Author name: Admin

Strength Training During Menopause Can Melt Belly Fat, menopause is a significant…

Content source – www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com

• Water containing PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” may be linked to a higher incidence of various forms of cancer.
• Cancers associated with PFAS-contaminated water include oral cavity/pharynx, brain, thyroid, and endocrine.
• PFAS are a class of thousands of chemicals used in manufacturing and consumer goods. They are known for their water — and stain-resistant qualities.

PFAS, more commonly known as “forever chemicals,” in the water supply in the United States is widespread.

Now, scientists have linked that water containing these chemicals could increase the incidence of multiple forms of cancer.

In a recent study published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, researchers found that PFAS-contaminated water was associated with up to a 33% increase in the incidence of certain cancers, including rare forms.

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl) substances are a class of thousands of chemicals widely used in manufacturing and consumer goods. Prized for their water and stain-resistant properties, PFAS are found in everything from furniture to fast food packaging.

However, those properties also mean that PFAS persist in the environment and the human body. As they linger in the human body, they have a range of deleterious effects in addition to cancer risk. Those risks include harm to reproductive health, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of obesity.

Shiwen Li, PhD, the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, told Healthline that their findings should encourage more interest in the link between PFAS-contaminated water and cancer.

“This is really exploratory and an opportunity to screen for these cancer associations. Our study points in a new direction to some of the cancers that are less studied with PFAS, so it’s really important for other researchers to look at them,” said Li.

Prior research has estimated that PFAS may be found in about 45% of US drinking water supplies. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate PFAS, though that will change in 2029 when the agency begins enforcing maximum contaminant levels for six common PFAS in drinking water.

PFAS led to 33% increase in cancer incidence

Li and his team undertook the large task of sifting through county-level water contamination and ecological data for PFAS using the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Program from 2013 to 2015 and again from 2023 to 2024.

They then compared regions with PFAS levels that exceeded recommendations with cancer data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program from 2016 to 2021. After overlaying these two data sets and controlling for relevant factors like smoking, obesity, and the presence of other pollutants, the researchers found that areas with PFAS contamination experienced higher incidences of different forms of cancer.

Those cancers include digestive, endocrine, oral cavity/pharynx, and respiratory system. The incidence rate varied from 2% up to 33% — with oral cavity/pharynx cancer representing the highest increase. 

Additionally, the cancers associated with PFAS-contaminated water also varied by sex. Males had a higher incidence of the urinary system, brain, soft tissues, and leukemia. Females experienced higher rates of thyroid, oral cavity/pharynx, and soft tissue cancer.

However, these findings should be considered preliminary or exploratory, cautioned Andres Cardenas, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford Medicine. Cardenas wasn’t involved in the study.

“It’s an important study, but it is a little bit limited in the sense that it is ecological in nature, meaning that individual patients were not measured for PFAS. Nor were cancer cases captured individually,” he said.

The study does not establish a causal link between PFAS and cancer.

What are PFAS?

Commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their durable nature, PFAS are chemicals used in manufacturing a wide range of industrial products and consumer goods. These include:

• fire extinguishing foam
• food packaging
• furniture and upholstery
• shampoos and cosmetics
• non-stick cookware
• paint and sealants

“The reason they are so good at making things grease and water resistant is that they have a very strong chemical bond, the fluorine carbon bond. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because of their very long half-life,” said Li.

PFAS can linger in the natural environment for thousands of years and in the human body for three years or more, according to some estimates.

Needless to say, those chemicals building up inside your body aren’t exactly a good thing. PFAS have been linked to a range of health problems, most notably those of the endocrine system. PFAS disrupt the endocrine system, which regulates important bodily functions through the release of hormones.

Through endocrine disruption, PFAS may:

• harm the liver and kidney
• harm reproductive health
• cause tumors and cancer
• increase the risk of obesity
• alter cholesterol levels

How to limit PFAS exposure

Individuals can become exposed to PFAS through the environment, such as drinking water, but also through direct contact with products they use every day.

Due to the widespread use of these chemicals, the best strategies to limit exposure to PFAS aren’t well understood. Here are some steps you can take:

• Look into a local or county-level water report to see if PFAS are monitored where you live.
• Install a water filter to screen for PFAS and other contaminants.
• Limit your exposure to PFAS in food and food packaging by avoiding non-stick products and fast food.

