4 ms·

Having 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, a

Having 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Perhaps, 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 ago
    That 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.
adamredwoods 3y ago
>> Encouraging a healthy lifestyle, including a healthy diet, the restriction of tobacco and alcohol consumption and appropriate outdoor activity, could reduce the burden of early-onset cancer. "could"
pixl97 3y ago
Because individually figuring out dietary factors tends to be easier and strongly correlated. There is no particular reason they study should be tossed in the trash, that is just you being dramatic. Both things are factors, not just one or another. Things like environmental factors need other studies that show differences in places that increase/decrease pollution and the incident rate change in cancers as that occurs.

jvanderbot 3y ago

I 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 ago
Perhaps, 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 ago
  That 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.

adamredwoods 3y ago

>> Encouraging a healthy lifestyle, including a healthy diet, the restriction of tobacco and alcohol consumption and appropriate outdoor activity, could reduce the burden of early-onset cancer. "could"

pixl97 3y ago

Because individually figuring out dietary factors tends to be easier and strongly correlated. There is no particular reason they study should be tossed in the trash, that is just you being dramatic. Both things are factors, not just one or another. Things like environmental factors need other studies that show differences in places that increase/decrease pollution and the incident rate change in cancers as that occurs.