to prove that these were safe, or more effective than plain, old-fashioned soap and water. Two of these were triclosan, the aforementioned thyroid hormone disrupter, and triclocarban. This ruling only affects those products that are meant to be used with water, and rinsed off after use, not products meant for use in a healthcare setting, or commercial hand sanitisers or wipes. One reason behind the ban is the hormone-disrupting effects of these chemicals. Three more chemicals have had their ruling deferred for another year, as manufacturers attempt to prove safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, as this only applies to consumer products, it does not provide any protection to those at risk of cancers caused by occupational exposure, but it could prevent disease in some people who would otherwise develop cancers or hormone problems from home use. While this is progress, it looks like more work needs to be done in order to prevent cancers and other diseases.

Lactic Acid May Affect Cancer Development, According to a New Study

Just in time for another round of disempowering nonsense, telling us all that cancer is caused by "bad luck", a new study appears that may help to vindicate the Warburg effect. At the beginning of the 20th century, the German scientist Otto Warburg found that cancer cells have a higher demand for sugar than normal cells. They are more reliant on glycolysis than healthy cells, which is far less efficient at turning sugar into cellular energy than aerobic (oxygen-dependent) respiration. All cells use glycolysis as the first stage in energy production (Principles of Anatomy and Physiology - Tortora and Derrickson, 2012), but in the presence of oxygen a healthy cell will then use the breakdown products of glycolysis to begin aerobic respiration. Without oxygen, these breakdown products will enter the Cori Cycle to produce lactic acid, or lactate. A buildup of lactic acid in the muscles causes them to become tired and stiff; you may notice this during intense exercise. Warburg found that even in the presence of oxygen, cancer cells seem to produce more lactic acid than healthy cells.

Source: Steve Barnes (CC BY-SA: 2.0)

In this new research led by Inigo San Millan, director of the Sports Performance Department and physiology laboratory at the University of Colorado-Boulder's Sports Medicine and Performance Center, he and his team set out to understand why the Warburg effect happens. They found that common changes to gene expression, found in most cancers, also seem to deregulate lactic acid production. The researchers also explain that lactic acid helps to create an acidic environment outside the cancer cells, which helps them to spread around the body. In fact, San Millan and colleagues suggest that lactic acid is the "only metabolic compound involved and necessary" in the five stages of cancer development after carcinogenesis, the transformation of healthy cells into cancerous ones. It could also help to explain why regular exercise helps to prevent cancer. Regular workouts help to train the body to efficiently recycle lactic acid into something that actually can be used for energy, which prevents harmful accumulation (why you eventually grow accustomed to that workout). High sugar intake combined with a sedentary lifestyle may be even worse for cancer risk. It may also explain why regular exercise has been shown to increase cancer survival rates.

This research may lead to therapies that reduce the accumulation of lactic acid, in order to prevent cancer cells from spreading and avoiding the immune system. Although the effects of improved stress management on immunity are a likely factor, it could also help explain why living in the greenest spaces has been linked to a 13% lower risk of cancer death compared to living in an urban jungle. This Harvard University study on 110,000 women also found a 12% higher risk of all-cause mortality among the urban jungle dwellers. Overall, any evidence that can point to methods of natural cancer prevention is a good thing, and hopefully the health industries will stand up and take notice of these findings.

References
1: http://www.lifeextension.com/News/LefDailyNews?NewsID=26475&Section=DISEASE
2: https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/carcin/38/2/10.1093_carcin_bgw127/2/bgw127.pdf?Expires=1490855249&Signature=SW3OCcNTBN~-enlCEDduD-WP~pSsbgdWkw-B65iRne8BKaUzpnVGit0z1pZsMr~0NOak-BYuc2JuD03vRnbozr7KoLFt7tE-1HWM~VVOk-mIQlfI8hJWPFDcjVCNGvP~Bvlh5pkeRp75037-bwedWHZR9n441HJdlL~wdGKjBpweVSQF1lQa79iFVpfv2SAGf1ws~B-x7LYlvzBq3i9qa3y2oM4W2mebgTXL2soqNj4EBtTttcPlFEmL~Yl6kH421lSU7XP3dxH0GDwuioQOFI2RGjQeVonsyb3DCO~DRgXL8aKf8oW7MHlM3Fx~dcN33rxAlm7mK2BOX6CTOtmD-g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
3: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-25-living-in-the-country-found-to-reduce-the-risk-of-death-by-16-compared-to-city-life.html

Is Staying Inside a Public Health Emergency?

