
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk - mgiannopoulos
http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322
======
edna314
The largest data set I’ve come across so far in nutrition studies and seems
like they put a lot of effort into the data analysis to correct for other
cancer promoting factors like age, gender, physical activity, smoking behavior
etc. (Overall pretty impressive study in my opinion, although I’m not an
expert)

Yet, for example, the group with the highest amount of ultra processed food in
their diet contains 6% more smokers and 10% less physical activity. They
correct for each factor individually but the combined effect of the two might
lead to a higher risk than expected. To get these combined effects right you
need a lot more data though and it’s probably hard to get good statistics on
people which do a lot of sports don’t smoke and eat a lot of ultra processed
food.

Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so
desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. I would expect
a statement like “if you neither smoke, do sports, and eat healthy food you
have x% less chance to get cancer” to be more sound.

~~~
hutzlibu
"Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so
desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. "

I would say remains of Descartes etc. The (outdated) philosophy, that
everything can be broken down to single factors and then correctly calculated
... It took science some time to realize that the world is too (infinite)
complicated to be calculated.

It surely helps though, to know the probable impact of single factors. But I
believe we still generalizing way too much. Fat is bad, Sugar is bad,
Cholesterine is bad (no wait good), Alcohol, smoking etc. ...

Which, I believe is stupid, when humans are complex and moderation and balance
is the key. (even smoking can be beneficial I believe, for certain people at
certain times, not as a addiction, obviously)

So seeing those single factors from studies help us as guidelines, but
shouldn't be taken literally.

~~~
jonmb
Do you have an example in mind for when smoking would be healthy for you?

~~~
detritus
When it acts as a very occasional mental salve in the face of undue stress?

~~~
hutzlibu
For example.

But also when it comes more in a form of a ritual for spiritual (or
psychological) progress. Many native american traditions used it that way, or
as a way to bond in a group and solve complicated matters like peace and war.

When consumed in small quantities, I believe the body and lungs does not
sustain harm - short stress yes, but not real harm. (just training?) Don't
know about any studies which support that, but that is my personal experience.

~~~
dogma1138
Didn’t most studies found correlation between smoking and cancer as well as a
myriad of other diseases but didn’t actually managed to corolate the number of
cigarettes per day to a specific increase?

So while one cigarette every six months might not be catastrophic the
difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you
think.

~~~
hutzlibu
"might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a
week might not be as big as you think."

Interesting, do you have any studies at hand? (but I would also never argue,
that one pack a week is beneficial)

What I could observe with me, that smoking daily clearly (one cigarette)
effected my lungs. So the number needs to be much lower ...

~~~
dogma1138
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/)

This is a newer study which shows same cardio vascular risk, somewhat reduced
cancer risk and overall similar overall mortality risk between light smokers
(1-4 cigs a day) and heavy smokers.

Light smoking is something which is very hard to study since it’s often a
transient behavior and people tend not to classify them selves as smokers if
the smoke substantially less than one pack a day.

That said I don’t really see any possitive effects of light or intermittent
smoking it might not be as bad as smoking 4 packs a day but it’s definitely
outweighs any possible benefits of smoking such as stress relief.

Weed or wanking in the bathroom seems to be a better alternative to dealing
with stress....

------
open-source-ux
This research is quite timely. A recent survey of ultra-processed food sales
in 19 European countries showed a wide variety in the purchasing habits of
different countries.

UK consumers purchase the most ultra-processed food as a proportion of their
diet (50.7%), followed by Germany (46.2%) and then Ireland (45.9%). Portugal
consumes the least (10.2%).

France, Italy and Greece all had relatively low consumption figures as well.

Here is the full list (ultra-processed food as a % of household purchases)

1\. UK: 50.7

2\. Germany: 46.2

3\. Ireland: 45.9

4\. Belgium: 44.6

5\. Finland: 40.9

6\. Poland: 36.9

7\. Austria: 35.0

8\. Latvia: 32.9

9\. Malta: 27.6

10\. Lithuania 26.4

11\. Hungary: 21.1

12\. Spain: 20.3

13: Slovakia: 20.2

14\. Cyprus: 20.1

15\. Croatia: 17.9

16\. France: 14.2

17\. Greece: 13.7

18\. Italy: 13.4

19\. Portugal: 10.2

From: [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-
proces...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-processed-
products-now-half-of-all-uk-family-food-purchases)

------
elcapitan
This reminds me of Talebs argument that we should be careful to put stuff
through our digestive system that didn't have the chance yet to get filtered
out by tens of thousands of years of evolution. That's a pretty extrem
position obviously, but I think the general direction makes sense. Even if we
can test individual parts of those ultra-processed foods and not find direct
risk immediately, the risk of putting all that stuff together in your body 50%
of the time may just create way more risk than could ever be found by isolated
clinical studies.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
What always amazed me is why Americans rely so much on processed foods? It
seems like a cultural thing - you go out and buy a bunch of packages and then
heat them instead of just cooking a meal from natural ingredients like we
(mostly) do in Europe. And food companies bend over backwards to make
everything even more processed.

What's wrong with fresh tomatoes? Why don't you buy fresh vegetables and make
a nice meal at home? Is it about saving time? I could never understand it.

~~~
iMerNibor
> What's wrong with fresh tomatoes?

They're super bland most of the time (unless you're willing to pay a premium
for the more flavourful varieties and those can be hit and miss aswell) - I
usually just get canned ones unless I specifically need fresh ones

I do get your point though, making a meal from scratch can be so much better,
both taste and health wise, with a bit of practice - not to mention it's
relaxing to do the actual chopping & cooking usually

~~~
kstenerud
Beefsteak tomatoes are super bland, as is iceberg lettuce, because they are
selected for volume, not taste (it's the best way to make a profit while
keeping end-consumer prices low). Same goes for most large varieties of
produce.

Try getting some heirloom tomatoes from a farmer's market, or grow your own.
You'll be shocked at the difference. Tomatoes (real ones) have a distinctive
and delicious taste!

------
senectus1
what is it in highly processed food that causes cancer?

is it all processes that do it? or does some highly processed food NOT have a
link to cancer because they're processed differently?

~~~
CodeWriter23
Though I personally avoid processed foods because I believe that promotes
health, I have to caution you to slow down there a second. This is a cohort
study, which identifies correlation, but does not prove causation. This work
is a call to action to perhaps the same institution that ran the study, or
other public-interest institutions, to search for links.

However, if you’re very interested in learning about the differences between
processed vs. home made food, I recommend “Nourising Traditions”. This book,
more than anything else, has changed our approach to cooking and food
selection. And I can feel the difference.

------
dfee
“Conclusions: In this large prospective study, a 10% increase in the
proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a
significant increase of greater than 10% in risks of overall and breast
cancer.“

And, here is what _highly processed_ means: “mass produced packaged breads and
buns; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; industrialised confectionery and
desserts; sodas and sweetened drinks; meat balls, poultry and fish nuggets,
and other reconstituted meat products transformed with addition of
preservatives other than salt (for example, nitrites); instant noodles and
soups; frozen or shelf stable ready meals; and other food products made mostly
or entirely from sugar, oils and fats, and other substances not commonly used
in culinary preparations such as hydrogenated oils, modified starches, and
protein isolates. Industrial processes notably include hydrogenation,
hydrolysis, extruding, moulding, reshaping, and pre-processing by frying.”

