7 ms·
Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of early-onset cancer
- alexfromapex 3y agoI bet this can all be explained by the negligence of government to protect the public against dangerous chemicals in the water, food, and consumer products because of lobbying by private industry.
- ceejayoz 3y ago"Globally" and "worldwide" are right there in the abstract. edit: Parent post originally stated something about the "enshittification of the US".
- alexfromapex 3y agoThe US has the largest global economy so probably has an outsized impact on this.
- xeromal 3y agoDid you read the linked post?
- alexfromapex 3y agoYes, is there a problem with what I’ve articulated? Have you heard of Composition Fallacy or Simpson’s Paradox?
- donkeyd 3y agoCorrect and the previous commenter is practicing some clear 'US Defaultism'. However, unrestricted Western consumerism is a massive part of what's happening worldwide. We all want cheap everything and nobody is stopping western companies from using the absolute worst suppliers and production methods for everything (exaggerated, but not much). Companies like 3M, Bayer, Dow, Shell and BP are polluting the whole world directly. Companies like H&M and Primark are doing it indirectly by using the cheapest supplier for mass market crap they sell. I recently heard that most bamboo fiber (which westerners buy because they think it's environmentally friendly) is produced in China, because the chemicals needed are extremely toxic and hard to properly process. In China they are just released into nature and as long as the Chinese company says they don't do that, the western companies can say they buy 'good fibers' and turn a blind eye to the pollution. This way we spread our love all around the world.
- sydbarrett74 3y agoThe globe is being progressively enshittified by adopting a Western lifestyle.
- coldtea 3y ago>"Globally" and "worldwide" are right there in the abstract A lot of crappy food choices were spearheaded, exported, and promoted to death, by the US, anyway.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago> Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers. It seems it's the chemical we're putting in ourselves. No government blame needed.
- mlinhares 3y agoThe average US diet is a direct result of lobbying and government action based on such lobbying, as it is visible if you go almost anywhere else, including poorer countries like the US neighbors in Latin America.
- seizethecheese 3y ago“Direct result”? I mean, sure it has a big effect, but supply and demand matter. For example, do you think Americans developed a taste for avocados due to lobbying?
- J_Shelby_J 3y agoNo, but the USDA made the food pyramid. The USDA represents agricultural interests. It does not represent consumers interests. That and the myriad of agricultural subsidies and especially corn subsides. Most Americans are above 50% corn… the same way my cat is made of water and cat food. Whether though consuming it directly or through meat and dairy fed on corn. The end result has been the SAD as we know it: food that’s cheap and profitable but unhealthy.
- revscat 3y agoThis seems incredibly naive. Addiction affects peoples ability to make rational choices.
- foolfoolz 3y agoexcept these dietary factors make no sense / change so frequently they are almost science fads. tobacco use has dropped significantly in the last 30 years. sodium is now considered not that important, especially compared to sugar. low in milk contradicts the reality that milk is full of hormones and antibiotics we do an about face on lots of “dietary risk factors” every 5-10 years
- ramraj07 3y agoAgreed, It's definitely not a conspiracy that US federal regulatory authorities have gotten more lax, beuracratic and ineffective over the decades. One can still generally subscribe to a world view while being critical of its shortcomings.
- macinjosh 3y ago100%, I'd also add things like new kinds of pharmaceuticals that are rushed through regulator approvals and are heavily pushed by public health officials, and made free to the public (funded by tax dollars). The influence so strong in some cases that folks lost their jobs for declining the pharmaceutical product while pharma corporations raked in cash.
- hospitalJail 3y agoI don't mind access to untested drugs. I do mind that Physicians have 100% of control over which diagnosis and medicine they decide. Travel based medicine, science based medicine, AI based medicine, all seem like a welcome change from the US's Authority Based Medicine.
- hooverd 3y agoThe COVID vaccine caused this?
- Pxtl 3y agoThe problem is that we are exposed to so many chemicals, finding the culprit(s) for this kind of thing will be nigh impossible. The study said "(diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc)" which basically means "everywhere in the first world" since red meat is often too expensive in 3rd-world settings. And globalization means that every first world country is using the same products.
- JohnMakin 3y agoEverything is chemicals.