Vitamin D is unique among the nutrients, as it is the only one that we can produce by sun exposure. It is made from cholesterol molecules, so naturally-occurring food sources of the vitamin are always from animals, but there are many products fortified with vitamin D such as milk. This is why so many people do not consider the possibility of vitamin D deficiency being found in a wealthy country. However, the best way to "consume" vitamin D is still by sun exposure without burning. But the sun is dangerous, the government says. So, is there a problem?

Unfortunately, yes there is. After the Industrial Revolution and before foods were fortified with vitamin D, rickets (severe deficiency) affected 85% of children in European and American cities. But despite these public health measures, recent research has uncovered more subtle deficiencies at unbelievably high rates. For example, over half of certain elderly populations and 30% of healthy young adults in Boston have been found to be vitamin D deficient. In one Boston study, half of the women admitted to hospital for hip fractures were deficient. Older people do not produce vitamin D at the same efficiency as younger people, while our society seems to encourage them to stay inside. However, low vitamin D has been linked to weaker quadriceps, reduced postural stability, slower reaction times and overall poorer physical function in people admitted to fall clinics. On the other hand, a large placebo-controlled study found that giving adults aged 65-85 100,000 units of vitamin D every three months reduced the risk of any fracture by 22%, and osteoporosis by 33%. This was without an additional calcium supplement. Society tells us that when someone is infirm, we must "look after" them by keeping them shut inside and away from "doing too much". It looks like it's time to re-evaluate our ideas, and the way our lives are structured. Our previous struggles for survival may have led us to associate nature with danger, and so favour the indoors, but the way we work, play and even build our houses possibly should be restructured to enable the right amount of exposure to sun and air.

Many of us now seem to fear the sun because of its association with skin cancers. However, this may be an all-or-nothing approach, taken to extremes. Dr David Hoel writes:

"The body of science concerning the benefits of moderate sun exposure is growing rapidly, and is causing a different perception of sun/UV as it relates to human health. Melanoma and its relationship to sun exposure and sunburn is not adequately addressed in most of the scientific literature."

Research has also shown that outdoor workers may actually have a 14% lower risk of melanoma than people who work inside. It is not as one-sided as the PSAs tell you: non-burning sun exposure has been linked to a reduced risk of melanoma, while sunburn doubles the risk of developing the cancer. Many others have shown that vitamin D reduces the risk of different types of cancer such as breast, colon and prostate cancers. Some of these benefits are only seen with sun exposure, not vitamin D status in general which includes supplementation.

High blood levels of vitamin D are also linked with lower all-cause mortality. When 32 studies were analysed in a meta-analysis (research on research), vitamin D levels under 9ng/mL were associated with a 90% higher all-cause death rate compared to people with levels over 50ng/mL. In a study involving women in Sweden, avoiding sun exposure was linked with double the risk of death over the research period, compared to those who embraced the outdoors. Looking at all of this, it's no surprise that researchers have now said:

"Insufficient sun exposure has become a major public health problem, demanding an immediate change in the current sun-avoidance public health advice. The degree of change needed is small but critically important."

Let's change things sooner rather than later.

UN Admits Pesticides Aren't Necessary

Since World War Two, the idea of "better living through chemistry" has remained persistent throughout the world. We have been told that we can't live without chemicals, that we would starve without those such as pesticides, but it's becoming common knowledge now that this is not the case. Even the United Nations is now waking up to this, with a new report due to be presented to the UN human rights council.

The new report is strongly critical of the corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of unethical marketing, systematic denials of harm and lobbying governments to prevent regulations against chemical usage. It describes catastrophic effects on the environment, human health and society, including 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. "Acute" does not include whatever chronic illnesses that pesticides and other agricultural chemicals may cause.

Organic farmland growth, 2000-8.

About the supposed "benefits" of pesticides, “It is a myth,” said Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. “Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.” Many of these pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as soy and palm oil, which are not typically used in food. Elver has visited Paraguay, the Philippines, Morocco and Poland in order to write this report, and says that while corporations will always deny the harms of pesticides, the testimony of the people still stands.

Some of the diseases belong to one of our biggest killers: cancer. Multiple studies have shown that pesticide exposure, whether at home or after parental exposure at work, is linked with an up to three, even four or six, times increased risk of childhood leukaemia. For brain cancer, exposure during pregnancy has been linked with the greatest increased risks, as well as home and garden use. There is also some evidence linking pesticide use to other childhood cancers such as Wilm's tumour, retinoblastoma (eye cancer), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and neuroblastoma.

