Eating Highly Processed Foods Linked to Increased Cancer Risk

A comprehensive study has established a correlation between increased consumption of ultra-processed foods and a higher likelihood of developing cancers in the head, neck, and esophagus. Surprisingly, obesity, often resulting from excessive consumption of these foods, did not emerge as a significant contributing factor. This underscores the importance of exploring factors beyond body fat to comprehend this connection.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are typically high in energy but low in nutritional value, containing additives uncommon in homemade dishes, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and artificial colors and flavors. Examples encompass ice cream, ham, sausages, confectionery, breakfast cereals, biscuits, and carbonated drinks. The consumption of UPFs has been linked to an elevated risk of obesity.

University of Bristol Study on Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk

A recent study led by the University of Bristol has investigated the relationship between the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of developing head, neck, and esophageal cancer, with a focus on determining the role of obesity in this association.

Fernanda Morales-Bernstein, the lead and corresponding author of the study, noted, “UPFs have been associated with excess weight and increased body fat in several observational studies. This makes sense, as they are generally tasty, convenient and cheap, favoring the consumption of large portions and an excessive number of calories. However, it was interesting that in our study the link between eating UFPs and upper-aerodigestive tract cancer didn’t seem to be greatly explained by body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio.”

Building on a previous study that found a positive correlation between higher UPF consumption and the risk of head and neck cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, the current research aimed to delve deeper into these findings. The study encompassed 450,111 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), following them for nearly 14 years. The participants, recruited from 10 European countries, were predominantly aged 35 to 69 at recruitment, with 70.8% being female.

Components and Cancer Incidences in the Study

The UPFs consumed by participants mainly included carbonated drinks, non-carbonated sweetened drinks, ultra-processed dairy products, ultra-processed breads, and ultra-processed meats. Throughout the study duration, there were 910 cases of head and neck cancer and 215 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The analysis revealed that a 10% increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) was linked to a 23% higher risk of head and neck cancer and a 24% higher risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, heightened body fat accounted for only a small portion of the observed statistical association between UPF consumption and the risk of these upper-aerodigestive tract cancers.

The researchers propose, based on their findings regarding increased body fat, that other mechanisms likely play a role. This could include the impact of emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners, known to be associated with increased disease risk, as well as contaminants from food packaging and the manufacturing process.

Researchers’ Consideration of Unusual UPF Consumption and Accidental Death Risk

The researchers acknowledge potential biases in their findings, notably an unusual association between increased UPF consumption and a higher risk of accidental death. George Davey Smith, one of the study’s co-authors, notes, “UPFs are clearly associated with many adverse health outcomes, yet whether they actually cause these, or whether underlying factors such as general health-related behaviors and socioeconomic position are responsible for the link, is still unclear, as the association with accidental deaths draws attention to.”

However, given that body fat did not significantly explain the association between UPFs and cancer, the researchers suggest shifting focus away from addressing overweight or obesity alone. Fernanda Morales-Bernstein remarked, “Focusing solely on weight loss treatment, such as semaglutide, is unlikely to greatly contribute to the prevention of upper-aerodigestive tract cancers related to eating UFPs.”

Additional investigation is required to pinpoint mechanisms beyond body fat that may contribute to the cancer risk indicated in the study. Replication of the findings is also crucial, given the age of the EPIC study.

Inge Huybrechts, another co-author, emphasized the necessity for cohorts with long-term dietary follow-up assessments, taking into account contemporary consumption habits. She stated, “Cohorts with long-term dietary follow-up intake assessments, considering also contemporary consumption habits, are needed to replicate these study’s findings, as the EPIC dietary data were collected in the 1990s when the consumption of UPFs was still relatively low. As such association may potentially be stronger in cohorts including recent dietary follow-up assessments.”

Read the original article on: New Atlas

Read more: Plants Could be Absorbing 20% More CO2 Than Initially Thought