Newborns of non-smoking moms exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy have genetic mutations that may affect long-term health, according to a University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health study published online in the Open Pediatric Medicine Journal. The abnormalities, which were indistinguishable from those found in newborns of mothers who were active smokers, may affect survival, birth weight and lifelong susceptibility to diseases like cancer.

The study confirms previous research in which study author Stephen G. Grant, Ph.D., associate professor of environmental and occupational health at Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, discovered evidence of abnormalities in the HPRT gene located on the X chromosome in cord blood from newborns of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

In the current study, Dr. Grant confirmed smoke-induced mutation in another gene called glycophorin A, or GPA, that is representative of oncogenes – genes that transform normal cells into cancer cells and cause solid tumors. The GPA mutation was the same level and type in newborns of mothers who were active smokers and of non-smoking mothers exposed to tobacco smoke. Likewise, the mutations were discernable in newborns of women who had stopped smoking during their pregnancies, but who did not actively avoid secondhand smoke.

“These findings back up our previous conclusion that passive, or secondary, smoke causes permanent genetic damage in newborns that is very similar to the damage caused by active smoking,” said Dr. Grant. “By using a different assay, we were able to pick up a completely distinct yet equally important type of genetic mutation that is likely to persist throughout a child’s lifetime. Pregnant women should not only stop smoking, but be aware of their exposure to tobacco smoke from other family members, work and social situations.”

Literature: University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, Exposure to secondhand smoke in the womb has lifelong impact, June 30, 2010

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Depressive Symptoms
• Second Hand Smioking results in Liver Disease, UCLA Study finds
• Male Reproductive Organs are at Risk from Environmental Hazards
• Majority of US hospitals will have smoke-free campuses by end of year
• 2009 edition of the Tobacco Atlas catalogues catastrophic toll of tobacco worldwide

Organic Trade Association (OTA) hails panel for empowering consumers with ways to reduce their cancer risk

GREENFIELD, Mass., May 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The President’s Cancer Panel Report released today exhorts consumers to choose food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, and growth hormones to help decrease their exposure to environmental chemicals that can increase their risk of contracting cancer. Organic products avoid the use of these chemicals.

“Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers… Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these medications,” according to the landmark report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now,” submitted to President Obama by Dr. LaSalle Leffall, Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret L. Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Organic production and processing is the only system that uses certification and inspection to verify that these chemicals are not used on the farm all the way to our dinner tables,” said  Christine Bushway, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).

Organic production is based on a system of farming without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) and synthetic fertilizers. Organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, genetic engineering and other excluded practices, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Organic foods are minimally processed without artificial ingredients, preservatives, or irradiation to maintain the integrity of the food. In addition, animal confinement in feedlots is prohibited.

“Consumers should know that organic foods have the least chemicals applied in their production and the least residues in the final products. Thus, those seeking to minimize their exposure to these chemicals and follow the recommendations of the President’s Cancer Panel, can look for the USDA Organic label wherever they shop,” said Bushway.

“The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures,” the panel wrote in a letter to President Obama. It added, “The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

It added, “Many known or suspected carcinogens first identified through studies of industrial and agricultural occupational exposures have since found their way into soil, air, water and numerous consumer products… Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.”

“OTA is gratified to see a prestigious scientific panel recognize what the organic farmers and the organic community have realized about environmental health and organic agriculture for decades, and we applaud them for taking on this critical issue,” Bushway added.

The full report: Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk

Researchers have developed a novel animal model showing that four commonly used chemotherapy drugs disrupt the birth of new brain cells, and that the condition could be partially reversed with the growth factor IGF-1. 

Published early online in the journal Cancer Investigation, the University of Rochester Medical Center study is relevant to the legions of cancer survivors who experience a frustrating decline in cognitive function after chemotherapy treatment, known as chemo-brain. 

“It is not yet clear how our results can be generally applied to humans but we have taken a very significant step toward reproducing a debilitating condition and finding ways to treat it,” said Robert Gross, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Neurology and of Pharmacology and Physiology at URMC and principal investigator of the study. 

Chemo-brain is a newly recognized condition. The URMC team found surprising data about how the four drugs impact the brain, Gross said, and they are the first to report that the experimental insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, may be beneficial. 

The study was funded by a Department of Defense grant to Gross and by the National Cancer Institute to co-investigator and lead author, Michelle Janelsins, Ph.D., research assistant professor of Radiation Oncology at the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center. 

More than 11 million Americans are living today after receiving a cancer diagnosis. Many of them have endured chemotherapy and although the side effects during treatment are well known, the lingering neurological effects are more puzzling. Patients often report memory lapses, trouble concentrating, confusion, difficulty multi-tasking and slow thinking for weeks, months or years after treatment ends. 

