From their results section:
> "Interestingly, detergent residue from professional dishwashers demonstrated the remnant of a significant amount of cytotoxic and epithelial barrier–damaging rinse aid remaining on washed and ready-to-use dishware."
They found nothing wrong with washing with detergent, just using rinse aid to dry in a commercial setting due to the detergent residue the rinse aid could leave.
> A professional dishwasher completes 1 or 2 wash and rinse cycles using 3.5 L of water per cycle. The detergent and rinse aid are automatically dispensed into the water at a concentration of 1.5 to 4 mL/L and 0.1 to 0.5 mL/L, respectively. At these concentrations, the residual dilution factor after rinse ranges from 1:250 to 1:667 for detergents and 1:2,000 to 1:10,000 for rinse aids.
> Household dishwasher detergents in a normal cup and plate washing program typically consume a total of 12 L of water: 4.8 L during the washing cycle, 3.6 L of water for the intermediate rinse cycle, and 3.6 L of water for the final rinse cycle. Between the washing and rinsing cycles, 200 mL of water remains inside the dishwasher. Accordingly, the dilution factor for one 20-g tablet of detergent is 1:80,000 (w/v).
Also, I think we should all be skeptical of someone who says, essentially, "Don't want colorectal cancer? Rinse your dishes and don't eat at restaurants!" Such a simple explanation for colorectal cancer seems suspicious... at best.
This rapid increase is especially puzzling because the rate of colorectal cancer has plummeted among older adults—largely due to regular colonoscopies and lower rates of smoking.
“We don’t understand a lot about the causes, the biology, or how to prevent early onset of the disease,” said Phil Daschner, a program director in NCI’s Division of Cancer Biology. “And that’s important to learn more about because it may affect [approaches for] the treatment and survivorship of early-onset colon cancer.”
Emmer contains twice as much gluten as modern wheat according to this summary paper of chemical composition, see table 3: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Zaparenko/publicat...
Nowhere in this article an emmer with twice more gluten is mentioned.
What they don't tell you about wheat very often is that people figured out that if you defoliate a wheat plant, it will shove its remaining calories into the developing seeds and then die. You can control the maturity of a wheat field by spraying it with RoundUp late in the season.
So where the reality versus PR for the decay rate of RoundUp in the environment leaves a very long safety margin with early season and pre-emergent uses of the stuff, whatever you sprayed a matter of weeks before harvest very much matters on variance between fields and between customer and manufacturer.
We may be feeding ourselves RoundUp here.
Nowadays it seems that there are more and more people that are affected negatively by gluten consumption. Because this was much less frequent in the past, there must be an additional unidentified factor that causes gluten sensitivity and which has not existed formerly.
Is that really the case? I suspect it was more that people who had IBS or gluten sensitivity in the past just...died. If there was no understanding of the problem, then those suffering from it probably appeared to have something like dysentery, and would like just be lumped in with everyone else that had similar symptoms from various causes.
So absolutely everybody was continuously exposed to gluten, especially the poor majority of the population, for whom bread was the main source of proteins.
Anyone with gluten intolerance would have had very severe symptoms with no chance of recovery.
Nonetheless deaths with such symptoms were very rare.
Exactly, anyone born with such intolerances likely didn't survive the early childhood, and anyone developing them later in life were probably not attributed to the gluten themselves. Anyone that made the connection between wheat-based products and their problems would also find themselves lacking nutrition most likely, which also leads to a whole host of problems.
What I'm saying is that we likely can never be sure what the 'baseline' prevalence was because the records do not have enough details to make that distinction. We can only really determine if its recently increasing. It may very well have also been a problem in past history too, but wasn't noticed as one, or was attributed to other causes.
The reason is that the non-existence of gluten-free food was not restricted to the Antiquity and the Middle Ages, but in many places it remained true e.g. a half century ago.
Where I was born, in Eastern Europe, among the millions of citizens, there was no normal human who would not ingest a lot of gluten every day, but child mortality was very low and the incidence of celiac and similar diseases was low enough that the general public was completely unaware that such diseases even exist.
Moreover, there are published studies that conclude that at least during the last few decades the frequency of gluten-caused illness has been increasing.
Though I would de-prioritize "rinse your dishes" and say the food we eat is more of the issue.
Is there some logical reason you would down vote without any explanation or counter argument?
I'm sure someone thought the same as me, but they thought clicking the down button was the correct response. I don't agree, but I understand that not everyone is put together before the coffee kicks in.
I have had 2 quarter-coin sized growths removed from my colon. The underlying cause is undiagnosed. They were not cancerous, by analysis. I believe the growths started in Washington State 6ish years ago and black mold was a contributor, with other factors. Growths have not returned.
Re: Gastrointestinal aspergillosis
In fact -- colorectal cancer incident rates have gone down and survivorship rates are up across the general population according to SEER monitoring (https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html).
Now what is alarming is which cancers are particularly rising: Anal cancer and Throat cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/anus.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/oralcav.html
As well as an uptick in prostate cancer https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
And it is not hard to find studies supporting a link between colorectal cancer and HPV: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23895733/. https://ascopost.com/issues/october-25-2017/could-the-rising... -- but as always there are conflicting studies.
So I think that the page needs to talk about STDs such as HPV, as a potential source. HPV in particular is attributed to cause anal (91%), cervix (91%), vaginal (75%), Oropharynx (70%), vulva (69%), and penis (63%) cancers. (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm).
Something to admit is that people born from 1990 onwards have more sexual partners than their predecessors, with online dating, as well as exposure to more HPV strains from around the world due to globalization. https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(22)01477-4/ful...
Detergents, preservatives, pesticides and low quality ingredients are all great examples of things you can cut out eating at home. While we don't seem to have enough data to point to each one of them individually, it seems pretty common sense these are the new contributing factors in our environment.