How Safe Is “Natural” Hormone Replacement Therapy?

The quick and dirty answer to this question is: it’s not safe at all. In fact, no hormone replacement therapy is safe, yet, numerous pre-menopausal, menopausal, and post-menopausal women participate in such therapies regularly. Actually, so do many men; although, it’s far more common for women.
 
In the Women’s Health Initiative Study, a 15-year project performed in the 1990s studying nearly 70,000 post-menopausal women ages 50-79, discovered numerous health effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). The therapy used the FDA approved traditional hormone replacement drugs, not “natural” therapies. The study showed significant increases in the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke and venous thromboembolism (i.e. blood clotting).

Research from this study showed that older women who have long been through menopause – regardless of their initial health – were at risk for these serious health issues.

Hormone replacement therapy was originally touted to help women with menopausal symptoms such as weight gain, bloating, hot flashes, night sweats, and similar issues. While that is true and HRT did relieve those symptoms, the Women’s Health Initiative discovered the health risks far outweighed the benefits these benefits.

That brings us to what has been marketed as a safer alternative to synthetic hormone replacement therapies. Known by several different names – bioidentical hormones or natural hormones – this therapy is not necessarily safer.

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT) is controversial because of the mistaken belief that the hormones are personalized to the individual’s body make-up. That’s not necessarily true; and considering how recent these products were introduced, there are few studies on them. Individualization of hormone therapy has made “natural” therapies popular, but not necessarily safer.

A clinical review of BHRT published in 2011 in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine provided several specific discussion points for health practitioners in regard to these bioidentical hormones. Here are four critical points to consider:

1. Bioidentical hormones are not necessarily “natural.” Natural refers to the source of the hormones. Natural and bioidentical hormones both come from the same source of soy and plants but bioidentical hormones must be commercially processed.

2. The Food and Drug Administration has approved some bioidentical hormones, but custom compounded hormones are not subject to federal law. These custom hormones contain so many combinations that it would be difficult to monitor and test. Plus, custom compounded hormones will vary from batch to batch causing variations in the doses received and benefits earned.

3. There is no safe hormone therapy. All active ingredients are the same regardless of whether they are synthetic, bioidentical or custom compounded; therefore, the risks are the same. There is no such thing as a safe hormone therapy.

4. It is nearly impossible to accurately monitor hormone levels in those receiving individualized hormone therapy. Every woman is unique in how she processes hormones within her body, therefore, routine blood tests or salivary tests do not necessarily show adequate or accurate results. As an example, even the smallest of elements such as brushing your teeth can affect salivary test results. The journal noted that positive tracking is typically based upon symptom relief not laboratory results.

 

Some positive news can be said about hormone replacement therapies. Evidence from a 2008 study of conventional hormone replacement therapies in younger, menopausal women showed that the benefits did outweigh the risks when the therapy was used short-term. The study was performed in people younger than age 60 who had either been in pre-menopause or menopause.

The point here is that hormone replacement therapies – natural or conventional – can be effective if the individual is young, healthy, active and going through the menopausal process. After a certain point (i.e. post menopause), hormone replacement should be eliminated. If you are interested in hormone replacement therapies, you are encouraged to talk with your physician.

 

Works Used for this Post: 

Bosarge, P. M. and Freeman, S. (2009). Bioidentical hormones, compounding and evidence-based medicine: What women’s health practitioners need to know. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 5(6), 421-427.

Kuehn, B. M. (2008). FDA warns claims for pharmacy-made “bio-identical” hormones are misleading. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(5), 512.

Sood, R., Shuster, L., Smith, R., Vincent, A., and Jatoi, A. (2011). Counseling postmenopausal women about bioidentical hormones: 10 discussion points for practicing physicians. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 24(2), 202-210.

Women’s Health Initiative. (2014). WHI Overview. Retrieved from https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/About%20WHI.aspx

 

 

Occupational Hazard: Sitting increases your risk of cancer

If you’re female, you might want to consider a more physically active career to avoid a variety of cancers.
 
A meta-analysis of thousands of Europeans across seven different groups (five in England and two in Scotland) found that sitting occupations were linked to a greater risk of cancer mortality – but for women only, not for men. Another study in the Netherlands included nearly 130,000 people drew the same conclusion.

