People who are genetically susceptible to heart disease can lower their risk by eating plenty of fruit and raw vegetables, a study suggests.
It says five or more daily portions should be enough to counteract culprit versions of a gene on chromosome 9, thought to be possessed by a fifth of people of European ancestry.
Healthy diets appeared to weaken its effect.
The US researchers investigated more than 27,000 people for their work.
The findings were published in Plos Medicine journal.
These participants came from from around the globe, including Europe, China and Latin America.
The results suggest that individuals with high risk 9p21 gene versions who consumed a diet packed with raw vegetables, fruits and berries had a similar risk of heart attack as those with a low-risk variant of the same gene.
Dried fruit, such as currants, dates, sultanas and figs
Tinned or canned fruit and vegetables
Fruit and vegetables cooked in dishes such as soups, stews or pasta dishes
A glass (150ml) of unsweetened 100% fruit or vegetable juice
Smoothies
Beans and pulses; these only count as one portion a day, no matter how many you eat
Researcher Prof Sonia Anand, of McMaster University, said: "Our results support the public health recommendation to consume more than five servings of fruits or vegetables as a way to promote good health."
The scientists, who also included staff from McGill University, say they now need to do more work to establish how diet might have this effect on genes.
Judy O'Sullivan of the British Heart Foundation said the findings should serve as a reminder that while lifestyle and genes could increase heart risk, the way the two interacted with each other was also very important.
"The relationship between the two is often very complicated and we don't yet have all the answers, but the message appears to be very simple - eating lots of fruit and vegetables is great news for our heart health."
Chancellor George Osborne says emissions reductions must not harm UK industry
The government's "schizophrenic attitude" to climate change is undermining investor confidence in low-carbon industries, MPs have warned.
The UK is committed to cutting emissions in half by 2025 but has said it will review that goal in 2014.
Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said a review was needed to ensure UK industry was not losing out by cutting much faster than the rest of Europe.
But the Environmental Audit Committee warned against sending mixed messages.
David Cameron says he wants his to be "the greenest government ever", but last week Chancellor George Osborne sparked anger among environmentalists when he told the Conservative Party conference the UK would cut emissions no faster than others in Europe, and environmental measures would not be taken at the expense of British business. 'Stroke of a pen'
Earlier this year, the government signed up to the fourth in a series of tough "carbon budgets" - for the period 2023 to 2027.
Labour MP and committee chairwoman Joan Walley said the move suggested the UK really was determined to switch to a greener economy.
"Unfortunately, the government's somewhat schizophrenic attitude to climate change seems to be undermining that confidence," she said.
“Start Quote
Getting the rest of Europe to go further and faster in providing certainty to green investors is vital”
End QuoteGreg BarkerClimate Change Minister
"The chancellor's comments last week show that five years on from the Stern report, the Treasury still doesn't get climate change - or the risk it poses to global stability and economic prosperity."
Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative committee member, said policymakers must recognise "that with the stroke of a pen, they can make a good investment bad".
"Unless they provide real long-term certainty, the transition to a low-carbon economy will be slower and bumpier than it needs to be," he added.
Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-UK, said: "Failing to clearly endorse the fourth carbon budget now will not only slow down urgent action on addressing climate change, it will also seriously undermine investment certainty in the UK's low-carbon sector and result in the UK missing out on the opportunity of creating hundreds of thousands of UK jobs in low-carbon manufacturing."
Mr Barker said the UK was doing more than any other nation to provide long-term certainty for those investing in the low-carbon economy.
"At the same time, it's right that we review progress towards the EU emissions goal in 2014 so that we're not disadvantaging British industry which would simply result in emissions being shipped overseas.
"Getting the rest of Europe to go further and faster in providing certainty to green investors is vital, which is why we're not letting up in pushing the EU to up its emissions reduction target to 30%."
About nine million hospital meals - almost 8% - are returned uneaten across England each year, data suggests.
The analysis of the snapshot figures from 200 NHS trusts by SSentif suggests wastage could be costing the NHS millions every year.
Hospital trusts are responsible for their own catering provision and there is no government guidance on the issue.
But a health minister said trusts with higher levels of waste should learn from those with better records.
The analysis comes ahead of a Care Quality Commission report to be published later this week which will look at poor NHS practice over nutrition for the elderly.