Even with these recommendations in mind, completely limiting PFAS exposure is unlikely. 

“With an exposure that is so prevalent, it’s really difficult to make individual choices every day for you and your family to try to reduce exposure. So this is where we need system level changes and policies to achieve this,” said Cardenas.

Takeaway

PFAS, a class of water-resistant chemicals found in manufacturing and consumer products, contaminate nearly half of U.S. water supplies.

A novel study has now linked PFAS-contaminated water with increased incidence of cancer, including oral cavity/pharynx, brain, and endocrine, up to 33%.

The exploratory study does not establish a causal link between PFAS and cancer but should encourage further research in this area.

It is difficult to avoid PFAS exposure, but individuals may consider installing a water filtration system and avoiding certain products, including fast food packaging and non-stick cookware.

• A new federal report shows that one drink per day could raise the risk of liver damage and several cancers.
• The report follows a recommendation by the U.S. Surgeon General on safe alcohol consumption that highlighted the health risks of moderate drinking.
• Experts generally agree that the less a person drinks, the lower their disease risk and other health issues.
• Safe alcohol consumption may vary from person to person depending on their age, genetic make-up, healthy history, and general lifestyle habits.

A new federal report from a group within the Department of Health and Human Services found that one alcoholic drink per day could raise the risk of negative health effects like liver cirrhosis and several types of cancer.

The findings of the January 14 report, which apply to males and females, come after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued new guidelines for alcohol consumption.

The surgeon general’s recommendation suggests that even moderate alcohol consumption could raise the risk of at least seven types of cancer. Dr. Murthy added that alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, should include warning labels about potential cancer risks, a change that will require congressional approval.

These reports have left many people wondering how much alcohol they can consume without developing serious health issues.

Most experts agree that, in general, the less a person drinks, the lower their risk of adverse health outcomes. Still, the amount of alcohol that’s considered safe can vary from person to person depending on their age, health history, genetic makeup, and general lifestyle habits.

Here’s what you need to know about safe alcohol consumption.

Is moderate drinking safe?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that males have no more than two drinks per day and females have no more than one drink per day. This is the current guidance for moderate drinking.

However, some experts are questioning whether this standard is outdated.

Aashish Didwania, MD, a primary care physician and medical educator at Northwestern University in Illinois, told NPR he believes those recommended levels should be changed.

In addition, an August 2024 study reported the risk of cancer is higher in people who drink moderate amounts of alcohol.

In contrast, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee issued a report last month showing that moderate drinking could lower the risk of death from heart disease and death from any cause. However, that report also associated moderate drinking with a higher risk of breast cancer.

Kristen Kirkpatrick, registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Wellness & Preventive Medicine and president of KAK Consulting, noted that one drink per day equates to seven drinks per week. That amount of alcohol, she told Healthline, could lead to elevated risks of heart disease, brain shrinkage, and higher blood pressure.

Kirkpatrick noted that regular alcohol consumption may also lead to weight gain, which could increase a person’s risk of obesity, cancer, and heart disease. She also pointed out that the definition of “a drink” may vary.

“Many individuals don’t pour an actual serving size (5 ounces for wine, 12 ounces for beer, 1.5 ounces for spirits), so when we say ‘a drink’ for many individuals, it could be 1.5 or 2 drinks, and the more drinks, the more risk may go up,” she said.

Wael Harb, MD, a hematologist and medical oncologist at MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in Fountain Valley, California, said there are risks associated with daily drinking, even in small amounts.

“Even one drink per day can pose health risks, including an increased risk of certain cancers such as breast, esophageal, and colorectal cancer,” Harb told Healthline.

“Alcohol is also associated with a small but measurable impact on liver health and brain function over time. For individuals with underlying health conditions, even moderate alcohol consumption may exacerbate risks, such as higher blood pressure or disrupted sleep patterns. Recent studies suggest that no amount of alcohol consumption is completely risk-free,” he noted.

