Skip to main content

More gobbledygook science on alcohol and cancer risk

We would have seen the headlines this week.  Light drinking increases risk of cancer in women. You might have thought you knew that already. So what is it all about?

A large study (that means the cohort was large enough to have some meaning in terms of the population) published in  The BMJ yesterday suggests that even light and moderate drinking (up to one drink a day for women and up to two drinks a day for men) is associated with an increased risk of certain alcohol related cancers in women and male smokers.  It is a study full of nuances and should be taken with a dose of caution.

Overall, light to moderate drinking was associated with minimally increased risk of 'total' cancer in both men and women.

However, among women, light to moderate drinking (up to one drink per day) was associated with an increased risk of alcohol related cancer, mainly breast cancer.  This is not new. We already have sufficient information to conclude that alcohol consumption increases risk of cancers.  The problem is how much alcohol is 'safe' to drink. 

According to Cancer UK,  alcohol causes 7 types of cancer, including breast, mouth and bowel cancers. Essentially, studies have shown that the less you drink the less risk there is of these types of cancer.  When you drink alcohol, cancer-causing chemicals are formed. Alcohol also affects hormone levels and makes cells even more likely to be damaged by for example smoking.  This is what is meant by 'increased risk'.  As Cancer UK stress, not everyone who drinks alcohol will develop cancer. But on   the whole, scientists have found that some cancers are more common in people who drink more alcohol than others. Every year, alcohol causes 4% of cancers in the UK, around 12,800 cases.

Much depends on other risk factors such as smoking. 

The study shows that risk of alcohol related cancers was also higher among light and moderate drinking men (up to two drinks per day), but only in those who had ever smoked. No association was found in men who had never smoked.

Heavy alcohol consumption has been linked to increased risk of several cancers. However, the association between light to moderate drinking and overall cancer risk is less clear. The role of alcohol independent of smoking has also not been settled.

So a team of US researchers based at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, set out to determine whether light to moderate drinking is associated with an increased risk of cancer.

They used data from two large US studies that tracked the health of 88,084 women and 47,881 men for up to 30 years. They assessed risk of total cancer as well as known alcohol related cancers including cancer of the the colorectum, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx and esophagus.

Light to moderate drinking was defined as up to one standard drink or 15g alcohol per day for women and up to two standard drinks or 30g alcohol per day for men. One standard drink is roughly equivalent to a small (118ml) glass of wine or a 355ml bottle of beer.

Influential factors, such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, family history of cancer, history of cancer screening, smoking, physical activity and diet were also taken into account.

During the follow-up period, a total of 19,269 and 7,571 cancers were diagnosed in women and men, respectively. The researchers found that overall, light to moderate drinking was associated with a small but non-significant increased risk of total cancer in both men and women, regardless of smoking history.  We should emphasise the conclusion 'small but non-significant'.  This means the study found no effect.

For alcohol-related cancers, risk was increased among light and moderate drinking men who had ever smoked, but not among men who never smoked. However, even in never smoking women, risk of alcohol-related cancers, mainly breast cancer, increased even within the range of up to one drink a day.

This large study sheds further light on the relationship between light to moderate drinking and cancer, says Dr Jürgen Rehm at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.  The truth is it doesn't shed much more light at all.  It reaffirms an association between light to moderate drinking of alcohol  with what are already known to be 'alcohol related' cancers in women.  It sheds no further light on why such a link exists.

Indeed, as the authors state 'more research is needed to explore the interaction between smoking and drinking on risk of cancer'.  But 'roughly speaking' women should not exceed one standard drink a day and men should not exceed two standard drinks a day.  So there  you have it!  Note the use of the scientific 'roughly speaking'.  Scientifically 'roughly' means...?

Finally, the author concluded that people with a family history of cancer “should consider reducing their intake to below recommended limits or even abstaining altogether, given the now well established link between moderate drinking and alcohol-related cancers.”   So there you are then, wiser than we were, and you can have a drink to that -  'roughly speaking' of course! 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …