Literature Review

You will be conducting a study and writing a scholarly paper to report your findings. IN THIS STUDY YOU WILL BE A VETERINARIAN WHO IS STUDYING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE WATER AND ANIMAL LIFE (OR EXTINCTION) IN THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK. 

Write a literature review. The purpose of a literature review is to acquaint your readers with all of the background information that they need to know about your topic so that they will understand how your study fits into the larger scale of things, how it contributes to the overall academics.

You may find that you need to add new resources that were not in your annotated bibliography, and you may decide  that some sources you had found are not actually useful.

Make sure that you write in your own words. You should be paraphrasing the information form your sources, not quoting, because you want to demonstrate understanding of the material. Even though you will be paraphrasing, you still need to cite. 

The first half of your literature review will focus on SCIENTIFIC aspects of your topic, whereas the second half will focus on the CULTURAL aspects. Label these two sections with BOLD SUBTITLES (CULTURAL & SCIENTIFIC) 

7 TO 10 PAGES FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW 

Running head: YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT 1

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT 2

You Are What You Eat

Awesome Doctor

West Coast University

Abstract

Scientist have found evidence that life with cancer can be extended and certain cancers can be prevented by changing dietary habits. People who are influenced by western society and maintain a western diet are in great danger if nothing is done to limit the intake of meat and consumption of process meats. New dietary guidelines are released every 5 years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the department of Health and Human Services. Both organizations are responsible for reviewing clinical evidence and reports from research, and creating new dietary guidelines for consumers to follow. Critics of the new guidelines argue that the USDA has censored the recommendations to eat less red meat in such a way that only the food corporations funding the research receive benefits. Cancer is caused by multiple factors but mainly from exposure to carcinogens and mutations in DNA. Carcinogens either promote cancer growth or initiate cancer growth. Certain risk factors have been associated with the development of cancers. Air pollution, tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption, occupational hazards, exposure to radiation, and certain aspects of diet are all risk factors liked to be carcinogenic. The carcinogenic links in diet have been attracting a lot of attention in the scientific community. Scientist working with the national cancer institute, under the national institute of health, have been working together to verify the relationship between consuming meat and processed foods, and the development or progression of cancer. The national cancer institute’s division of cancer prevention, conducted a two-year study that divided 200 people into 2 groups that were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 3 to 6 months of the study. The control group maintained their normal diet that included eating meat and processed foods while the experimental group eliminated meat and processed foods and maintained a strict vegetarian diet for the life of the experiment. The experiments objective was to test the correlation between meat consumption and the effects of colorectal cancer. The funding assisted with the research needed to find subjects for the study and to transport them to and from facilities rented out to perform colonoscopy or CT scan procedures. Graphs were made to measure the rates of reoccurrence or metastasis. 72 of the 200 participants died during the 24-month long experiment. The participants from the control group suffered a loss of 42%, while the experimental group only lost 30% of its participants before the trial was over. Those who maintained a vegetarian diet displayed an additional 25% chance of not developing metastasis and 26% decrease in polyp reoccurrence. Participants in the study who maintained a vegetarian diet developed end stage cancer or metastasis at slower rates. The information from the results is enough to consider meat consumption carcinogenic. The scientist involved in the experiment used the results to reach out to public health officials and others in the scientific community to help bring awareness to the public. Based on the evidence linking the consumption of meat and processed foods to cancer, special legislation was proposed that forces the food industry to include all possible health risk associated with their products on the label.

Literature review

“Diet strongly influences the risk of colorectal cancer, and changes in food habits might reduce up to 70% of this cancer burden” (Haggar, & Boushey, 2009, para 18). Along with meat consumption, studies show that obesity is related to colon and other types of cancer (Singh, & Fraser, 1998). It is believed that 90% of cancer can be cured with changes in diet (Young-in, & Mason, 1998). Even though colorectal cancer accounts for approximately 9% of cancer worldwide, the incidents of cancer are not evenly distributed across the globe (Haggar, & Boushey, 2009). Most of the colorectal cancer cases are noted to be amongst developed countries and western cultures. Researchers believe that dietary factors are the cause of one third of cancer in western nations. (Myles, 2014). Colorectal cancer is said to be the third most common cancer around the globe and the fourth most common cause of death (Haggar, & Boushey, 2009). Colorectal cancer is a serious disease that may go unnoticed until end stage. GI cancers can go unnoticed due to either the cancer initially being asymptomatic or symptoms similar to common gastrointestinal issues (Cabalag, Chan, Kaneko, & Duong, 2015).

The word cancer comes from the word karkinos, a term coined by Hippocrates, the father of medicine; the word karkinos was used to describe carcinomas or malignant tumors. (Band, 2014). Historians have been able to date cases of cancer as far back as 1500 B.C. (Sudhakar, 2009). There has been different theories and concepts of cancer and its causes throughout history. The evidence of tumors goes as far back as ancient Egypt, found in mummies and on written records that diagnosed cancer as incurable (Sudhakar, 2009).

Knowledge and information relating to cancer continues to advance. Physicians and scientist use the research of previous scholars to generate their own theories to form and test their own hypothesis. The developments in information and technology throughout history brings forth the modern day understanding of cancer. The glossary for the American cancer society (ACS) defines cancer as “a group of diseases which cause cells in the body to change and grow out of control. Most types of cancer cells form a lump or mass called a tumor” (ACS, 2017). Not all growths are considered cancerous. A non-cancerous tumor is called benign, and if it is cancerous, the tumor is called malignant (ACS, 2017). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary defines cancer as a malignant neoplasia marked by the uncontrolled growth of cells, either locally or systemic throughout the body (Venes, & Taber’s, 2005). “The frequency of cell division varies considerably from one tissue to the next. Some cells reproduce very frequently, whereas other cells reproduce very slowly or not at all” (Herlihy, 2007, p. 42). The development of cancer begins when cells from the body initiates abnormal growth behavior. The abnormal cells are classified as cancer cells. There are multiple forms of cancer and all cancer cells continue to grow and divide continuously instead of dying (Sudhakar, 2009). One of the main types of cell division is called mitosis. Mitosis is the major part of the cell cycle where the cell divides into two identical cells. At the end of the cycle, cells can either stop and rest or renter the cycle and continue replicating (Herlihy, 2007). The trait noted in cancer cells is the inability to stop and enter the rest cycle. (Herlihy, 2007).

The different types of cancer are named after the part of the body that the abnormal growth originated in. Cancerous cells tend to take over and replace normal tissue. In a process called metastasis, cells from a cancerous tumor can detach and migrate to other parts of the body. After metastasizing, cancer cells continue to grow and spread. Although in new locations, it maintains the name of the part of the body where it originated. One example of this would be if colon cancer spreads to the liver or lungs, It will still be called colon cancer instead of liver or lung cancer (ACS, 2017). Benign tumors are not considered deadly, they do not grow like cancer and do not metastasize. Cancers of the blood do not form tumors but remain life threatening. (ACS, 2017). When viewing tissue samples, those of malignant tumors differ significantly from benign tumors or normal cells. Benign tumor cells closely resemble the tissue of origin, are normally encapsulated with well-defined borders, and cause displacement of surrounding tissue but does not infiltrate (Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, 2011). Malignant tissue cells have noticeable variations, the cells rapidly expand in multiple directions, and cause severe damage while expanding into surrounding tissue (Lippincott et al., 2011). As the malignant tumor cells continue to grow, they eventually spread through the circulatory or lymphatic systems. (Lippincott et al., 2011).

Understanding what causes cancer is more challenging compared to understanding what cancer is. When the DNA of a normal cell becomes damaged the cell can become cancerous, normally the body can repair it, but cancer cells are unable to do so. The damaged DNA is not repaired. Although people can inherit damaged DNA, DNA can also become damaged by exposure to different environmental factors. (Sudhakar, 2009). Scientist from the Mayo Clinic state that these irreparable damages are the reason for changes or mutations to the DNA within cells:

DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in the instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal function and may allow a cell to become cancerous. (Mayo Clinic, 2015, para.1).

Gene mutations affect healthy cells in different ways. Gene mutations can direct cells to grow and divide rapidly, creating new cells with the same mutation defect. (Mayo Clinic, 2015). Cancer cells lose the ability to tell the cells when to stop growing, causing mutations in the tumor suppressor genes and allow cancer cells the opportunity to continue growing and multiply into masses or tumors (Mayo Clinic, 2015). The damages to DNA gives rise to mistakes when repairing DNA errors which are normally repaired by the bodies repair mechanisms. DNA’s repair genes look for errors in a cell’s DNA and make corrections. Mutations in a DNA’s repair genes can result in errors not being corrected, and this is what causes cancerous cells (Mayo Clinic, 2015). The main error leading to cancer is the inability to stop dividing. “Evidence suggests that cancer develops from a complex interaction of exposure to carcinogens and accumulated mutations in genes that can control cell growth” (Lippincott et al., 2011). Researchers have discovered close to 100 different control genes that are grouped into four categories; proto-oncogenes, tumor-suppressor genes, DNA repair genes, and apoptosis genes (Lippincott et al., 2011). Proto-oncogenes normally help cells grow. Mutations in proto-oncogenes or excess copies can cause the gene to be permanently be turned on or activated without a need. Tumor suppressor genes are required to slow down cell division and repair mistakes in DNA. Tumor suppressor genes also initiate apoptosis, a programmed routine that instructs the cells to die when needed (ACS, 2014). If the tumor suppressor genes stop working properly the cells will grow out of control. Damage to DNA repair genes will allow DNA to continue the cell cycle unrepaired and mutated apoptosis genes lose the ability to complete their programmed self-destruction (Lippincott et al., 2011).

Seeing that damaged or mutated DNA leads to cancerous growth, it is important to understand that carcinogens are the cause of most mutations. The American Cancer Society defines carcinogens as “any substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow. For example, tobacco smoke contains many carcinogens that greatly increase the risk of lung cancer, and many other types of cancer” (ACS, 2017). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary defines carcinogenesis as “the transformation of normal cells into cancer cells as a result of chemical, viral, or radioactive damage to genes” (Venes, & Taber, 2005). Some cancers are caused by inherited genetics, viruses or compromised immune systems (Lippincott et al., 2011).

To assist people from developing cancer, researchers have identified several risk factors that have proven to increase the chances of carcinogenesis. The following are risk factors associated with cancer; Air pollution, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, sexual behavior, occupation, ultraviolet radiation, ionizing radiation, hormones, and diet (Lippincott et al., 2011). Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with liver (GI accessory organ), upper aerodigestive tract, and colorectal cancers (Vineis & Wild, 2014). Exposure to these risk factors increases the likely hood of cancer cells developing.

The human body processes food by breaking down substances into smaller chemicals which can either be harmful or beneficial. Eating red meat, processed meats, and maintaining a diet low in fiber has been linked to colorectal cancer. (Vineis & Wild. 2014). The fattening diets of western culture tend to produce a bacterial flora capable of degrading bile salts to a carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (Haggar & Boushey, 2009). Studies suggest that two possible carcinogens, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are formed when cooking certain meats at high temperatures (Haggar & Boushey, 2009). In 2011, U.S. consumption trends show that Americans ate an average of 183.7 pounds of meat per year (PCRM, 2015). Cancer researchers with the Physicians Committee of Responsible Medicine have noticed that people who avoided meats in their diets were 40% less likely to develop cancers. (PCRM, 2015).

Intake is just one aspect of dieting, another subject associated with diet is activity or the lack of. Sedentary lifestyles can cause an increase to a person’s body-mass index (BMI) which will increase the likely hood of being classified as obese. Obesity is classified as a risk factor for breast, colorectal, endometrium, kidney, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers (Venes & Taber, 2005). Since obesity has been linked to causing type 2 diabetes and a variety of other health concerns, observational studies have been studying the metabolic effects of excess body fat and the link between human fat (adipose tissue) and cancer (Calle, 2007). Scientist have detected that one of the effects of obesity is an increase in leptin levels which reduces the level of anti-inflammatory cells (Myles, 2014). High fat foods, processed meats and high energy drinks have been associated with pro-inflammatory properties (Lu, Shivappa, Lin, Lagergren, & Hébert, 2016). “Epidemiologic evidence has shown that chronic inflammation is important in triggering the development of esophageal cancer” (Lu et al., 2016, p. 1684).

Consequently, diet plays an important role in cancer prevention. The foods associated with western culture promote inflammation in the body, and obesity is associated with a decrease in anti-inflammatory cells which decreases the body’s ability to counteract inflammation. Addressing the importance of dietary choices can be difficult when access to healthier food options is not possible for everybody. The obesity rates developing in low and middle-income households are reaching epidemic levels (Vineis, & Wild. 2014).

“The conclusion is that 45% of cancers in men and 40% in women could have been prevented had risk factors been reduced to the optimum levels or eliminated (eg, tobacco)” (Vineis, & Wild, 2014, p.554). In the medical field, the best treatment is always prevention. When performing research on treating cancer patients, if the family is not available to provide patient history, then it can be difficult to conduct long term studies due to the high mortality rates (Nomura et al., 2003). Based on clinical trials, patients can expect an average survival rate of 30 months (Vogel, Hofheinz, Kubicka, & Arnold, 2017). Due to an increasing range of therapeutic choices, scientists are beginning to believe that colorectal cancer can become a chronic disease instead of a fatal Diagnosis (Vogel et al., 2017). Healthcare promotion on the individual level is not enough to combat the epidemic of cancer, and researchers suggest that a structural change is needed. (Vineis, & Wild, 2014). In the absence of taxation, regulations, or bans on unhealthy commodities, the government will continue to allow an environment to exist where poverty or socioeconomic status controls access to healthy food. (Vineis, & Wild, 2014). Therefore, unless personal lifestyle and socio-economic changes are made, the epidemic of cancer and cancers caused by dietary intake will continue to escalate.

Materials and Methods

Experimental studies were performed to validate the correlations between diet and colorectal cancer. The experiments mainly observed the effects of diet and nutrients on the cancer pathways identified from molecular genetics. The focus of this study was to examine the connection between meat consumption and the reoccurrence of polyps in the gastrointestinal tract or the metastasis in cases of colorectal cancer. The independent variable in this study was observed in the experimental group consisting of 100 cancer patients, who began and maintained a vegetarian diet consisting of no meat or processed meats. The control group consisted of 100 cancer patients who maintained their usual diets containing the average meat consumption levels associated with western diets. The chance of polyps reoccurring or metastasizing were the dependent variables measured at the end of the experiment. Public and private funding were provided to maintain the cost of the experiment. Staff was hired to assist in locating and screening participants, and to help conduct the experiment. The funding assisted with the research needed to find subjects for the study and to transport them to and from facilities rented out to perform colonoscopy or CT scan procedures. Graphs were made to measure the rates of reoccurrence or metastasis.

To obtain personal and family health history, surveys were created and filled out by participants. To eliminate variables in the experiment, each survey was carefully reviewed multiple

time

s in search of appropriate candidates. Previous research reinforces that the results of epidemiological studies were not considered consistent due to the different risk factors involved with cancer (Williamson, Foster, Stanner, Buttriss, 2005). The experimental design stage had to take the multiple risk factors that are associated with colorectal cancer into consideration. To begin searching for volunteers for this experiment it was necessary to reach out to as many organizations and clinics involved in colorectal and gastrointestinal cancers.

The objective was to locate individuals with cancer as their only negative health characteristic. Due the fact that inherited genetics and compromised immunity are known causes for colorectal cancer, anyone with a known family history of cancer or prior immune system deficiencies was eliminated from the study (Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, 2011). Specific risk factors that also prompted elimination were known exposures to air pollution, tobacco use, excessive to moderate alcohol consumption, risky sexual behavior, known occupational hazards, ultraviolet and ionizing radiation, hormone deficiencies, and certain diets (Lippincott et al., 2011). A sedentary life style increases the body mass index and increases the risk of obesity, which is another risk factor associated with colorectal cancer. (Venes & Taber, 2005). To eliminate obesity as a variable, majority of participants who maintained a body mass index within normal or average ranges where accepted. Participants who did not maintain the proper body mass index but reported engagement in physical activity at least 2 to 3 times a week were also chosen as potential candidates.

The experiments objective was to test the correlation between meat consumption and the effects of colorectal cancer. Anyone who confirmed a vegetarian diet was eliminated and those who rarely consumed meat was not given preference. The purpose for this was also to limit the number of variables in the experiment. The goal was to focus on finding subjects who normally consumed meat and then exclude it from their diet by developing a vegetarian diet in hope of increasing life expectancy; either by limiting the reoccurrence of gastrointestinal polyps or the occurrence of metastasis. While focusing on healthier subjects to eliminate risk factors, age became another area of interest. Participants were chosen from the age range of 30 to 65 to limit subjects with possible declining health aspects.