Cheng-Han Chen, MD, a cardiologist and medical director of the Structural Heart Program at MemorialCare Saddleback Medical Center in Laguna Hills, California, agreed that one drink per day can have adverse health effects.

“Large-scale studies have found that having even just one drink per day is associated with increased risk of developing many different types of cancers, increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and increased overall risk of early death,” he told Healthline.

Keith Humphreys, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at Stanford University in California, was also in agreement. He told Healthline that one drink per day raises the risk of certain cancers, especially for females.

Is a few drinks per week OK?

Experts agree that consuming a single alcoholic beverage just two or three times a week is preferable to having a drink every day.

However, minimizing drinking to this level may still come with health risks for some people.

“One or two drinks per week carries a lower risk compared to daily consumption,” said Harb. “However, even this amount can contribute to cumulative harm over time, including a slight increase in cancer risk. This is particularly true for individuals with genetic predispositions or other risk factors.”

Chen advised drinking as little as possible. “We would consider under two drinks per week to be in the lowest risk category, other than no drinking at all,” he said.

Humphreys said a couple of drinks per week likely carries “very little risk.”

Health effects of binge drinking

Binge drinking is defined as the amount of alcohol it takes to raise a person’s blood-alcohol concentration level to 0.08, the legal definition of being intoxicated in most states.

The amount of alcohol it takes to reach that level depends on the person, what is being consumed, and how quickly.

You can usually hit that level by drinking 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor such as whiskey, vodka, rum, or gin.

For adult males, an episode of binge drinking is considered five drinks in less than two hours. For women, it’s four drinks within that same time period.

Binge drinking can lead to short-term effects such as alcohol poisoning, depression, unsafe driving, and anxiousness. It can also lead to long-term health effects, such as liver disease if done on a regular basis.

A September 2024 study reported that excessive alcohol use was linked to a higher risk of six types of cancer.

With all this in mind, experts say it’s unwise for a person to consume their three or four allotted weekly drinks in one setting.

Kirkpatrick said there are numerous dangers associated with excessive drinking.

“Multiple drinks at one time may be more harmful according to several studies,” she said. “One study found that even moderate drinkers who engaged in binge drinking were more likely to develop alcohol problems. Having more than five drinks in one sitting may also increase the risk of increased mortality.”

“In general, it is better to have one drink per day rather than having several drinks at once during the week, as this minimizes the harmful effects of binge drinking,” added Chen.

“Consuming several drinks at one time (binge drinking) is associated with immediate risks, such as alcohol poisoning, accidents, or injuries, as well as long-term effects on heart and brain health,” said Harb. “Ideally, alcohol consumption should be minimized altogether, or at least limited to infrequent, moderate occasions.”

Humphreys said there are other issues to consider, too.

“Because there are risks unique to being intoxicated (e.g., increased risks of accidents) a lower amount of alcohol on each day of drinking is likely lower risk,” he said.

How much alcohol should you drink?

With all this information and opinion, it might seem tricky to calculate how much alcohol is safe to drink.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism states that some people shouldn’t drink at all, including people who are pregnant, take certain medications, or have medical conditions such as liver disease, diabetes, and abnormal heart rhythms.

Despite the known risks, there have been studies that suggest moderate alcohol consumption, in particular red wine, may have health benefits.

A December 2024 study reported that low to moderate amounts of wine coupled with a Mediterranean diet may lower cardiovascular disease risk.

Similarly, the aforementioned National Academies report concluded that people who drink moderately had lower risks of certain cardiovascular health issues than people who don’t drink at all.

Experts have pointed out that people who drink moderately may have better lifestyle habits, such as a healthy diet and regular exercise, which could factor into their overall health status. In addition, people who don’t drink at all may have had prior difficulties with alcohol misuse that impacted their long-term health.

Regardless, as a general rule of thumb for alcohol intake, less is generally better. “I would advise people to drink as little as possible and preferably not at all,” said Chen.

“Drinking less, even if you consider yourself a ‘light’ or ‘moderate’ drinker, is most likely one of the best things you can do to enhance health,” added Kirkpatrick.

Humphreys noted that alcohol is, in essence, a drug, and people should take that into consideration when deciding how much to drink.

