Junk Science: Food Nannies' Halloween Cancer Scare

The up-to-the-minute nutrient panic was announced, appropriately enough, on Halloween. But the scientific discipline behind the panic is about as credible as are shades and goblins.

"Landmark Report: Excess Body Fat Causes Cancer; Panel Also Implicates Red Meat, Processed Meat and Alcohol" blared the mass media release about a new study from the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR).

The monolithic 537-page tome "assembled over five old age by nine independent squads of scientists, 100s of equal referees and 21 international experts who reviewed over 7,000 large-scale studies” purports to be the “most comprehensive ever published on the grounds linking malignant neoplastic disease hazard to diet, physical activity and weight."

"The most dramatic determination in the study is that extra organic structure fat additions hazard for numerous cancers... Even little amounts of extra organic structure fat, especially if carried at the waist, addition risk," proclaimed the mass media release.

The study counsels limiting the consumption of hamburgers, Gallic fries, milk shakes, pastry doughs and soft drinks. It states that there is "no safe degree of consumption" of processed meats a hysterical claim that is not even true for the most toxicant substances. Related
Column Archive

This certainly is a landmark study never before have got so many men of science labored so long to abash themselves and their academic disciplines.

There’s not adequate room in this column to expose each and every claim made in the AICR report, but we’ll expression at some illustrations after considering some cardinal facts and principles.

First, men of science don’t really understand carcinogenesis very well. It’s known that the hazard of malignant neoplastic disease additions with age possibly because of the impairment of deoxyribonucleic acid fix chemical mechanisms and a few well-documented hazard factors, such as as household history of cancer, heavy smoking, and exposure to certain viruses and some exposures to radiation. Outside of those and perhaps a few other hazard factors, the happening of malignant neoplastic disease is largely inexplicable.

Significantly, not a single lawsuit of malignant neoplastic disease among the 10s of one thousands studied in the "7,000 large-scale studies" was definitively linked with any specific dietary factor. The AIRC report’s claim to associate diet with malignant neoplastic disease largely amounts to post-facto guesswork abetted by statistical high jinks and imaginativeness tally amok.

A cardinal rule of epidemiology is that it is a very utile methodological analysis when looking for linkage between high rates of rare diseases the kind of human relationship classically found, for example, in eruptions of nutrient poisoning.

But epidemiology is wholly incapable of identifying low hazards of relatively common diseases or conditions, such as as most cancers. The ground for this is simple: the border of mistake in survey information owed to inaccurate and uncomplete information aggregation is typically far greater than the size of any statistical human relationship that may be or be detected.

Accordingly, the regulation of pollex in epidemiology, as famously espoused by the National Cancer Institute, is that, "In epidemiologic research, [increases in hazard of less than 100 percent] are considered little and usually hard to interpret. Such additions may be owed to chance, statistical prejudice or personal effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."

Further, just because a reported hazard is greater than 100 percent, that makes not necessarily bespeak a cause-and-effect relationship. Such reported hazards may be statistically trivial (indicating they could have got got occurred by chance) or have broad borders of mistake (indicating flakey data). And, of course, for any statistical hazard to have got meaning, it must be backed up by biological plausibility.

With these conceptions in mind, let’s see the AICR report.

The huge bulk of the consequences from individual surveys between every type of nutrient and every type of malignant neoplastic disease cited in the study are either significantly below 100 percentage and/or statistically insignificant. The relatively few cited hazards that transcend 100 percentage are typically not statistically important or have got broad borders of error.

Consider the information presented for processed meat, which the AICR study claims to be too unsafe to eat.

Of the 17 survey consequences concerning processed meat and colon malignant neoplastic disease comparing high ingestion to low ingestion 15 are manner below, and one is at the 100 percent-risk threshold. Thirteen surveys aren’t statistically significant. Not only is the alone survey claiming a hazard above 100 percentage (a reported 250 percentage addition in risk) barely statistically significant, it have a border of mistake four modern times the size of the reported risk.

Of the seven surveys reporting a malignant neoplastic disease hazard per serving of processed meat, all reported hazards are substantially below the 100 percentage threshold. Four consequences are clearly not statistically important and two are boundary line insignificant.

On the footing of these doubtful statistical results, the AICR study reasons that “processed meat is a convincing cause of colorectal cancer.” This is an dismaying and unsupported conclusion.

In the end, the AICR study isn’t really scientific discipline at all it’s More of bloody law-breaking scene where scientific discipline got violently mugged by hoodlums costumed as wellness and nutrition experts and wielding statistical common pepper spray. In some ways, this cheapjack scientific discipline isn’t surprising when one sees that the AICR also flips and other culinary serpent oil as a agency of reducing malignant neoplastic disease risk.

The AICR advocators against consuming fat, salt, refined sugar and alcohol-- an docket worth $37 million in charitable contributions in 2006. So we shouldn’t be surprised when the nutrient police force issue a “report” advancing such as a moneymaking agenda.

Steven Milloy prints and . Helium is a and and an adjunct scholarly person at the .