Fortunately, organic agriculture is more popular than ever. In 2015, the number of organic farmers stood at 2.4 million, up by 7.2% from 2014. Organic farmland was up to 50.9 million hectares, up by 14.7% from 2014. The highest market share was Denmark, at 8.4%, while Australia has the most organic farmland at 22.7 million hectares (as we are a quite arid country, the quality may not be as high as in other regions). India has more than half a million organic farmers, the most of any country, with Ethiopia and Mexico following at over 200,000 each.

An Unexpected Link

When most people think of cancer prevention, they think of smoking and the prevention of obesity, with the remaining cancer cases put down to "I don't know", "genetics" or "bad luck". But what about the composition of our intestinal bacteria? These are commonly known to be responsible for prevention of minor respiratory or gastrointestinal infections, but not many know that they may have an effect on something as serious as cancer.

Sauerkraut. Source: Bdubay

Our intestinal bacteria, if at healthy levels, are around 100 trillion in number and live with us in a symbiotic relationship. We give them protection and an assured supply of (indigestible to us!) food; they help us to digest food, aid our immune system and crowd out harmful species. So how does it all go wrong? Infections, antibiotic use and abuse, smoking, aging and diet all affect intestinal bacteria. In fact, epidemiological studies link abdominal infections, antibiotic use and both to colorectal cancer development (at least, when antibiotics aren't followed by probiotics, as sometimes they are necessary). Altering intestinal bacteria has demonstrated influence over both the risk and progression of colorectal cancers, not only in carcinogen-induced models but also in genetic models. This is partly because of by-products of bacterial species: substances that influence tumour development include hydrogen sulphide and the Bacteroides fragilis toxin, while short-chain fatty acids suppress tumours. It doesn't stop here: experimental models of bacteria alteration have shown effects on cancers such as that of the breast and liver. Presumably, this is because of the effects of intestinal bacteria on inflammation and metabolism. In patients who have cancer and are choosing conventional treatment, chemo and radiation are also toxic to our bacteria. This may be harmful, by killing off beneficial species and leaving space for harmful ones to grow...or it could be helpful by killing harmful species and allowing the microbiome to reset. What if this is behind so many cases of long-term survivorship? Anyway, it is best to avoid cancer and its conventional treatments in the first place.

How can we avoid developing harmful compositions of gut bacteria, in order to prevent cancer and other illnesses? Well, many people do not actually do the most effective way to prevent infections that may require antibiotic treatment: washing their hands! In a study from Michigan State University, only 5% of people washed their hands correctly. "Correctly" means to wash your hands for 15-20 seconds, using soap and water. Fifteen percent of men and 7% of women did not wash their hands at all. Half of all men used soap, while just over three-quarters of women did. You can also strengthen your intestinal bacteria, and by extension your immune system, with probiotics or fermented foods. The earliest record of fermentation comes from the Middle East in around 6000 BC, the very dawn of history, and most cultures traditionally include fermented foods in their cuisine. Sometimes, this even makes poisonous plants into nutritious foods. Lacto-fermentation encourages Lactobacillus species of bacteria to develop, which produce the lactic acid (and short-chain fatty acids!) that deters harmful species. However, when you lacto-ferment foods, salt is required to prevent putrefying bacteria. Overall, while our intestinal bacteria composition is integral to our health and protection against cancer, there are quite simple ways of maintaining it that do not necessarily call for expensive supplements.

Should We Eat Rice?

Rice is a common staple food around the world, with consumption in the West increasing as more multicultural diet patterns are adopted. But recently, reports have been circulating about rice containing inorganic arsenic, which is a known poison. Should we be concerned?

Arsenic is a natural element found in soil, and inorganic arsenic (not part of a carbon-containing molecule) is classed as a category one carcinogen by the European Union, meaning that it is a known cause of cancer. As it is present in soil, tiny amounts often get into food, but this is usually too small to cause problems. However, rice is a different case, because it is grown in flooded ground. This frees up the arsenic normally locked in the soil, making it easier to absorb by the roots of rice plants. Because of this, rice is 10-20 times higher in arsenic than all other cereal crops. But eating rice a couple of times each week isn't dangerous for adults, although it may be a concern for children and people who eat it more often.

