[HN Gopher] Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk f...
___________________________________________________________________
Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of
early-onset cancer
Author : philonoist
Score : 89 points
Date : 2023-09-06 12:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bmjoncology.bmj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bmjoncology.bmj.com)
| randcraw wrote:
| The gorilla question: what has changed in the past 33 years to
| cause this increase? I'd look first at confounding variables like
| 33 years of improved methods to detect cancer earlier: the rise
| of MRI, screening for chemical signatures of cancer (like PSA),
| etc.
|
| The abstract didn't suggest the authors filtered out more recent
| methods of detection from their data (i.e. detections based only
| on 1990-era tests like physical exam, 2D X-Ray, etc).
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Am I reading the chart wrong or are DALYs (Disability-adjusted
| Life Years) down for almost everything beside breast cancer?
|
| This seems like we're just getting better at detecting cancer
| earlier ( _especially_ breast cancer), and preventing it from
| killing you younger - not that cancer is a way bigger problem.
|
| In fact - if you look at deaths - it also looks like it's down
| for most things, too - breast cancer being a major outlier.
|
| But everyone else seems to be interpreting this the other way -
| so I'm hoping someone can explain why the DALY figures don't
| mean what I think they mean.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Since we're much better at detecting breast cancer early, why
| aren't breast cancer deaths down the most? Is this because
| treating breast cancer is particularly difficult, more-so
| than other cancers, or is something causing more breast
| cancer than before?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Breast cancer isn't particularly fatal now.
|
| Treatment has been pretty decent for at least 10 years.
|
| I'm surprised that deaths per 100k are up. I'm not sure if
| they adjusted this to account for the fact that the global
| population is older now than in 1990.
|
| But DALYs should cover that (which is still a strange
| outlier for breast cancer, but nothing major).
| thfuran wrote:
| >I'd look first at confounding variables like 33 years of
| improved methods to detect cancer earlier: the rise of MRI,
| screening for chemical signatures of cancer (like PSA), etc.
|
| Early detection is one thing, but is cancer generally hard to
| detect by the time it's fatal?
| rcpt wrote:
| If something else kills you then yeah
| starkparker wrote:
| Some of the ones listed in the study certainly can be, like
| colorectal.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| young people don't get screened for colorectal cancer.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Eh, yeah the earlier detection are a factor in the detection
| numbers. However, the fact that early onset mortality rates
| have also risen seems to indicate that this isn't only an
| obversational issue. This still points to a real issue.
| jader201 wrote:
| Under "what this study adds":
|
| > _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._
| reedf1 wrote:
| I'm very surprised to see milk negatively correlated with
| cancer risk - I usually see people calling milk unhealthy. Do
| we know exactly what the benefits are?
| Qem wrote:
| I suspect the plant-based "milk" makers are investing a lot
| of marketing resources in smearing the reputation of milk as
| unhealthy, just like the margarine makers did before to
| promote the replacement of butter with cheaper hydrogenated
| vegetable oils.
| simmerup wrote:
| Milk has minerals like potassium and a low glycemic index as
| lactose takes a while to digest. That could help.
| consilient wrote:
| Somethings are simply bad for you, without qualification, but
| for the most part it only makes sense to use "healthy" or
| "unhealthy" to describe a diet, not individual foods.
|
| Milk has lots of protein, minerals, and fat. Whether that's
| good or bad depends on how much of those you're getting from
| other sources.
| raverbashing wrote:
| > I usually see people calling milk unhealthy
|
| Usually with zero actual supporting data
| dham wrote:
| Low in fruits: What kind of fruits? Not all fruits are created
| equal and it's important how we consume them. Drinking fruits
| in smoothies doesn't mean you're healthy. Eating Blackberries,
| Rasberries, Strawberries, Avocados, yea. Eating grapes,
| raisins, apples, no
|
| Diet high in red meat: Nope. Only if your diet is also high in
| carbs (the American diet). Eating a grass fed steak with some
| broccoli and walnuts on the side. Ok. Eating a steak with baked
| potato and chocolate brownie for dessert, na.
