More dying from drinking booze than ever - and one group is most at risk
A new study has revealed a troubling rise in alcohol-related cancer deaths.
According to the research, these deaths have nearly doubled across the United States — from 12,000 in 1990 to over 23,000 in 2021. The findings, set to be presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting in Chicago, identify one part of the population as being most at risk.
Alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and has been linked to at least six types of cancer, including cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast. Even moderate drinking increases cancer risk, challenging the common belief that light alcohol use is safe.
Despite the evidence, public awareness remains low. A 2024 report from the American Association for Cancer Research found that while over 5% of all cancer cases are linked to alcohol, 51% of Americans are unaware of this connection.
While alcohol-related cancer deaths among women rose just 8% during the above period, men experienced a staggering 56% increase, and men aged 55 and older are the most vulnerable group.
'It wasn't surprising that the rates were higher in men, but the magnitude of the difference was unexpected,' said lead author Dr. Chinmay Jani, chief fellow of hematology and oncology at the University of Miami's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, in an interview with NBC News.
Researchers suggest this gender gap may be due to men starting to drink at earlier ages, allowing alcohol's long-term carcinogenic effects to accumulate over time.
'The impact of alcohol may not be immediate, but with age and continued consumption, its cancer-causing potential builds up,' Jani explained.
In light of the data, health officials are pushing for stronger warning labels on alcoholic beverages and expanded public education campaigns.
'We need to raise awareness of this link — not only among the public but also within the medical community,' Jani emphasised. 'People are well-informed about tobacco and cancer, but alcohol is often overlooked.'
Meanwhile, Cancer Research UK has conducted analysis on UK skin cancer data, which suggests that the way people dress when they're in the sun could be influencing where they get melanoma – the most serious form of skin cancer.
Data from 2018 to 2021 shows that 40% of melanomas in men were diagnosed on the torso (the back, chest and stomach) – more than any other part of the body. That translates to around 3,700 cases of skin cancer every year.
In women, the most common area was the lower limbs (from the hips to the feet). More than a third of women's melanomas were diagnosed here – around 3,200 cases a year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Sorry America, but it's not Australia's fault that your healthcare system is failing you
If I were president of the United States, I would certainly be concerned about the cost and performance of the country's healthcare system. The grim statistics are well known. As of 2022, the US spent $12,555 per person on healthcare, almost twice as much as other wealthy countries, including Australia. That gap alone cancels out about half of the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to World Bank estimates. Higher expenditure on healthcare would not be a problem if it delivered a healthier population. But this is not the case. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies of any rich country. And even though more Americans die young, those who survive have worse health than elsewhere. Americans suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and depression at around twice the (age-adjusted) rate of other rich countries. This gap is too large to be accounted for by specific causes like gun violence or drug overdoses, or even unequal income distribution. The US has worse health outcomes at every point on the income distribution scale than other rich countries, even though those at the upper end have much higher incomes. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the problem is getting worse. The US saw declining life expectancy in the years after 2014 and, unlike other countries, saw a late, limited recovery from the increased death rate after the onset of the Covid pandemic. There's not much hope for rapid progress in US health outcomes. The destruction of US public health infrastructure through budget cuts, the gutting of key agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and the appointment of notorious anti-vaxxer RFK Jr as secretary of health and human services will only make matters worse. It's unsurprising then that President Donald Trump is looking at the cost side of the equation. As might be expected he has raised, again, the perennial grievances of US health policy. This is the fact that Americans pay far more for prescription medicines than do citizens of other countries where prices are controlled through mechanisms like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). And, given his grievance-based approach to the world in general, it is no surprise that his latest statement on the topic describes Australia and other countries as 'freeloaders' on the US. The US government is, of course, entirely within its rights to set its own policy regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs already has a program similar to the PBS, under which it pays about half as much of the typical US price. There is no reason this couldn't be extended to the entire US Medicare system, except that the result would be to close down 1,000 or more private plans, each with their own lobbyists. And with a bit more effort, the US could establish its own version of the PBS, covering all Americans. Quite possibly, faced with lower prices in the US, pharmaceutical companies might demand higher returns from other countries including Australia. But a systematic reform of this kind is beyond the capacity of the Trump administration. Instead we have seen the typical Trumpian claim that other countries are benefiting unfairly from medical research done in the US. This was arguably true in the second half of the 20th century when the US was the undoubted centre of global medical research, most notably through the National Institutes of Health. But funding for the NIH (adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2004, and has suffered from decades of financial stringency. Meanwhile, the US share of genuine innovations, measured by 'new molecular entities' has declined and is no longer notably larger (relative to GDP) than that of leading European innovators. The development of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) treatments for obesity and diabetes by Danish firm Novo Nordisk is a notable example of a drug of particular importance to the US being developed in Europe. More generally, if Trump wants to import ideas like the PBS into the US system, Australia has plenty to offer. Australia's Medicare system, combining a single-payer universal scheme for standard healthcare with private insurance and fee-for-service medicine as an upper tier, could provide a politically palatable way of delivering the US demand for 'Medicare for all' without destroying the private sector. But of course, this isn't the Trump way. What we will doubtless see, as in the recent tariff negotiations, is a series of bullying demands, resulting in triumphant announcements of magnificent deals, which turn out, on closer inspection, to be largely illusory. The bigger lesson for Australia in all of this is that, as with China, we need to treat the US not as an ally or friend but as a trading partner which will seek to push us around whenever possible. The correct response, again as with China, is to stand our ground until the other side sees the pointlessness of bullying and the mutual benefits of free exchange. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump will bring back push up, mile run test for school kids