Extensive screening of patients was the first step in this research, which included another important variable to take into consideration. When planning the time frame for the experiment, the staging of cancer was important to identify. There is no way to predict whether death would have occurred before the experiment was over, so participants were only chosen if diagnosed recently within 3 to 6 months. The study was done over a period of 24 months, so recent diagnosis was an important factor.

Once the appropriate volunteers were chosen the subjects were randomly selected and equally distributed into two different groups. 200 cancer patients participated in this study. restricting consumption of all types of meat. Funding was provided to assist the participants with cost of food and meal preparation. Group B. was required to maintain their original diets. Funding was also provided to group B. if financial assistance was needed to maintain their normal diets. Research teams were assigned to groups of participants for the life of the experiment to keep accurate logs of change in health and assist in maintaining dietary requirements for the experiment. All participants were then screened for a baseline assessment to use for comparison throughout the testing period. To test for polyps or metastasis, CT scans and colonoscopy procedures were performed on a routine basis. Every 3 months the participants received CT scans and colonoscopy procedures and all changes were recorded and compared to the original baseline assessments. The footage received from the colonoscopy exams were compared to the initial assessment as a way of measuring the reoccurrences. Images of the CT scans were compared side by side to monitor for metastasis, and then overlapping to observe growth patterns. At the end of the 24 months, all information gathered by the teams of researchers was put together and reviewed seeking to add more evidence to the correlations already made between meat consumption and colorectal cancer.

Results

The chart above illustrates the observation of metastasis occurring in both groups from the experiment and its relation to the reoccurrence of polyp growth. 158 participants experience a reoccurrence of polyps. From the 158 subjects, 72% experience metastasis of cancer. The control group contained 22 people with a reoccurrence of polyps that did not develop metastasis, the experimental group contained 21. Out of the 100 participants in each group, the chart showed how many people experienced metastasis, 45 people from the experimental group and 70 from the control group. 115 people in this experiment experienced metastasis with their cancer, of those 115 the chart further explains how 72 have lost their lives as a result. From the 72 people who died, 30 were from the experimental group and 42 from the control group.

The line chart above compares the rate at which subjects showed reoccurrence of polyp growth over a period of 24 months. The chart also illustrates the rate of death that occurred during the experiment. The figures from both groups based off the results from CT scan comparisons and colonoscopy findings that were taken every 3 months. Lower numbers are seen in the experimental group although both groups show a steady increase in the amount of people with polyp reoccurrence. The third month’s results showed the control group with 9 people and the experimental group having 6. Month 6 has 19 people in the control group and 13 in the experimental group. Month 9 shows both groups increasing with 29 in the control group and 18 in the experimental group. Half way through the experiment, in month 12, the amount of people in the control group risen to 38 and to 27 in the experimental group. Month 15 shows 46 people in the control and 39 in the experimental group. The 18th month shows the total of people rising to 53 in the control group and 47 in the experimental. During month 21, the amount of people who showed reoccurrence was 78 in the control group and 66 in the experimental group. In month 24, the final month, the amount of people in the control group had risen to 92. No further cases of occurrences were noted in the experimental group’s last month leaving their final number at 66.

During the first 3 months of the experiment no one died. In the 6th month the control group shows 7 people have died. No deaths are noted in the experimental group until the 9th month showing a total of 4 deaths, the control group had 18. In month 12, there were 25 deaths in the control group and 10 in the experimental group. The control group lost 30 people in the 15th month and the experimental group lost 16. Month 18 resulted in a total of 35 deaths in the control group and 22 in the experimental group. In month 21, the number of deaths in the control group had risen to 40 people, and 27 within the experimental group. At the end of the experiment, the chart shows in month 24, a total of 42 deaths in the control group and 30 in the experimental group.

Conclusion

This study allowed scientist to discover evidence that life with cancer can be extended by changing dietary habits. Participants in the study who maintained a vegetarian diet developed end stage cancer or metastasis at slower rates. All the participants personally chose to not seek treatment and continued their lives as normal as possible. To verify that meat consumption was the cause for the cancer’s progression, it was vital to the study that the participants refuse other forms of treatment. Participants who maintained a vegetarian diet displayed an additional 25% chance of preventing the development of metastasis. The control group that maintained a diet consisting of meat consumption had a 12 % increase in number of deaths within 24 months. The results of the experiment show that eliminating meat alone can extend life with cancer and decreases the reoccurrence of polyps. With the addition of treatments of any kind, patients will be able to decrease the death rates associated with cancer. Based on advancements in technology and medical research, scientist believe that in the future, colorectal cancer will no longer be listed as a fatal disease (Vogel et al., 2017). The information from the results is enough to consider meat consumption carcinogenic. Being that a carcinogen is any substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow, there is enough evidence to include meat in the list of known carcinogens. With or without treatment, survival rates of colorectal cancer are very low. 72 of the 200 participants died during the 24-month long experiment. The participants from the control group suffered a loss of 42%, while the experimental group only lost 30% of its participants before the trial was over.

