Cancer and scare statistics

Well, the World Cancer Research Fund have done their best to make everyone miserable - let's raise a glass to them!  Or more precisely, let's raise a glass of filtered tap water to them as they try to scare us all into being thin and eating healthily.

As you would expect, the BBC have reported the latest research report, and have pulled out for all of us the key messages and what friendly messages they are!  Limit red meat consumption (500g per person per week maximum but burgers are OK - how will Australians survive?), limit alcohol (it will kill you with cancer but might save you from heart disease in moderation), no processed pork products, no weight gain after the age of 21 (BE REAL!), no sugary drinks (including fruit juices!) and breastfeed children (bad luck chaps and the childless).

One of the report's authors says it is all about identifying risk so that individuals are in control of what they do and therefore help to keep that risk under control.

Hmmm - what about the big reason for cancer - smoking?  What about those who suffer cancer because their work place is full of liberated asbestos or they were at a nuclear bomb test site?  What about the two thirds of cancer cases that are not lifestyle related, but are genetic?

According to medical statistics, there are 200,000 new cases of cancer per year in the UK (population c 58 million), of which two thirds will not be lifestyle related.  Readers of "The Tiger That Isn't" will know what questions to ask and what calculations to make at this point.

My issue here is not particularly with those who undertook the study - I am not a medical statistician or an epidemiologist, and that lot have their own lovely sets of stats to play with.  My issue with all this (apart from as a bon viveur - see my other blog - Rural Life) is as someone who writes research reports from time to time.  There is a certain Terry Wogan effect now with surveys, where once the results are released, you get a huge amount of scoffing, a certain amount of resentment if the findings impact on an individual's comfort zone, and then they are regarded as tomorrow's chip paper. 

The scare mongering is actually turning people off from the messages contained in the research.  There is so much conflicting advice now on lifestyle and nutrition, the average and non-average person doesn't know where to turn.  The findings may or may not be valid, but the message delivery leaves an awful lot to be desired, and people resent the nanny state.

Comments

[frank lee]

Another survey, another media interpretation and another load of bunkum. What this world (ie cyber-world) needs is a website that is devoted to actually reporting what these surveys come up with, in a way that is clear, concise and not headline grabbing. From The telegraph 29/10/07:
Organic food is more nutritious than ordinary produce, and contains higher quantities of antioxidants which help ward off heart disease and cancer, according to an extensive four-year study.

Also from THE SAME ARTICLE!
The Food Standards Agency, which has insisted organic food is no more healthy than conventional produce, has confirmed it will be reviewing the evidence and considering whether to change its advice.

Hundreds of tests over the past five years have failed to reveal improved nutritional value in organic produce.

So hundreds of tests over the last 5 years are wrong, but the latest survey is right.

What is it with the media that means that can't tell a straight story, even within the same article?

I need a stiff drink.

[Jim]

According to another recent survey, average life expectancy in the UK has increased by 4 - 5 years. Of course this really allows another 4 - 5 years for the elderly to develop cancer, which in turn allows scientists and purveyors of absurd surveys to spend vast amounts on researching the inevitable increase.
As to Australia, here, we are regularly shown a splendid advertisement starring Sam Neill that explains that our ancestors came down from the trees specifically in order to eat red meat, and that we should eat more lamb. Tonight (thursday) is meat raffle night in my local club; for $10 I will have 60 chances of winning 80 trays of red meat... Steaks, chops, roasts - anyone fancy a barbie?

[Jane Holland]

In an off-line discussion on this, I can update the world that Jim won one tray at the Club meat raffle, which contained 4 steaks and 8 sausages. Jim is enjoying the steaks and continues to ignore the cancer report - good on you, Jim!