|
| High in sodium: Nope. Only if your diet is also high in carbs
|
| Low in milk: Lol
|
| Alcohol consumption: Yes
|
| Tobacco use: Yes
| dehrmann wrote:
| > Eating...apples, no
|
| Apple juice, sure, but whole apples? You're gonna need to
| back that claim up with some pretty strong evidence.
| dham wrote:
| Too much sugar in Apples, not enough fiber.
| rafaelero wrote:
| > Diet high in red meat: Nope. Only if your diet is also high
| in carbs (the American diet). Eating a grass fed steak with
| some broccoli and walnuts on the side. Ok. Eating a steak
| with baked potato and chocolate brownie for dessert, na.
|
| Cope. Of course adding broccoli and walnuts will make it
| healthier. Now substitute meat for beans and it will be even
| healthier.
| dham wrote:
| Meat isn't bad, meat with carbs is bad.
| flerchin wrote:
| This is the first I've heard of this claim, but you seem
| adamant that this is proven. Would you mind sharing some
| evidence?
| odyssey7 wrote:
| Are they saying milk deficiency causes cancer?
| [deleted]
| xenonite wrote:
| High BMI and high fasting glucose are a main risk factor, they
| write. Well what about reducing sugar and carbs altogether
| instead of promoting whole grains as they do?
| scottLobster wrote:
| Because whole grains have fiber and other nutrients that makes
| them extremely healthy.
|
| No one is getting fat off of oatmeal with berries and raw
| oranges, they're getting fat off all the cinnamon-sugar they
| slather on top of the oatmeal and the glass of no-pulp orange
| juice with added sugar they have as a beverage.
|
| Also fast food and sodas.
| myrmidon wrote:
| Just wanted to add: Neither "non-pulp" nor "added sugar" is
| the main problem with orange juice.
|
| The real problem becomes _very_ obvious if you prepare the
| fruit juice yourself:
|
| The fruit needed to produce even a single glass of apple or
| orange juice (which is quite easy to drink/sip quickly) is _a
| lot_ if you were to consume it raw (basically not doable, or
| at least I 'm not gonna eat like 4 apples at once).
|
| Juicing fruit makes it _much_ easier to overconsume fruit
| sugar.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I made a rule to myself - no juices, pulp, no pulp, doesnt
| matter. Way too much simple carbs for it to be ever
| healthy. I can literally taste all the sweetness since I
| generally avoid sugars, even if I make it myself with all
| the pulp possible. Like that, I don't have any needs for
| those, no cravings or urges to pour glass ie when eating in
| hotel, in same way I have 0 craving for sugary/worse sodas.
|
| The thing is, most of the pulp stays in the juicing machine
| regardless. Thats why you don't drink solid apple, just
| juice from it. So I eat those fruits, but oranges almost
| never, apples more so. Vegetables are so much healthier, a
| good bio carrot is my friend #1 also due to better
| processing of sunshine in the skin.
|
| You can teach yourself almost anything with a smidge of
| discipline, but its much easier if your parents just dont
| fuck up your upbringing and don't make this and other
| junkfood into some idiotic rewards (or just don't care at
| all), so you just continue that trend into adulthood.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > Juicing fruit makes it much easier to overconsume fruit
| sugar.
|
| It's worse than simply making it easier to consume large
| quantities of fruit. Even if you consume only the same
| amount of fruit as you would be willing to eat unprocessed
| juicing it makes the sugars more available so that you over
| consume even without appearing to consume a lot.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| For an individual to cut all grain and carbs out of their diet
| is relatively easy (whether that's actually a good idea is
| another matter.) For the whole population to do it? You'll need
| something to replace these for billions of people, ideally
| without causing mass starvation:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food#Production Good luck.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Because whole grains have a lot of fiber and high dietary fiber
| intake has consistently been shown to be critical to several
| different health outcomes. And intake of whole grains
| specifically is also strongly linked to positive health
| outcomes while in most cases low carbohydrate diets of various
| sorts are not.
| hn8305823 wrote:
| A healthy diet is helpful of course but the most important
| thing is exercise. Not just casual going through the motions
| exercise but _high intensity balls-to-the-wall_ exercise:
|
| https://www.verywellhealth.com/intense-exercise-capacity-
| can...
|
| https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
| prevention/risk/o...