The NHS should adhere to the government's protected mealtimes policy, which says wards should be free of visitors and non-emergency medical activity at mealtimes, and that patients should be encouraged to eat - as and when staff are available to helping them. Mealtimes 'a priority'
The SSentif analysis looked at Estate Returns Information Collection (Eric) data - which all trusts have to provide on a particular day - on costs per patient per day, the percentage of meals requested and the percentage of meals returned untouched.
It found Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust had the worst record, with 29% of meals returned uneaten, while 25% go uneaten at the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust.
In a statement, the Ipswich trust said: "At the time of our most recent Eric return, based on a one-day snapshot, waste was indeed at 29%, but since then the trust has been working with its hotel services contractor to reduce that figure which will now be considerably lower."
A spokeswoman for the Manchester trust said it had had a high percentage of meals returned.
But she added: "We discovered that staff on the ward, responsible for ordering food for our patients, were being over generous in the food quantities they ordered to create more choice and more menu options on the ward, particularly for our at-risk patients."
She said this no longer happened.
Those hospitals with high levels of waste should be looking to learn from the ones that don't.”
End QuoteSimon BurnsHealth minister
However, other trusts did have much lower figures. Less than 1% of meals are returned uneaten at Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (a mental health trust) and Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust.
Judy Aldred, managing director of SSentif, said: "Trusts have responsibility for their own catering budgets and with no minimum standard set by government, the result seems to be huge discrepancies between organisations.
"Food waste in the NHS is also a big concern, as although some waste is inevitable in any catering environment, untouched meals in a healthcare situation have more worrying implications for patient health and nourishment."
Michelle Mitchell, charity director of Age UK, said: "Protecting hospital mealtimes needs to be a priority on every ward to ensure that patients have the help they need at mealtime with staff able to provide proper support to those who need it.
"Often, older patients require more support to eat a meal, especially after an operation or whilst receiving treatment, and this is often not taken into account.
"Hospitals must make nutritional care a top priority, so that older people don't go needlessly hungry."
Health minister, Simon Burns, said: "Those hospitals with high levels of waste should be looking to learn from the ones that don't.
"All hospitals should also make sure that every patient gets the help they need to eat properly, and offer good quality nutritious food. This is an essential part of hospital care."
When it comes to vitamins, it appears you could have too much of a good thing, say researchers who report a link between their use and higher death rates among older women.
Experts have suspected for some time that supplements may only be beneficial if a person is deficient in a nutrient.
And excess may even harm, as the study in Archives of Internal Medicine finds.
All of the women, in their 50s and 60s, were generally well nourished yet many had decided to take supplements.
Multivitamins, folic acid, vitamin B6, magnesium, zinc, copper and iron in particular appeared to increase mortality risk.
The researchers believe consumers are buying supplements with no evidence that they will provide any benefit.
Based on existing evidence, we see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements”
End QuoteThe study authors
They are quick to stress that their study relied on the 38,000 US women who took part in it recalling what vitamins and minerals they had taken over the previous two decades.
And it is difficult to control for all other factors, like general physical health, that might have influenced the findings.
But they say their findings suggest that supplements should only be used if there is a strong medically based cause for doing so because of the potential to cause harm.
"Based on existing evidence, we see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements," Dr Jaakko Mursu of the University of Eastern Finland and his research colleagues said.
Less is more
In the study, iron tablets were strongly linked with a small (2.4%) increased death risk, as were many other supplements. The link with iron was dose-dependent, meaning the more of it the individual took, the higher their risk was.
Too much can be toxic and it is easy to inadvertently take more than the recommended daily amount”
End QuoteHelen Bond of the British Dietetic Association
Conversely, calcium supplements appeared to reduce death risk. However, the researchers say this finding needs more investigation and they do not recommend that people take calcium unless advised to by a doctor in order to treat a deficiency.
Drs Christian Gluud and Goran Bjelakovic, who review research for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to evaluate best evidence, said: "We think the paradigm 'the more the better' is wrong."
They say dietary supplementation has shifted from preventing deficiency to trying to promote wellness and prevent diseases, and caution: "We believe that for all micronutrients, risks are associated with insufficient and too-large intake."
Helen Bond of the British Dietetic Association said some people, like the elderly, might need to take certain supplements. For example, vitamin D is recommended for people over the age of 65.