Fortunately, there is a way to make rice safer. Like many foods and their mineral content, some ways of cooking reduce arsenic more than others. The best way to cook rice is to first soak it overnight, and then cook it in a 5:1 water: rice ratio. Compared to just boiling it in two parts of water to one part of rice, this reduces the level of arsenic by 80%. Alternative grains such as quinoa may be substituted for rice in some situations, especially if you're going for a nutrient-dense, Asian-fusion meal. Many people now are cutting out grains entirely because the Paleo or LCHF (low-carb, high/healthy fat) diet turns out to be what's best for them. In these diets, cauliflower rice or vegetables cut with a spiraliser are used in place of "normal" rice and noodles. Cauliflower rice is just made by lightly pulsing chopped cauliflower in a food processor, while zucchini is a popular choice for vegetable noodles.

A non-arsenic releasing alternative. Source: Muffinn

Although arsenic is naturally-occurring, its levels in our environment are often much higher than they should be. One cause of unhealthy arsenic levels is coal-fired power plants, the biggest industrial emitter of both arsenic and mercury. Burning coal also allows other heavy metals, such as cadmium, lead and even uranium to escape into our world, which is not best for our health as we evolved with these metals locked in the ground, where they should be. Other causes of arsenic contamination include some mines and factories. While we have been taught that we need fossil fuels, exposure to arsenic can cause damage to the nerves, immune system and to developing foetuses. As for cancers, it has been shown to cause lung, digestive tract, skin, bladder, liver, prostate, kidney, lymphatic system and blood cancers.

All of this may seem terrible and insurmountable, but in recent years progress has been made. China, a major producer of rice, is finally beginning to reject coal in favour of clean renewables such as solar energy. In fact, the country doubled its solar capacity in 2016, adding 34.54 gigawatts over the year. This is still a small percentage of their total electricity production, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. One example of such new developments in China is the recent construction of a solar farm over a fish farm, which will supply electricity to roughly 100,000 homes. Overall, while arsenic and other heavy metals are a concern, there are ways to reduce their concentration in food, and the rise of renewable energy means less of them will be released into our environment.

Is Organic Food for the "Privileged"?

In the West, eating organic food is often portrayed as a "hipster" diet trend, with people who prefer to avoid harmful chemicals frequently mocked for being presumably wealthy, white and owning a certain variety of bicycle. But is this really true? Is everyone advocating for natural, organic food really a pale, androgynous Mac lover?

It turns out that developing countries, like India, are too developing in ways true to their health and heritage. Recently, social media was all over the news of Sikkim, a small state in the northeast of India, becoming the country's first all-organic state. Over 75,000 hectares of farmland are now free of pesticides and other chemicals, allowing the environment and people to become healthier. Their achievement is a reminder for others in India of the traditional practices and foods that they previously abandoned in favour of a Westernised, corporate idea of "progress", especially as the state managed to reach this goal in less than a decade. However, as Sikkim is a hilly state, chemical agriculture was never as prevalent as in flat states. But it isn't just about abandoning artificial chemicals. Organic farming also features practices like crop rotation, which helps to prevent nutrient depletion and pests from getting comfortable.

Tea garden, Sikkim. Source: Abhijit Kar Gupta

Of course, adoption and re-adoption of organic practices is not limited to Sikkim state. In Assam, another small state of India, a brother and sister have been converting their family tea estate to organic agriculture. While the sister, Avantika, initially ran into opposition when she first suggested they go organic, her detractors now admit that organic tea tastes better. Also unlike many other tea estates, many young men and women (like Simi and Deepa, featured in the article) are employed in management roles, as skill is valued by the siblings more than age or the old patriarchy. And across India, thousands of farmers are taking on traditional farming practices and Indian crop varieties that actually increase yields, with some diversifying their land to the extent that they now grow dozens of varieties of legumes, mangoes etc. alone. Of course, some factors, particularly land rights, are essential for the adoption of traditional, organic agriculture. As people who do not own land can have their assets and livelihoods taken away from them at any time, short-term compromises for long-term benefits are out of the question. Pesticides, chemical fertilisers and monoculture (planting only one crop) maximise yields *right now*, but are not sustainable or healthy over many years. Planting trees to reduce erosion and water loss? Fruit takes years to grow.