- Pxtl 3y agosigh don't be silly, you know what I mean. Plastics, aromatic hydrocarbons, endocrine disruptors, etc. You know, novel technologically produced chemicals (or natural chemicals in unnatural quantities) that may have negative impact on your body that we either are unaware of or have underestimated.
- eternityforest 3y agoBut it's also easier than ever to be vegetarian in exactly all those same places. Whole grain products are everywhere. We've got more stuff like pasta made with vegetables or beans or the like, and we have vegan restaurant dishes and snack food options. I would say it's actually a lot easier than eating meat, because meat doesn't keep for long unless it's frozen, and is very expensive if you want anything high quality and ethically sourced. Low sodium is still hard though.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoI really appreciate the "what was already known, what this study adds" summary about a page down in this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gjstein 3y agoAgreed! I've never seen something like this before, but it seems that all articles in this (nascent) journal have the same sort of information. Does anyone know if this is standard across journals for research in this space?
- hammock 3y agoYes it's pretty standard as far as I know.. it's actually an important part of a grant application to get your study funded in the first place, so most researchers will have this language at the ready when reporting results
- jader201 3y agoUnder “what this study adds”: > Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reedf1 3y agoI'm very surprised to see milk negatively correlated with cancer risk - I usually see people calling milk unhealthy. Do we know exactly what the benefits are?
- simmerup 3y agoMilk has minerals like potassium and a low glycemic index as lactose takes a while to digest. That could help.
- raverbashing 3y ago> I usually see people calling milk unhealthy Usually with zero actual supporting data
- consilient 3y agoSomethings are simply bad for you, without qualification, but for the most part it only makes sense to use "healthy" or "unhealthy" to describe a diet, not individual foods. Milk has lots of protein, minerals, and fat. Whether that's good or bad depends on how much of those you're getting from other sources.
- Qem 3y agoI suspect the plant-based "milk" makers are investing a lot of marketing resources in smearing the reputation of milk as unhealthy, just like the margarine makers did before to promote the replacement of butter with cheaper hydrogenated vegetable oils.
- odyssey7 3y ago
- PeterWhittaker 3y agoOne key paragraph: Since 1990, the incidence and deaths of early onset cancers have substantially increased globally. Early-onset breast, tracheal, bronchus and lung, stomach and colorectal cancers showed the highest mortality and burden in 2019. Countries with a high-middle and middle Sociodemographic Index and individuals aged 40–49 years were particularly affected. Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reedf1 3y agoAt least from my view as a young millennial, drinking culture among gen x and younger boomers is enormous. Wouldn't be surprised if that plays a role here.
- Pxtl 3y agoRight but was it that different in the '90s? Also, you've got the wrong window, 40s is Xennials, not young Boomers. Boomers would be the "40 back in the '90s" generation... and I'm pretty sure they were strong drinkers too.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hospitalJail 3y agoThis will be interesting to see as weed gets legal. While no drugs are the best, with weed being a replacement for alcohol you can imagine that 1% of deaths from car accidents is going to go down, not to mention liver failure/cancer/etc... I think millennials will continue to be drinkers, but there is a chance zoomers will make the switch.
- TylerE 3y agoPlenty of millennials already have in states where it's legal - and farm bill compliant hemp products essentially make it legal everywhere as long as you're ok with edibles and not flower/vape juice.
- randcraw 3y agoThe gorilla question: what has changed in the past 33 years to cause this increase? I'd look first at confounding variables like 33 years of improved methods to detect cancer earlier: the rise of MRI, screening for chemical signatures of cancer (like PSA), etc. The abstract didn't suggest the authors filtered out more recent methods of detection from their data (i.e. detections based only on 1990-era tests like physical exam, 2D X-Ray, etc).
- thfuran 3y ago>I'd look first at confounding variables like 33 years of improved methods to detect cancer earlier: the rise of MRI, screening for chemical signatures of cancer (like PSA), etc. Early detection is one thing, but is cancer generally hard to detect by the time it's fatal?
- rcpt 3y agoIf something else kills you then yeah
- starkparker 3y agoSome of the ones listed in the study certainly can be, like colorectal.
