Chief Scientist of FSA discredits detox regimes without using any, err, science
Posted on 31 December 2007
With the New Year beckoning and a general feeling that this time of year brings with it a tendency to
Published December 31, 2007 . Filed under: Food and Medical Politics
I am very concerned about your claim that drinking tap water increases the risk of cancer. I try to maintain a healthy lifestylefor myself and my young family, but also for the environment, and therefore try to avoid buying unnecessary plastic and glass packaged items. I live in Paris and we are constantly assured that the tap water is perfectly healthy. My children rarely drink anything else (no fizzy drinks, very little fruit juice and milk) and I was under the impression that that was what’s best for them. The other issue is, of course, expense. I generally buy organic, which has increased my shopping bills to a considerable extent – I really don’t want to have to add huge plastic/glass bottles to the financial and physical load!
Thanks for your blogs. I read them religiously.
January 5, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Hello again,
Waiting anxiously for a reply, & wondering what this body of evidence is…Does it apply to ALL tap water the world over? Does healthy tap water exist in some parts of the world?
Thanks.
January 7, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Daisy – didn’t know you were waiting for a reply, as your original comment doesn’t actually seem to include a question. Or did I miss something?
Here’s some of the evidence linking tap water consumption and with increased risk of cancer (below). I don’t have any data on the quality of tap water in specific countries/regions.
1. Morris RD, et al. Chlorination, chlorination by-products, and cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 1992 82(7):955-63
A simple meta-analysis of all cancer sites yielded a relative risk estimate for exposure to chlorination by-products of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.20). Pooled relative risk estimates for organ-specific neoplasms were 1.21 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.34) for bladder cancer and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.87) for rectal cancer. When studies that adjusted for potential confounders were pooled separately, estimates of relative risks did not change substantially. CONCLUSIONS. The results of this meta-analysis suggest a positive association between consumption of chlorination by-products in drinking water and bladder and rectal cancer in humans.
2. Villanueva CM, et al. Meta-analysis of studies on individual consumption of chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 57(3):166-73
Ever consumption of chlorinated drinking water was associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer in men (combined OR=1.4, 95%CI 1.1 to 1.9) and women (combined OR=1.2, 95%CI 0.7 to 1.8). The combined OR for mid-term exposure in both genders was 1.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.2) and for long term exposure was 1.4 (95%CI 1.2 to 1.7). The combined estimate of the slope for a linear increase in risk was 1.13 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.20) for 20 years and 1.27 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.43) for 40 years of exposure in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of the best available epidemiological evidence indicates that long term consumption of chlorinated drinking water is associated with bladder cancer, particularly in men.
3. Hildesheim ME, et al. Drinking water source and chlorination byproducts. II. Risk of colon and rectal cancers. Epidemiology. 1998 9(1):29-35.
We evaluated the association between chlorination byproducts and colon and rectal cancer risk in a population-based case-control study conducted in Iowa in 1986-1989. Data were gathered from 685 colon cancer cases, 655 rectal cancer cases, and 2,434 controls. We calculated odds ratios for the 560 colon cancer cases, 537 rectal cancer cases, and 1,983 controls for whom water exposure information was available for at least 70% of their lifetime. We estimated exposure to chlorination byproducts with two types of measures: duration of lifetime at residences served by chlorinated water and estimated lifetime trihalomethane exposure. For rectal cancer, we observed an association with duration of chlorinated surface water use, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.1, 1.6, 1.6, and 2.6 for 1-19, 20-39, 40-59, and > or =60 years of exposure, compared with no exposure. Rectal cancer risk was also associated with several different measures of estimated lifetime trihalomethane exposure.
4. King WD, et al. Case-control study of bladder cancer and chlorination by-products in treated water (Ontario, Canada). Cancer Causes Control. 1996 7(6):596-604.
Chlorine is by far the most commonly used chemical for the disinfection of water supplies in North America. However, chlorine reacts with organic material in the raw water producing a number of halogenated hydrocarbon by-products. This population-based case-control study in Ontario, Canada examined the relationship between bladder cancer and exposure to chlorination by-products in public water supplies. Residence and water source histories and data from municipal water supplies were used to estimate individual exposure according to water source, chlorination status, and by-product levels (represented by trihalomethane [THM] concentration). Exposures were estimated for the 40-year period prior to the interview, using 696 cases diagnosed with bladder cancer between 1 September 1992 and 1 May 1994 and 1,545 controls with at least 30 years of exposure information. Odds ratios (OR) adjusted for potential confounders were used to estimate relative risk. Those exposed to chlorinated surface water for 35 or more years had an increased risk of bladder cancer compared with those exposed for less than 10 years (OR = 1.41, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.81). Those exposed to an estimated THM level > or = 50 micrograms/liter for 35 or more years had 1.63 times the risk of those exposed for less than 10 years (CI = 1.08-2.46). These results indicate that the risk of bladder cancer increases with both duration and concentration of exposure to chlorination by-products, with population attributable risks of about 14 to 16 percent. Chlorination by-products represent a potentially important risk factor for bladder cancer.