It is unclear how sitting can be linked to a greater risk for cancer, especially colon cancer. Yet, studies have suggested that sitting occupations may reduce lipoprotein lipase activity by up to 90% and significantly slow insulin action. Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is a gene that is responsible for producing an enzyme that plays a critical role in transporting and breaking down fats which then is used for energy or stored. Retarded insulin secretion can lessen the effects of metabolism. Both actions have been linked to obesity and related diseases.

Furthermore, sedentary behaviors and cancer may also involve adiposity (the state of being fat), inflammation (swelling), and sex-hormone related pathways (efficient use of estrogen, testosterone, and progesterone). All of these elements can cause obesity and related health issues – including cancer.

It comes down to the same theme we’re all heard over and over: get moving to prevent illness and disease.

 If you work in a sitting occupation, consider adding the following to your daily routine as suggested by the Workplace Health and Safety sector of the Attorney General’s office in Queensland (Australia):

1. Use a height adjustable desk so that you can work standing or sitting

2. Move your printer, scanner and other office equipment so that you have to walk to them to use them

3. Standing during phone calls

4. Walk to your colleagues’ desks; don’t phone or email them

5. Hold standing or walking meetings

6. Eat lunch or snacks away from your desk

7. Take breaks regularly to stand, stretch or walk for a few minutes

8. Use the stairs, not the elevator

9. Walk during your lunchtime or breaks

10. Walk or bicycle to work, or park further away from the office and walk the rest of the way

 

Regardless of what you do, the point is to move more. It can reduce your risk of cancer.

 

Of interest, it is unclear why women who sit for their jobs are at a higher risk for cancers than men. It has been suggested that men who work in sedentary occupations are more likely to participate in physical activity outside the office than are women. There have been studies that suggest women who begin exercising before puberty can reduce their risk of cancers even if they end up with a sedentary occupation.

Research is very clear about one thing: physical activity in your daily routine can prevent diseases and keep you healthy.

 

Research used for this article:

Schonfeld, S. J., Neta, G., Sturgis, E. M., Pfeiffer, R. M., Hutchinson, A. A., Xu, L., Wheeler, W., Guenel, P., Rajaraman, P., de Bathaire, F., Ron, E., Tucker, M. A., Chanock, S. J., Siqurdson, A. J., and Brenner, A. V. (2012). Common genetic variants in sex hormone pathway genes and papillary thyroid cancer risk. Thyroid, 22(2), 151-156.

Simons, C., Hughes, L., van Engeland, M., Goldbohm, A., van den Brandt, P., and Weijenberg, M. (2013). Physical activity, occupational sitting time, and colorectal cancer risk in the Netherlands cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 177(6), 514-530.

Stamatakis, E., Chau, J., Pedisic, Z., Bauman, A., Macniven, R., Coombs, N., and Hamer, M. (2013). Are sitting occupations associated with increased all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease mortality risk? A pooled analysis of seven British population cohorts. PLoS One, 8(9), 1-10.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (n.d.). Sedentary work – sit less and move more in your work day. Retrieved from http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/160089/sedentary-work-factsheet-ekka.pdf.

 

 

Pesticides, Chemicals and their Harmful Effects

This year marks the end of the Agricultural Health Study, a 20-year study of the effects of pesticides on farm workers and their families. Although the study focused on Iowa and North Carolina, there are still some elements that are important for Pennsylvania farmers as well as anyone who handles chemical compounds.

As the largest study of agricultural exposures in the world, this research focused on cancer in those who apply pesticides to the crops along with their spouses and children. It also looked at reproductive health, respiratory concerns, neurological symptoms, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and injury. More than 89,000 people participated in this study that provided key information on farming practices, pesticide use and health status.

Some of the main results showed that because of pesticide exposure, farmers had a greater risk for cancers, especially prostate cancer. There was also a strong connection to Parkinson’s disease because of the exposure to rotenone and paraquat. Rotenone is an odorless chemical compound used in pesticides as well as insecticides. Paraquat is a chemical weed killer. Other significant issues discovered from pesticide exposure in both men and women in the study were asthma, diabetes and thyroid disease.

Probably the most critical finding of this study is one of the most profound and common sense discoveries: the use of gloves is a strong barrier against the harmful effects of pesticides. As part of the study, researchers took measurements of pesticides that penetrated into the body from those who wore gloves and those who did not. Those who wore gloves were 70% less likely to have pesticide residues penetrate their systems. In addition, washing your hands was another prime barrier against absorbing chemical residues into the body after handling pesticides. Furthermore, protective clothing and equipment can also provide an extra layer of protection against the harmful substances.