“Take alcohol seriously as a drug with risks. Look honestly at how it is affecting your life and ask for help if you need it to cut down or quit,” he said.

Harb recommended prioritizing other healthy lifestyle habits. “It’s important to focus on a lifestyle that includes healthy nutrition, regular physical activity, and stress management, which are all beneficial to overall well-being without the risks associated with alcohol,” he said.

Takeaway

A new federal report shows that one drink per day is associated with negative health effects, while a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General highlighted cancer risks associated with moderate alcohol consumption. These findings have left many people wondering whether it’s safe to drink at all.

The CDC recommends that males have no more than two drinks of alcohol per day, while females should have one drink or less. Some experts say these guidelines should be modified in light of new evidence, and most experts agree that binge drinking is problematic for health.

The less alcohol a person drinks, the better off they are. Limiting alcohol consumption to just a few drinks per week or avoiding it entirely seems to be the safest recommendation.

• A new report shows that cancer cases are increasing in females and in younger adults in the United States.
• For the first time, cancer rates in females ages 50 to 64 have surpassed those in males, according to the report.
• The reason for these shifts is not clear, but doctors pointed to lack of physical activity, high alcohol consumption and diets high in ultra-processed foods as possible factors.

Cancer death rates decreased by 34% from 1991 to 2022 in the United States, according to a report published January 16 by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

The Cancer Statistics, 2025 report shows this was mainly due to declines in the four most common types of cancer — lung, colorectal, breast and prostate.

However, the rate of new cases of cancer — known as incidence — increased for many types of cancer during this period, including among females and younger adults.

For example, cancer incidence in females ages 50 to 64 years surpassed that of males for the first time, the report found. The cancer rate among females younger than 50 years is now 82% higher than in males, an increase from 51% in 2002.

In addition, among people younger than 65 years, lung cancer incidence is higher among females than males. This is due to differences in women starting smoking and quitting, the report noted.

The report also highlighted that incidence and deaths due to pancreatic cancer continue to increase for both males and females. The 5-year survival rate for people diagnosed with pancreatic exocrine tumors is just 8%. This type accounts for 9 out of 10 cases of pancreatic cancer.

“Pancreatic cancer is hard to diagnose early — there’s no screening test for it, like with colon cancer,” said Nilesh Vora, MD, hematologist and medical oncologist and medical director of the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA. Vora was not involved in the report.

“The treatments for pancreatic cancer haven’t mirrored the advances in treatment we’ve seen in some other cancers, like lung cancer, melanoma and colon cancer,” Vora told Healthline.

Decline in overall cancer deaths

Overall, the report estimates that there will be 2,041,910 new cancer diagnoses in the U.S. in 2025, with 618,120 deaths due to cancer.

In spite of the expected large number of new cancer cases this year, the cancer death rate dropped by 34% between 1991 and 2022. This decrease led to nearly 4.5 million cancer cases being avoided, the report found.

“For individuals diagnosed with a cancer, the mortality rate is continuing to decrease and to decrease quite significantly,” said Kathleen K. Harnden, MD, MBA, medical director of breast oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Fairfax, VA. Harnden was not involved in the new report.

“Men and women who are facing a really difficult time and diagnosis [should know] that the future is bright, and that they are more and more likely to be cured and cancer-free at the other side of their treatment” she told Healthline.

“Our [cancer] treatment regimens and our diagnostic techniques have all gotten better, so we are finding cancer at increased incidence,” said Vora. “But people are also living much longer than they did 30 years ago, so the mortality rate has gone down. That tells me that there are more people living with cancer than there was before,” he added.

Harden noted the availability of advanced multi-disciplinary care — in which patients have access to coordinated care between a surgeon, medical oncologist and radiation oncologist — has also helped improve cancer survival in the United States.

“It makes someone’s care move faster,” she said. “All the physicians are speaking to each other, they review the same information and come up with a multi-pronged approach to someone’s cancer care.”

Lifestyle factors associated with cancer

It’s not clear why females and young people have an increasing burden of cancer in recent years, but experts have identified several possible causes.

“We’ve talked a lot about lack of exercise and increasing obesity. We’ve talked a lot about diet changes,” said Vora. “I don’t think there’s a definitive conclusion that we can draw, but I think those things need to be explored.”