So you don't have to be "spoilt" or "white" to prefer organic food, but is it worthwhile? If you want to see a world without cancer, looks like it is. Multiple studies have found that pesticide exposure can increase the risk of childhood leukaemia, sometimes to double or triple the risk without them. This takes into account household or occupational (of the parents) exposure; we are currently all exposed to pesticides to some extent. As for brain cancer, it isn't much better for pesticide users. Children of parents who use or work with pesticides and insecticides have often shown a higher risk of brain cancer, sometimes up to three times greater. A small study on 45 children found a five times greater risk with home use of some insecticides (this was only preliminary research, but still serves as a warning). Regardless of where you come from - your culture, your ethnicity, how wealthy your family was when you were born - all of us deserve better than a world of suffering and death, where modern medicine is relied on to clean up the mess of modern agriculture. Why not prevent the mess in the first place?

Can Selenium Prevent Cancer?

Not everyone is aware of it, but selenium is one of the trace minerals essential to human life and health. Selenium is found in foods such as Brazil nuts, pinto beans and beef, but as conventional farming strips many nutrients from the soil (which is not always mineral-rich to begin with), many people who do eat these foods are still deficient. With studies on selenium showing mixed results, what is the best way to consume enough of the mineral, and can it really prevent cancer?

Source: Quadell

One of the first studies on selenium and cancer prevention was conducted in 1983, a clinical trial testing the effects of selenium-enriched yeast. It was found that the participants given this supplement had a 46-63% reduction in the risk of colorectal, lung and prostate cancer. Specifically, colorectal cancer risk fell by 58%, prostate cancer risk by 63%, and lung cancer fell by 46%. Their risk of dying from any cancer was halved, and their total cancer risk dropped by 37%. Rightfully, this made headlines around the world. Another study found a protective effect of a supplement containing selenium, zinc, and vitamins A, C and E against colon cancer. This trial involved 411 patients who previously had polyps removed during a colonoscopy; because of this they were at a much higher risk of colon cancer. After an average follow-up time of 4 years, only 38 people in the treatment group had their polyps return, compared to 62 in the placebo group. As a percentage, there was a 39% lower risk of polyps. The 15-year cumulative incidence of the polyps returning was 48.3% in the treatment group, and 64.5% in the placebo group. As for lung cancer, a case-control study found that a blood selenium level of over 80 micrograms/L was linked with a 90% reduced risk of the disease, compared to people with levels under 60 micrograms/L.

Selenium may also protect us against cervical cancer. In 2015, 56 women with precancerous lesions received either 200 micrograms of selenium from yeast or a placebo every day for six months, in order to test this hypothesis. After the six months, 88% of the women given selenium had a regression of their lesions, compared to 56% in the placebo group. This difference came with a decrease in fasting blood sugar, insulin and insulin resistance, factors which are linked with cancer and metabolic issues.

However, not all forms of selenium have the same effects against cancer. The SELECT study, which gave 35,000 men either 200 micrograms of selenium (bound to the amino acid methionine), selenium and vitamin E, or a placebo, found no protective effect. This was seen as "proof" that selenium doesn't work because of its size and the publicity it generated. But as Life Extension describes, different types of selenium have different effects against cancer and other diseases. Sodium selenite can boost immunity, helping us fight tumour cells before they establish themselves. Selenium-methyl L-selenocysteine has shown an ability to kill cancer cells, even those which have lost the "suicide gene" that kills off damaged cells. Selenium from yeast provides antioxidant protection for cells and their DNA. Therefore, a supplement containing several types of selenium may be the best way to protect yourself against disease.

Could Magnesium Help Prevent Cancer?

Magnesium is one of the most abundant minerals in the body, with the adult body containing around 25g. It is required for over 300 processes, such as energy production, blood pressure regulation and the production of one of our own antioxidants, glutathione (the 'master' antioxidant). But can such an everyday substance prevent one of the most serious health issues, cancer?

Source: Krish Dulal

It turns out that research has suggested a protective effect of magnesium against cancer. In a study involving women from the Swedish Mammography Cohort, those in the highest quintile for magnesium intake had a 40% lower risk of colon cancer than women in the lowest category. However, measurement errors were found which are most likely to have resulted in an underestimation of this protective effect. This study followed more than sixty thousand women for almost 15 years, and found that the daily magnesium intake associated with a 40% lower colon cancer risk was 255mg or over. The intake that this was compared to was 209mg or under.