The URMC team hypothesized that cognitive problems might stem from chemo destroying the ability of brain cells to regenerate in the hippocampus, which is primarily involved in memory formation and mood. They sought a way to find the mechanisms at work and to manage the adverse effects on the brain before, during and after chemotherapy treatment. 

Researchers also hypothesized that chemotherapy drugs known to cross the blood-brain barrier would be a bigger threat to brain cells than drugs that do not cross the blood-brain barrier. To test the hypothesis, they investigated the effects of routinely used doses of cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, which do cross into the brain, against paclitaxel and doxorubicin, which do not. 

Unexpectedly, all four drugs caused a significant breakdown in brain cell proliferation in the animal model. A statistical analysis of cell regeneration showed a 15.4 percent reduction in new brain cells following fluorouracil, a 30.5 percent reduction following cyclophosphamide, a 22.4 percent reduction following doxorubicin, and a 36 percent reduction following paclitaxel. 

“It could be that all of the chemo drugs cross into the brain after all, or that they act via peripheral mechanisms, such as inflammation, that could open up the blood-brain barrier,” Gross said. 

“Neurogenesis can also be altered by stress, sleep deprivation and depression, all of which are common among cancer patients,” added Janelsins. “More thorough studies are needed to understand the interplay of these factors and the long-term effects of chemotherapy on the brain.” 

Researchers conducted a second study of a single high dose of cyclophosphamide, a mainstay of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, because chemo-brain is a frequent complaint of people receiving this drug. The single high dose resulted in a 40.9 percent reduction in newly divided brain cells, the study said. 

In previous studies the experimental growth hormone IGF-1 had demonstrated that it could generally promote new brain cell development within the central nervous system. Thus, investigators chose to test its effect in the animal model. 

They administered IGF-1 prior to and following a conventional cyclophosphamide multiple-dose regimen, and a single, high-dose of cyclophosphamide. The IGF-1 seemed to increase the number of new brain cells in both models, but was more effective in the high-dose model, the study concluded.

The research team plans to conduct additional studies which will allow them to further test the impact of IGF-1 and other related interventions on the molecular and behavioral consequences of chemotherapy. 

Literature: University of Rochester Medical Center, UR study reveals chemo’s toxicity to brain, possible treatment, December 17, 2009

Study shows deterioration in brain function following breast cancer therapy has negative effects on quality of life

One of the most problematic side effects of cancer treatment, chemobrain – a range of symptoms including memory loss, inability to concentrate, difficulty thinking and other subtle cognitive changes following chemotherapy – seriously diminishes women’s quality of life and daily functioning. As a result, they have to adopt a range of coping strategies to manage their restricted social and professional lives.

Breast cancer survivors tell their story in a descriptive study (1) of the effects that cognitive impairment has on women’s work, social networks and dealings with the health care profession. Dr. Saskia Subramanian from the UCLA Center for Culture and Health in the US and her colleagues have just published their work online in Springer’s Journal of Cancer Survivorship.

An increasing number of women survive breast cancer, yet survival comes at a price. Mild cognitive impairment following chemotherapy, known as “chemobrain” or “chemofog” is one of the most commonly reported post-treatment symptoms by breast cancer survivors. Dr. Subramanian and colleagues’ work shows that this deterioration in brain function has devastating effects on breast cancer survivors’ quality of life.

Through a combination of focus groups and in-depth interviews among 74 women who had completed their course of cancer treatment at least a year earlier, the researchers gathered data on patients’ medical background, treatment experience, post-treatment symptoms, reactions from medical staff and from family and friends, self-management, strength of social networks and their perceptions of themselves.

The women described a variety of cognitive changes which they found both frustrating and upsetting. Some were less able to retain material or to digest new information and recognized that they were not functioning as they once did. Others faced reduced independence, becoming limited in their ability to manage certain responsibilities or get around. These changes made women feel scared, dependent and emotionally drained. For some, coping meant having to cut back on work and social activities. Others had more or less accepted the limitations put on their lives and resigned themselves to a diminished cognitive capacity.

The majority of women complained about the lack of acknowledgement from the medical community when they mentioned their chemobrain symptoms. Many women wished they had received some warning and only a few got answers from their physicians. Some women felt that chemobrain confused their families and friends, and young children in particular.

Chemobrain also affected women’s performance at work. Because they were less able to focus, duties became more difficult and often took longer. This affected their efficiency and reduced their chances of promotion or assignment to projects.

The authors conclude: “These data underscore the very serious ways in which chemobrain can affect the life experiences of cancer survivors – emotionally, psychologically and economically. A clear understanding of the cognitive impairments experienced by survivors will aid researchers in developing targeted therapies and interventions aimed at improving or mitigating these post-treatment side effects.”

Reference:   Boykoff N, Moieni M, Subramanian S (2009). Confronting chemobrain: an in-depth look at survivors’ reports of impact on work, social networks, and health care response. Journal of Cancer Survivorship; DOI: 10.1007/s11764-009-0098-x

As we watched each of our five grandchildren and their friends enter this world and begin their life’s journey, it became more and more clear that something is amiss with this generation.  How are your children and your friend’s children doing?

In the United States, one of three of the children in this generation suffers from a chronic illness.  Perhaps it’s cancer, or birth defects, perhaps asthma, or a problem that affects the child’s mind and behavior, such as Downs Syndrome, learning disorders, ADHD or autism.  Though one in three may sound exaggerated, unbelievable, the figures are there amidst various government files.

This generation is different.  Childhood cancer, once a medical rarity, has grown 67 percent since 1950.  Asthma has increased 140 percent in the last twenty years and autism rates without a doubt have increased at least 200 percent.  Miscarriages and premature births are also on the rise, while the ratio of male babies dwindles and girls face endometriosis even in teenage.

The generations born from 1970 on are the first to be raised in a truly toxified world.  Even before conception and on into adulthood, the assault is everywhere: heavy metals and carcinogenic particles in air pollution; industrial solvents, household detergents, prozac and radioactive wastes in drinking water; pesticides in flea collars; artificial growth hormones in beef, arsenic in chicken; synthetic hormones in bottles, teething rings and medical devices; formaldehyde in cribs and nail polish, and even rocket fuel in lettuce.   Pacifiers are now manufactured with nanoparticles from silver, to be sold as “antibacterial.”  What’s wrong with rinsing a pacifier in soapy water?

Despite naysayers (who pays them to say nay? ”that’s a whole story in itself), it’s clear there is both an association and a causative connection between the vast explosion of poisons in our everyday lives and our children’s “issues.”  Over 80,000 industrial chemicals (tested only by the manufacturer) are in commerce in this country, produced or imported at 15 trillion pounds a year.   Pesticide use has leapt from the troubling 400 million pounds Rachel Carson wrote about in the 1960s to the mind-boggling 4.4 billion pounds in use today.   Nuclear power plants, aging and under-maintained, increasingly leak wastes, often without notifying their community.

What could be more elemental than our desire to protect our children.  Children and fetuses, because of their undeveloped defense systems, are ten to sixty-five times more susceptible to specific toxics than adults.  These toxics diminish the capacities of our children…the future of our families, our communities, our nation, and yours.

Illness does not necessarily show up in childhood.  Environmental exposures, from conception to early life, can set a person´s cellular code for life and can cause disease at any time, through old age. This accounts for the rise in Parkinson´s and Alzheimer´s diseases, prostate and breast cancer.

Yet this is not the dispiriting “Bad News” it might seem.  It is, actually, a message of hope and optimism.  We are fearful only when we are ignorant and powerless.  Now that we know what is happening, we can determine not to let it happen further.

These poisons are manmade; manufacturers can take them out of our children´s lives and make profits from safe products.  “Green chemistry” can replace toxic molecules with harmless ones.  We can connect global climate change actions to environmental health strategies.  If we replace coal-fired power, in the process we reduce not only carbon but also emissions of the tons of lead, mercury, hydrochloric acid, chromium, arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause autism, Alzheimer’s and other public health menaces.

We cannot bury our heads and hope it will all go away.  We cannot leave the job to someone else.  Some may feel the problem is so massive, it’s best to pretend it doesn’t exist.  But it isn’t more massive than we allow it to be.  It’s totally within our reach.

Here America, we look to Europe for ideas and strategies you have used, for the research coming out of your universities, for an understanding of the politics that enable your governments to pass strong environmental health laws.  The weed killer named atrazine in the U.S., made by Syngenta, a Swiss company, has never been approved for use in Europe.  But in the U.S., it is used on tens of millions of acres of farmland, on our lawns, gardens, parks, and golf courses.   Why?  And why has Europe begun screening chemicals under the REACH program, while industry in the U.S. has successfully opposed it?

Learning from each other, we can make each other smarter and stronger.  It is in our power to learn about what harms our children, to share our knowledge, and to demand action.

Author: Alice Shabecoff for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, September 14, 2009

–

Alice Shabecoff is the co-author with her husband Philip of Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on our Children, published by Random House last year.  See their website, www.poisonedprofits.com.