Latest news with #SurgeonGeneral
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
There is no loneliness epidemic – so why do we keep talking as if there is?
Most people experience periods of loneliness, isolation or solitude in their lives. But these are different things, and the proportion of people feeling lonely is stable over time. So why do we keep talking about an epidemic of loneliness? Before the COVID pandemic, several studies showed that rates of loneliness were stable in England, the US, Finland, Sweden and Germany, among other places, over recent decades. While COVID changed many things, loneliness levels quickly returned to pre-pandemic levels. In 2018, 34% of US adults aged 50 to 80 years reported a lack of companionship 'some of the time' or 'often'. That proportion rose to 42% during the pandemic but fell to 33% in 2024. That's a lot of lonely people, but it is not an epidemic. In some countries, such as Sweden, loneliness is in decline – at least among older adults. Despite these statistics, the idea that loneliness is increasing is pervasive. For example in 2023, the US surgeon general warned about an 'epidemic of loneliness and isolation'. The UK even has a government minister with an explicit responsibility for addressing loneliness. Loneliness is a problem, even if it is not an epidemic. Social connection is important for physical and mental health. Many people feel lonely in a crowd or feel crowded when alone. In 2023, the World Health Organization announced a 'Commission on Social Connection'. The WHO is right: we need to reduce loneliness in our families, communities and societies. But the idea that loneliness is an 'epidemic' is misleading and it draws us away from sustainable solutions, rather than towards them. It suggests that loneliness is a new problem (it is not), that it is increasing (it is not), that it is beyond our control (it is not), and that the only appropriate reaction is an emergency one (it is not). In the short term, loneliness is an undesirable psychological state. In the long term, it is a risk factor for chronic ill health. Loneliness is not a sudden crisis that needs a short-term fix. It is a long-term challenge that requires a sustained response. An emergency reaction is not appropriate – a measured response is. Initiatives by the US surgeon general and WHO are welcome, but they should be long-term responses to an enduring problem, not emergency reactions to an 'epidemic'. Conceptual clarity is essential if true loneliness is to be addressed. Pathologising all instances of being alone risks medicalising normal human experiences such as solitude. Some people feel alive only in crowds, but others were born lighthouse keepers. In a hyper-connected world, loneliness should be solvable, but solitude must be treasured. So, if there is no loneliness epidemic, why do we keep talking as if there is? Media framing of the issue and the human tendency to panic reinforce each other. We click into news stories based on subjective resonance rather than objective evidence. Human behaviour is shaped primarily by feelings, not facts. We dramatise, panic, and overstate negative trends. If trends are positive, we focus on minor counter-trends, ignore statistics and make things up. In the case of loneliness, the problem is real, even if the 'epidemic' is not. Loneliness is part of the human condition, but alleviating each other's loneliness is also part of who we are – or who we can become. Addressing loneliness is not about solving a short-term problem or halting an 'epidemic'. It means learning to live with each other in new, more integrated ways that meet our emotional needs. Loneliness is not the problem. It is a consequence of living in societies that are often disconnected and fragmented. The solution? We cannot change the essentials of human nature – and nor should we try. But we can be a little kinder to ourselves, speak to each other a little more, and cultivate compassion for ourselves and other people. We need to connect with each other better and more. We can. We should. We will. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Brendan Kelly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Scientists Have Figured Out Exactly How Much Time Drinking Takes Off Your Life
Recently, there's been a lot of talk about the negative effects of drinking alcohol. In December of last year, the U.S. Surgeon General released an advisory warning about the direct relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer. Around the same time, new research challenged long-held beliefs about the safety of moderate drinking. In a study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Dr. Tim Stockwell and colleagues found that even low levels of alcohol consumption are linked to increased mortality. Dr. Stockwell later estimated, in media interviews, how this risk might translate into days or years of life lost depending on drinking level. He told the Daily Mail that consuming just two drinks per week may shorten your life by three to six days. And unfortunately, for frequent imbibers, the numbers get even bleaker. According to Dr. Stockwell's comments to the media, if a person were to drink seven alcoholic beverages a week (beer, wine, or spirits), they risk cutting their life expectancy by two and a half months. A person who drinks 35 alcoholic beverages a week could shorten their life by two years, based on his interpretation of the research. Dr. Stockwell told the Daily Mail that these numbers are averages, and some people could end up luckier than others. He discouraged people from considering alcohol as something that is okay or even healthy to consume in moderation. The CDC defines moderate drinking as one drink or less per day for women and two or less for men. For years, moderate drinking was considered okay, if not beneficial. However, Dr. Stockwell's research—and a 2023 meta-analysis he co-authored, which analyzed 107 studies from over 40 years—disputed that belief. "Dr. Stockwell's review of years of research really challenges the old idea that a little alcohol is good for you. What he and his team found is that even small amounts of alcohol can shorten your lifespan," Dr. Raj Dasgupta, Chief Medical Advisor for Sleepopolis tells Delish. Dr. Dasgupta explains that both how much you drink and how often you drink impacts life expectancy. And as drinking increases, he says there's a greater risk to long-term health, such as liver problems, cancer, heart disease, and accidents. "Alcohol's effect on each person is different. My advice: if you do drink, try to keep it in moderation," he says. You Might Also Like Insanely Easy Weeknight Dinners To Try This Week 29 Insanely Delicious Vodka Cocktails