But she said that generally, people should be able to get all the vitamins and minerals they needed from a healthy, balanced diet.
She said some took supplements as an insurance policy, wrongly assuming that they could do no harm. "But too much can be toxic and it is easy to inadvertently take more than the recommended daily amount."
Drivers have cut their petrol consumption by more than 15% since the credit crunch and the recession.
The AA has calculated that petrol sales in the first six months of 2011 were 1.7bn litres less than in the same period three years ago. The AA says the drop in petrol sales is a direct result of record fuel prices. Many drivers are struggling to make ends meet in any case, so the high cost of petrol leaves them with no option but to try to use less. And businesses have been cutting back as well. The cut in fuel purchases, comparing the first six months of this year with pre-recession levels, is equivalent to 40,000 delivery rounds by fully-laden petrol tankers. One result has been lower emissions of potentially damaging exhaust fumes. Another, says the AA, is that the fall in sales has deprived the Treasury of nearly £1bn in fuel duty between January and June this year. Supermarkets have tried to attract drivers looking for bargain fuel, but hundreds of other petrol stations have gone out of business. However, Tesco reported on Wednesday that high petrol prices had hit people’s spending power so far this year.
Hindu groups have said the two child policy should be imposed as there are limited resources
Several Christian parishes in the Indian state of Kerala have begun offering incentives to couples who produce more children, officials say.
One church of the Syro-Malabar denomination in Kerala's Wayanad district has offered 10,000 rupees ($200) for a couple's fifth child. The move comes after a report submitted to Kerala's chief minister proposed imposing a strict two-child policy. But church groups have aired concerns about dwindling numbers of Christians. Census statistics show that the number of Christians has been in steady decline. Unofficial estimates say they could slip below 18% of Kerala's population in the latest census. But the figures also show that the Hindu population in Kerala may be declining faster than the Christian one. Muslims are increasing in numbers. The state's Hindu and Christian populations declined by 1.48 and 0.32 percentage points respectively, while Muslim numbers increased by 1.7 percentage points between 1991 and 2001. Nevertheless church groups have expressed considerable concern about the trend. "Our campaign is for responsible parenthood but the decision on how many children a couple should have is personal. We are not against family planning," said Fr Paul Thelakkat, a spokesman for Syro-Malabar Church, which is advocating the policy of rewarding procreation. Although the church hasn't announced rewards statewide, Fr Thelakkat says individual parishes have been offering incentives to have more children. Some have even offered free treatment at their hospitals for large families. Kerala's Catholic church has also mounted campaigns promoting larger families. But a recent 12-member panel for the Commission of Rights and Welfare of Women and Children submitted a report to the government last month recommending harsh punishments, such as three months in prison or a 10,000 rupee fine, to any father expecting a third child. Christian and Muslim groups condemned the report, saying it encroaches upon their religious freedom. But the leader of the Hindu United Front in the state said "the two-child norm should be strictly enforced in India as we have limited resources to share among us". Kummanam Rajashekharan added that the spate of church campaigns encouraging procreation only serve to create tensions between the religious communities.
The men who ate the most eggs were at a higher risk
“Eating just three eggs a week increases chance of men getting prostate cancer,” reported the Daily Mail. The story went on to say: “Experts in the US claimed that men who consume more than two-and-a-half eggs on a weekly basis were up to 81% more likely to be killed by the disease.”
This research examined the association between eating red meat, poultry and eggs and the risk of developing lethal prostate cancer (which the researchers defined as either dying from the disease or having metastatic disease that had spread to other organs). The study was in a large group of 27,607 healthy men, of whom 199 developed lethal prostate cancer over 14 years of follow-up. The researchers calculated that the men who ate the most eggs were at a significantly higher risk than those who ate fewer eggs. No significant association was found with any other food item.
This large cohort study has some strengths, such as its large size and the fact that information on the participants’ diet was continually updated over the course of the study. However it also has several limitations, and only a small number of lethal cancers actually occurred, which could suggest that this association is due to chance. Furthermore, these results are inconsistent with previous research, which found no significant association between eggs and prostate cancer. The findings will need to be confirmed in more robust studies before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, the University of California in San Francisco, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Funding was provided by the US National Institute of Health.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Cancer Prevention Research.