In all, the study resulted in 175 published reports in scientific literature regarding poor health effects from pesticide exposures.

What does this mean to the general population? Quite a bit, actually. Many of us aren’t on the farms handling pesticides or insecticides daily, but we do handle more chemicals than we think. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, there are more than 80,000 chemicals in the United States that have never been fully tested for their health and environmental effects. Advocacy groups such as the Council are working to change that. In the meantime, all we can do today is learn how to deal with the chemicals we know about and have some control over such as bug sprays, weed killers, and even chlorine or Clorox.

The Environmental Protection Agency puts out a consumer handbook on how to purchase, use and store pesticides. Here are some key elements from that book:

1. Before you buy a product, read the label. You may not need the product for your intended use.

2.  If asked to dilute the product, make sure you use measuring implements that you do not use for cooking. Even if you wash them, it is not safe to use that implement for anything other than the pesticide.

3. Wear protective clothing. If you are spraying your garden, make sure you wear long pants and long sleeves along with gloves. On windy days, you may even want to wear face protection such as a mask.

4. Never eat or smoke around these products. Many pesticides are flammable and toxic to ingest. Use common sense when using such products.

5. If using a chemical inside, such as Clorox, make sure your room is adequately ventilated. Make sure your pets and children are removed from the room when in use. If you are spraying your kitchen for pests, make sure you remove all food and pots/pans so they are not infected.

More details can be found on the EPA’s website at www.epa.gov. Use common sense with your pesticide products and you will be able to maintain good health.

 

Note: The Agricultural Health Study ran from 1993 to 2014 and was approved by the institutional review boards of the US National Institutes of Health, its contractors, and by the Health Canada’s Research Ethics Board.

 

References:

Agricultural Health Study. (n.d.). About the study. Retrieved from http://aghealth.nih.gov/about/

Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Citizen’s guide to pest control and pesticide safety. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/Publications/Cit_Guide/citguide.pdf

Hou, L., Andreotti, G., Baccarelli, A. A., Savage, S., Hoppin, J. A., Sandler, D. P. ... Alavanja, M. C. (2013). Lifetime pesticide use and telomere shortening among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(8), 919-924. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1206432.

Weichenthal, S., Villeneuve, P. J., Burnett, R. T., van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Jones, R. R., DellaValle, C. T., Sandler, D. P., Ward, M. H., Hoppin, J. A. (2013). Long-term exposure to fine particular matter: Association with nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in the agricultural health study cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(6), 609-615.

 

 

Secondary Drowning is for REAL

When you and your family hit the pool or the beach this summer, you need to be aware of a phenomenon known as secondary drowning, or dry drowning.

Secondary drowning is not a new concept, but it is one that is especially dangerous for children. Children are more susceptible to this type of drowning mainly because of their active play and splashing in the water, which causes incidental inhalation of that water into the lungs. The water can remain there for a period of time acting as an irritant and possibly posing a more serious threat.

Research has revealed inhaling water during swimming activities can damage the alveoli of the lungs. The alveoli provide the function of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange during the breathing process. They provide a barrier that prevents harmful gases and chemical to enter the blood stream while allowing oxygen to flow freely through the body.

While you may not think it’s possible for a child to inhale enough water to damage their lungs, it doesn’t take much of it to become a significant irritant in a smaller person’s developing lungs. Furthermore, chemically treated water (i.e. swimming pools) poses a great risk because those chemicals enter the lungs with the water. However, the incident can occur in both fresh water and salt water. Of interest, it has been noted that those who suffered from salt water lung damage often struggled to recover whereas those with dry drowning symptoms from fresh water immersion have a better chance of a full recovery.

Secondary drowning is not something that you will notice immediately. It has a latent period of up to 48 hours. Symptoms include fast breathing, using the entire body to breathe, flushed face, and mood changes. Physicians have found that when a parent notices there is a respiratory problem, it is often too late.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 10-15 percent of drowning deaths were a result of secondary drowning between 2005 and 2010.

One of the best ways to prevent secondary drowning is to teach your child how to swim. Swim lessons teach your child how to breathe when they are in water and will be less likely to inhale it. Three locations in Meadville provide swim lessons: Allegheny College, Meadville Area Recreational Complex, and the Meadville Family YMCA.