Harden pointed out that “as people are more engaged with their screens, or have positions and roles where they tend to be more sedentary — sitting at a desk and more screen-oriented, even not walking from one office to the other — that increases their risk of cancer.”

“There is also emerging evidence about the role of dietary changes,” she said. “The consumption of more ultra-processed foods may increase cancer risk. The decreased consumption of vegetables can also increase cancer risk.”

Obesity is also a major risk factor for cancer, including for breast cancer and endometrial cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, 10% of cancer cases in females in U.S. are linked to excess body weight, compared to 5% in males.

“I have concerns about the rising rates of obesity, especially in women,” said Harnden. “As obesity increases, [women’s] risk of breast cancer increases in lockstep with each extra five pounds that they have on their body.”

Higher alcohol consumption also increases the risk of several cancers. Oral cavity cancer, breast cancer and liver cancer — all of which saw increasing incidence in the report — are linked to the consumption of alcohol.

Cancer disparities still a concern

The report also highlighted alarming inequalities in cancer death rates. Rates in Native American people are two to three times higher than in white people for kidney, liver, stomach and cervical cancers.

In addition, Black people are twice as likely as white people to die of prostate, stomach and uterine corpus cancers. Black people are also 50% more likely to die from cervical cancer, which is preventable with the HPV vaccine.

“The inequalities in cancer care is always something that’s very humbling to see,” said Harnden. “We need to continue to strive to do better in screening for cancer, making sure that the great screening tools we have are accessible to people of all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.”

“And when those patients do need cancer treatment, we need to make sure that we are ensuring the accessibility of those treatments to everyone,” she said.

Vora mirrored her concern. “A lot of the underserved groups of patients aren’t benefitting from the same progress,” he said, “and that’s probably because we’re still not reaching out to those groups to get them screened and to educate them about cancer treatment and prevention.”

Ways to reduce your cancer risk

Harnden said there are several things people can do to reduce their risk of cancer.

“First and foremost, decrease your alcohol consumption, whatever your starting point is,” she said.

“There’s also very good data around the importance of exercise. But beyond exercise, it is important to be more active overall — take walks during the day, have meetings while you are walking, or incorporate more activity into your daily life,” she continued.

Harnden added that people decrease their consumption of ultra-processed foods and switch to a more plant-based diet.

“For some people, it’s harder to subtract things from the diet,” she said. “Instead, try adding vegetables, particularly cruciferous vegetables — broccoli, cauliflower and things like that — into your diet.”

“For people who still struggle with obesity, I recommend that they have a discussion with a weight loss specialist about considering some of the new tools in obesity management and weight loss, such as GLP-1s,” she suggested.

Takeaway

The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Statistics, 2025 report found that the death rate due to cancer decreased by 34% from 1991 to 2022 in the U.S., due to declines in the four most common types of cancer — lung, colorectal, breast and prostate.

However, the rate of new cancer cases in women aged 50 to 64 surpassed that of men for the first time. Also, the cancer incidence among women younger than 50 years is now 82% higher than in men, an increase from 51% in 2002.

Doctors are uncertain of the exact cause of these trends, but point to alcohol consumption, lack of physical activity and consumption of ultra-processed foods as possible contributing factors.

• The FDA issued a ban on the use of red dye No. 3 in food and beverage products as well as prescription and OTC drugs.
• The synthetic dye has been linked to cancer in animal studies and was banned more than 30 years ago in cosmetics and topical drugs.
• Experts say the FDA’s move is a step forward in improving public health.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a nationwide ban on January 15 that will prohibit the use of red dye No. 3 in food and beverage products and ingested drugs. The ban will take effect in 2027.

The synthetic dye, approved for use in 1907, was banned in cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 over evidence as a potential carcinogen. Red No. 3 has also been found to cause cancer in animals.

Although Red no. 3 is already banned or restricted in several countries in the European Union, as well as Australia and Japan, it’s still found in many commercial products in the U.S.

Known for its trademark cherry hue, red No. 3 is found in many name-brand foods and beverages, from candies to baked goods, snacks, desserts, and fruit-flavored juices and sodas.