The media generally reported the study accurately. However, the Daily Mirror’s suggestion that “a clear link between eggs and prostate cancer” has been found may be misleading, as the researchers say that their results contradict previous findings into the association and that more research is needed. But the Mirror does point out that men in the study who ate the most eggs differed from the rest of the participants in important ways, such as weight and smoking status.
What kind of research was this?
This was a prospective cohort study that investigated whether there is an association between eating red meat, poultry and eggs and the risk of developing lethal prostate cancer in healthy men. A subgroup analysis was carried out afterwards in the men from this cohort who went on to develop prostate cancer. The researchers wanted to see whether eating habits after a prostate cancer diagnosis were associated with the risk of the disease progressing and becoming fatal.
The researchers’ theory was based on the findings from previous research, which found:
an increased risk of developing lethal prostate cancer in healthy men who ate red meat
an increased risk of progression to lethal disease in men with prostate cancer who ate eggs and skin-on poultry after their diagnosis
Participants were recruited from an ongoing cohort study that began in 1986. This study was comprised of American male health professionals who were between the ages of 40 and 75 in 1986. Men in this study completed a questionnaire every two years with information on their medical conditions, physical activity, weight, medications and smoking status. They provided information regarding their eating habits every four years.
Prospective cohort studies are an appropriate design for answering this type of research question. Assessing eating habits at the beginning of a study reduces the risk that people will inaccurately recall their dietary habits, which can arise when you ask people to remember what they ate over a long period of time. It also ensures that the exposure (eating certain foods) precedes the outcome (developing and dying of prostate cancer).
What did the research involve?
In 1994, the researchers recruited 27,607 men from the existing cohort study in the US. The men did not have prostate or other forms of cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancers, which are rarely aggressove). They had also had a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening is not performed in the UK, as higher PSA levels can indicate cancer but are not specific for it. For example, raised levels can also occur with benign enlargement, infection or inflammation).
In this study:
Information on the men’s eating habits was collected every four years.
Information regarding prostate cancer diagnosis was collected every two years.
From men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, information of treatment and disease progression was collected every two years.
The researchers defined lethal prostate cancer as disease that had spread to distant organs (metastatic cancer) or death due to prostate cancer during the study’s follow-up period (1994 to 2008).
The researchers followed up the cohort for 14 years and analysed the associations between eating different amounts of red meat, poultry and eggs and the risk of developing lethal prostate cancer. The researchers grouped each participant according to the average amounts of each type of food they ate per week. For red meat, the subgroups included (per week):
less than three servings
3 to 4 servings
5 to 7 servings
over 8 servings
For poultry, the subgroups were defined as (per week):
less than 1.5 servings
1.5 to 2.5 servings
2.5 to 3.5 servings
over 3.5 servings for week
For eggs, the subgroups were:
less than half an egg
0.5 to 1.5 eggs
1.5 to 2.5 eggs
over 2.5 eggs
To determine which subgroup each participant would be allocated to, the researchers averaged their responses from all of the dietary questionnaires the participants had completed up until their diagnosis, or until the end of the study (for those who were not diagnosed).
To determine the amount of each food eaten, the researchers averaged the reported amounts over all of the questionnaires that were completed before diagnosis. During the analysis, the researchers controlled for possible confounding factors such as age, amount of food eaten, body mass index (BMI, which is an indicator of obesity), smoking status and physical activity levels.
The researchers also analysed the risk of dying from prostate cancer in the men who were diagnosed with it during the course of the study, based on their eating habits after diagnosis. The researchers only included men who were diagnosed with localised cancer (cancer that had not spread beyond the prostate). During the analysis, they controlled for possible confounding factors such as age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, disease stage, treatment type, BMI, activity level, smoking status and pre-diagnosis diet.
What were the basic results?
Of the 27,607 men included, 199 died of prostate cancer during the study. When the researchers analysed the association between eating habits and risk of lethal prostate cancer when using data up to the point of initial diagnosis, they found that:
Men who ate an average of 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% higher risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to those who ate an average of less than half an egg per week (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.81, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.89, p=0.01).
The association between average amount of eggs eaten per week and risk of lethal prostate cancer became non-significant when the researchers analysed data collected up to the point of development of a lethal form of the disease (that is, disease progression or death).
There was no significant association between the average amount of red meat eaten and the risk of lethal prostate cancer.
Men who consumed more red meat or eggs tended to exercise less and have a higher BMI, and were more likely to smoke and have a family history of prostate cancer.