The protection that magnesium may give against cancer is not limited to Sweden. The Iowa Women's Health Study followed over 41,000 women for 17 years, and found that a magnesium intake of over 351mg every day was linked with a 23% reduced risk of colon cancer, compared to an intake of under 245mg. Additionally, a Japanese study followed over 87,000 men and women aged 45 to 74 for eight years, in order to see whether or not magnesium protected them against colon cancer in this context. For men, an intake of at least 327mg of magnesium a day reduced the risk of colon cancer by 52%, compared to intakes of 238mg or less. No effect was seen in women this time, but the female participants were more active, weighed less, drank less alcohol and had a lower diabetes risk than the men. Because of these factors, the men already had a higher risk, and so more potential benefit. It was pointed out that insulin resistance is a risk factor for colon cancer, as insulin may stimulate the growth of the abnormal cells. Research on animals and cell lines has also found that magnesium deficiency can increase the risk of cancer. For example, lead is more likely to cause leukaemia in magnesium deficient rats. Multiple studies on humans have shown that parental exposure to lead and petrol could raise the risk of childhood leukaemia.

But how can we increase our magnesium intakes? The best way is to eat magnesium-rich foods, which contain other nutrients with a range of health benefits of their own. For example, one ounce of dry-roasted almonds contains 80mg of magnesium, 20% of the recommended daily value of 400mg. Half a cup of boiled spinach comes very close to this, at 78mg. An ounce of dry-roasted cashews has 74mg of magnesium, half a cup of cooked black beans has 60mg, and half a cup of shelled, cooked edamame contains 50mg of magnesium. As for supplementation, different forms have different rates of absorption. Magnesium bound to aspartate (an amino acid), citrate, lactate or chloride is absorbed and used much more readily than magnesium sulphate or oxide. Taking zinc at the same time may also impair absorption. With cancer being so common and so serious, why be complacent with a poor diet, low in magnesium and other protective nutrients?

Pollution, Smoking and Longevity

The field of antiaging and longevity typically focuses on what we can do as individuals to live longer, healthier lives, as well as the more "glamourous" interventions like stem cells and medicinal herbs. But what about public health initiatives, such as ways to reduce air pollution? As news recently coming out of Boston states, the rate of people reaching the age of 85 is not equal across all regions. This could be down to environmental factors, including particulate matter (PM) air pollution, which is a known health risk, but has not been previously investigated in terms of longevity.

Researchers from the School of Public Health conducted a US-wide analysis of around 28 million adults in 3,034 counties to see whether levels of PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5mu in diameter) affected the longevity of older adults. Specifically, the rates of people aged 55-64 in 1980 living to be 85-94 in 2010, and 70-74 year olds living to be 100-104, were measured. On average, 2,295 per 10,000 people aged 55-64 lived to be 85-94, and 71.4 per 10,000 people 70-74 years of age lived to be 100-104. PM2.5 pollution levels were measured and put into quartiles, that is, the range of different levels were divided by four. One quartile's worth of increase in PM2.5 levels, which was 4.19 parts per million, was linked with 93.7 fewer 85-94 year olds and 3.5 fewer people over 100, out of every 10,000 people studied. These associations were "linear", meaning that the risk of dying before 85 or 100 increased in line with PM pollution, and were stable as the models were made more specific. They were also present even when levels of PM pollution were within the US standard for safety. Perhaps the electric car and renewable energy revolutions will fight this issue. When I was in Amsterdam at the end of a Contiki tour, several of us found a charging station and even took pictures as it isn't something you see in many parts of Australia yet.

Perhaps a solution? Source: Ludovic Hirlimann

Other factors were also measured in terms of their effects on longevity, such as smoking. For every 4.77% increase in smoking rates, there were 181.9 fewer people over 85 and 6.4 less people over 100, once again, per 10,000 people originally studied. It makes sense that smoking had an even stronger effect on death rates, because cigarette smokers are essentially applying air pollution directly to their lungs. Rates of obesity and poverty also negatively affected longevity; in the case of poverty, it affects access to healthier foods.