At the Meadville Area Recreational Complex, group lessons started this week and run all summer, however, it’s not too late to get involved. They have baby swim lessons up through older children. Adult and private lessons are available by contacting the MARC. For more details on anything swim-related, contact MARC aquatics director Chris Nuzback at 814-724-6006.

Of interest, Nuzback commented on the use of floatation devices for swim assistance and how important it is that they be US Coast Guard approved. Other devices can pose a threat to your children as they may not stay inflated and may not provide the protection as intended. Nuzback is a strong proponent of water safety and commented, “The best thing you can do is pay attention to your children” when they are anywhere near water. “Just because they can stand in the water doesn’t mean they can’t drown.”

Another common location for swim lessons is at the YMCA. The Meadville Family YMCA teaches children and adults how to swim. Children can start as young as 6 months. Not only will these lessons teach you and/or your child how to swim, but they also include water safety and boating safety. Overall, it will help everyone be more comfortable in the water to prevent drowning or secondary drowning. Check out the YMCA’s website for swim lesson details: www.meadvilleymca.org/aquatics or phone them at 814-336-2196 and chat with the aquatics director, Laura Singo.

Lessons are also available through the summer at Allegheny College. Times and ages vary so you will want to call the college’s Wise Center at 814-332-3350 for details.

In the meantime, the CDC has provided several tips to prevent swimming injuries, drowning and secondary drowning. Here are the top three:

1. Closely supervisor children or designate a responsible adult to keep watch
2. Use the Buddy System – always swim with someone else who could help you in the event of an emergency
3. Watch for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress within the first 24 hours after leaving the water.

 

Works used for this article:

Pearn, J. H. (1980). Secondary drowning in children. British Medical Journal, 281(6248), 1103-1105. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1714551/.

 

Drinkable Sunscreen? It may be too good to be true

Tired of greasy, sticky hands after applying sunscreen? Even the spray-on sunscreens leave you inhaling fumes that you shouldn’t breathe. Well, enter a new era of skincare products: drinkable sunscreen.

This new product, The Osmosis Pur Medical Skincare UV Neutralizer Harmonized Water, claims to offer SPF 30 protection against the sun’s harmful UV rays. The product claims to provide protection for up to three hours in the sun. A 100ml bottle will cost you around $30.

Apparently, the product manufacturers claim that this drinkable sunscreen causes the water molecules just below the surface of your skin to vibrate. That vibration results in frequency emissions that cancel out the frequencies of UVA and UVB radiation – the ones that cause sunburn and potentially melanoma. Oh, and the product comes in tan enhancing and no tan enhancing formulas!

Too good to be true? Maybe.

Dermatologists and many other health professionals are skeptical that an ingestible product will prevent an external event such as sunburn and skin cancers. There is no scientific-based data to support the product’s claims, especially the concept that water can cause vibrations within the body. According to several news reports, the company itself did little research on the product before rolling it out. There were no independent or clinical trials. The drinkable substance was tested on about 50 people who claimed to stay in the sun for extended periods of time and found they were sufficiently protected. We know nothing about these 50 people, their health status, or potential motive for testing the liquid.

Furthermore, there’s another problem with this product: if you’re on certain medications, the it may not work. According to the Evergreen, Colorado-based company, “certain medications that have been identified as ‘sun-sensitizing’ may result in little to no sun protection if UV Water is your only form of protection.” The site lists hundreds of medications (including many over-the-counter drugs and supplements) for which this product may not work including acetaminophen (Tylenol), naproxen (Aleve), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), St. John’s Wort, Dong Quai, Vitamin A, sertraline HCI (Zoloft), and many more. Even saccharin, the artificial sweetener, made the list.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not mention this product or any investigation of this product on its website. However, it may be considered a supplement, thus, it would not require an FDA review or approval. A similar product made by DliSODin Skin Nutrients is also available but by prescription only. It requires consumption at least 15 days before spending time in the sun. Again, if the product is considered a supplement, it would not require FDA scrutiny.