Of the 3,127 men who developed prostate cancer during the course of the study, 123 died of it during follow-up. Further analysis of the men who died found no significant association between eating habits after diagnosis and risk of the disease progressing from localised prostate cancer to lethal prostate cancer.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers conclude that: “Eating eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men,” and that although “additional large prospective studies are needed, caution in egg intake may be warranted for adult men”.
Conclusion
This was a large prospective cohort study that examined the impact of lifestyle on the risk of developing and dying of advanced prostate cancer.
In addition to its large size, another strength of the study is that the information regarding exposure (eating habits) and possible confounders (medical conditions, activity levels, weight, medications and smoking status) were continually updated over the study’s course. However, updating information on eating habits every four years may still introduce a significant level of recall bias, and accurately remembering what you ate over the previous four years is likely to be difficult.
The study and data analysis also has several limitations. First, the number of deaths and cases of lethal prostate cancer were small (only 199 out of 27,607 men in the whole cohort, and 123 out of 3,127 in the case-only cohort [those who initially developed localised disease]). This small number increases the likelihood that the results are due to chance. Second, the researchers say that the group of men included in the study generally ate low amounts of the foods of interest, which limits the "power" (or ability to detect a difference) of the analysis.
Furthermore, while the researchers controlled statistically for a number of possible confounders, it is difficult to say whether other factors could account for this relationship. The researchers say that men in the study who consumed more red meat or eggs tended to have a higher BMI, exercise less and were more likely to smoke and have a family history of prostate cancer. Additionally, it is probably difficult to control completely for other dietary effects and focus the analysis on a single component of a person’s diet.
This study points to possible associations between diet and risk of prostate cancer. The aforementioned limitations, however, weaken the strength of these conclusions, along with the fact that previous research has looked at this question and found no association. While an 81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains.
Fair-skinned people who are prone to sunburn may need to take supplements to ensure they get enough vitamin D, say experts.
It appears that those with pale skin, while not deficient, may still be lacking in the essential vitamin that the body makes from sunlight.
The Cancer Research UK-funded team say that even with a lot of sun exposure, those with fair skin may not be able to make enough vitamin D.
And too much sun causes skin cancer.
Clearly, for this reason, increasing sun exposure is not the way to achieve higher vitamin D levels in the fair-skinned population, say the researchers. But taking supplements could be.
Fair-skinned individuals who burn easily are not able to make enough vitamin D from sunlight and so may need to take vitamin D supplements”
End QuoteProf Julia Newton-Bishop
Supplements are already recommended for groups at higher risk of deficiency. This includes people with dark skin, such as people of African-Caribbean and South Asian origin, and people who wear full-body coverings, as well as the elderly, young children, pregnant and breastfeeding women and people who avoid the sun.
Based on the latest findings, it appears that pale-skinned people should be added to this list.
Vitamin D is important for healthy bones and teeth.
A level less than 25nmol/L in the blood is a deficiency, but experts increasingly believe that lower than 60nmol/L are suboptimal and can also be damaging to health.
Most people get enough vitamin D with short exposures to the sun (10 to 15 minutes a day). A small amount also comes from the diet in foods like oily fish and dairy products.
But people with fair skin do not seem to be able to get enough, according to Prof Julia Newton-Bishop and her team at the University of Leeds.
Part of the reason might be that people who burn easily are more likely to cover up and avoid the sun.
But some fair-skinned individuals also appear to be less able to make and process vitamin D in the body, regardless of how long they sit in the sun for.
Prof Newton-Bishop said: "It's very difficult to give easy advice that everyone can follow. There's no one-size-fits-all.
"However, fair-skinned individuals who burn easily are not able to make enough vitamin D from sunlight and so may need to take vitamin D supplements."
Hazel Nunn, of Cancer Research UK, said: "It is about striking a balance between the benefits and harms of sun exposure.
"People with fair skin are at higher risk of developing skin cancer and should take care to avoid over-exposure to the sun's rays.
"If people are concerned about their vitamin D levels, they should see their doctor who may recommend a vitamin D test."
She said it was too soon to start recommending supplements, but said most people could safely take 10 micrograms a day of vitamin D without any side-effects.