It is an obligation of scientist and experts in the field for discoveries to not be kept from the people who depend on medical research and experiments. In the medical field, the experts are responsible for promoting healthy choices and alternatives to those who need assistance. Healthcare professionals are required to uphold the oath of doing no harm, it seems contradictive that all healthcare professionals are not promoting new dietary guidelines. Based on the information discovered in the experiment, the correlation between cancer and consumption of meat and processed meats is undeniable. This should be enough for the scientific community to take a stand for the people they serve. Even if it means losing funding for future experiments and research, the health of the people they serve should come first. New regulations and guidelines should be created by the scientist and medical professionals who conduct the research, not by the large corporations and politicians who control the policies. New dietary guidelines will have to be introduced through seminars and workshops, allowing doctors, nurses, dietitians and all other forms of healthcare providers to understand the importance of limiting or restricting meat from our diets.

People who are influenced by western society and maintain a western diet are in great danger if nothing is done to limit the intake of meat and consumption of process meats. The public needs to be warned in detail about the possible health defects involved with meat consumption. Because people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies it will be very difficult to convince people to change their dietary habits, especially after generations of conditioning. The availability of cheap processed meat in comparison to expensive fruits and vegetables is another deterrent that the public must face. Studies show a direct relation between socioeconomic status and access to healthy foods (Vineis, & Wild, 2014). Education levels are also associated lack of information or knowledge regarding dietary habits (Vineis, & Wild, 2014). The results from the experiment confirm that there was less progression of disease and incidents of death for those who refrained from consuming meat. Other studies show that people who avoided meat from their diet decreased chances of developing cancer by 40 % (PCRM, 2015). It is possible to begin preventing some forms of cancer among the population, but only if the public are willing to make the necessary dietary changes.

New dietary guidelines are released every 5 years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the department of Health and Human Services. Both organizations are responsible for reviewing the clinical evidence and reports from research, and creating new dietary guidelines for people and all government funded programs to follow. A 2016 news article by Maggie Fox of NBC news explained how the latest guidelines for 2015 to 2020 are controversial due to its lack of detailed information. In the article representatives from different national cancer institutions voiced their disappointment in congress. The main point expressed by the cancer organizations was that lobbying from different industries effected the outcome of the guidelines. With the evidence linking meat consumption to cancer, the wording of the guidelines makes an ambiguous reference of cancer in its vague attempt to mention the health risk associated with meat. Critics of the new guidelines argue that the USDA has censored the recommendations to eat less red meat, and that the companies funding the research are the only ones who benefit.

Cancer institutions were not the only organization to identify the inappropriate guidance. In response to the new dietary guidelines being released, the Physicians Committee of Responsible Medicine filed a law suit in 2016 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services. The basis of the law suit claimed that the government officials (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) broke the law when setting up the new guidelines. The law in question is the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the actions that led to the lawsuit are described in a 2016 article written by the PCRM. The law states that the advisory committee is not allowed to be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or any special interest (PCRM, 2016). Within the article it explains how the food industry uses their power to influence research and guidelines in their favor. Researchers illustrate how, despite the evidence linking eggs to cholesterol issues and coronary heart disease, the egg industry’s funded research was used to justify claims that there was no longer a need to monitor dietary cholesterol. The PCRM claims there was no review of scientific information which is required before recommendations are made, and that the egg industry strongly influenced the advisory committee in their decisions. The goal of any industry is to increase profits. If left unchecked and other industries can influence the dietary guidelines, the consumers will see an increase in dietary health risk. Colorectal cancer and other health risk obtained by poor choices in diet will continue to rise.