Many over-the-counter drugs, such as cough syrups and pain relievers, contain red No.3 as a coloring agent. Prescription medications for weight loss or conditions like acid reflux also contain the dye. Some personal care products, like toothpaste and mouthwash, also list red No. 3 as an ingredient. 

The FDA’s decision to ban red No. 3 follows years of lobbying by public health groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Center for Food Safety, and Environmental Working Group, and a throng of activists who petitioned the FDA to ban the synthetic dye.

The petition cited animal studies that found that rats developed thyroid tumors and cancer when exposed to high doses of red dye No. 3. 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the FDA’s ban a “significant move to protect public health.”

“We wouldn’t be celebrating this historic decision today without the relentless leadership of public health champions like Michael Jacobson and others who took up this fight decades ago on behalf of consumers,” said EWG President and Co-Founder Ken Cook,” said in a statement. Jacobson co-founded CSPI in 1971.

“We all owe a debt of gratitude to Michael and the other early leaders who pushed the FDA to remove toxic chemical ingredients from the nation’s food supply,” Cook added.

Why was red dye No. 3 banned?

Synthetic dyes like red dye No. 3 have been linked to negative health outcomes like cancer.

“The Delaney Clause forbids the FDA from approving any food or color additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals,” Kelsey Costa, a registered dietitian nutritionist and founder of Dietitian Insights, told Healthline.

“By this standard, red dye No. 3 should have been prohibited from use in food decades ago,” she noted.

“This decision aligns with the 2023 California Food Safety Act, which prohibited red dye no. 3 and some other additives deemed unsafe. Following California’s lead, several states have since introduced similar legislation, prompting the federal government to act,” Costa explained.

What are the health risks of red dye?

Costa said that given the potential health risks associated with red No. 3, the FDA’s red dye ban “comes as no surprise.”

“Although animal studies don’t always apply directly to humans, there is limited recent research on humans to assess the potential cancer risks associated with food dyes,” she said.

In addition to animal studies linking red dye No. 3 to cancer, other research has shown a risk of neurobehavioral effects, such as hyperactivity in children, associated with the chemical. This led to a ban in California as other states followed suit.

“Both human clinical trials and animal toxicology studies suggest that synthetic food dyes, including red dye no. 3, may be linked to behavioral impacts in children, highlighting the need for stricter regulatory oversight. The new nationwide ban simplifies enforcement and ensures consistent safety standards across the country, addressing concerns raised by research and public health advocates,” she continued.

Costa explained red dye No. 3 may be of particular concern due to the high levels of exposure among children in the U.S. through artificially colored foods and beverages. 

She cited an analysis of dietary data from 2015 to 2016 suggesting that most food dyes are consumed below the safety limits set by health authorities, except for red dye No. 3. 

“It was among children’s most commonly consumed dyes, and mean exposure levels for the youngest age groups were reported up to 15 times higher than the recommended limit. The FDA’s previous safety limit, known as the acceptable daily intake, for red No. 3 was 2.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day,” she explained.

A step toward improving public health  

Once the ban takes effect on January 15, 2027, manufacturers must replace red No. 3 with an alternative food coloring ingredient that meets FDA requirements. 

Katie Sanger, a registered dietitian at WellTheory, called the FDA’s ban on red dye no. 3 “a step toward improving public health.” 

Sanger told Healthline the shift aligns with the principle of addressing the root causes of chronic health issues, many of which are influenced by dietary and environmental factors. 

“By removing harmful additives we take a proactive step toward reducing the toxic burden on the body,” she said.

While some experts say manufacturers might just swap red No. 3 for red 40, Sanger listed some plant-based derivatives as potential nontoxic substitutes:

• Beet juice: A vibrant red pigment commonly used in natural food products.
• Hibiscus or elderberry extracts: High in antioxidants and provide a natural red hue.
• Annatto or paprika extract: Though typically used for orange or red-orange shades, they can be modified for deeper tones.
• Red cabbage or radish-derived anthocyanins: These are increasingly used in clean-label products and are considered safe.

“While these natural alternatives may not mimic the vibrancy of synthetic dyes, they may be a solution that comes with additional nutrients/antioxidants, rather than introducing potential toxins,” Sanger said.