Counting push ups in the gym. On July 31, President Donald Trump will sign an executive order that reestablishes the Presidential Fitness Test for teens and preteens in America's public schools, said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The fitness test requires students to complete a range of physical challenges ranging from sit-ups to pull-ups. "MAKE AMERICA FIT AGAIN!" Leavitt wrote in a post on X. The Presidential Fitness Test was a part of American physical education classes from the time it was first initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 to the 2012-2013 school year. That's when President Barack Obama replaced it with a program designed to focus on long-term student health over physical performance. Donald Trump invites athletes To White House as he reinstates Presidential Fitness Test What does Trump's order say? The executive order says the Trump administration is reintroducing the test in the nation's public schools because of the high rates of obesity and chronic disease in the United States. Trump directed Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to renew the test. The president also reestablished the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, formerly known as the President's Council on Youth Fitness, created by Eisenhower in 1956. The White House called the move an attempt "to develop bold and innovative fitness goals for young Americans with the aim of fostering a new generation of healthy, active citizens." Trump directed the reestablished council to create school-based programs that "reward excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a Presidential Fitness Award" in his order. "This Order ensures American youth will have opportunities at the global, national, State, and local levels that emphasize the importance of an active lifestyle, good nutrition, American sports, and military readiness," the White House said in a statement to USA TODAY. Why did the Presidential Fitness Test go away? The Obama administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program to shift the focus on physical fitness in schools away from student performance and toward students' overall health as they grow into adulthood. "The program minimizes comparisons between children and instead supports students as they pursue personal fitness goals for lifelong health," reads a previous description of the program from the Department of Health and Human Services website. Paul Roetert, former chief executive officer of the Society of Health and Physical Educators, said at the time that it was implemented "to keep fitness in a positive mode," Education Week reported in 2012."Children's individual fitness scores will not be used as a criteria for grading in physical education class and will be confidential between the teacher, student and parent," Roetert said. Nancy Brown, chief executive officer of the American Heart Association, also supported the change when it was implemented more than a decade ago, the news outlet reported. "This assessment will be a great way to evaluate the health impact of physical education programs in schools and allow for a standardized comparison of fitness levels of children across the country," Brown said. Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Sorry America, but it's not Australia's fault that your healthcare system is failing you
If I were president of the United States, I would certainly be concerned about the cost and performance of the country's healthcare system. The grim statistics are well known. As of 2022, the US spent $12,555 per person on healthcare, almost twice as much as other wealthy countries, including Australia. That gap alone cancels out about half of the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to World Bank estimates. Higher expenditure on healthcare would not be a problem if it delivered a healthier population. But this is not the case. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies of any rich country. And even though more Americans die young, those who survive have worse health than elsewhere. Americans suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and depression at around twice the (age-adjusted) rate of other rich countries. This gap is too large to be accounted for by specific causes like gun violence or drug overdoses, or even unequal income distribution. The US has worse health outcomes at every point on the income distribution scale than other rich countries, even though those at the upper end have much higher incomes. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the problem is getting worse. The US saw declining life expectancy in the years after 2014 and, unlike other countries, saw a late, limited recovery from the increased death rate after the onset of the Covid pandemic. There's not much hope for rapid progress in US health outcomes. The destruction of US public health infrastructure through budget cuts, the gutting of key agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and the appointment of notorious anti-vaxxer RFK Jr as secretary of health and human services will only make matters worse. It's unsurprising then that President Donald Trump is looking at the cost side of the equation. As might be expected he has raised, again, the perennial grievances of US health policy. This is the fact that Americans pay far more for prescription medicines than do citizens of other countries where prices are controlled through mechanisms like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). And, given his grievance-based approach to the world in general, it is no surprise that his latest statement on the topic describes Australia and other countries as 'freeloaders' on the US. The US government is, of course, entirely within its rights to set its own policy regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs already has a program similar to the PBS, under which it pays about half as much of the typical US price. There is no reason this couldn't be extended to the entire US Medicare system, except that the result would be to close down 1,000 or more private plans, each with their own lobbyists. And with a bit more effort, the US could establish its own version of the PBS, covering all Americans. Quite possibly, faced with lower prices in the US, pharmaceutical companies might demand higher returns from other countries including Australia. But a systematic reform of this kind is beyond the capacity of the Trump administration. Instead we have seen the typical Trumpian claim that other countries are benefiting unfairly from medical research done in the US. This was arguably true in the second half of the 20th century when the US was the undoubted centre of global medical research, most notably through the National Institutes of Health. But funding for the NIH (adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2004, and has suffered from decades of financial stringency. Meanwhile, the US share of genuine innovations, measured by 'new molecular entities' has declined and is no longer notably larger (relative to GDP) than that of leading European innovators. The development of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) treatments for obesity and diabetes by Danish firm Novo Nordisk is a notable example of a drug of particular importance to the US being developed in Europe. More generally, if Trump wants to import ideas like the PBS into the US system, Australia has plenty to offer. Australia's Medicare system, combining a single-payer universal scheme for standard healthcare with private insurance and fee-for-service medicine as an upper tier, could provide a politically palatable way of delivering the US demand for 'Medicare for all' without destroying the private sector. But of course, this isn't the Trump way. What we will doubtless see, as in the recent tariff negotiations, is a series of bullying demands, resulting in triumphant announcements of magnificent deals, which turn out, on closer inspection, to be largely illusory. The bigger lesson for Australia in all of this is that, as with China, we need to treat the US not as an ally or friend but as a trading partner which will seek to push us around whenever possible. The correct response, again as with China, is to stand our ground until the other side sees the pointlessness of bullying and the mutual benefits of free exchange. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