5. Cantor KP, et al. Bladder cancer, drinking water source, and tap water consumption: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987 79(6):1269-79.
Data from a population-based case-control interview study of incident bladder cancer in 10 areas of the United States were used to estimate relative risks among white men (2,116 cases, 3,892 controls) and women (689 cases, 1,366 controls) according to beverage intake level and type of water source. Individual year-by-year profiles of water source and treatment were developed by linking lifetime residential information with historical water utility data from an ancillary survey. Risk of bladder cancer increased with intake level of beverages made with tap water. The odds ratio (OR) for the highest vs. lowest quintile of tap water consumption was 1.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23, 1.67; chi 2 for trend = 26.3, P less than .001]. The risk gradient with intake was restricted to persons with at least a 40-year exposure to chlorinated surface water and was not found among long-term users of nonchlorinated ground water. The ORs for the highest vs. lowest quintiles of tap water intake were 1.7 and 2.0, respectively, among subjects with 40-59 and greater than or equal to 60 years’ exposure. Duration of exposure to chlorinated surface water was associated with bladder cancer risk among women and nonsmokers of both sexes. Among non-smoking respondents with tap water consumption above the population median, the OR increased with exposure duration to a level of 3.1 (CI = 1.3, 7.3; chi 2 for trend = 6.3, P = .01) for greater than or equal to 60 years of residence at places served by chlorinated surface water (vs. non-chlorinated ground water users). These results extend findings of earlier epidemiologic studies and are consistent with environmental chemistry and toxicologic data demonstrating the presence of genotoxic by-products of chlorine disinfection in treated surface waters.
January 7, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Hi Dr Briffa, I never drnk tap water, usually just Evian but am concerned about the vinyl bottles. Do they leach PCBs into the water? Hilda
January 7, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Yes, you’re quite right. I expressed myself very badly in my panic! I’ve sent this to a friend at the OECD to try and get some data on Parisian water, but in the meantime, am I right in thinking that it is specifically chlorine that is the problem? Don’t water filters solve this? Isn’t that a better option than expensive, environmentally unfriendly bottled water?
Thanks again for your very informative and often entaining blog
January 9, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I meaan, of course, entertaining…
January 9, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
I have never heard any official advice telling us that tap water causes cancer. For example, see the following leaflet from the British Dietetic Association:
http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/070606_fluid.pdf
Are you saying we should avoid tap water or we will increase our risk of geting cancer? Thanks.
Regards
Lee
January 26, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
LeeT
First of all, I didn’t claim that drinking tap water ’causes’ cancer. The science shows there is an association.
Secondly, you say you haven’t seen official recommendations raising this issue. So what? I suppose you might be cynical about my stance if I were not able to produce some science to support it. But I have.
My suggestion is, for the best health, to avoid as much as is possible water that is chemically tainted. This advice comes partly on the grounds of common sense but also science (see above for some of it). Do you object to this advice for some reason, and if so, why?
January 27, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Dr Briffa
As a member of the public with no scientific training I rely on official guidance from organisations like “The Food Standards Agency” and “The British Dietetic Association.” How else am I to make decisions about what I eat and drink? How am I know whether the water I drink in the south of England is chemically tainted? Is it not reasonable to trust that it is treated in such a way as to minimise any harm coming to those that drink it?
Kind regards,
Lee
January 27, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Lee
January 27, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
[...] [1] http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/12/31/chief-scientist-of-fsa-discredits-detox-regimes-without-usin... [...]
January 31, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Detoxing is simply the only way to maximise our health as well as to lose weight we need to clean our bodies minds and spirits in order to experience real health and vitality.
Doctors dont know everything what they do is great but they canot say that something does not work
May 11, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
John,
having just watched the video-on-demand of Food Standards Agency board held 8/12/2009 I do derive some optimism.
The Food Standards Agency has just published its’ Food Strategy Plan for 2010 – 2015 and it is available online as a .pdf. Board meeting was largely a review of the year, a look at the future plan and how to implement it.
To the end of implementation FSA Chief Scientist, Dr Andrew Wadge, presented his departments’ written plan of how it should deliver the aspirations of the overall plan. THE FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY
December 9, 2009 @ 8:01 pm