A new study from the American Cancer Society shows that many Americans believe scientifically unsubstantiated claims about cancer and that Americans bearing the greatest burden of cancer are the most likely to be misinformed. The study used a nationwide telephone survey.

For example, the study found that:

• Nearly seven in ten Americans (67.7%) said the risk of dying of cancer in the U.S. is increasing.
• Nearly four in ten (38.7%) agreed that living in a polluted city is a greater risk for lung cancer than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.
• Three in ten (29.7%) thought electronic devices, like cell phones, can cause cancer.
• About one in seven (14.7%) thought personal hygiene products, like shampoo, deodorant, and antiperspirants, can cause cancer.
• Six percent (6.2%) thought underwire bras can cause breast cancer.

In contrast, age-standardized cancer death rate has been decreasing since the early 90s and the 5 year survival rate is on the rise over the past 30 years. In another example, many respondents also believed that living in a polluted city is a greater risk for lung cancer than smoking a pack a day.

Males were more likely to believe the false statements as were those with lower educational levels.

Discussions about cancer often include mention of age. We talk about how old someone is at diagnosis, how old a person is at each year of survival, the age of an individual at the time cancer claims his or her life. Age reveals a lot. It dumps us into statistical categories. Most patients diagnosed with gallbladder cancer, for example, are older than 65. Age sometimes predicts prognosis. Young women diagnosed with breast cancer tend to have more aggressive forms of the disease. This can compromise chances for survival. Age also solicits judgments. "You are too young," some people told me after learning I'd been diagnosed with breast cancer.

I think about my age all the time. I think about how I was 34 when I found my lump, how I happily arrived at age 35, how I made it to 36, and how today, I am 37. Come November, I will have survived my disease for three years. Three years will remain before I make it out of my 30s and land on 40 -- the age when women should begin receiving regular annual mammograms.

I didn't ask for much this year for my birthday. A candle, a bathing suit, dinner out with my husband, and time with family are all I really want -- because the best gift has already arrived. I turned 37.

Four weight loss pill marketers were fined millions of dollars by The Federal Trade Commission for making false advertising claims. The claims ranged from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.

The weight loss pills can still be sold on the market but the companies will have to stop making the false claims that they have no scientific evidence to back up. The fines were against four products, Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, Cortaslim and Trimspa.

FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said on the Today Show that the FTC investigation found that the marketers of Xenadrine did have a study that said those who took a placebo actually lost more weight than those taking Xenadrine. They not only did not have a study to support their claims but had a study that went the other way!

"Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science," Majoras said. "And that's what Americans need to understand."

Just before my chemotherapy for breast cancer started -- when I was fantastically frightened by the toxic drugs that were about to drip into my veins -- I was told by doctors, nurses, survivors, friends that I would be just fine. I was young and strong and tough. I would easily tolerate the beating my body was about to take. This is what I was told and actually came to believe myself. I had no other choice really than to approach chemotherapy with a fighter mentality. And so I did. And I did pretty well for my first three doses of Adriamycin and Cytoxan -- given every two weeks instead of three in a dose-dense fashion -- followed by one injection of Neulasta 24 hours later to maintain normal blood counts. And then something happened. And I did not end up tolerating the chemotherapy my gut told me was a scary endeavor.

Lung cancer affects more than 80,000 American women annually. More than 70,000 of these cases are fatal. Thirty thousand more women die from lung cancer than from breast cancer. And lung cancer claims more lives of more women than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined. Yet a new study reveals that American women are uninformed about statistics like these -- and about the threats posed by lung cancer.

A 2006 survey of 500 women provides a snapshot of women's attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer -- and the overwhelming conclusion is that there is a widespread lack of awareness about the nation's top cancer killer. And here's the lowdown:

• Only 41 percent of women know that lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in the United States.
• Only 8 percent of women know that exposure to radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer -- 60 percent instead believe that second-hand smoke is the culprit.
• Only 36 percent of women know lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer.
• Only 41 percent of women know that one in 17 women will develop lung cancer sometime in her life.
• Only 4 percent of women know that women typically fare better than men following lung cancer treatment.
• And 25 percent of women mistakingly believe that there is a standard screening test to detect lung cancer in its early stages. Currently, there is not one.

Lung cancer is often believed to be a man's disease. But it is not. It affects tens of thousands of women too. And now I -- as one of the previously uninformed women -- know better.