Forbes
17-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Companies Need To Modernize Their Parental Leave Policies
Cynthia McEwen is the Vice President of People at women's health benefits company Progyny. According to a 2023 U.S. Office of the Surgeon General Advisory, nearly 50% of parents said they experienced overwhelming stress most days. But when it comes to employer-provided support, such as parental leave policies, many modern workplaces aren't offering what these caregivers need. Traditional leave policies often fail to account for the wide range of family structures and birth-related situations that exist today. Adaptable parental leave policies are more than a benefit. They're a strategic imperative for employers seeking to attract and retain talent. Let's examine these challenges and determine how employers can effectively address them, ensuring both employee support and a strong bottom line. Caregivers who adopt or foster children face unique challenges. For example, the legal processes involved in pursuing this path require extensive preparation, including up to six months of in-person appointments that often take place during business hours. International adoptions present additional challenges, like extensive travel and even more complex legal procedures, that don't always align with conventional leave timeframes. Meanwhile, foster placements often occur at a pace that makes it impractical to adhere to standard leave policies' advanced notice requirements. Companies can alleviate these challenges by offering more flexible parental leave policies that accommodate home studies and training, travel and last-minute placements in fostering households. Other useful support for easing the transition to parenthood are financial assistance for adoption-related expenses, access to counseling and parent-focused employee resource groups. Birth complications highlight the additional inadequacy of many parental leave policies. According to a 2023 study on maternal health, women are still at risk for developing serious health conditions after the standard postpartum period of six to eight weeks. These may result in extended recovery periods, frequent medical follow-ups and a need for additional caregiving support. Meanwhile, the non-birthing parent must be able to provide the necessary emotional and logistical support. However, many postpartum care services end after six weeks, leaving parents without the resources they need. Supporting employees through birth complications requires a multifaceted approach. Return-to-work assistance, for example, helps reduce absenteeism, improve retention and mitigate long-term career setbacks. Offering extended leave or flexible work arrangements for employees whose partner is in postpartum recovery can help improve health outcomes for both parents and reduce stress during an already challenging time. Additionally, benefits must go beyond medical care. Mental health support, such as access to employee assistance programs, is particularly vital because psychological distress is a significant factor in maternal morbidity and mortality. By addressing both medical and emotional needs, employers can foster a more supportive environment for all parents affected by birth complications. In many cultures, childbirth is a communal experience where extended family plays a major role in postpartum care. Parental leave policies that fail to consider these cultural norms may force employees to choose between their professional responsibilities and deeply rooted traditions that support maternal and family well-being. By accommodating cultural birth-related practices—whether through adequate paid leave, flexible return-to-work options or childcare-related resources—companies can demonstrate respect for all parents. There are many family structures beyond the stereotypical two-parent household, such as single-parent households, blended families and families formed through surrogacy. But traditional parental leave policies rarely address these families' specific circumstances. For example, if a single parent is responsible for all caregiving duties, they may have greater time off needs than someone with a co-parent or a strong support system. Parents with blended families may need flexibility to accommodate legal arrangements, while families formed through surrogacy often need additional time for the emotional adjustments associated with welcoming a child. When companies provide parental leave, they should consider all paths to parenthood and different ways that families form. Policies that are paired with back-to-work transition support, new-parent educational resources and other tools help create a workplace culture where individuals can thrive both professionally and personally. As we continue to redefine what it means to "work well," let's ensure parental leave policies evolve to meet the needs of today's workforce. Anything less risks perpetuating inequities and forfeits the opportunity to build truly empowering workplaces. Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
Washington Post
17-06-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Do you live in a ‘lonelygenic environment'? Being in nature may help.