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201026114229.h.
| ..
|
| https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/metastatic-
| cancer-...
|
| ... and so on
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Do people gain weight when they switch their SAD out with whole
| grains and carbs like legumes? I'd wager the evidence says no.
|
| Is that what the diet looks like in obese people?
|
| Frankly it sounds like exactly what obese people should be
| eating: swap out highly palatable foods with beans, broccoli,
| and bulgur.
| rafaelero wrote:
| It would be dumb discouraging whole grains since they are
| clearly associated with decreased mortality. According to the
| paper:
|
| "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."
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "low in milk" (as a risk factor) strikes me as an
| extraordinary claim
| 876978095789789 wrote:
| > instead of promoting whole grains
|
| Telling people to eat fewer, not more, whole grains to prevent
| T2DM and cancer is peak HNism:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/
|
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
|
| and high-fat, high-saturated fat diets actually make insulin
| sensitivity worse:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/
| throwbcuzbusy wrote:
| I don't have an HN account, because it is a poor use of my
| time, but I made one to counter your points (which date back
| decades, and have been already debunked by those more
| eloquent than I).
|
| 1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in
| most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-
| fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 %
| carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing
| sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains
| as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g
| carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main
| benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are
| severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now.
|
| 2. Linking papers, without any sort of commentary or notion
| as to the reason for their inclusion, is in poor taste. In
| most cases this is done when the poster themselves haven't
| thoroughly read the articles in question. I won't go so far
| as to say this has been done today, but I will say it is a
| disrespect of our time to post lengthy papers without any
| sort of reasoning behind why they've been posted.
|
| 3. The first two links (technically one paper)[1][2] are
| statistical analyses of different food groups and their
| association with type 2 diabetes. The same error is done here
| as has been mentioned in my first point: without controlling
| for the whole diet, and using a very low carb, high
| fat/protein diet, the findings are irrelevant. Risk ratios
| are a notable finding, not a be-all end-all. Correlation is
| not causation. Continue platitudes ad infinitum and ad
| nauseam.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ [1]
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/ [2]
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
| 876978095789789 wrote:
| > 1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done
| in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such.
| "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27
| % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by
| "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting
| whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation
| would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This
| is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out
| when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been
| known for a while now.
|
| Where's the evidence? I linked to a study, one that isn't
| confounded by weight-loss (like most studies you people
| like to cite) demonstrating that as the fat (especially
| saturated fat) content of the diet increased to an absurd
| degree (55%!), insulin sensitivity tanked. Why would
| insulin sensitivity, when measured by an Oral Glucose
| Tolerance Test, suddenly improve if you restricted
| carbohydrate even further? Yeah, at some point your intake
| will be so low that you can "game" an HbA1c or fasting BG
| test, but underlying insulin sensitivity will be trash
| (which an OGTT would show), unless maybe you lose enough
| bodyfat to offset it.
|
| Why do so many people on keto develop "physiological
| insulin resistance?" Why does all of the epidemiological
| evidence show strong inverse correlations between low-fat
| carbohydrate consumption (like whole grains and fruits) and
| T2DM, but the reverse for high-fat "carbs" like cookies or
| pizza?
|
| The most reasonable interpretation of the data right now is
| that high-fat diets make you less insulin sensitive.
| astura wrote:
| It's peak Reddit bro-science, it's just Reddit bro-science
| has leaked into HN last several years.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| The Overton window of weird dietary approaches shifts too.
| It started with 'Atkins' which became lo carb when he was
| debunked, which became paleo 'cos that is cooler for the
| bro's then this got more extreme as a carnivore only diet
| and some of those weirdos have moved onto only raw meat.
