Subscribe to AICR's monthly eNews and email updates!
Check off any additional emails you would like to receive before hitting submit.
- Organics vs. Traditional: Nutritional Equals
- Activity Alone Not Enough to Prevent Colon Cancer
- Food Ads Trigger the Munchies
AICR Remembers:
Sheila Rodwell (1947- 2009)
Sheila Rodwell (professionally Bingham) was a world-renowned researcher in the field of nutritional influences on cancer development. Early in Dr. Rodwell’s career, she recognized the important role that diet plays in cancer prevention. However, the scientific literature contained conflicting findings on this issue. One reason, she hypothesized, could be how the studies assessed food consumption.
Over the next several decades, Dr. Rodwell, a dietitian and nutritional epidemiologist who was a longtime supporter of AICR and its mission, characterized the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to dietary assessment; she developed new and improved tools for assessing food intake. Her research led to stronger studies in the diet-cancer field and uncovered new links between certain foods and cancer risk.
Dr. Rodwell died last month, only days after receiving the honor of OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) for her services to healthcare.
“She will be missed deeply by the whole scientific community because she had so much more to offer,” said Panagiota Mitrou, one of her early PhD students and a close colleague.
Early and Steady Supporter
Dr. Rodwell was Director of the MRC Centre for Nutrition in Cancer Epidemiology Prevention and Survival at the University of Cambridge and a Principal Investigator of the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) in Norfolk study.
EPIC-Norfolk is part of the massive EPIC study on diet and health, which involves over half a million people in ten countries.
Living in England, she was an early supporter of World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) International and its mission to investigate the link between diet and cancer prevention. WCRF International is the umbrella association of AICR and WCRF United Kingdom.
She played a key role in AICR/WCRF’s 2007 expert report, working with a team of researchers to develop a set of criteria for assessing the tens of thousands of studies on nutrition and cancer. Teams of scientists then used this process to evaluate which studies from around the world were scientifically strong enough to include in the report’s analysis.
“Sheila was an early investigator into nutrition and cancer, and her expertise was invaluable to WCRF and AICR as part of the project that led to the 2007 expert report,” said WCRF’s Medical and Scientific Adviser Martin Wiseman. “As a member of the UK Government’s Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) and its successor the Scientific Advisor Committee on Nutrition (SACN) she brought her expertise into the national arena and contributed to important policy initiatives. Her loss will leave a large gap in this field.”
Strengthening the Studies
Dr. Rodwell became interested in the relationship between diet and cancer while working on comparative studies of fiber intake and colon cancer incidence in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. At that time, in the early 1980s, there was relatively little research or attention on the association between diet and cancer.
She saw a need for large-scale population studies that could assess individual dietary intake. Large studies primarily used questionnaires that asked participants to report how often they consumed numerous items over a defined period of time, such as the last month or year. Realizing how difficult it is to measure diet accurately by self-reported data, Dr. Rodwell identified biomarkers – measurable substances in the blood and body fluids – that could validate reports of food intake. For example, a biomarker she developed for meat intake is now commonly used by researchers around the world.
“Sheila was an early investigator into nutrition and cancer, and her expertise was invaluable to WCRF and AICR as part of the project that led to the 2007 expert report...”
“Biomarkers are the gold standard,” said Dr. Mitrou, “but they are expensive and when you run big studies you can’t always take blood measurements. She understood the limitations in this field and she proposed ways of overcoming those.”
Significant Findings
Funded by WCRF-UK in several of her studies, one of her numerous well-cited papers, published in The Lancet, showed a strong protective effect of fiber against colorectal cancer. Another key study demonstrated that people who eat large quantities of red meat but little dietary fiber are at particular risk.
In subsequent studies she demonstrated that heme – an iron-containing substance found in red meat – may be responsible for the link between high meat consumption and increased colorectal cancer risk. Another important finding of her work in EPIC Norfolk demonstrated that by using a 7-day food diary, high saturated fat intake could be shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. The same effects were not seen when the women reported their food intake using the conventional food questionnaires.
