Food that makes up more than half of western diets linked to lung cancer
In the UK and US, more than half of the average diet consists of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), such as ready meals, fast food and fizzy drinks.
A previous BMJ study in 2024 linked UPFs to 32 harmful health effects including a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, adverse mental health and early death.
Now, eating UPFs has been linked to lung cancer - the most common cancer in the world, according to the World Cancer Research Fund.
There were an estimated 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths from the disease worldwide in 2020, researchers of the study published in the respiratory journal Thorax said.
But limiting consumption of these foods may help curb the global impact of the disease, the researchers say.
Although there is no exact definition of a UPF, these foods typically undergo multiple processing steps, contain long lists of additives and preservatives, and are ready-to-eat or heat.
Researchers drew on data from the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trials, involving 155,000 participants aged 55 to 74 who were randomly assigned to either a screening or comparison group between November 1993 and July 2001. Cancer diagnoses were tracked until the end of 2009, and cancer deaths until the end of 2018.
A total of 101,732 people (50,187 men and 51,545 women, with an average age of 62) who completed a questionnaire on their dietary habits upon entry to the trials were included in the study. Foods were categorised as: unprocessed or minimally processed; containing processed culinary ingredients; processed; or ultra-processed.
The researchers focused in particular on UPFs that included sour cream, as well as cream cheese, ice cream, frozen yoghurt, fried foods, bread, baked goods, salted snacks, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups and sauces, margarine, confectionery, soft drinks, sweetened fruit drinks, restaurant/shop-bought hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza.
The three types of food that featured the most were lunch meat (11 per cent), diet or caffeinated soft drinks (just over 7 per cent) and decaffeinated soft drinks (nearly 7 per cent).
Participants were tracked for 12 years and in that time, 1,706 new cases of lung cancer were diagnosed, including 1,473 cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 233 of small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
After accounting for potentially influential factors, including smoking and overall diet quality, participants who ate the most UPFs were 41 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than those who ate the least.
Overall, they were 37 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with NSCLC and 44 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with SCLC.
Because it was an observational study and no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, researchers acknowledge that they weren't able to factor in smoking intensity, which may have been influential. Dietary information was collected only once, so they could not account for changes over time, and the number of cancer diagnoses was small.
But researchers do highlight the low nutritional value of UPFs and the excessive amounts of salt, sugar and fats they contain.
'The rise in UPF consumption may have driven global increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, cancer and mortality, as these foods are confirmed risk factors for such conditions,' the researchers suggested.
'Industrial processing alters the food matrix, affecting nutrient availability and absorption, while also generating harmful contaminants,' they added, highlighting acrolein, which is found in grilled sausages and caramel sweets and is a toxic component of cigarette smoke. Packaging materials may also have a role to play, they suggested.
'You can't say from this study that UPFs cause cancer as it's observational, so we're looking at associations, not direct effects. But it does strengthen the case for looking more closely at the food environment many people are living in where UPFs are cheap, convenient, and heavily marketed, making them a go-to for many,' Rob Hobson, nutritionist and author of Unprocess Your Family Life, told The Independent.
He suggested, rather than 'pointing figures at individual foods', to instead make small shifts towards a healthier diet.
'That might mean cooking more from scratch where possible, adding in more whole foods like vegetables, beans and grains, or just becoming more aware of how often UPFs show up in your day,' he said.