Loneliness has become a global public health concern. Countries including the United Kingdom and Japan have appointed 'ministers of loneliness' to help tackle the problem. In the United States, then-Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy issued a public health advisory on loneliness, stating that the risk for premature death from loneliness is akin to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.
Medscape
06-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Sobering Figures: Alcohol's Link to GI Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity. In January 2025, the US Surgeon General released an important advisory that 'highlights alcohol use as a leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, contributing to nearly 100,000 cancer cases and about 20,000 cancer deaths each year.' This is in line with epidemiologic evidence for the carcinogenicity of alcohol. However, the advisory also noted that approximately 72% of American adults drink alcohol at least once a week, and fewer than half realize that alcohol use contributes to an increase in cancer risk. In this video, we will explore the research linking alcohol to gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and suggest ways that physicians and public health experts can help individuals dramatically reduce their alcohol consumption. Through careful discussions in the clinic and public health initiatives, we can hopefully prevent many cancer deaths related to alcohol use. The Toll of Alcohol-Associated GI Cancer The association between alcohol consumption and cancer risk was first appreciated during the late 1980s. Over time, a growing body of research has demonstrated 'a causal relationship between alcohol use and increased risk for at least seven different types of cancer, including breast (in women), colorectum, esophagus, liver, mouth (oral cavity), throat (pharynx), and voice box (larynx).' The advisory publication noted that in 2020, approximately 741,300 patients developed cancer in part due to alcohol. In the United States, there are approximately 20,000 cancer deaths annually related to alcohol consumption, more than the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions each year, which totals 13,500. Breast cancer makes up 60% of cancer-related deaths for women, while liver cancer (approximately 33%) and colorectal cancer (approximately 21%) make up the most cancer-related deaths for men. These figures should be sobering. Although the risk of developing cancer in people who consume fewer than two drinks per day is lower compared with higher levels of alcohol ingestion, there are a greater number of people who consume one to two drinks per day. Therefore, the total number of cancer cases is similar. In 2020, 185,100 patients who drank one to two drinks daily developed cancer attributed to alcohol usage, compared with 153,400 patients who consumed four to six drinks per day and 192,900 patients who consumed more than six drinks per day. A standard drink of alcohol amounts to 5 fluid ounces of wine, 12 fluid ounces of beer, or 1.5 fluid ounces of hard liquor. Knowledge Gap The International Agency for Research on Cancer — a specialty arm of the World Health Organization — now classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen along with tobacco, asbestos, and formaldehyde. In fact, 25 years ago, the US National Toxicology Program announced that alcoholic beverage consumption is carcinogenic. Yet, there remains a knowledge gap among the American public about the fact that alcohol is a strong cancer risk factor. A 2019 survey indicated that only 45% of Americans realized alcohol is a cancer risk factor, while those surveyed had higher awareness of the cancer risks posed by other factors, such as radiation exposure (91%), tobacco (89%), and asbestos (81%). Scientists have been studying alcohol as a potential risk factor for cancer over 20 years, using the same template of observational studies that researchers previously applied to studying smoking as a cancer risk factor. A large global meta-analysis comprising 572 research studies and 486,538 cancer deaths concluded that alcohol is indeed a cancer risk factor. A pooled analysis of 26 studies found the odds of developing oral cancer increased by 40% for those who drank one alcoholic beverage daily compared with those who did not. Furthermore, another meta-analysis showed the relative risk of cancer development compared with people who don't drink was 1.0 for light drinkers, 1.21 for moderate drinkers, and 1.52 for heavy drinkers (ie, more than four drinks per day). How Alcohol Causes Cancer Acetaldehyde is a breakdown byproduct of alcohol that can cause cancer by binding to DNA and damaging it. As a result, a cell can begin to grow uncontrollably and produce a cancerous tumor. In addition, alcohol can produce reactive oxygen species, which has the