Using self-reporting data on diet along with urine and blood samples from the EPIC participants, she showed that obese people underestimate the amount of sugar they consume, while overestimating the amount of vitamin C they took in each day. The study highlighted the need for more accurate assessment of diet.
In 2006 she set up the Centre for Nutritional Epidemiology in Cancer Prevention and Survival (CNC) under the auspices of the Medical Research Council. Dr. Rodwell’s vision for the CNC was to study the relationship between genes and diet as well as to bring together advances in dietary assessment methods. The ultimate goal of these efforts was to enhance knowledge identifying the underlying causes and specific foods involved in cancer prevention and survival.
“Sheila will always be remembered as a great mentor and an inspiring leader to many scientists all around the world,” said Dr. Mitrou.
Related Links:
- The AICR/WCRF expert report: Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective – read about the science and its recommendations.
- AICR Guidelines for Cancer Prevention explains the three simple guidelines, drawn from the expert report.
Did You Know?
Filling Up on Milk
If your choice is between skim milk and a fruit drink, reach for the milk and you may eat less at your next meal, according to a new study published in the American journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Science Roundup
Organics vs. Traditional: Nutritional Equals
After reviewing studies published over the past 50 years, a team of scientists has found that the nutritional value of organic foods is equal to that of conventionally-produced foods. The British study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggests that both provide the same health benefits and that nutrient differences reported stem from varied production methods.
In the study, researchers systematically reviewed the literature from 1958 to 2008, first identifying 162 scientific papers that analyzed commonly reviewed nutrients. Those were then culled to 55 studies that met certain quality standards. For conventional and organic crop-foods, such as fruits and vegetables, the researchers found no difference in 8 of the 11 nutrients analyzed, including vitamin C, magnesium, potassium, zinc, and calcium. The relatively small number of livestock studies also showed no difference in nutrients.
Although a small number of nutrient differences exists between conventional and organic foods, the authors conclude, they are unlikely to be of public health relevance.
Activity Alone Not Enough to Prevent Colon Cancer
Evidence – including AICR’s expert report – has already shown that physical activity reduces the risk of colorectal cancer. Now, a new animal study suggests that physical activity alone may not be enough to overpower the cancer-promoting effects of an unhealthy diet and obesity.
Published in July’s Cancer Prevention Research, the study looked at the effects of moderate intensity exercise on the development of intestinal polyps, an abnormal growth that can become cancerous. One group of mice ate a high-fat and high-calorie diet – a Western style diet – that mirrors the diet of most Americans while another group ate a relatively low fat, low calorie diet. Each group was then divided into an exercise and non-exercise sub-group.
After six weeks, the mice that ate Western-style and did not exercise had approximately 75 percent more polyps than the comparison group (the healthier eating mice who did not exercise). When the mice eating the Western-style diet did exercise, it had no effect on the number of polyps. Yet after the healthy-eating mice exercised, their total number of polyps were reduced by half.
Food Ads Trigger the Munchies
Children who watched TV food ad
ate 28.5 grams;
children who saw nonfood
ads ate 19.7 grams.
.
The study demonstrates how TV ads may trigger automatic eating behaviors, which may play a role in our country’s obesity epidemic.
In one experiment, a group of 7 to 11 year olds watched a cartoon show with food ads and another group watched the same cartoon with nonfood commercials. All the children were given the same large bowl of goldfish crackers. By the time the show was over, the children who saw the cartoon with food ads had eaten 45 percent more goldfish than their counterparts.
For adults, who watched an episode of Whose Line Is It Anyway?, viewers who watched the comedy with food ads that emphasized fun and excitement ate significantly more snacks after the program than viewers who watched both food ads with a nutrition message and those that watched nonfood ads. For adults and children, snacking was unrelated to hunger or the foods advertised.
All active news articles