Yet, the likelihood of a drinkable substance for sun protection is not necessarily science fiction. According to many journals on nutrition and food, sun protection can come from your body’s internal mechanism, mainly from nutrients found in foods like the phytochemicals in grapes, berries, and walnuts, and sulforaphane in broccoli. In fact, food research found that the traditional Greek-style Mediterranean diet may contribute to the low rates of melanoma in that region. From an alternative health view, certain herbs can produce antioxidant activities that resist UV rays. Water was not among any of the substances studied. However, research showed that certain herbs only offer supplemental protection to an externally applied product.

Despite the potential help from internal sources that can protect against harmful UV rays, Osmosis’ product is too new to have substantial and conclusive research published for the industry or consumer. Your best bet is to continue your typical regimen and deal with the greasy sunscreens. It has proven to be the best defense against the sun so far.
 

Sources Used for this Article:

Korac, R. R. and Khambholja, K. M. (2011). Potential of herbs in skin protection from ultraviolet radiation. Pharmacognosy Reviews, 5(10), 164-173.

Osmosis Pur Medical Skincare. (2014). UV Neutralizer-Tan. Retrieved from http://www.osmosisskincare.com/HarmonizedWater-UV.aspx.

Q13Fox News Staff. (2014). Should you trust drinkable sunscreen? Retrieved from http://q13fox.com/2014/05/27/should-you-trust-drinkable-sunscreen/#axzz33CtbL8OF.

Shapria, N. (2010). Nutritional approach to sun protection: a suggested complement to external strategies. Nutrition Reviews, 68(2), 75-86.

Time Magazine. (2014). Dermatologists are skeptical of new “drinkable” SPF. Retrieved from http://time.com/#119534/dermatologists-are-skeptical-of-new-drinkable-spf/.

 

Defense Against the "Superbug"

The World Health Organization has identified a serious threat to human health around the globe. Known as a “superbug”, this antimicrobial resistant bacterial infection has been coined “AMR” (Antimicrobial Resistance).

This superbug has interfered with the effective treatment and prevention of various infections that are caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi. According to the WHO’s 257-page Global Report on Surveillance, this means that infectious cannot be controlled, the spread is often imminent and the risk of death is far greater. The report stated that “the problem is so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern medicine.”

The list of commonly known bacterium highly resistant to treatment includes the following:

• ·         Escherichia coli (E-coli) – a cause of urinary tract infections, blood infections
• ·         Klebsiella pneumoniael – causes pneumonia, urinary tract infections and blood infections
• ·         Staphylococcus aureus – wound infections, blood stream infections
• ·         Streptococcus pneumoniael – causes pneumonia, meningitis and otitis
• ·         Nontyphoidal Salmonella – foodborne diarrhea, blood stream infections
• ·         Shigella species – causes bacillary dysenteria
• ·         Neisseria gonorrheal – causes gonorrhea

Furthermore, four specific diseases have seen an increase in resistance to treatments because of the superbug: tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and influenza.

The WHO has indicated that the main “fix” for such resistance infections is to prevent the transmission of the organisms in the first place. In other words, the key take-away from this report is improved hygiene. One of the most important elements that reduces the spread of infection is hand hygiene, or basically, washing your hands frequently. For developed nations like the United States, hand hygiene is more about educating people on the importance of hand-washing; yet for third-world nations, the problem lies in infrastructure such as access to clean water and the means to have improved hygiene.

While the practice of handwashing has been around for centuries for personal hygiene, it was only since the 1800s that the link between it and the spread of diseases was identified. Studies have shown that organisms can survive on the hands for varying periods of time and could easily be spread through touch (a simple handshake or touching something another person has touched). Such bacteria include E-coli, influenza and rhinovirus – some of which can survive on your hands for up to an hour.

Handwashing can cut the spread of infections in half. That means you can ward off infections simply by keeping your hands clean. The problem lies in the handwashing technique itself. The WHO reported that most people do not know how to wash their hands effectively.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed easy guidelines to follow to wash your hands and, in essence, ward of infections. With the discovery of the “superbug” now wreaking havoc on the world, washing your hands often and correctly is a great weapon.

How to correctly wash your hands, as directed by the CDC:

1. Wet your hands with clean, running water (warm or cold), turn off the tap, and apply soap.
2. Lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap. Be sure to lather the backs of your hands, between your fingers, and under your nails.
3. Scrub your hands for at least 20 seconds. For a way to time yourself: sing “Happy Birthday” from beginning to end, twice.
4. Rinse your hands well under clean, running water.
5. Dry your hands using a clean towel or air dry them.

