The serious diseases caused by toxic chemicals in your food and water
The report reveals that over 3,600 synthetic chemicals, including dangerous PFAS, are present in human bodies globally, with PFAS found in almost everyone tested.
Strong links have been established between chemical exposure and severe health issues, including escalating cancer rates, declining fertility, obesity, and neurological disorders, with pesticide use potentially rivalling smoking's impact on cancer.
The production of persistent chemicals has led to widespread contamination, breaching a 'safe planetary boundary,' with PFAS found globally in rainwater and human blood.
Researchers are calling for urgent, coordinated international action and better standardisation to manage synthetic chemicals, stating the current approach is 'inadequate' and 'misunderstood.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
ChatGPT set for new updates in response to rising usage
OpenAI is urgently addressing concerns that ChatGPT fails to recognise and appropriately respond to users experiencing mental or emotional distress. Reports indicate that people are increasingly using ChatGPT for mental health support, but the system has been criticised for encouraging users' delusions and failing to challenge their assumptions. The company is implementing improvements to its models to better recognise signs of delusion or emotional dependency and will introduce alerts for users engaged in long sessions. ChatGPT will now aim to guide users through complex personal decisions, such as relationship advice, rather than providing direct answers. OpenAI is collaborating with medical experts, a mental health advisory group, and researchers to enhance the system's ability to spot concerning behaviour and respond effectively.
Medical News Today
2 hours ago
- Medical News Today
Popular artificial sweetener may negatively affect cancer immunotherapy
Non-sugar, or artificial, sweeteners are widely used to reduce the energy in sweetened foods and drinks, particularly those marketed as diet, or low or no concerns about their possible health effects include links to gastrointestinal problems, metabolic effects, and even increased cancer a study has found that one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, sucralose, could adversely affect cancer researchers suggest that by changing the gut microbiome, sucralose decreases the effectiveness of immunotherapy for several cancers. Health concerns regarding sucralose have mainly centered around its potential to cause systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular a study suggests that people whose diet includes large amounts of sucralose, e.g., from diet drinks, respond less well to cancer immunotherapy than those who consume less or none of the research, which is published in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association of Cancer Research, found that sucralose changed the gut microbiota so bacteria degraded an amino acid, arginine, that immune cells need to be able to destroy cancer are experts worried about sucralose?Sucralose is one of six non-sugar sweeteners approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as additives in the food and drinks industry — the others are aspartame, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium (Ace-K).It is made by replacing 3 hydroxyl (oxygen and hydrogen) groups in sucrose (table sugar) molecules with chloride resulting sucralose is up to 650 times sweeter than sucrose and, because people cannot digest it, contains no accessible energy. Therefore, it is widely used to sweeten foods and drinks, as well as being sold as an alternative to sugar for those trying to decrease their energy intake. However, there are concerns, both about its health effects and its efficacy for helping weight loss. In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised that non-sugar sweeteners should not be used for weight control, saying that: 'Replacing free sugars with NSS [non-sugar sweeteners] does not help with weight control in the long term. […] NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.'Investigating the sucralose-cancer linkDiwakar Davar, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and a medical oncologist and hematologist at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, senior author of the study, told Medical News Today:'We think this finding is highly significant as it could have immediate positive impacts on cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. The fact that we not only identified sucralose as a potential problem for those receiving immunotherapy, but that we also found a way to fix this problem through arginine supplementation is exciting and something that could be put into clinical practice easily.'According to Jack Jacoub, MD, a board certified medical oncologist and medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast and Saddleback Medical Centers in Orange County, CA, who was not involved in this research, the findings were significant.'Frankly, this is a superb piece of scientific work,' Jacoub told MNT. 'The authors were able to study preclinical models (mice) and draw conclusions related to the effect of high sucralose intake on T-cell function tumor response to immunotherapy.''They then took this understanding and later tested it in prospective enrolled patients with lung cancer and melanoma. They showed that patients consuming sucralose greater than 0.16 mg/kg/d [milligram per kilogram per day] had inferior response to immunotherapy,' he explained.'Recognizing the significance of arginine on T cell functions they then went back to the mouse model and proved giving it restored T cell function and benefit to immunotherapy in mice. In my opinion, this is high quality evidence suggesting this absolutely needs more exploration,' added decreased immune responseIn their study, the researchers included 132 patients who had undergone immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy for advanced/metastatic melanoma or advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They also included 25 patients who had high-risk resectable melanoma. All participants had completed a Diet History Questionnaire III (DHQ III), had received at least 3 months of treatment, had at least one post-treatment imaging study evaluable for response and had been followed up for at least 6 months from the start of the diet questionnaire, researchers calculated each patient's non-nutritive sugar (NNS) intake (mg/day) and divided it by their weight in kg to get a weight-normalized average daily intake of mg/kg/ with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer who consumed high levels of sucralose (more than 0.16mg/kg/day) had a worse response to immunotherapy, and poorer survival rates, than those with diets low in the artificial whether people undergoing cancer immunotherapy should try to avoid sucralose in their diets, lead author Abby Overacre, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, told MNT:'We are working on future prospective clinical trials to ask these sorts of questions for patients undergoing immunotherapy. Based on what we know so far, we would recommend that patients minimize intake of non-nutritive sweeteners, particularly sucralose.'Jacoub agreed with this assessment, saying that: 'This is enough information for me to recommend this to my patients. Frankly, we are talking about cancer and giving up diet soda, etc. is not difficult and directly goes to the question patients and their family commonly ask every day when I see them which is 'What can I do to help treat my cancer?'