Injection of sulphate aerosols is designed to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions
A pioneering test of a climate "tech fix" planned for October faces a six-month delay as scientists discuss the issues it raises with their critics.
The test is part of the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) project. It would use a balloon and a kilometre-long hose to spray water into the upper atmosphere - a prelude to spraying climate-cooling sulphate particles. But the funders believe that more talks about the social aspects are needed. The project is supported to the tune of £1.6m by UK research councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), whose independent advisory panel recommended the delay last week. The test would have put the UK at the forefront of practical climate engineering research. Dr Matt Watson of the UK's Bristol University, who leads the overall project, said he endorsed the decision, although his team had been "taken aback" when they first heard the news. "We're talking about a pressure washer you could buy in a hardware shop, a long hose, and two bathloads of water, so you couldn't have a more benign experiment," he told BBC News.
“Start Quote
There is a very big difference between being keen to research geoengineering and being an advocate for deployment”
End QuoteMatt WatsonBristol University
"But in the end it's the social context that's important - and we realise there's no point in having the (ESPRC independent panel) process unless we're going to work with it."
The initial deployment, due to take place from an abandoned airfield in Sculthorpe, Norfolk, will almost certainly not take place before April. If and when it does happen, the balloon will be allowed to rise to an altitude of 1km, tethered to the ground with reinforced hosepipe. The pressure washer will pump water from the ground and spray it from the end of the hosepipe. Researchers will use the set-up to investigate practicalities such as how the balloon and the pipe react to high winds. A planned series of further trials is envisaged, eventually answering the question of whether it would ever be practical to put large quantities of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere this way. The principle behind the idea is that high-altitude aerosols would cool the planet's surface by reflecting solar energy back into space, mimicking the effect of huge volcanic eruptions. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, ejected at least five cubic kilometres of ash and gas which rapidly spread around the globe, decreasing the average global temperature by 0.5C.
The postponed test would pump water droplets 1km above the ground
Climate engineering - or geoengineering, as it is often known - is a highly controversial subject. As well as aerosol injection, ideas include devices to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, giant sunshields in space, and changing the reflectivity of land through planting different crop strains. Proponents say research is needed into these technologies because humanity will probably need them one day, as society is unlikely to keep greenhouse gas emissions low enough to avoid dangerous impacts of climate change.
Deployment of a giant sunshield in space to reflect solar energy is another geoengineering idea
The Spice team - drawn from a number of universities as well as Marshall Aerospace - calculates that 10 or 20 giant balloons at a 20km altitude could release enough particles into the atmosphere to reduce the global temperature by around 2C. But opponents argue that even testing could have harmful impacts, that there are questions of ethics and international law that remain unanswered, and that even raising the prospect of geoengineering distracts from initiatives to curb emissions. Helena Paul, co-director of environment group EcoNexus, said she was "really pleased" at the latest news. "We are certainly not ready to carry out experiments, and this project should not just be delayed, but should be cancelled immediately," she told BBC News. "This is particularly important because while the scientists involved keep saying that reducing emissions is the primary necessity, they risk distracting attention from that necessity at a crucial moment." At last year's UN Convention on Biological Diversity meeting, governments agreed that geoengineering projects should not have an adverse impact on biodiversity. But that was one of very few attempts to regulate the issue internationally, which opponents argue is a big missing ingredient given that large-scale deployment of technologies in one country could have significant impacts in others. Research shows that the UK public share some of these concerns; in surveys, very few people were unconditionally positive about the concept of geoengineering. Over the next six months, the Spice team will engage with stakeholder groups, discussing the ethical, social and legal issues surrounding their project. The details have yet to be worked out, but discussions are sure to involve opponents such as EcoNexus. However, Dr Watson said there was a need to divorce the concept of researching these technologies from their actual deployment as a climate "fix". "My personal framing of this is that there is a very big difference between being keen to research geoengineering and being an advocate for deployment," he said. "I am not in any way an advocate for deployment."
Senior plastic surgeons have issued a warning over a breast enlargement procedure being offered by private UK clinics.
The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) say "stem-cell breast augmentations" are unproven and should not be offered commercially.
The warning came at the group's annual conference in Birmingham.
One Harley Street clinic offering the surgery responded by saying they were "confident" the treatment was safe.
Research 'hijacked'
The surgery involves using fat harvested from the patient's stomach or thighs via liposuction and using it to build up the breast.
