What I don't like about statements of this kind is that they're couched in apparently careful language of "being associated with" while implying that mushroom c

What I don't like about statements of this kind is that they're couched in apparently careful language of "being associated with" while implying that mushroom consumption reduces cancer risk .. i.e. a causal mechanistic connection exists between them. If we make that jump ourselves, they can weasel away with "we didn't say that". But then what are they exactly saying? "We just say it is associated with"? .. so if I am supposed to use this information correctly, how should I go about it? ... No I can't do anything with it .. except maybe if I'm a doctor assessing the cancer risk of a patient and I ask "how many mushrooms do you eat per day?" and use the result to adjust the risk. The patient may just ask back "what kind do you use?".