New Zealand health authorities are investigating what they feel to be extravagant health claims by companies trying to sell goji juice as a cure for cancer. In New Zealand, that kind of health claim is illegal. That kind of health claim is illegal in the United States as well.

There might be a single magical berry that can cure cancer, but without rigorous scientific study, who can say for sure? Certainly not the manufacturers of goji juice, or those who seek to profit from the sale of goji juice. Not without scientific proof.

I am inclined to believe it is healthy for you, and does provide antioxidants that do have cancer prevention value, because it is a berry. Most berries have been shown to offer cancer prevention in supplying the body with vital nutrients essential to good health. But that is far cry from believing goji juice is a cure for cancer.

Common sense would keep us from buying into flamboyant claims that can give someone diagnosed with cancer false hope. A cancer diagnosis can create intense levels of fear and sometimes, a willingness to set aside normal and sensible judgment. Most of the nutritional experts are suggesting that given the current price of a goji juice drink, similar berries, fruits and vegetables might be more cost effective in getting the same antioxidant and nutrition value.

ConsumerLabs conducts a valuable service in independent product reviews but it will cost you money to read the complete reports. They do release highlighted information, without detailed specifics, and this week they released the results from its new Product Review of Supplements for Cancer Prevention.

Of the 22 supplements containing three popular ingredients -- green tea, lycopene or selenium - that were tested, the results do not look very good for the consumer. The research testers found problems in three out of the four green tea products. According to the abstract of the report, one product contained only 71 percent of its claimed level of EGCG, a key compound in green tea, while two products were found to be contaminated with lead, with 3.3 to 6.8 micrograms per daily serving, far above acceptable limits. Four selenium supplements passed the testing standards, and one failed, as it contained only 38 percent of its claimed ingredient. All five lycopene supplements passed the test.

The brand names of cancer prevention supplements tested were Bluebonnet, Canadian Sun, Country Life, GNC, Food Science of Vermont, Futurebiotics, Herbal Select, Jarrow, KAL, Life Extension, Metabolic Maintenance, Nature's Answer, Nature's Bounty, Pharmanex, Puritan's Pride, Schiff, Vitamin World, and Whole Foods.

However, you will have to pay a fee to find out which products and companies made the grade and which ones bamboozled the buyer out of some bucks. However, without ordering a copy of the report, it is clear that it is a buyer beware market when it comes to cancer prevention supplements. You might be getting a bottle full of empty promise. I would stick to a variety of cancer prevention foods whenever possible for cancer prevention nutrients.

If passed and signed into law, the Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 4282, will provide cancer patients with the right to be told of potential health benefits regarding vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. As it stands now, it is against the law for a company to provide any treatment claims or refer to any relevant scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of a nutrient, herb or supplement that they manufacture or sell.

An excellent example of this restriction is made in the case of curcumin. As stated in the March issue of CancerWire, there are over 500 scientific articles about curcumin and cancer. Curcumin, also known as turmeric, has been shown to be effective in protecting against colon cancer. However, a curcumin manufacturer or distributor can run into serious trouble with the law by sharing this information with a customer who is fighting colon cancer.

Cancer Monthly interviewed attorney Jonathan Emord who practices food and drug law, deceptive advertising law, and libel law. Mr. Emord supports the Health Freedom Protection Act. I am going to share one of the statements he made during the interview that might stun you, as it did me, "Right now FDA censors EVERY nutrient-disease treatment claim. The FDA now prohibits companies from giving to consumers peer-reviewed articles by independent scientists and institutions if they concern the role of a nutrient in treating a disease, including the government's own scientific publications on the role of nutrients in treating disease."

Here is the stunning part of the interview. Emord goes on to say, "Dr. David Graham, the senior FDA drug safety officer explains that on dozens of occasions, FDA allowed into the market unsafe drugs, knowing that deaths would result -- all because it aimed to protect the economic interests of the drug companies that sponsored the drugs." And yet, a company cannot make any claims to the public that curcumin might offer cancer prevention benefits? I checked on H.R. 4282, and it appears there has been no activity on this bill since November 2005.

I do not want to go back to the days where snake oil salesmen traveled from town to town duping the vulnerable out of their hard-earned cash. But this is the 21st century of information-rich, consumer-savvy grown-ups capable of making informed decisions. In my opinion, we do not need big brother protecting us from ourselves. Your opinion?