|
| Every internet meme gets more and more extreme.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| I wish there was serious consideration that this might be
| a kind of manifestation of disordered eating. Being
| overly extreme about your diet can be a form of
| disordered eating, especially if it's unconnected to
| underlying condition like keto for epilepsy, gluten free
| for celiac's, etc. If you're a completely healthy man
| eating only raw meat, are you seriously any different
| from a woman who insists on eating only cabbage? I've
| seen people talk about how great their fasting diet is--
| going days, upwards over a week without eating at a
| time-- and how amazing their feel not eating, etc. That
| basically also sounds like disordered eating.
| grecy wrote:
| If we're lucky the next one will be 'No calories. Ever.'
| shard wrote:
| As promoted by Famine in the book 'Foodless Dieting: Slim
| Yourself Beautiful ("The Diet Book Of The Century!")'
|
| https://wiki.lspace.org/Famine_(Good_Omens)
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| Maybe, but cultural opinion about diets has always been
| shifting and multifaceted.
|
| For example, the high carb SAD being defacto is a new
| thing. It became the default around the same time as the
| agricultural revolution and mass media. Before that,
| there were lots of of options. During the period where
| mass media ruled, their was only one zeitgeist (brought
| to you by Kellogg's!), but now with the internet we are
| back to historical norms where those with means are able
| to find advice free of commercial incentives and
| regulatory capture. For example, low carb has been around
| for centuries.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-
| carbohydrate_diet#histor...
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| Are you sure? Citation from your first link
|
| > Six out of the 12 food-groups showed a significant relation
| with risk of T2D, three of them a decrease of risk with
| increasing consumption (whole grains, fruits, and dairy),
| 876978095789789 wrote:
| > Are you sure? Citation from your first link
|
| I think you misread my post, or misread the study. Whole
| grains are some of the healthiest foods you can eat,
| especially when it comes to reducing your risk of T2DM,
| while the person I was replying to implied the opposite:
|
| > Thirteen studies with 29,633 T2D cases were included in
| the high vs. low intake meta-analysis (overall intake
| range: 0-302 g/day). Comparing extreme categories, a strong
| inverse association between T2D and whole grain intake was
| observed (RR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.71-0.84, I2 = 86%)
| (Supplementary Figure S1). Each additional daily 30 g of
| whole grains was inversely associated with T2D risk (RR:
| 0.87; 95% CI 0.82-0.93, I2 = 91%, n = 12 studies)
| (Supplementary Figure S2). The inverse associations and
| heterogeneity persisted in additional analyses stratified
| by sex, age, follow-up length, geographic location, number
| of cases, dietary assessment, and outcome assessment
| (Supplementary Table S14). Evidence of heterogeneity
| between subgroups in stratified analyses was observed for
| geographic location, dietary assessment method, and outcome
| assessment. There was significant evidence for small study
| effects in the high versus low meta-analysis, but not in
| the dose-response meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the
| funnel plot suggests that small studies showing positive
| association may be missing (Supplementary Figure S25).
| There was evidence of a non-linear dose-response
| association; the risk of T2D decreased by 25% with
| increasing intake of whole grains up to ~50 g/day. Small
| benefits for increasing intake above this value were
| observed (Fig. 2).
| pastor_bob wrote:
| >Well what about reducing sugar and carbs altogether
|
| The summary says red meat and low-fruit diets (which obviously
| have carbs) increase the risk of cancer as much if not more.
|
| Why would they push for a keto diet if the evidence that it's
| beneficial is contradictory?
| photochemsyn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pixl97 wrote:
| 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.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| >> 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"
| PeterWhittaker wrote:
| One key paragraph: Since 1990, the incidence and deaths of early
| onset cancers have substantially increased globally. Early-onset
| breast, tracheal, bronchus and lung, stomach and colorectal
| cancers showed the highest mortality and burden in 2019.
| Countries with a high-middle and middle Sociodemographic Index
| and individuals aged 40-49 years were particularly affected.
| 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.
| [deleted]
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sort of surprising to see the main factor being dietary and only
| calling out some specific things but not others. No mention of
| hormones (or chemicals that act like them), toxins, etc as risks.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What is a "toxin" to you?
| hammock wrote:
| Would imagine pesticides, environmental pollutants, etc
| cromulent wrote:
| Normally "toxin" refers to a natural poison produced by an
| animal or plant.