potential to create inflammation through oxidation, also damaging DNA, proteins, and lipids. Studies have shown that providing ethanol or acetaldehyde, which is the metabolic breakdown product of ethanol, led rats to develop more tumors in the body compared with controls. Alcohol can even increase estrogen levels, which can potentially predispose to breast cancer development. Smoking while drinking poses additional risks. Carcinogens from tobacco smoke can dissolve in alcohol liquid and more easily enter the body, which is especially concerning for the potential contribution to throat and oral cancers. Acetaldehyde can sometimes be used as a food additive and aroma agent, and is a significant carcinogenic component found in cigarette smoke. The acetaldehyde concentration in cigarette smoke is 1000 times greater than that in other significant carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or nitrosamines from tobacco. Drinking alcohol in combination with smoking cigarettes can have a synergistic negative effect on the risk for colorectal cancer, and the combination can have a sevenfold effect on the upper digestive tract's exposure to carcinogenic acetaldehyde. Additional research has focused on whether folate deficiency, sometimes caused by heavy alcohol use, might also place patients at risk through an alternative pathway. Esophageal and Liver Cancer According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), heavy alcohol consumption can increase esophageal cancer risk fivefold. Even light drinking can increase the risk by 1.3-fold, highlighting the importance of limiting alcohol consumption. The NCI also reports that heavy alcohol ingestion can multiply the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by two times compared with the regular population. Although additional research needs to be conducted, it has been hypothesized that alcohol can cause liver cancer by altering the immune response, causing reactive oxygen species production, and producing changes in the immune response. Unfortunately, alcohol can act synergistically with hepatitis B and C to cause liver cancer. Also, consistently drinking two or more alcoholic beverages per day is associated with an increased risk for liver cancer. Gastric Cancer Recent studies have shown that alcohol consumption could increase gastric cancer risk. Acetaldehydes may act as a possible mechanism by creating a local toxic effect, and ethanol may also disturb gastric mucosal protection. A meta-analysis that reviewed 10 case-control studies investigating alcohol and gastric cancer risks validated it as a risk factor even at low levels of alcohol consumption. A Korean population-based retrospective cohort study found that 'the risk of GI cancer increased linearly with the frequency of drinking in a dose-dependent manner.' Pancreatic Cancer The same Korean study found that the risk for pancreatic cancer increased with weekly alcohol drinking. A meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Cancer also showed a 20% increase in pancreatic cancer risk with alcohol consumption. In a study of over 450,000 Americans living in California, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in heavy alcohol users (at least three drinks per day) was 1.35 compared with light users (less than one drink per day) in never smokers. Another study, of over 33,000 patients in Sweden, found the relative risk of pancreatic cancer for intermediate and heavy alcohol use was 2.13 in former smokers. Colorectal Cancer In 2025, the NCI published a guide indicating that moderate to heavy alcohol consumption is associated with a 1.2- to 1.5-fold increased risk for colorectal cancer compared with patients who were abstinent. In an earlier review, from 2015, researchers showed that alcohol consumption of more than 30 grams per day was associated with an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Estimates from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research indicate that there was a 9% risk of developing colorectal cancer for every 10 grams of alcohol consumed daily. In addition, folate deficiency has been shown to worsen the effects of drinking alcohol on colorectal cancer risks. A 2022 meta-analysis published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that consuming alcohol was associated with a 1.71 relative risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer. Interestingly, cigarette smoking was not statistically significant for establishing such an association. Consumption of processed meat and fried foods, as well as lack of exercise, also contributed to the development of early-onset colorectal cancer. As physicians, we should encourage patients to make lifestyle modifications to avoid those other risk factors. While additional research needs to be conducted, a cohort study in California and Hawaii, led by Dr Song-Yi Park, indicated that