Prior to transplantation, around half of of the fat is processed to enrich the stem-cell content - naturally occurring regenerative cells found within the fat.
The hope is that this enrichment process can improve the prospects for the fat graft.
The same technology is being used in reconstructive surgery where "cell-enriched fat grafting" is now being offered in several centres around the world to reconstruct breasts following cancer surgery.
Trials are currently under way at NHS centres in London, Glasgow, Swansea, Norwich and North Tyneside.
But BAAPS believes more clinical testing needs to be done to establish its safety before it is used commercially on healthy women.
We have to make sure whatever treatment we offer for breast augmentation is safe in the long-term”
End QuoteEva Weiler-MithoffConsultant plastic surgeon
"To think that this unproven research is hijacked and used in the commercial sector is really an appalling thought," former BAAPS president and consultant plastic surgeon Adam Searle told the BBC. "Not least when it's being utilised by inadequately trained practitioners."
Private London clinics, The Harley Street Skin Clinic and The Private Clinic of Harley Street, have been advertising stem-cell breast augmentations for some time. The latter says they will have treated some 200 patients by the end of this year.
In a statement, Dr Valentina Petrone of the The Private Clinic, said the views of BAAPS were welcome, but insisted the surgery was safe and every precaution was taken.
"The Private Clinic, is confident in respect to the safety of this treatment. Furthermore ongoing studies reassures us even more. We have strict patient selection criteria and clinical protocols in place.
"We, of course, look forward to completion of studies and any other findings as they become available over time and will, if necessary, adapt our protocols accordingly."
Cancer concern
The BAAPS warning came the same week new clinical data on cell-enriched fat grafting was presented to an conference in Nottingham.
Eva Weiler-Mithoff, a consultant surgeon at Canniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit in Glasgow, presented details of a 12-month trial to a meeting of the Oncoplastic Reconstructive Breast Surgery group.
The trial involved around 70 patients in seven centres in four countries. The data is yet to undergo peer review and was sponsored by Cytori Therapeutics, the US makers of a machine which can enrich the fat.
Consultant plastic surgeon Eva Weiler-Mithoff discusses the findings of a 12-month clinical trial
Ms Weiler-Mithoff told the BBC the procedure appears to be effective in cancer patients in filling in defects in the breast and in improving the appearance and feel of the breast. Nor were there any serious side-effects or recurrence of breast cancer to date.
"Traditional fat-grafting (in breast reconstructive surgery) does not work terribly well because there is not enough circulation to support the survival of the fat graft," she said.
"We know if we augment the fat graft with the naturally occurring regenerative cells in fat tissues we can improve the circulation around the fat graft and the survival of the fat graft."
But she said longer-term results were needed - at least five to10 years of data - before the technique could be deemed safe for use in cosmetic surgery.
"We still don't have enough long-term outcome data to say it's safe in the sense that it doesn't encourage the cancer to come back or new breast cancer to develop," she said.
"Because breast cancer is such a common disease we have to make sure whatever treatment we offer for breast augmentation is safe in the long-term."
A previous Japanese study involving 40 Japanese women undergoing cosmetic stem-cell breast augmentation also deemed the procedure to be effective, but also called for additional study.
Southern Cross is to be wound up by the end of the year
A third of Southern Cross care homes have been transferred to new operators, the company has announced.
Southern Cross said the transfer of 250 homes would be followed by further transfers in October and November.
Southern Cross was the UK's biggest care home operator, with 752 homes, but ran into difficulties when it was unable to pay its rent to landlords.
In July, the firm said it was to cease trading after all of its landlords said they wanted to leave the group.
The first "wave" of homes have been transferred to about 18 different operators.
Its largest landlord, NHP, which owns 249 of the homes, will be included in the second wave.
NHP is forming a new company, HC-One, with turnaround specialists Court Cavendish to run the homes itself.
HC-One is headed by the former boss of the Priory chain of clinics, Dr Chai Patel.
Winding up
Southern Cross said it had entered unconditional business purchase agreements covering 70% of its homes, with the remaining 30% still in progress.
It said all the homes would be transferred by the end of the year and the company would be wound up.
The firm has said that landlords are committed to providing continuity of care to its 31,000 residents, and that residents should notice no changes on a day-to-day basis.
It maintains that no homes will close and says the "vast majority" of its 43,000 staff will have their jobs protected, with care home workers transferring to the new operators.