| hammock wrote:
| Reviewing the dictionary(1) it seems you are right. For
| some reason I was thinking that anything toxic could be
| considered a toxin. Apparently that's not the case
|
| (1)https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxin
| giantg2 wrote:
| Some molds have toxic spores which have carcinogenic
| effects.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| I bet this can all be explained by the negligence of government
| to protect the public against dangerous chemicals in the water,
| food, and consumer products because of lobbying by private
| industry.
| macinjosh wrote:
| 100%, I'd also add things like new kinds of pharmaceuticals
| that are rushed through regulator approvals and are heavily
| pushed by public health officials, and made free to the public
| (funded by tax dollars). The influence so strong in some cases
| that folks lost their jobs for declining the pharmaceutical
| product while pharma corporations raked in cash.
| hooverd wrote:
| The COVID vaccine caused this?
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I don't mind access to untested drugs. I do mind that
| Physicians have 100% of control over which diagnosis and
| medicine they decide.
|
| Travel based medicine, science based medicine, AI based
| medicine, all seem like a welcome change from the US's
| Authority Based Medicine.
| Pxtl wrote:
| The problem is that we are exposed to so many chemicals,
| finding the culprit(s) for this kind of thing will be nigh
| impossible.
|
| The study said "(diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in
| sodium and low in milk, etc)"
|
| which basically means "everywhere in the first world" since red
| meat is often too expensive in 3rd-world settings. And
| globalization means that every first world country is using the
| same products.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Everything is chemicals.
| Pxtl wrote:
| _sigh_ don 't be silly, you know what I mean. Plastics,
| aromatic hydrocarbons, endocrine disruptors, etc.
|
| You know, novel technologically produced chemicals (or
| natural chemicals in unnatural quantities) that may have
| negative impact on your body that we either are unaware of
| or have underestimated.
| [deleted]
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| > 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.
|
| It seems it's the chemical we're putting in ourselves. No
| government blame needed.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| except these dietary factors make no sense / change so
| frequently they are almost science fads. tobacco use has
| dropped significantly in the last 30 years. sodium is now
| considered not that important, especially compared to sugar.
| low in milk contradicts the reality that milk is full of
| hormones and antibiotics
|
| we do an about face on lots of "dietary risk factors" every
| 5-10 years
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If I'm reading the article correctly, those factors mean
| that current young smokers have a higher chance of dying
| from cancer than young smokers from the 90's. The
| probability is so much higher that the total of deaths
| increased by many tens of percent, while the total number
| of smokers decreased by an order of magnitude or so.
|
| I do agree that it makes no sense to blame the mortality on
| smoking. The change in smoking is clearly not what is
| leading it.
| adaptbrian wrote:
| this sounds like the diet i started per the recommendation of
| my doctor after he kicked his migraines doing this. i am a
| long time sufferer of cluster headaches and this looks to be
| the first year ive been able to abate them for an entire
| cycle/year.
|
| low carb, low inflammatory, high protein ratio combined with
| heady/meaty lettuces and non root veggies.
|
| the american food pyramid is a farse and drastically needs to
| be updated.
| [deleted]
| mellosouls wrote:
| _It seems it 's the chemical we're putting in ourselves. No
| government blame needed._
|
| Where does it say that alcohol and tobacco consumption have
| increased in the time period? In fact for at least one group,
| as expected, it's decreased as a ranking factor.
|
| So - while it's absolutely true that individuals must take
| responsibility for their choices, it seems reasonable to
| associate the increase with trends that have increased -
| highly processed foods etc. Not alcohol and tobacco.
|
| The criticism of government inaction and lobbying therefore
| seems a good default position to take.
| mlinhares wrote:
| The average US diet is a direct result of lobbying and
| government action based on such lobbying, as it is visible if
| you go almost anywhere else, including poorer countries like
| the US neighbors in Latin America.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| "Direct result"? I mean, sure it has a big effect, but
| supply and demand matter. For example, do you think
| Americans developed a taste for avocados due to lobbying?