It is recommended to dry your hands and then use the paper towel to turn off the faucet so you do not re-infect your hands by touching the knob that you originally turned on with dirty hands.

It was also noted that hand sanitizers are good in a pinch, but they do not eliminate all germs that can accumulate on your hands. You should wash with soap and water as soon as you have the opportunity.

Used for this article:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Wash your hands. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/features/handwashing/.

World Health Organization. (2014). Infection prevention and antimicrobial resistance. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/drugresistance/infection_prevention/en/.

World Health Organization. (2014). Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance 2014. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/.

Colon Cleansing: A Bad Idea

Researchers have found that while colon cleansing has been around since ancient times, the health benefits are basically a myth.

An April 22 article on the Live Science website indicated that flushing the colon was one of the worst things a person could do for their health. Research from the past decade supports that very notion. In a published report in The Journal of Family Practice, doctors from Georgetown University School of Medicine, urged people to stop cleansing their colon as a way to improve their health. It is actually causing far more harm than good and could result in serious internal injuries.

Colon cleaning was originally thought to contain waste that poisoned the body. Prior to the 1900s, it was routinely practiced as a way to allegedly remove these toxins and clean the body. It was a procedure – often repeated several times – where the patient’s colon is filled with water, which sometimes included a mix of herbs or other compounds. It is important to note that this is not like an enema, which uses a small amount of water to assist with acute bowel obstructions. Colon cleansing uses a significantly larger amount of water, sometimes up to 60 liters.

In 1919, the American Medical Association condemned the practice and eventually colon cleansing became a thing of the past. However, in recent years with the emergence of alternative medicines in the United States, colon cleansing has made a comeback – accompanied by a flurry of doctor and emergency room visits by very sick people.

Currently marketed as supplements, some colon cleansing systems are endorsed by various celebrities and promise increased energy, weight loss, and a plethora of other health benefits. Home kits are very common as are the newest profession of hydrotherapist, who perform colon irrigation services today.

Although it has become popular once again, colon cleansing is not a supported practice by many physicians and scientific studies have proven its benefits are faulty. Cleansing the colon certainly does remove the toxins from the body, but it also removes good bacteria that help the body function properly. By removing such bacteria, people have succumbed to severe illnesses, including renal failure. Reports in the scientific literature found that colon cleansing could result in these other severe health concerns: electrolyte imbalance, pelvic abscesses, rectal perforations, and colitis. Of course, milder symptoms are also possible such as cramping, abdominal pain, vomiting and soreness to severe concerns such as, and renal failure.

Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has condoned the practice, issuing several warming letters in regards to meeting certain requirements – especially labeling practices. Colon cleansing products are considered dietary supplements and do not need approval for sale by the FDA, but the labeling must be clear.

The Journal of Family Practices warns of this practice with four key notations:

1. Colon cleansing is not necessary. This is particularly true if the individual suffers from diverticulitis, Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. Many other issues such as hemorrhoids, kidney disease or heart disease can also exacerbate the side effects of a colon cleanse.

2. Side effects can be deadly. As noted earlier, they include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, kidney insufficiency, pancreatitis, bowel perforation, heart failure, and renal failure.

3. Devices for colon cleansing are not approved by the DFA. This means that they may be inadequately sterilized and contain harmful bacteria.

4. Colon cleansing practitioners do not need to be licensed to practice. They may have gone through training, but not by a scientifically based organization.

If you’re considering a colon cleanse…do you your homework; talk with your doctor. It may not be all that it’s cracked up to be.

Works used to compile this article:

Live Science. (2014). The poop on pooping: 5 misconceptions explained. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/45017-poop-health-misconceptions-truth.html.

Mishori, R., Otubu, A., and Jones, A. A. (2011). The dangers of colon cleansing. The Journal of Family Practice, 60(8), 454-457.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Colon cleansing and warning letters. Retrieved from http://google2.fda.gov/search?as_sitesearch=www.fda.gov/downloads/iceci/enforcementactions&q=colon+cleansing&client=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&sort=date:D:L:d1&getfields=*&filter=1&requiredfields=-archive:Yes&site=FDAgov-Category-WarningLetters&ie=UTF-8&ulang=en&ip=199.73.44.10&access=p&entqr=3&entqrm=0&oe=UTF-8&ud=1