The 200 Darlington-based back office workers will transfer to HC-One.
The company also announced the resignation of it chairman, Christopher Fisher, who stepped into the role in April to oversee the restructuring process.
"Now that the transfer of homes has commenced, I consider my role complete," Mr Fisher said.
Soil stuck on leeks and potatoes may have been the source of an E. coli outbreak in the UK earlier this year, according to the Health Protection Agency (HPA).
There were 250 cases scattered across England, Wales and Scotland between December 2010 and July 2011.
The Food Standards Agency said it was a "myth" that dirt did no harm.
The HPA stressed that the vegetables were safe to eat, but reminded people to ensure their food was washed.
Most of the cases were mild, but 74 people needed to go to hospital and one patient, who had underlying health problems, died.
Details of the outbreak were reported weekly to health professionals, but have only just been publicised to the general public.
A spokesperson said: "At the outset it was not clear what was causing the outbreak and we had no information that would have enabled the public to take any steps to protect themselves."
The disease was caused by a rare strain of E. coli called O157 PT8 which is different from the strain that caused the widespread outbreak in Germany.
'Timely reminder'
Infected people were 40 times more likely to have been in a household where loose leeks were handled and 12 times more likely to have been in a household which bought sacked potatoes than people who stayed infection-free.
Dr Bob Adak, head of the HPA's outbreak control team, said: "The vegetables could have carried traces of contaminated soil.
"It is possible people caught the infection from cross-contamination in storage, inadequate washing of loose vegetables, insufficient hand washing after handling the vegetables or by failing to thoroughly clean kitchen equipment, utensils or surfaces after preparing the vegetables."
Dr Andrew Wadge, chief scientist at the Food Standards Agency, said: "It's sadly a myth that a little bit of dirt doesn't do you any harm.
"Soil can sometimes carry harmful bacteria and, although food producers have good systems in place to clean vegetables, the risk can never be entirely eliminated.
"This outbreak is a timely reminder that it is essential to wash all fruits and vegetables, including salad, before you eat them."
Hospitals are, by definition, buildings that are dedicated to health.
But in this week's Scrubbing Up, Dr Rachel Thompson, deputy head of science at World Cancer Research Fund, says that good work is being undermined by the contents of hospital vending machines.
Whenever I visit hospitals, I am always struck by how the efforts of the dedicated healthcare professionals who work in them are being undermined by what is happening in the waiting areas.
All too often, these waiting areas have vending machines that are filled with high-calorie foods and drinks such as chocolate bars, crisps and sugary drinks.
But because these foods are a cause of obesity, they are part of the reason many of the people will have ended up in hospital in the first place.
There is strong scientific evidence that excess body fat is a risk factor for cancer, as well as other non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.
And yet hospital vending machines are selling products that are a cause of obesity at the same time as the health professionals working there are trying to cope with its consequences.
That is why hospitals should put an end to vending machines that sell high calorie foods and drinks.
Little focus
It is true that on its own this would be unlikely to have a serious impact on obesity levels.
You would have to spend a lot of time in hospital waiting rooms for the contents of the vending machines to make much of a difference to your weight.
There is no great mystery about what needs to happen”
End Quote
But rather, the fact that hospital vending machines are filled with these kinds of foods and drinks is a symptom of how little meaningful focus there is on the obesity crisis.
Across society, big changes are needed if we are to address obesity and the preventable cases of cancer and other diseases that result from it.
The changes that we need are supported by common sense.
If you prioritise the needs of motorised transport when you plan a town, it is to be expected that people won't walk or cycle enough.
If you allow the food and drinks industry to market unhealthy products to children, then don't be surprised when children pester their parents to buy those products.
But the fact that hospital vending machines are still stocked with high-calorie foods and drinks illustrates that we are not recognising the problem.
There is no great mystery about what needs to happen.
There is already a large evidence base for what works and doesn't work when it comes to policy changes. What we need to see is political will and a change to the mindset where we tolerate the things that promote obesity.
This would not only mean the end of the kind of culture where the sale of unhealthy foods and drinks in hospital waiting rooms is seen as acceptable.
It could also mean fewer people end up in those waiting rooms in the first place.
Experts already recommend eating at least five portions of fruit and veg a day for good health 
Unemployment
Business
