Don't panic, advises Jeannette Davidson, as she examines the conflicting health reports that have us all so confused.
>NEWS has been bad for the worried well. Time was when free-floating anxieties used to feed on stories about reds under our beds. Now they flourish on stories about reds in our kitchen cupboards: red meat, red wine, and red herring.
Red meat has commanded more column inches than most. Last September Government guidelines advised us to think about eating less than 90 grams a day. At the same time the British Medical Journal published a study which looked at the diet and health of 3660 UK adults over eight years. It found ''no evidence that frequent consumption of meat is a risk factor for cancer''. The following week the Vegetarian Society ran a high-impact press advert illustrating its view that ''it is much easier to cut out meat then cancer''.
This pot au feu was left to bubble on the fretting foodies' back burner while another alert was raised. Researchers at Harvard analysed the findings of six different studies from northern Europe and north America. According to them, women drinking more than three glasses of wine a day are 41% more likely to get breast cancer than women who are teetotal. Just two days after the Guardian carried this story, the Daily Telegraph reported the findings of a five-year study of men in eastern France. It found that the cancer rate in men drinking two or three glasses of wine a day was 20% lower than in teetotallers or heavy drinkers.
Confused? Keep concentrating. Back to the butchers. This March the Government changed its guidance. Its revised advice to ''average'' meat eaters is that they do not need to change their intake. Only those eating 140 grams or more a day are likely ''to benefit from a reduction''. So run and fetch that casserole back from the charity shop.
But do give it a good scrub before you use it and don't let up on hand washing. Figures released in March for food poisoning cases in 1997 were the highest ever. Even cuddling cats can be bad for you. Swiss scientists report that stomach ulcers caused by Helicobacter heilmanni may be contracted from cats carrying this bug.
Out of the kitchen and into the living room things seem to be just as worrying. For a short time those men who had to buy dogs to take out for walks, so that they could have a cigarette, may have thought they would be allowed to come in from the cold. Partners who banned smoking indoors had their arguments severely shaken for a moment. Last October the Wolfson Institute for Preventative Medicine reported that the cancer risk faced by smokers' families was increased by 25%. Then on the Sunday before the 1998 National No-Smoking Day on March 11, the Sunday Times reported that the World Health Organisation's 10-year study into passive smoking had failed to prove the alleged link between passive smoking and lung cancer in non-smokers. But by the middle of the following week the report of the independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health had confirmed that passive smoking can cause cancer,
heart disease, and contribute to the cause of cot deaths. To top it all, this month it has been asserted that there is a clear link between breast cancer and both active and passive smoking.
So what about the bigger picture? The World Health Organisation's 1997 annual report predicted ''dramatic increases in life expectancy, combined with profound changes in lifestyle, will lead to global epidemics of cancer and other chronic diseases in the next two decades. The main result will be a huge increase in human suffering and disability.''
Accounts of new studies funded, papers presented on work in progress, provisional research findings, and reports from prestigious committees have brought all this much closer to home. They have warned that sunbathing might cause twice as many life-threatening cancers as previously suspected; mobile-phone use might cause brain tumours; too much vitamin C could be harmful; and dental fillings might damage unborn babies. Claims have been made that the ubiquitous MDF could be the asbestos of the nineties. And researchers in Japan have said that diesel fumes contain the most carcinogenic compound ever discovered.
This long stream of panic-inducing pronouncements has been offset to some extent by encouraging newspaper headings like ''Paracetamol curbs cancer'' and ''A green salad a day will keep cancer away''. It can
only be a matter of months before it is suggested that moon water will be the
cure-all we crave. Reports of reliable new remedies for any of our ills have been few. Every other day we hear about discoveries which might lead to cures for the major worries like cancer, eventually.
Meanwhile, what adjustments in lifestyle should the sub-clinical hypochondriac make in the face of all these health-related facts, factoids, and fantasies? The computeratti can surf the web for supporting information and treatment options. But remember the British Medical Journal has warned that public-orientated health care information on the Internet is poor. The rest of us can consult the growing number of health help-lines.
However, the best way to cope with the deluge of news on health and illness research may be simply to accept that the dark side of sharing is scaring. And take it all with a pinch of salt, just a tiny one. Too much salt is bad for you.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article