Wellness Warriors

Glyphosate linked yet again to cancer
The w**d-killing chemical is in the spotlight for its health risks yet again.
You might have never heard of glyphosate before, but you probably have some in your garage or basement. It’s the active ingredient in herbicides and w**d killers, and now scientists in the US have found that people exposed to it have biomarkers (a naturally occurring molecule or gene found in body fluids or tissues) linked to the development of cancer and other diseases.
In their study, the researchers analyzed urine levels in farmers across the US and found that the high levels of the pesticide were linked with signs of a reaction in the body called oxidative stress that causes damage to DNA. Cancer initiation and progression have been linked in previous studies to oxidative stress by increasing DNA mutations or inducing DNA damage.

“Glyphosate is the most widely applied herbicide worldwide, and its use has been associated with increased risks of certain hematopoietic cancers,” the study reads. “Our findings contribute to the weight of evidence supporting an association between glyphosate exposure and oxidative stress in humans and may inform evaluations of the carcinogenic potential of this herbicide.”

Glyphosate and cancer risks
Since it was invented in the 1970s, glyphosate has been used in hundreds of commercial products. One of the best-known ones is the herbicide Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto. The product has been under scrutiny by scientists around the world, especially since the World Health Organization said in 2015 it could be carcinogenic to humans.

Last year, researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of urine samples taken from children and adults had traces of glyphosate. They analyzed over 2,300 urine samples and found 1,885 had detectable traces of glyphosate, with concentrations of oxidative stress biomarkers rising alongside increasing urinary glyphosate levels.

Although WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans, this assessment is not shared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.” Meanwhile, the European Food Safety Authority agrees — but only for now. The EU is now reviewing these new findings and is considering whether or not to include them in their new glyphosate assessment, whose conclusions are due in July.

In 2019, another study by the University of Washington found that using glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma by 41%. The analysis of human epidemiological studies “suggests a compelling link” between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and a higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the researchers argued.

Herbicide manufacturers have rejected all the accusations while agreeing to settlements of lawsuits. In 2020, Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, settled most of the current and possible future lawsuits for $10 million. Bayer said back then that the “extensive body of science indicates that Roundup doesn’t cause cancer and isn’t responsible for the illnesses.”

Responding to the new study, Bayer told The Guardian the study has “significant methodological limitations” that affect its reliability. The company said the increased oxidative stress found by the researchers could have been caused by other factors not related to glyphosate. “The study doesn’t support that glyphosate is the cause,” the company said.

Electric chopsticks can make food seem saltier and get you eating healthier
Japanese researchers have created the device in an attempt to get people to eat less salt.
A team of researchers in Japan has developed a set of electric chopsticks that uses electrical stimulation to make food taste 50% saltier. The technology, which brings out the sodium ions from the food, could be used by people who like salty food but want to reduce their salt intake.
A gadget that alters salt perception
Around the world, people are eating more salt than they should. This once cherished and valuable mineral has now become all too common, and we tend to overconsume it. Health recommendations suggest no more than 6g of salt per day — which is around 1 teaspoon. But most Americans consume at least 1.5 teaspoons of salt per day, or around 150% the recommended intake. Europeans consume about as much on average, while in many parts of Asia, salt intake is even higher. Too much salt consumption can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, and we’re already seeing an “epidemic” of salt consumption.

Can the new chopsticks actually make a difference?

The chopsticks were developed by Homei Miyash*ta, a professor at Meiji University, in partnership with beverage maker Kirin Holdings. The idea behind them is fairly straightforward: the chopsticks are attached to a wristband computer that uses a very weak electrical current to take sodium ions from food, pass through the chopsticks, and to the mouth, where they create a sensation of saltiness.

Salt consists of two atoms: sodium and chloride; typically, sodium ions are positively charged, while chlorine ions are negatively charged. Because they have an electric charge, they can be transmitted through the current. Essentially, you’re extracting some of the saltiness that’s in the food and bringing it directly to the mouth — it’s a bit like using current and chemistry to redistribute the salt in the food and make it stand out more.

The method works with low-salted food and regular-salted food as well, the Kirin announcement mentions.

“The study confirmed that the intensity of salty taste of the sample imitating low-sodium food was the same as that of the sample imitating ordinary food when electric stimulation was applied… This suggests that when food with 30 percent less salt is consumed, a device equipped with this technology can provide a salty taste equivalent to that of a regular meal.”

Face blindness could actually be fairly common. One in 40 people could have it
Heeeey... you!
We’ve all gone through that embarrassing feeling when someone comes up to you while calling your name enthusiastically, while you look back at them with a blank stare. “It’s me Bobby. We worked together at so-and-so company. You sat across my desk for three years.” Of course, I remember you, Bobby. Who do you take me for? Some self-centered as***le? (yeaaah). Or perhaps the opposite situation happened to you when you were the one who wasn’t recognized back. As someone who has been on both sides of that situation, I can attest it sucks being in either person’s shoes.

Here’s the thing, though: some people fail to recognize other people’s faces all the freaking time because they have a neurological condition formally known as prosopagnosia, or face blindness. And a new study from the Harvard Medical School and the VA Boston Healthcare System suggests this condition — which can lead individuals to mistake strangers for people they know or to fail to recognize acquaintances — may be much more common than previously thought.

According to the study published in the journal Cortex, up to 2.5% percent of people, or more than 10 million Americans, may meet the criteria for prosopagnosia. The findings indicate that diagnostic criteria should be expanded to be more inclusive, which could lead to new diagnoses among millions who may have the disorder but don’t realize it.

Face blindness may be on a spectrum, just like autism
Joseph DeGutis, an associate professor of psychiatry at VA Bostonl, leads a lab dedicated to researching face blindness. Dr. DeGutis explains that recognizing someone’s face is an essential social signal, indicating that “you are important to me.” For individuals with prosopagnosia, socializing and networking can be challenging, and it can cause social distress and embarrassment. Furthermore, face blindness can affect individuals on the autism spectrum and can be a consequence of age-related cognitive decline.

Prosopagnosia recently came into the limelight when Hollywood actor Brad Pitt revealed last year that he’s literally face-blind.

“So many people hate me because they think I’m disrespecting them,” Pitt said in a 2013 interview with Esquire. “You get this thing, like, ‘You’re being egotistical. You’re being conceited.’ But it’s a mystery to me, man. I can’t grasp a face and yet I come from such a design/aesthetic point of view.”

Famous conservationist Jane Goodall also reportedly suffers from this condition. Goodall, who famously studies chimps, is also unable to distinguish some chimp faces from others, so her condition extends to non-human faces as well.

“I had no trouble with those who had obvious physical characteristics – unusual bone structure, beaky nose, extreme beauty, or the opposite. But with other faces I failed, miserably,” she said. “Sometimes I knew that people were upset when I did not immediately recognize them – certainly I was. And because I was embarrassed, I kept it to myself,” Goodall writes in her autobiographical book.

For those who experience it, the social and emotional consequences of prosopagnosia can be debilitating. Now, a new study led by DeGutis found that the condition may be much more prevalent than thought.

The researchers found that face blindness lies on a spectrum, which can range in severity and presentation, rather than representing a discrete group. Bearing this new reality in mind, the researchers have made new diagnostic suggestions for identifying mild and major forms of prosopagnosia based on guidelines for other major and mild neurocognitive disorders in the DSM5, the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.