'It's not about being perfect, it's about balance and understanding how your food choices could be supporting or undermining your long-term health.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
My friends had to subsidise the cost of running my vital oxygen therapy
I am dependent on long-term oxygen therapy after a double lung transplant. I'm entitled to reimbursement of the excess electricity used by the oxygen concentrator and have received quarterly payments of about £48 from Vivisol, which administers rebates on behalf of the NHS. However, I was forced to stay with friends and family for a year after my house was flooded, and I spent a further two months convalescing at my daughter's house after a heart operation. I received no rebates during that time, and Vivisol told me l would not be reimbursed while I was not living at home, which means my hosts had to subsidise my treatment. SS, East Sussex The rebate scheme is intended to protect eligible patients who rely on an oxygen concentrator from spiralling energy costs. I see that Vivisol's website states, in passing, that patients are eligible for the cost of using the machine at their main address. This strikes me as insufficiently clear, as well as potentially unfair. It's a no-brainer that those with such serious health issues might have to relocate, as you did, for convalescence, for respite care or building work. It seems unreasonable to me to expect friends and family to foot what can be a considerable bill for treatment and, since concentrators record electricity consumption on an integrated meter unconnected to the household meter, it is straightforward to be able to monitor the costs involved. I first approached NHS England to ask if this restriction was NHS policy and whether there were exemptions for cases such as yours. It referred me to the NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board, which explained that patients can nominate a temporary address as their main residence via their service provider in circumstances such as yours. In the meantime, Vivisol responded to my contact by agreeing to reinstate and backdate your rebates to cover the period while you were away. A spokesperson said: 'All communication does highlight that the eligibility only applies at the patient's main address. As a result of your email, we will review to identify if that can be made clearer.' We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Reuters
Health Rounds: Artificial sweetener consumption linked to less effective cancer treatment
Aug 1 (Reuters) - (This is an excerpt of the Health Rounds newsletter, where we present latest medical studies on Tuesdays and Thursdays. To receive the full newsletter in your inbox for free sign up here.) In patients with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer, consuming high levels of the artificial sweetener sucralose contributes to diminished responses to immunotherapy and poorer survival, researchers reported in Cancer Discovery, opens new tab. When the researchers had 132 patients with advanced melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer answer detailed diet history questionnaires, they found that high consumption of sucralose was linked with lower effectiveness of immunotherapies across a range of cancer types, stages and treatment methods. In experiments with mice, the researchers found that sucralose shifts the composition of microbes in the intestines, increasing bacterial species that degrade arginine, an amino acid that is essential for key immune cells called T cells. 'When arginine levels were depleted due to sucralose-driven shifts in the microbiome, T cells couldn't function properly,' study leader Abby Overacre of the University of Pittsburgh said in a statement. 'As a result, immunotherapy wasn't as effective in mice that were fed sucralose.' Laying the groundwork for a solution to the problem, the same researchers also found in the mice that supplements that boosted levels of arginine mitigated the negative effects of sucralose on immunotherapy, an approach they now hope to test in humans. 'It's easy to say, 'Stop drinking diet soda,' but when patients are being treated for cancer, they are already dealing with enough, so asking them to drastically alter their diet may not be realistic,' Overacre said. 'That's why it's so exciting that arginine supplementation could be a simple approach to counteract the negative effects of sucralose on immunotherapy.' LOW-GRADE IS NOT THE SAME AS LOW-RISK IN PROSTATE CANCER A low-grade prostate tumor is not necessarily low-risk, new research suggests. Biopsy results showing low-grade prostate cancers can sometimes lead to underestimation of disease risk and omission of surgery or radiation in patients who might benefit from such treatments, researchers warned in JAMA Oncology, opens new tab. Among roughly 117,000 men in their study with prostate biopsy results indicating a Grade Group 1, or GG1, tumor – the slowest-growing kind - one in six had intermediate- or high-risk cancer when other factors such as prostate-specific antigen levels in the blood and tumor sizes were also considered, according to the report. Such higher risk cancers are often treated with radiation therapy or removal of the prostate, the researchers noted. 'We don't want to miss aggressive cancers that initially present as Grade Group 1 on biopsy,' study coauthor Dr. Bashir Al Hussein of Weill Cornell Medicine said in a statement. 'Such underestimation of risk could lead to undertreatment and poor outcomes.' Current guidelines that advise regular monitoring – rather than treatment – for men with low-grade prostate tumors were based on studies that examined entire prostate glands after removal from patients. Biopsies test only small areas of the prostate, so they can miss more advanced or aggressive cancer cells, providing an incomplete picture, the researchers said. Some cancer experts have been suggesting recently that GG1 tumors are so slow-growing that they shouldn't even be considered malignant. The new study results could help inform those discussions, the researchers said. 'There is a misunderstanding that low grade and low risk are the same," study coauthor Dr. Jonathan Shoag of Case Western Reserve University said in a statement. "Here, we show clearly that they are not.' (To receive the full newsletter in your inbox for free sign up here)
Medical News Today
4 days ago
- Medical News Today
High amounts of ultra-processed foods may increase lung cancer risk by 41%