Poverty has a negative effect on life expectancy around the world (which is on average now 71.4 years), including in the case of the three billion people worldwide who have to use fuels for cooking instead of electricity. The resulting indoor air pollution is responsible for 3.9 million deaths worldwide every year, including 16,000 from lung cancer. Indoor, or household air pollution (HAP) has also been linked to cancers other than smoking. Even when controlled for HPV infections, HAP is linked with an almost 10 times greater risk of cervical cancer, which is around 6 times greater without controlling for them. The risks of oral, laryngeal and nasopharyngeal cancers were roughly doubled by HAP, and pharyngeal cancer risk was increased by 3 and a half times. More extreme cases of poverty mean that, at last official count, 650 million do not have access to clean water and 2.3 billion do not have access to sanitation. This means that 315,000 children under 5 die every day from diarrhoeal diseases caused by dirty water and lack of sanitation (that is 900 every day). But even being able to wash your hands with soap halves the risk of diarrhoea! If infectious diseases aren't horrible enough, insufficient/dirty water and sanitation can also cause cancer. In some regions of Asia and Africa, the liver fluke parasite is present, which can cause liver cancer. In northern Africa, the schistosoma parasite, which can cause bladder cancer, is present. Overall, there are still so many deaths and diseases which could be prevented by fighting poverty and changing to clean energy (as well as quitting smoking), so you don't have to be a scientist, naturopath or doctor to fight the dragon-tyrant.

Can Neuroblastoma Be Prevented?

In recent weeks, photos of a 4-year-old girl suffering from neuroblastoma and its government-approved treatments went viral, and if that wasn't horrible enough, she sadly died this week. But instead of accepting The Way Things Are, why don't we look at ways to prevent it?

Since neuroblastoma strikes very young children, prevention may start with the parents, before they are even born. When one study aimed to investigate this, cases of children diagnosed with neuroblastoma over a period of two years from Children's Cancer Group and Pediatric Oncology Group institutions were compared to random matched controls. This yielded 538 cases and 504 matched controls. Daily use of multivitamins was linked to a 30-40% reduced risk of neuroblastoma, both during pregnancy and in the month before conception. For example, use in the second trimester was associated with a 40% lower risk. It did not seem to matter about specific vitamins or minerals, and age at diagnosis or amplification of cancer-related genes didn't have much effect on the results either.

Eat your spinach. Source: cyclonebill (CC BY SA: 2.0)

However, folate may be one specific nutrient that could prevent neuroblastoma development. In 1997, Canada began to fortify flour with folate in order to prevent neural tube defects such as spina bifida. When the rates of neuroblastoma were examined before and after its implementation, using cases registered by the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, it was found that incidence rates of infant (under 1 year old) neuroblastoma fell from 1.57 cases per 10,000 births to 0.62 cases! This remained significant after adjustment for age at diagnosis and disease severity. Another study looking at cancer rates for children up to 9 years old did not find such associations, but still found a 26% reduction in the risk of Wilm's tumour in children under 5 (from 1.94 to 1.43 cases per 100,000 children). These results may mean that folate and multivitamin use affect cancer development before birth, but have less effect afterwards as children are exposed to or become deficient in more things. Some examples of foods rich in folate are lentils, asparagus and spinach, which contain 358, 268 and 262 micrograms of folate per cup respectively.

Actually, it may be best to see pregnancy multivitamins as just a complement to consuming a diet of nutrient-rich, whole foods, which contain substances that aren't found in multivitamins, but may have a preventative effect on neuroblastoma. For example, a study on mice found that DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid, caused stable disease or partial response in rats with grafted human neuroblastoma cells and no immune system to try fighting it. DHA is found in oily fish, and to a lesser extent from other animal foods especially when grass-fed. This really needs further study, especially as a preventative, with neuroblastoma being such a terrible disease. Additionally, ellagic acid has also been shown to kill off neuroblastoma cells in test tube research. This is found in some berries, other fruits and nuts, and should also be researched for preventative abilities. Something else that needs follow-up research is another lab study where ketones, produced for energy when one is on a ketogenic diet, reduced viability of neuroblastoma cells by more than half. Unlike the normal cells they were compared to, the neuroblastoma cells were not able to use the ketones for energy. Overall, research on this and natural ways to prevent neuroblastoma do look promising, and "we don't know how to prevent it" is no excuse to neglect them in cancer research.

Breast Cancer Prevention Awareness

If you're on the hunt for a useful Pink October, mainstream media is not exactly helpful. We are told that early detection is the best protection, but there are actually many natural ways to really reduce your risk of breast cancer. Some say a third, while others say half, and others still say even a greater proportion, of breast cancer cases are preventable, with the general consensus seeming to point to increasingly larger proportions of preventable cases as knowledge and experience grows. One example of new knowledge is the science of epigenetics, as it has been discovered that dietary, lifestyle and environmental factors can control gene expression.

Red grapes contain resveratrol.