“The delayed restriction of red No. 3 in foods highlights systemic gaps in the regulation of food additives and the prioritization of industrial convenience over public health. Food additives often remain in use until there is overwhelming evidence of harm, partly due to the influence of powerful lobbying groups,” she concluded.

Takeaway

The FDA will ban the use of red dye No. 3 in food and beverage products, prescription and OTC drugs, and other products, starting in 2027.

The synthetic dye has been linked to cancer and was banned more than 30 years ago in cosmetics and topical drugs.

Despite the lag in banning red No. 3 in foods and ingestible drugs, the FDA’s move could help improve public health.

Experiencing pain in the roof of your mouth can be uncomfortable and…

Content source – www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com

• Dementia cases in the U.S. are expected to double by 2060, and poor diet is considered a risk factor.
• A new study suggests that people who eat more processed red meat have a 13% higher risk of dementia and cognitive decline than those who don’t.
• Swapping one serving of processed red meat for nuts or legumes was associated with a 19% reduced risk of dementia.

The number of new cases of dementia diagnosed in the United States each year is projected to double by 2060, reaching 1 million cases annually.

Various factors drive dementia risk, but there is evidence to suggest that diet may play a role.

A new study has found that those who eat more red meat, particularly processed red meat, may be at higher risk for dementia and cognitive decline compared to those who consume little to no red meat.

The findings build on prior evidence linking processed red meat consumption and dementia risk, which were presented in July 2024 at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Philadelphia. The latest results of this research were published on January 15 in Neurology.

“Red meat is high in saturated fat and has been shown in previous studies to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, which are both linked to reduced brain health,” Dong Wang, MD, ScD, senior author of the study and researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard, said in a press statement.

“Our study found processed red meat may increase the risk of cognitive decline and dementia, but the good news is that it also found that replacing it with healthier alternatives, like nuts, fish and poultry, may reduce a person’s risk.”

Processed red meat increases dementia risk by 13%

For the study, Wang and colleagues enlisted a group of 133,771 people who had an average age of 49. They did not have dementia at the beginning of the study. The group was followed for up to 43 years.

Out of the 133,771 study participants, 11,173 developed dementia.

Every two to four years, participants were asked to keep a food diary detailing what they ate and how often they ate it.

The researchers considered unprocessed red meat as beef, lamb, pork, or hamburger. Processed red meat was defined as:

• hot dogs
• sausages
• salami
• bacon
• bologna
• other processed meat products

A serving size was considered 3 ounces, which is roughly the size of a deck of cards.  

The researchers adjusted for other factors for cognitive decline along with age and sex.

They concluded that participants who were found to eat the highest amount of processed red meat had a 13% greater risk for developing dementia when compared with their peers who ate the lowest amount of meat.

For meat that wasn’t processed, there was no difference in dementia risk between those who ate, on average, less than half a serving per day and those who ate one or more servings a day.

How processed red meat affects cognitive function

Subjective cognitive decline means a person says they have memory or thinking problems before any obvious decline is significant enough to show on standard tests.

To measure this, the researchers examined more than 43,000 people in the group with an average age of 78.

They took surveys twice throughout the study period in which they rated their own thinking skills and memory.

After adjusting for other risk factors, age, and sex, the researchers found that those who ate an average of 0.25 servings or more of processed red meat each day had a 14% higher risk of subjective cognitive decline compared with those who ate an average of less than 0.10 servings of processed red meat a day.

To measure the participants’ objective cognitive function, the researchers enlisted just over 17,000 members of the group to take memory and thinking tests four times throughout the study period. The average age of this group was 74, and the participants were all female.

Objective cognitive functions refer to how well the brain can solve problems, remember, and think.

After adjusting for other risk factors like sex and age, the researchers concluded that eating higher amounts of processed red meat was associated with quicker brain aging in the area of global cognition (overall cognitive ability) by 1.61 years per additional serving of processed red meat daily.

With each additional serving of processed red meat, the area of verbal memory aged 1.69 years. Verbal memory refers to the memory of words and language.

The link between diet and dementia

Experts not involved in the new study say the findings make sense.