As the proportion of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the Western diet increases, concerns are growing about their health have linked UPFs with many health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and several types of a study suggests that high consumption of UPFs could increase a person's chance of developing lung cancer. While observing a link, the study cannot prove that UPFs cause lung cancer, but highlights a need for further foods (UPFs) — formulations of food substances often modified by chemical processes and then assembled into ready-to-consume hyper-palatable food and drink products using flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and many other cosmetic additives — are often in the news for their effect on our health. These products, which include carbonated soft drinks, mass-produced bread, confectionery, ice creams, sweet and savory snacks, and ready meals, make up around 60% of the energy consumed in the United suggest that high UPF consumption may increase a person's risk of several health conditions, including many types of cancer.A new study has now linked high UPF intake with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The research, published in Thorax, found that high consumption of UPFs was associated with a greater risk of both non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Nilesh Vora, MD, board-certified hematologist and medical oncologist and medical director of the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA, who was not involved in the study, found the link surprising: 'The study generates a compelling hypothesis that needs further research to validate the claim,' he told Medical News average of 2.8 servings a dayThe researchers collected data from people enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). They included 50,187 men and 51,545 women in the study. Participants had a mean age of 62.5 years at the start. At enrolment, all participants completed a baseline questionnaire, which recorded demographics, medical history, and other risk factor information, and a diet history questionnaire, to assess the frequency and portion size of food consumption and nutrient intake during the previous the diet questionnaire and four 24-hour dietary recalls, the researchers assessed how much UPF people consumed, dividing them into 4 quartiles for UPF lowest quartile consumed around 0.5 servings of UPF per day, and the highest 6.0 servings, with a mean intake of 2.8 servings per UPF intake linked to lung cancerResearchers followed up the participants for a mean of 12.2 years, during which time there were 1,706 lung cancer diagnoses. Of these, 1,473 (86.3%) were NSCLC, and 233 (13.7%) who ate more UPF had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with lung cancer. In the lowest UPF intake group, 331 out of 25,433 people (1.3%) were diagnosed with lung cancer, and in the highest UPF group, 485 out of 25,434 (1.9%) had a lung cancer researchers concluded that those who ate the most UPF had a 41% relatively higher hazard of lung cancer than those in the lowest factors may increase lung cancer riskPeople in the highest quartile for UPF consumption also had lower intake of minimally processed foods like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, which the American Institute for Cancer Research advises can lower a person's risk of many researchers suggest several possible reasons why UPF might increase lung cancer risk, including:poor nutritional quality of UPF and lower nutrient availability due to industrial of the additives commonly used in UPFs, such as glutamate and carrageenan, could increase lung cancer risk, possibly by disrupting the lung and gut contaminants from processing and packaging that could be Brown, senior cancer intelligence manager at Cancer Research UK, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that firm conclusions could not be drawn from the research:'What we'd want to see in the lung cancer space specifically, we'd want to see really, really close adjustment for smoking and for occupational exposures. Without that, in the lung cancer space, it's impossible to draw firm conclusions from research. And also more accurate measurement of diet because if you're looking at a diet study, you have to be measuring it really, really accurately. It's very difficult to do that. It's incredibly difficult to do that at scale.''There's also the possibility, I think, of shared risk factors. If you have a diet high in UPFs, are you also more likely to smoke cigarettes? Are you also more likely to be in a job where you're exposed to these other risk factors?' she UPFs cause lung cancer? More research neededThis was an observational study that relied on self-reported information about diet, so the findings cannot prove that UPFs cause lung authors highlight this and other limitations of their study, including a lack of data about smoking intensity for participants and the lack of ethnic diversity of the participants, most of whom were non-Hispanic highlighted some of these limitations:'There is adjustment for smoking in the paper, but there's nothing about how long a person smoked for, or how heavily they smoked. And we know that those are variables that are very closely associated with lung cancer incidence.' 'Also,' she added, 'the lack of adjustment for occupational exposure is a concern. There are a number of substances that can increase lung cancer risks, typically encountered at volume in occupational settings. Asbestos, silica, lots of dusts and chemicals can have quite a high relative risk for lung cancer.'Vora emphasized that to generate more significant data: 'More research should be done in a prospective fashion with controlled variables.'Limiting ultra-processed foods benefits healthThis latest study linking UPFs to lung cancer adds to the evidence of potential harms from UPFs. An umbrella review of adverse health outcomes associated with UPF exposure found direct associations with 'higher risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease-related mortality, common mental disorder outcomes, overweight and obesity, and type 2 diabetes.'Other studies have linked high intake of UPFs with increased overall cancer risk and risk of both breast and ovarian cancer, suggesting that obesity and type 2 diabetes resulting from UPFs could be increasing these cancer risks.'UPFs can be high in fat, salt and sugar, which are associated with overweight and obesity, and we know that overweight and obesity can increase cancer risk. Cutting down on these types of foods can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. When it comes to lung cancer, not smoking is the best thing people can do to reduce their cancer risk.'— Katrina Brown, Cancer Research UKWhile welcoming the study, Brown told MNT:'I don't think that we would say that this study sounds huge alarm bells. But we certainly wouldn't disagree with the core recommendation to try and reduce the amount of processed food that you consume and replace it with healthier alternatives.''It's interesting as it gets as further to knowing more about UPFs. It's that body of evidence that we need to build up, but this single study doesn't tip the balance,' she added.
