Recipes
 Appetizers
 Barbecue - Grilling
 Beans - Grains
 Breads - Biscuits
 Candy - Snacks
 Canning
 Casseroles
 Cookies - Brownies
 Crock pot
 Desserts
 Drinks
 Ethnic Dishes
 Eggs - Dairy
 Fruits
 Garlic
 Holiday Favorites
 Low Carb
 Meat Dishes
 Pancakes - Muffins
 Pasta
 Pies - Pastries
 Pizza
 Salads
 Sandwiches
 Sauces - Marinades
 Seafood - Fish
 Side Dishes
 Soups - Stews
 Vegetables
 Vegetarian


Subscribe

Enter your email address

Food News  
No link between fat intake, breast cancer

US Groups Urge Ban On 7 Antibiotics From Livestock




No link between fat intake, breast cancer

NEW YORK, Mar 09 (Reuters Health) -- Contrary to conventional theory, a large, long-term study finds no association between levels of dietary fat intake and a woman's risk for breast cancer.

``We found no evidence that lower intake of total fat or specific major types of fat was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer,'' conclude a team of researchers led by Dr. Michelle Holmes of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. Their findings are reported in the March 10th issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Prior studies have produced conflicting results regarding the relationship, if any, between dietary fat and breast cancer. Still, some experts have recommended that women cut their fat intake to less than 20% of daily energy requirements to help reduce their risk for breast cancer.

In their study, one of the longest and largest to date, Holmes' team tracked the 14-year breast cancer incidence of nearly 89,000 women followed as part of the ongoing Nurses' Health Study. As part of the research, each of the women completed detailed dietary questionnaires every 2 years.

The authors found ``no increased risk of breast cancer with increased intake of animal fat, polyunsaturated fat, saturated fat, or trans-unsaturated fat.'' These results held even when the researchers adjusted their findings for factors such as obesity; intakes of folate, fiber, or vitamin E; and utilization of mammography screening.

Based on these results, the Boston team concludes that ''reductions in total fat intake during midlife are unlikely to prevent breast cancer and should receive less emphasis.'' However, they point out that high fat consumption can still pose a substantial risk to cardiovascular health, and advise that ''women's decision(s) about fat intake should be guided primarily by risk of heart disease.''

SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association 1999;281:914-920.




US Groups Urge Ban On 7 Antibiotics From Livestock

By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Health and consumer groups urged U.S. regulators Tuesday to ban the use of certain antibiotics in livestock, saying the practice posed a potential threat to human health.

The 37 groups, led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban seven antibiotics from agricultural use.

The drugs the groups want banned are penicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, tylosin, lincomycin, virginiamycin and bacitracin. All are used for humans and animals. Ten other antibiotics are used exclusively for livestock.

Farmers routinely add doses of antibiotics to livestock feed to help animals grow faster. Some bacteria can eventually outsmart the drugs and become resistant to them.

Humans can then contract infections by eating or handling meat contaminated with the superbugs.

``Agribusiness is recklessly squandering one of the only weapons against deadly bacteria,'' CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson said.

The FDA is considering a plan, opposed by the industry, to make animal drug companies test for resistant bacteria before and after they approach the agency for approval.

Under that plan, the agency could decide to remove a drug from the animal market based on how much resistant bacteria it promoted.

Dr. Stephen Sundlof, head of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said he did not think the FDA had the authority to impose a broad ban of antibiotics in animals as the coalition proposed. The agency must respond to the groups' petition within 180 days.

Industry representatives oppose efforts to remove antibiotics from agricultural use. They support federal efforts under way to monitor the emergence of resistant bacteria but oppose more sweeping changes.

``There is not good scientific data to indicate we need to pull these products,'' said John Keeling, a spokesman for the Animal Health Institute, which represents animal drug makers.

The FDA is taking public comments on its proposals for animal drugs until April and will decide after that whether to change the approval process.

Search


Resources

 Book Store
 Bulletin Boards
 Channel
 Chat
 Conversions
 Dictionary
 Hints and Tips
 Kitchen Necessities
 Product Reviews
 Spices & Herbs
 Substitutions
 Techniques

 Buy Ads Now
 Awards Gallery
 Best of the Web
 Feedback
 Guest Book
 Privacy Policy