the relationship between alcohol and colorectal cancer might vary by ethnicity. In addition, it found that colorectal cancer risk was increased by wine and beer, but not liquor. The association with alcohol was greatest for rectal and left colon cancers. Public Health Approaches Alcohol is the most consumed drug in the United States, a statistic that requires validated approaches for addressing. In the future, Congress can vote to include alcohol warning labels on bottles and cans. There's evidence that health warning labels are effective in teaching the public about alcohol-induced health consequences. Interestingly, multiple studies have illustrated a decrease in alcohol consumption following viewership of alcohol warning labels. In addition, alcohol warning labels depicting liver cancer or negative alcohol consequences have been shown to reduce drinking and drunk driver situations. A 2024 meta-analysis showed with 'moderate certainty' that alcohol warning labels might decrease selection of alcoholic drinks and drinking before driving. However, there was 'low evidence' demonstrating that warning labels might reduce alcohol drinking per occasion, or alcohol drinking speeds, which would be important considerations at parties and social gatherings. A 2020 study showed that alcohol selection was lower for all kinds of alcohol warning labels compared with no warning labels. Specifically, alcoholic drink selection was 56% with warning labels that consisted of an image and text, 49% for image only, and 61% for text only. During the 1990s and 2000s, physicians and public health experts learned a lot about how to motivate patients to quit smoking. One successful public health approach was the use of the transtheoretical model, where patients go through various stages, such as precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance, when trying to decide when to quit smoking. This behavioral modification model could be used for alcohol prevention too. Key public policy interventions also helped, including a tobacco taxation, advertising bans, and tobacco marketing restrictions in smoke-free zones. Similar interventions could work well for alcohol. Alcohol taxation can be used to deter heavy drinkers and young drinkers who don't have as much money to spend, given that tobacco taxation was successful for smoking reductions. Furthermore, policies could be set to maintain minimum unit pricing to prevent the sale of ultracheap liquor. States could also limit the hours of alcohol purchasing or even the days, such as banning alcohol sales on Sunday. These public health strategies could work in tandem to help decrease alcohol drinking rates in the United States. Alcohol and smoking are very similar social activities that for years were depicted as stylish and cool in movies and on TV. Then smoking ads were banned on TV through the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970. During the 1970s, cigarette companies shifted their advertising from TV to print. So, it would be important in the future to ban alcohol ads from all media and printed marketing. As highlighted by the World Health Organization, advertising bans and restrictions were helpful in Nordic countries with decreasing the per-capita drinking amount. Finally, physicians should screen patients for heavy alcohol consumption using the validated AUDIT- C questionnaire and biomarkers such as phosphatidyl ethanol. When needed, Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar 12-step program can be offered to patients who drink heavily to reduce alcohol consumption. Tips to Reduce Alcohol Consumption Here are some helpful tips to encourage patients and friends to reduce alcohol consumption. Set a quit date and avoid triggers such as meeting friends at bars. Drink mocktails at social gatherings and parties. Patients can also choose from a plethora of innovative and tasty alcohol-free beers when drinking with friends. Several beer companies, such as Heineken, Budweiser, Guinness, and Samuel Adams, have developed great alcohol-free beer alternatives, which are extremely helpful for patients trying to remain abstinent and also for those trying to prevent cancer. Mass media initiatives such as the Ad Council and celebrity public service announcement television spots could be used to shift social norms around alcohol consumption. Public service announcements could also be shared at sporting events and concerts where alcohol consumption is common. Public health campaigns could place posters in bars and liquor stores informing consumers about the link between alcohol and cancer. Social media could teach target populations about alcohol reduction in fun and engaging ways. By talking with patients in clinic and working on public health campaigns, gastroenterologists have a unique opportunity to inspire behavioral lifestyle changes in patients and to prevent many cancers.