The first Dietary Guidelines was released in 1980, congress passed the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act ten years later in 1990 (ODPHP, 2017). Section 301 of the law indicates that HHS and USDA are responsible for reviewing, updating, and publishing the Dietary Guidelines every 5 years (ODPHP, 2017). Legislative reform is needed to change this law or to dictate the process of creating the guidelines in a way that benefits the people and not the food industries. The current process for creating the guidelines begins with both the HHS and USDA departments creating a committee called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) to review the body of nutrition science (ODPHP, 2017). The Committee consist of nationally recognized nutrition and medical researchers, academics, and practitioners. Public meetings are held to obtain public feedback from the committee’s advisory report. The report includes science and medical evidence based recommendations which are used by the HHS and USDA to create new guidelines (ODPHP, 2017). One of the concerns with this process is the current and previous affiliations with some of the members. The egg industry was noticed using their influence to seat members of the committee, if the dairy, sugar, and meat corporations continue to do the same, the results should not be trusted.

Reform of legislation should involve additional ways restrict the use of biased reports from corporate funded research, and incorporate the use of clear concise language that does not tone down any health risk involved. Laws should also be in place so when there is evidence of any health risk associated with certain foods, consumers must be made aware and industries who decide to continue producing such foods should be forced to list any health risk associated. Companies who produce foods associated with significant health risk should be obligated to place health warning labels or be banned from production. furthermore, the process of developing dietary guidelines needs to be reformed so that severe penalties are set in place for companies and members of congress who break these laws.

One of the main benefits of policy change would be a decrease in healthcare cost. With a reduction in meat consumption and an increase in life expectancy, nurses and other healthcare providers will have more time with patients. Reducing the number of cancer patients will help to reduce the stress involved with high nurse to patient ratios. Studies have proven that a vegan or vegetarian diet can reduce the chances of developing cancer by more than 30% (PCRM, 2015). Less incidents of cancer means less time and money will be spent trying to cure the disease or administering palliative care. Not only will nurses have more time for other patients but the increase in funds available for healthcare will also increase the quality of life for patients with other illnesses.

America has been one of the world leaders in technology and healthcare advancements. Because of corporate greed, the diet associated with western culture is based on corporate profit instead of consumer health. Consumers have the right to know what is in their food and the associated health risk. Changes in legislation will not only be rewarding for the community but for the entire world. Consumers will be able to make safer choices in what they include in their diet, which will result in less incidents of colorectal cancer. When other countries see the success of effective legislation and healthy dieting, decreases in meat consumption will be a standard practice.

The North American meat institute was formed in 2015 as a merger between the American Meat Institute (AMI) and the North American Meat Association (NAMA). Trying to move legislation forward will be met with heavy resistance from this group. The north American meat institute states that they are on top of legislation, regulation and media activity affecting the meat and poultry industry (NAMI, 2017). Despite evidence being available from multiple studies, companies like the NAMI will continue to argue that too many variables are involved when considering the results that link colorectal cancer and meat consumption as concrete evidence.

The findings from this study have shed light into the important role that diet plays on our health. Nurses in the health care field can use this information to update families and patients about the risk associated with meat consumption and the possibility of improving the quality of life. While working alongside physicians and dietitians, nurses are affected most by policies and guidelines set in place for patients to follow. Nurses spend more time with patients and have a very clear perception of the dietary and treatment effectiveness. If the current guidelines continue in place, the rates of colorectal cancer and metastasis will continue to increase. This might possibly cause an increase in the nursing shortage already present. Nurses and family members who work with end stage cancer patients can be spared the pain and suffering, known as sympathy fatigue, that involves observing the aggressive decline that takes place during the dying process associated with cancer. Avoiding meat consumption won’t prevent all cancers, but it will decrease the number of victims who lose their lives. By bringing awareness to the public and eliminating industrial influence on legislation, congress could make a significant difference in the healthcare field. In the end, it comes down to a decision between corporate profits or the consumers health and seeing which is more valuable to congress.

References

American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team, (June 25, 2014 ) Oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Retrieved from

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/genetics/genes-and-cancer/oncogenes-tumor-suppressor-genes.html

American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team, (2017) Glossary: Definitions & phonetic pronunciations. Retrieved from

https://www.cancer.org/content/cancer/en/cancer/glossary.html?term=cancer

Band, P. R. (2014). Therapeutic revolution: The history of medical oncology from early days to the creation of the subspecialty. Shāriqah, United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science Publishers.