- pastor_bob 3y agoyoung people don't get screened for colorectal cancer.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoAm I reading the chart wrong or are DALYs (Disability-adjusted Life Years) down for almost everything beside breast cancer? This seems like we're just getting better at detecting cancer earlier (especially breast cancer), and preventing it from killing you younger - not that cancer is a way bigger problem. In fact - if you look at deaths - it also looks like it's down for most things, too - breast cancer being a major outlier. But everyone else seems to be interpreting this the other way - so I'm hoping someone can explain why the DALY figures don't mean what I think they mean.
- xenonite 3y agoHigh BMI and high fasting glucose are a main risk factor, they write. Well what about reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do?
- Enginerrrd 3y agoBecause whole grains have a lot of fiber and high dietary fiber intake has consistently been shown to be critical to several different health outcomes. And intake of whole grains specifically is also strongly linked to positive health outcomes while in most cases low carbohydrate diets of various sorts are not.
- hn8305823 3y agoA healthy diet is helpful of course but the most important thing is exercise. Not just casual going through the motions exercise but high intensity balls-to-the-wall exercise: https://www.verywellhealth.com/intense-exercise-capacity-cancer-risk-5073105 https://www.verywellhealth.com/intense-exercise-capacity-can... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/physical-activity-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201026114229.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201026114229.h... https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/metastatic-cancer-risk-reduced-by-72-percent-with-high-intensity-exercise https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/metastatic-cancer-... ... and so on
- hombre_fatal 3y agoDo people gain weight when they switch their SAD out with whole grains and carbs like legumes? I'd wager the evidence says no. Is that what the diet looks like in obese people? Frankly it sounds like exactly what obese people should be eating: swap out highly palatable foods with beans, broccoli, and bulgur.
- rafaelero 3y agoIt would be dumb discouraging whole grains since they are clearly associated with decreased mortality. According to the paper: "Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers."
- photochemsyn 3y agoHaving read the study, it does have a major flaw in its risk attribution approach, but the global data is pretty interesting, in particular this: > "In 2019, after breast cancer, the digestive and respiratory systems of early-onset cancer were mainly responsible for the deaths." However, it's risk conclusion is that "Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers." - but, they don't even mention industrial and secondary exposures to carcinogenic chemicals, even though this has been a well-described cause of early-onset cancer for over 100 years, and of course the respiratory and digestive tract - which is where early-onset cancers are showing up - are obvious immediate targets for carcinogenic environmental pollutants. E.g.: "Outdoor air pollution and cancer: an overview of the current evidence and public health recommendations" (2022) "Cumulative risk analysis of carcinogenic contaminants in United States drinking water" (2019) Any study that chooses to completely ignore this factor in favor of blaming the rising rates of early-onset cancer on 'personal dietary choices' should be tossed in the trash, it's the kind of thing an industrial PR group would generate in an effort to stop clean air/water/food regulations from being implemented.
- jvanderbot 3y agoI think this is the most important trend in science journalism / communication that needs to be dealt with. Personal responsibility is basically corporate accountability laundering.
- ekanes 3y agoPerhaps, but by far the single greatest way to change health outcomes for an individual (not a society) is their own personal actions. We need both approaches.
- jvanderbot 3y agoThat is fine if you feel there is a shared responsibility. I can see that. But I don't see a lot of "personal responsibility" happening at the corp level. I believe that given the power imbalance of individuals vs corps, and the history of corporate messaging being insanely misleading, and of course ongoing regulatory capture, that we need a systematic approach at a high priority much more than we need more recommendations for "common sense" individual approaches.
- giantg2 3y agoSort of surprising to see the main factor being dietary and only calling out some specific things but not others. No mention of hormones (or chemicals that act like them), toxins, etc as risks.
- candiddevmike 3y agoWhat is a "toxin" to you?
- hammock 3y agoWould imagine pesticides, environmental pollutants, etc
- cromulent 3y agoNormally “toxin” refers to a natural poison produced by an animal or plant.
- giantg2 3y agoSome molds have toxic spores which have carcinogenic effects.
- hammock 3y agoReviewing the dictionary(1) it seems you are right. For some reason I was thinking that anything toxic could be considered a toxin. Apparently that's not the case (1)https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxin https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxin