Fruit Juice and a link to increased cancer risk

Especially when there is a choice between two competing products on the shelf. One high sugar higher price, one low sugar lower price.

Or will the consumer be ripped off by the retailers marking up the healthier options to a margin above the less healthy choice.

P.S.
When milk was left at the front steps early each morning, us Milkos used to laugh at the customers buying skim milk. The left overs after the cream had been removed from full cream milk. Sold at a premium to the nominally full cream product.

1 Like

The other important consideration is that modern fruit has changed so much and is now far more readily available.

Fructose (the sweet part of sugar) content has been greatly increased in domesticated varieties to increase palatability, likely at the expense of less palatable things such as fibre. Modern fruit is very much a new thing in terms of human diets. Even some zoos now have to restrict fruit to prevent their animals from developing diabetes.

https://parade.com/253322/smccook/are-bananas-bad-for-monkeys-scottish-zoo-bans-the-fruit/

Fruit is also available year-round and plants are specifically bred so that it can be harvested at the fringes of typical seasonal availability (source, I put together a genomics proposal for a large berry breeder to breed out of season). The first mangos of the season fetch a very high price and this drives companies to breed and control environments to make their fruit more available. Transportation also makes fruit available all year round, grapes from the USA anyone?

4 Likes

I wish for all our sakes, that Naturopaths and doctors would work together. It seems that this is happening in some new clinics opening, but is it happening in the research areas to try and find out what is causing cancer. They don’t seem to be coming up with anything or even testing our environments.

The main difference to why it is unlikely to become mainstream is that doctors based their diagnosis and treatment on known medical science, while naturopaths often don’t really diagnose and base their treatments on pseudoscience.

The cause of most cancers are known, they can be caused by environmental, chemical or genetic factors. Cancer isn’t something new…but it possibly has become a larger cause of death as the population ages. The older one gets, the risks of having some form of cancer also increases.

2 Likes

When I say that I wish naturopaths and doctors would work together - I mean we need the naturopaths to treat their remedies only after science as well.

It has been mentioned here that as we get older it is more likely that we will get cancer. Most of my ancestors lived into their 90’s but they didn’t get cancer.

One’s genes are important as cancer runs in some families, as is one’s overall lifestyle and in cases, diet.

When someone gets a cancer a researcher can often determine the probable cause but when one does not get any cancers it is impossible to know why since there is nothing to examine as evidence.

Some oldies attribute their healthy and cancer free lives to smoking and drinking. No science involved, just their life ‘stories’.

and so it goes.

4 Likes

Overall is Cancer amongst the most significant risks?

The following table groups the causes of death by age group. Lung Cancer is a significant cause from 45-74. Aside from that the most significant causes of death as we age are not cancer, assuming we were not smokers?

The stats suggest we need to do much more about Suicide and Coronary Heart Disease and Lung Cancer than the cancers most often given community focus?

4 Likes

That’s a good thing but says nothing about what the general population is likely to die of. If you check out mortality statistics you will find that it is true that with greater age the chance of cancer increases.

The reason is in part that the longer you live the more chances there are for some potential problem to become a real problem. We have to be careful about these kind of probabilistic statements as they can contain anomalies if not understood. For example, the older you get the greater is your life expectancy, and the older you get the sooner you are going to die, may seem to be contradictory but isn’t.

Another reason for the change is the ability of the body to repair damage decreases with age. This is the definition of ageing in a way.

2 Likes

A table that does not compare cancer of all types to other categories of death and is about only one country does not answer the question of the likelihood of getting cancer with age.

We might need to half agree. Cancer data that is not specific to Australia will give a different result, whether it’s mortality data or medically assessed condition based.

  1. What sort of cancer are we considering?
  2. Which gender am I?
  3. Have we lived all our life in the northern Australian sun?
  4. Which genetic factors do I carry?
  5. Am I a smoker?
  6. What have been my life style choices?

Is there a simple one size fits all answer?

Cancer Australia has all the stats including age related. I’ve linked to Melanoma by way of example, as it’s very topical and clearly has two age factors. Most evident (known about) as we get older but mostly caused (acquired) by what we did when younger.

https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/melanoma/melanoma-skin-statistics

We are certainly more likely to die from cancer in old age than cancer in youth as your link indicates. But nowhere as likely as coronary or dementia related illness.

Statistically for the average Australian in 2019 half of us would have died from one of the following conditions. Mostly at the average age noted in the far right column.

To the particular question of the relationship between age and cancer yes there is.

To the question of the fruit juice association my views from upthread remain unchanged, that the connection is inconclusive.

1 Like

according to “Phb’s” statement " The cause of most cancers are known, they can be caused by environmental, chemical or genetic factors. Cancer isn’t something new…but it possibly has become a larger cause of death as the population ages. The older one gets, the risks of having some form of cancer also increases.". If they know, why aren’t we being informed what causes it.

There is significant information available through medical journals, reliable online sources and organisations specifically devoted to cancer services. An overall summary is found here…

If you mean what causes a specific cancer in an individual, many cancers causal agents are known (tobacco or overexposure to ionising radiation for example) and if the cancer directly results from those agents, then the cause is known.

When the cancer is environmental or genetic…or multifactored (say diet, genetic and lifestyle), being specific and saying one has eaten to much xyz or done abc and this has caused the cancer …such specific determinations are impossible to make for an individual…but the general factors causing the particular cancer within the population are generally known.

Also while causal agents are known, living ones life or having genes which increase risk of cancer does not necessarily mean one will get cancer…which is evidenced by some of the links by others above.

3 Likes

Thank you for your reply. My three brothers died from Prostate cancer in their seventies, my sister has had breast cancer and I have had Lymphoma. The doctor said it was nothing that I ate, so I guess it must have come from the environment.

Our parents did not have cancer nor anyone in our immediate families.

It may also be genetic but only expressed when both parents had the fault, damage by radiation of parents genes that is then passed onto their children, damage to their childrens genes during their lifetime among other reasons, there are many factors that can spark cancer growth. Lymphomas and Myelomas have become more prevalent diseases in the older people due largely to the increasing lifespan of our populations, but they have always existed. Osteoporosis was a very unfamiliar disease only a few generations ago as many people died before the effects of it became apparent, now it is much more prevalent because it takes time to develop to a bad stage and people are living longer so it appears more frequently.

My Wife’s and my families have a history of Melanomas, Bowel, Kidney, Liver, Prostate, Breast cancer going back at least 3 generations, probably further when causes of death link to wasting, bowel blockages etc etc etc. Just modern medicine can identify why much more accurately than in the past. Medical Treatment has improved so much that what previously were untreatable diseases have become very survivable nowadays thanks to modern medical practices and treatment.

From https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054

" From the 1800s to Today

From the 1500s onward, till around the year 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age.

Since the early 1800s, Finch writes that life expectancy at birth has doubled in a period of only 10 or so generations. Improved health care, sanitation, immunizations, access to clean running water, and better nutrition are all credited with the massive increase.

Though it’s hard to imagine, doctors only began regularly washing their hands before surgery in the mid-1800s. A better understanding of hygiene and the transmission of microbes has since contributed substantially to public health.

Disease was still common, however, and impacted life expectancy. Parasites, typhoid, and infections like rheumatic fever and scarlet fever were all common during the 1800s.

Even as recently as 1921, countries like Canada still had an infant mortality rate of about 10%, meaning 1 out of every 10 babies did not survive. According to Statistics Canada, this meant a life expectancy or average survival rate in that country that was higher at age 1 than at birth—a condition that persisted right until the early 1980s.

Today most industrialized countries boast life expectancy figures of more than 75 years , according to comparisons compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency.".

3 Likes

Im sure you are aware of this, but for others, from the Cancer Council of Australia, the causes of Lymphoma are:

Causes of lymphoma

Exposure to radiation and certain types of chemicals can put some people at higher risk. Benzene and some agricultural chemicals have been implicated; people exposed in the workplace, who can be at highest risk, should follow occupational health guidelines to minimise exposure. For people whose immune system is suppressed, exposure to viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus or HIV can also be at increased risk of lymphoma.

2 Likes

The AMA has jumped on the band wagon.

1 Like

As the Tasmanian government has opened public consultation on its proposed container deposit scheme:

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/environmental-management/container-refund-scheme

I am lodging a submission suggesting that the cost of the scheme (which evidence in other states is around $0.12 to $0.14 per container above and beyond the $0.10 deposit) be placed on soft drink containers rather than across all single use beverage containers. It would be very easy to apply (say any drink which has a sugar content of 5gm/100ml (or <5% which would remove unsugared milk products) and the rate could be say $0.25 per container. This means for some drinks the price rise would be in the order of 10-30%. The higher cost increase being those containers bought in the supermarket rather than at a corner store/servo/food outlet.

This would have a number of benefits. It would substantially increase the cost of soft drink which may reduce demand/consumption. It would subsidise the container deposit scheme for other users reducing the cost impact of the scheme on other consumers (acts like a tax but revenue neutral to the government). It may also place downward pressure on sugar content of drinks sold in Tasmania to less than 5% so that they cheaper to the consumer.

2 Likes