Cabalag, C., Chan, S., Kaneko, Y., & Duong, C. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastric cancer treatment in patients with positive peritoneal cytology. Gastric cancer, 18(1), 11-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-014-0388-5

Calle, E. E. (2007). Obesity and cancer. British Medical Journal, 335 (7630), 1107. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org.westcoastuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmj.39384.472072.80

Haggar, F., Boushey, R. (2009). Colorectal cancer epidemiology: Incidence, Mortality, Survival, and Risk Factors Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery 22(4), 191-197. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1242458

Herlihy, B., (2007). The human body in health and illness. Saunders Elsevier.

Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. (2011). Professional guide to pathophysiology. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer / Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Lu, Y., Shivappa, N., Lin, Y., Lagergren, J., & Hébert, J. R. (2016). Diet-related inflammation and oesophageal cancer by histological type: a nationwide case–control study in Sweden. European journal of nutrition, 55(4), 1683-1694. DOI: 10.1007/s00394-015-0987-x

Mayo Clinic Staff, (May 23, 2015). Causes. Retrieved from

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/basics/causes/con-20032378

Myles, I. A. (2014). Fast food fever: Reviewing the impacts of the western diet on immunity. Nutrition Journal, 13, (61). DOI:

http://dx.doi.org.westcoastuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/1475-2891-13-61

Nomura, A., Hankin, J., Kolonel, L., Wilkens, L., Goodman, M., Stemmermann, G. (2003). Case-control study of diet and other risk factors for gastric cancer in Hawaii (United States) Cancer Causes & Control; Aug 2003, 14, (6). 547-558. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024887411846

Physicians committee for responsible medicine, (PCRM). (2015). Meat consumption and cancer risk. Retrieved from

http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk

Physicians committee for responsible medicine, (PCRM). (2015) U.S. meat consumption trends.

http://www.pcrm.org/media/infographics/united-states-meat-consumption-infographic

Singh, P. N., & Fraser, G. E. (1998). Dietary risk factors for colon cancer in a low-risk population. American journal of epidemiology, 148 (8), 761-774. Retrieved August 28, 2017 from

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/148/8/761/69260/Dietary-Risk-Factors-for-Colon-Cancer-in-a-Low

Sudhakar, A. (2009). History of Cancer, Ancient and Modern Treatment Methods. Journal of Cancer Science & Therapy, 1(2), 1-4. DOI:

http://doi.org/10.4172/1948-5956.100000e2

Venes, D., & Taber, C. W. (2005). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.

Vera, R., Alonso, V., Gállego, J., González, E., Guillén-ponce, C., Pericay, C., Rivera, F., Safton, M., Valladares-ayerbes, M. (2015). Current controversies in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 76(4), 659-677. doi:http://dx.doi.org.westcoastuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s00280-015-2808-6

Vineis, P., & Wild, C. P. (2014). Global cancer patterns: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 383 (9916), 549-557. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62224-2

Vogel, A., Hofheinz, R., Kubicka, S., & Arnold, D. (2017). Treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer – Beyond first and second line combination therapies. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 5954-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.04.007

Williamson, C., Foster, R., Stanner, S., & Buttriss, J. (2005). Red meat in the diet. Nutrition Bulletin, 30(4), 323-355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2005.00525.x

Young-In, K., & Mason, J. (1996). Nutrition chemoprevention of gastrointestinal cancers: A critical review. Nutrition reviews, 54 (9). 259-279. DOI:10.1111/j.1753-4887.1996.tb03947.x

Experimental group Metastasis Metastasis with loss of life Metastasis without loss of life Polyp reoccurence Polyps reoccurrence with metastasis 45 30 15 66 45 control group Metastasis Metastasis with loss of life Metastasis without loss of life Polyp reoccurence Polyps reoccurrence with metastasis 70 42 28 92 70

Observation

Number of People

Experimental Group

Month 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12 Month 15 Month 18 Month 21 Month 24 0 6 13 18 27 39 47 66 66 Control Group

Month 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12 Month 15 Month 18 Month 21 Month 24 0 9 19 29 38 46 53 78 92 Experimental Group Death

Month 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12 Month 15 Month 18 Month 21 Month 24 0 0 0 4 10 16 22 27 30 Control Group Death

Month 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12 Month 15 Month 18 Month 21 Month 24 0 0 7 18 25 30 35 40 42

time

number of people with reoccurrence