So what are some of the things we can use to prevent breast cancer? One of them may be omega-3 fatty acids. To test this link, 103 women with breast cancer and 309 women without the disease, matched by age and season, had their blood levels of omega-3 and saturated fats measured. Compared with the lowest tertile, women in the highest tertile of omega-3 fatty acid consumption had almost half the risk of breast cancer. There was no link between meat and saturated fat consumption and breast cancer. A higher level of EPA was linked to a 73% reduced risk and a higher level of DHA was linked to a 94% reduced risk. Besides reducing inflammation, epigenetics appear to be one way that omega-3 fatty acids could prevent breast cancer. A gene known as EZH2 is over-expressed in several cancers, such as breast cancer, and may contribute to metastasis (spreading) and poor prognosis. Fortunately, cells treated with omega-3 fatty acids have shown reduced expression of EZH2.

It may seem over-done, but resveratrol could be another way to reduce breast cancer risk. In a Swiss study of 369 cases and 602 controls, women in the highest tertile for resveratrol intake had their breast cancer risk cut by 61%! The middle tertile had their risk halved compared to the lowest. There was a significantly lowered risk for resveratrol from grapes - cut by 36-45% - but not for red wine. Alcohol and the general benefits of eating fruit did not influence the results. Resveratrol could also work by changing the expression of genes related to cancer. In women with a high risk of breast cancer, resveratrol increased the expression of a tumour suppressor gene that may be protective.

Carotenoids, found in fruits and vegetables such as tomatoes, mangoes and carrots, may also protect against breast cancer. In a study of over 600 women with breast cancer and over 600 without it, higher blood levels of carotenoids were linked with a halved risk of the disease in women with high mammographic density. A high density indicates more connective and epithelial tissue in the breast, and so a much higher risk of cancer. The carotenoid lycopene, found in tomatoes, has been found to increase the expression of tumour suppressing genes, at levels seen as relevant to dietary intake.

Overall, there are many ways that we can reduce our risk of diseases such as breast cancer. Other foods and nutrients that may be protective are coffee, green tea, fermented soy and vitamin D, as detailed on Life Extension.

Pineapple Leather Anyone?

Every day, more people are turning towards healthy, environmentally-friendly alternatives to products which, to put it bluntly, do result in death and destruction. Polluted air and oceans; the killing of animals; the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals; and the resulting effects on our health are so last year. Life-friendly alternatives are coming into fashion, one of these being "leather" made from pineapple leaves.

Leather expert Carmen Hijosa invented the non-woven pineapple leather, trademarked as Pinatex, in response to the problems with conventional leather production. Unlike cotton, no additional land, water or other resources are required to produce it, as pineapple leaves are typically a waste product. It also gives farmers extra income, which is much-needed in many regions where crops such as pineapples are grown. Where most of the cotton plant is left to die after harvesting, pineapple leather means that all parts of the pineapple plant are used. As well as being sustainable, biodegradable and reusable, the "leather" is very versatile, as it can be cut, molded, painted, dyed, oiled, waterproofed and stitched. Cotton can use up to 20,000 litres of water per kilogram, and conventional farming of the plant is responsible for over 25% of all insecticide and 12% of all pesticide use.

Stylish. Source: TR2HG

Leather, whether it's real or synthetic, is no better. You are not just killing an animal; even if you do eat meat it is a cause for concern, since toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde are used in its production.  The chromium used to produce leather has been found to cause cancer and other issues in both the animals where it is dumped, and in the humans who work with it. When inhaled, chromium increases the risk of asthma, bronchitis, respiratory polyps, enlarged lymph nodes and pharyngitis. It can also cause erosive ulcerations in the skin that do not heal. As for cancers, chromium is now known to cause lung, nasal, testicular, bladder and pancreatic cancer. In fact, Germany has banned the use of the most dangerous form of chromium, Cr+6, in leather production since 2010.

Synthetic leather is usually made from plastic, which comes from petroleum, a finite resource that can become all sorts of toxins. Sometimes, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is involved, a product that contains phthalates among other chemicals. PVC also frequently contains the increasingly unpopular BPA, and is used in making a wide range of products from shoes to catheters to toys. Because of the chlorine content, dioxins are released when PVC is manufactured, burnt or landfilled, and at least one of the dioxins is a carcinogen. Phthalates, BPA and dioxins are also endocrine disruptors, which negatively affect hormone production and activity. With manufacturing and often use of both conventional and synthetic leather being harmful to producers and consumers, why not switch to plant-based substitutes?