“It is not surprising that processed red meats can negatively affect brain health. Processed red meats are often high in fats, sodium, and sugars, which are already known to have adverse effects on the body,” Jasmin Dao, MD, PhD, a pediatric and adult neurologist at Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital Long Beach, CA, and MemorialCare Long Beach Medical Center, told Healthline.

“We are still learning about the diet and dementia connection. Many studies suggest that our diet choices can greatly affect our brain health. Healthy eating has been associated with improvement in our cognitive processing. Conversely, greater ultra-processed foods (those with artificial colorings or additives, high fructose corn syrup) intake can be damaging to the brain cells with corresponding cognitive decline and dementia,” Dao continued.

The study is the latest in a growing body of research examining the health impacts of consuming red and processed red meats.

“It is fairly well known that red meat, and especially processed red meats, are highly inflammatory, are associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and also may increase the risk for plaques in the brain which are associated with dementia and/or cognitive decline,” Dana Hunnes, PhD, a senior dietitian at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, told Healthline.

“An additional relationship is between trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) and its association with increased development of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. The higher sodium content of processed red meats increases blood pressure, reduces blood flow to the brain (cerebral perfusion), and potentially [leads] to vascular dementia. So, given these prior known associations, I’m not surprised at all,” Hunnes added.

Can you eat red meat and still be healthy?

For those who choose to eat red meat, experts say reducing the quantity of meat in the diet can be a good place to start for promoting cognitive health.

The researchers found that swapping one serving of processed red meat a day with a serving of legumes or nuts was associated with a 19% reduced risk of dementia as well as 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging.

Swapping a serving of processed red meat for fish had a 28% reduced risk of dementia, and swapping for chicken had a 16% lower risk of dementia.

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, senior vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, told Healthline that a diet that promotes cognitive health is all about balance. Snyder wasn’t involved in the study.

“We have long encouraged eating a balanced diet — including foods that are less processed to ensure that our bodies get the needed nutrients — because they’ve been associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline. As research continues, we may uncover other dietary patterns that increase or decrease our risk,” Snyder said.

“There isn’t a single food or ingredient that, through rigorous scientific research, has been shown to cause, increase risk, prevent, treat or cure Alzheimer’s or other dementia. It is unlikely that one food will have a significant beneficial or detrimental effect on a disease as complex as Alzheimer’s,” she continued.

Associate professor Michael Woodward, MD, an honorary medical advisor for Dementia Australia and head of Aged Care Research and the Memory Clinic at Austin Health in Melbourne, Australia, told Healthline that diet is an important factor in cognitive health, but red meat is only one part of the puzzle of dementia risk. Woodward was likewise not involved in the study.

“Diet is definitely a protective factor against cognitive decline, and conversely, poor diet puts you at an increased risk. Also weight, which can be related to diet and exercise,” Woodward said.

“Being overweight is a risk factor. If you want to reduce your risk of developing cognitive decline, you need to have as Mediterranean a diet as possible, as many vegetables, fish, legumes, nuts, preferably white meat, such as fish or chicken, olive oil as your preferred oil. The Mediterranean diet is certainly beneficial,” he noted.

“Everybody should look at their diet and work out how well it aligns with a Mediterranean diet. Some red meat is, of course, quite permissible in a Mediterranean diet, but if you’re having large amounts of meat and large amounts of fat and starch with that, that may be something to look at. I would not recommend people automatically eliminate red meat from their diet to reduce their risk of cognitive decline. I don’t think we have enough data for that. I think we need to look at brain health in general, not just red meat consumption,” Woodward concluded.

Takeaway

Dementia cases in the U.S. are expected to double to 1 million new cases a year by 2060, with poor diet considered a risk factor.

Research suggests those who eat more processed red meat may be among those with an increased risk of dementia.

In a study of more than 133,000 people, those who ate the highest amount of processed red meat had a 13% greater risk of developing dementia when compared with their peers who ate the lowest amount of processed red meat.

Swapping one serving of processed red meat a day for nuts, legumes, or fish was associated with a reduction in dementia risk by 19% and 28%, respectively.

Norovirus, often referred to as the “stomach bug,” is a highly contagious…

Content source – www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a serious condition that can lead to…

Content source – www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com