.'It is important to note that the research is still in the early stages, and this may not apply to all cancer microbiota changes reduced T-cell activityThe researchers then carried out tests in two mouse models of cancer to determine how high sucralose consumption reduced the immunotherapy found that mice fed sucralose were resistant to immunotherapy, had significantly increased tumor growth, less CD8+ T cell infiltration, and were more likely to T-cells are immune cells that produce the most powerful anti-cancer response, so their reduced function meant the immunotherapy was less effective. In the sucralose-fed mice, the researchers discovered changes in the gut microbiota, with greater numbers of gram positive bacteria that degraded arginine, an amino acid that is essential for T-cell production.'Gram positive bacteria have been associated with poorer immunotherapy efficacy in previous studies. However, we are very focused and interested in the function of these bacteria in hopes to better understand how they may directly contribute to cancer growth and immunotherapy response.'— Abby Overacre, PhDArginine supplements may counteract sucralose's effectsWhen researchers fed arginine or citrulline (which is metabolized in the body to arginine) to the mice, immunotherapy became effective again. They suggest that arginine or citrulline supplements could be given to people undergoing cancer immunotherapy to counteract the effect of sucralose in their diet. But could people undergoing cancer immunotherapy get enough arginine from their diet?'While there are certainly foods that are higher in arginine, especially in diets associated with better immunotherapy responses (nuts/seeds, poultry, lentils, fruits), a supplement may help those who struggle to achieve a high amount or arginine from diet alone,' Overacre told addition to continuing their research into sucralose and immunotherapy, the researchers hope to investigate whether other non-nutritive sweeteners have similar effects.'We hope that this study can help patients currently receiving immunotherapy. Importantly, this gives patients something they can do themselves or alongside their physicians to potentially improve their overall care.'— Abby Overacre, PhD
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk
Health emergencies rarely respect borders or budgets. As I write, the world is facing an antibiotic emergency, with bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to the treatments we depend on to counter infectious diseases. Without effective antibiotic treatments, global health and the global economy are defenceless against the likes of pneumonia and sepsis. Antibiotics are the infrastructure of modern medicine, making chemotherapy, caesarean sections and hip replacements possible. More than 1.1million people die across the world every year because of antibiotic resistance, including 35,000 in the UK alone. These trends are increasing and inter-generational, with deaths in children tripling in the last three years. For the last decade, the UK has been at the forefront of global efforts to tackle the wider threat posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While antibiotic resistance poses the single biggest threat to modern medicine, AMR points to a serious problem for all types of antimicrobial agents – antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitics – threatening to reverse all the significant gains we've made against HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The UK's Fleming Fund has been a bulwark against such threats: building laboratory capacity in 25 low- and-middle-countries to detect emerging AMR outbreaks, allowing for proactive, data-driven responses before they escalate into global crises. Among many other things, the Fleming Fund has tripled the genomic sequencing capacity across the entire African continent – which even pivoted to detect Covid-19 variants. The UK government's decision to shut down the Fleming Fund is a false economy and directly puts our national security at risk. It will cost lives, as well as precious GDP that could be spent on frontline NHS services. If we are to learn any lessons at all from Covid-19, it should be that we cannot afford to cut corners when it comes to preventing and preparing for inevitable pathogenic threats. Bold investment to protect against AMR Decisions made today will directly impact our ability to counter and contain AMR pandemics in the very near future. When I was Chancellor in 2023, the Treasury recognised the economic health ramifications of AMR, and the UK government commissioned economic studies to better understand the risks and opportunities. The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation found that if AMR resistance accelerates in line with poorer-performing countries, the world faces an additional seven million deaths globally by 2050. The Center for Global Development then estimated that economically, this would wipe $1.7 trillion annually off global GDP by 2050 and it will cost $175 billion extra a year for health systems to treat people. Country-level estimates released recently estimate that the British economy would be $59 billion smaller in this scenario and the UK would spend an additional $2.8 billion a year treating superbugs. $296 billion and $188 billion would be wiped off the US and EU economies respectively. In contrast, this research shows that there would be large economic benefits to the UK and elsewhere if we invest in improving the treatment of infections. With the UK economy facing significant challenges and the NHS workforce facing rising pressures, now is the time to act boldly and invest proactively to protect against AMR. Whilst the UK alone cannot solve AMR, the UK can and should leverage its world-leading technical expertise and diplomatic leadership through the Fleming Fund, its Special Envoy on AMR, Dame Sally Davies, and other global investments in AMR. Even in a world where only 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) is earmarked for international aid funding, there must be a budget line for AMR. If we are to drive economic growth and build resilience against health threats at home and abroad, we need decisive action with investments that put health security first. With an evolved Fleming Fund, we can mitigate against the worst effects of AMR by supporting research and development of new antibiotics, increasing access to treatments in countries where lack of access accelerates resistance, embedding large-scale education and training programmes to ensure the sustainable and responsible use of existing antibiotics, and harnessing AI for diagnostic tests and surveillance for the UK and the countries most severely impacted by AMR. A world without the Fleming Fund puts even greater pressure on UK government and the life sciences sector to find new ways to prepare for the pandemics we already detect and those we are yet to detect, to safeguard UK health and economic security. Now is the time for the government to step up.