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| No, but the USDA made the food pyramid. The USDA
| represents agricultural interests. It does not represent
| consumers interests.
|
| That and the myriad of agricultural subsidies and
| especially corn subsides. Most Americans are above 50%
| corn... the same way my cat is made of water and cat
| food. Whether though consuming it directly or through
| meat and dairy fed on corn.
|
| The end result has been the SAD as we know it: food
| that's cheap and profitable but unhealthy.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _It seems it 's the chemical we're putting in ourselves. No
| government blame needed._
|
| This has been facilitated by food industry compliant with
| legislators, so there's a lot of government blame needed.
| tacocataco wrote:
| Corn subsidies and the lack of regulation and consequences
| for corporations that pollute.
|
| Norfolk Southern still exists and still makes money off of
| critical infrastructure.
|
| Deny justice long enough, and people will get their own in
| the worst way possible one day.
| revscat wrote:
| This seems incredibly naive. Addiction affects peoples
| ability to make rational choices.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Globally" and "worldwide" are right there in the abstract.
|
| edit: Parent post originally stated something about the
| "enshittification of the US".
| donkeyd wrote:
| Correct and the previous commenter is practicing some clear
| 'US Defaultism'. However, unrestricted Western consumerism is
| a massive part of what's happening worldwide. We all want
| cheap everything and nobody is stopping western companies
| from using the absolute worst suppliers and production
| methods for everything (exaggerated, but not much).
|
| Companies like 3M, Bayer, Dow, Shell and BP are polluting the
| whole world directly. Companies like H&M and Primark are
| doing it indirectly by using the cheapest supplier for mass
| market crap they sell. I recently heard that most bamboo
| fiber (which westerners buy because they think it's
| environmentally friendly) is produced in China, because the
| chemicals needed are extremely toxic and hard to properly
| process. In China they are just released into nature and as
| long as the Chinese company says they don't do that, the
| western companies can say they buy 'good fibers' and turn a
| blind eye to the pollution. This way we spread our love all
| around the world.
| sydbarrett74 wrote:
| The globe is being progressively enshittified by adopting a
| Western lifestyle.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| The US has the largest global economy so probably has an
| outsized impact on this.
| xeromal wrote:
| Did you read the linked post?
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Yes, is there a problem with what I've articulated? Have
| you heard of Composition Fallacy or Simpson's Paradox?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _" Globally" and "worldwide" are right there in the
| abstract_
|
| A lot of crappy food choices were spearheaded, exported, and
| promoted to death, by the US, anyway.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Agreed, It's definitely not a conspiracy that US federal
| regulatory authorities have gotten more lax, beuracratic and
| ineffective over the decades. One can still generally subscribe
| to a world view while being critical of its shortcomings.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I really appreciate the "what was already known, what this study
| adds" summary about a page down in this.
| [deleted]
| gjstein wrote:
| Agreed! I've never seen something like this before, but it
| seems that all articles in this (nascent) journal have the same
| sort of information. Does anyone know if this is standard
| across journals for research in this space?
| hammock wrote:
| Yes it's pretty standard as far as I know.. it's actually an
| important part of a grant application to get your study
| funded in the first place, so most researchers will have this
| language at the ready when reporting results
| reedf1 wrote:
| At least from my view as a young millennial, drinking culture
| among gen x and younger boomers is enormous. Wouldn't be
| surprised if that plays a role here.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Right but was it that different in the '90s? Also, you've got
| the wrong window, 40s is Xennials, not young Boomers. Boomers
| would be the "40 back in the '90s" generation... and I'm pretty
| sure they were strong drinkers too.
| [deleted]
| hospitalJail wrote:
| This will be interesting to see as weed gets legal.
|
| While no drugs are the best, with weed being a replacement for
| alcohol you can imagine that 1% of deaths from car accidents is
| going to go down, not to mention liver failure/cancer/etc...
|
| I think millennials will continue to be drinkers, but there is
| a chance zoomers will make the switch.
| TylerE wrote:
| Plenty of millennials already have in states where it's legal
| - and farm bill compliant hemp products essentially make it
| legal everywhere as long as you're ok with edibles and not
| flower/vape juice.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-06 20:02 UTC)