What is causing a huge spike in early onset cancers among Aussies? The data that everyone needs to see - as the country leads the world in one type of the disease
The trend, known as early onset cancer, is worrying experts who have pointed to childhood obesity, ultra-processed foods and microplastics as possible reasons for the frightening phenomenon.
Cancer Australia, the federal government's cancer agency, has released data on the staggering increases in cases between 2000 and 2024.
In Australians aged 30 to 39, the rate of prostate cancer has increased by 500 per cent, pancreatic cancer by 200 per cent, liver cancer by 150 per cent, uterine cancer by 138 per cent and kidney cancer by 85 per cent.
Professor Dorothy Keefe, the chief executive of Cancer Australia, has revealed approximately 10 types of cancer are now displaying unprecedented elevated rates in young adults.
The likelihood of an adult being diagnosed with cancers such as bowel, breast and lung, has traditionally increased with age, but the worrying trend that has emerged in the last two decades contradicts this.
Data from the United States shows Australia isn't alone with a dramatic rise in early onset cancers.
But Australia is alarmingly a world leader when it comes to bowel cancer rates.
Since 2000, bowel cancer cases among 30 to 30-year-olds have increased by 173 per cent and what's even more worrying is the fact diagnoses in this age group often occur at a later stage, when the cancer is harder to treat.
Chris Burton, 39, told the ABC's Four Corners that he was planning his wedding when he noticed he was bleeding after going to the toilet.
Six weeks later, it happened again and his GP referred him for a colonoscopy.
After returning from his honeymoon, he had the procedure and was diagnosed with bowel cancer.
'Similar to a lot of young people, cancer's not at the forefront of what you think might be wrong with you,' he said.
Mr Burton has understandably struggled following his diagnosis at a time that should have been a happy one.
He learned of his diagnosis when his wife about to give birth to their second child.
He said he often wonders if he could have done something to prevent the disease.
'That's the 3am thoughts that go through your head … have you done something to deserve it?'
The specific reasons for the marked increase have not been pinned down, but theories are emerging in the scientific community.
Many scientists believe environmental factors or the 'exposome' could partly be to blame for the increase in cancer cases in young adults.
Understanding the environment of today's 30 to 40-year-olds when they were children could be the key, particularly societal changes between the 1960s and 1990s.
Childhood obesity has increased in recent years, diets have become more reliant on ultra-processed foods, and antibiotics were more readily prescribed.
Increased rates in caesareans could be a factor, as this may have disrupted the transfer of microbiomes from mother to child.
This is something which could affect immune system development.
Harmful microplastics and their growing presence in everyday life could also be a huge concern.
Microplastics are small plastic particles, less than 5mm in diameter, which have been found in drinking water, food, and the atmosphere as they have become increasingly used in the modern world.
A University of Newcastle report commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature found that the average individual could be ingesting as much as five grams of microplastics every single week.
Mr Burton's wife Ali has since given birth to a baby girl, just three days after his latest surgery in June.
'It's a stormy dark period, but you know, it's possible to survive,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Light pollution from street lamps at night could increase risk of heart disease
Light pollution in the bedroom could raise sleepers' risk of heart disease, research claims. Exposure to light at night, from electronic devices, street lamps or poorly drawn curtains, is never good for your sleep. Now scientists from Australia say the disruption that light causes to the body's natural clock, known as the circadian rhythm, could have deadly consequences. Researchers took data from nearly 90,000 UK participants, who were given wrist-worn light sensors to wear as they slept. The researchers then mapped their light exposure during the night to diagnoses of different types of heart disease, including coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure, atrial fibrillation and stroke. Those who were exposed to more light at night were found to be at higher risk of developing all five conditions, regardless of the length or quality of their sleep. Participants who had the highest light exposure were 56 per cent more likely to experience heart failure, and 47 per cent more likely to have a heart attack. This group was also 32 per cent more likely to develop coronary artery disease and 30 per cent more likely to have a stroke. Women with high night-light exposure were more likely to experience heart failure and coronary heart disease, whereas younger participants in this category were at greater risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, a common heart rhythm problem. The effects of light exposure could be due to its disruption of the body's natural sleep-wake cycle, the researchers suggested. This disturbance to the body clock could trigger metabolic and vascular changes that elevate the risk of various heart conditions. To reduce your risk, the study's lead author, Flinders University researcher Dr Daniel P. Windred, said you should try to avoid night light as much as possible. 'Current recommendations for preventing cardiovascular diseases include a healthy diet, physical activity and avoiding alcohol and tobacco,' he said. 'This is the first study of light exposure patterns and incident cardiovascular diseases, establishing night light as an important new risk factor.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Public-private pain: buying back Sydney's embattled Northern Beaches hospital faces uncertain prognosis
Just before the New South Wales parliament rose for the winter break, an unusual piece of legislation passed through both chambers late in the evening. It aimed to strengthen the arm of the Minns government in its negotiations to return the Northern Beaches hospital (NBH) to public ownership by threatening changes to the terms of the contract with its private partner, Healthscope. NBH is the only public-private partnership (PPP) in NSW where public hospital services, including emergency care, are delivered by the private sector. The Labor government, a staunch critic of PPPs, has vowed it would not enter any such deals in the future. To underscore its stance, it has now passed legislation banning PPPs to deliver acute care. After years of mounting debt and a string of complaints about care standards – including a toddler dying in a chair while waiting hours for care and a woman whose baby died in childbirth because an emergency caesarean was offered too late – the hospital went into receivership in May. Untangling its private components from its public ones and settling the terms of the government's buyback are proving painful. The PPP was put in place by the previous Coalition government in 2013, despite a similar failed experiment by the Greiner government at Port Macquarie hospital almost two decades before. The Minns government had resisted earlier calls to buy back NBH, but it has now been forced into action after Healthscope's collapse, with debt of $1.6bn. Local MPs and staff at the hospital had long been sounding the alarm about the impact of the financial incentive for profit on patient care. The independent Wakehurst MP, Michael Regan, has campaigned for a government buyback, proposing legislation that would return the hospital to public hands with no compensation at all. With the financial future of a hospital serving more than 370,000 residents on Sydney's northern beaches uncertain, the government has concluded a buyback is its only option. It is adamant, however, that it does not want to pay a 'windfall gain' and so supported the amended legislation. The Northern Beaches hospital continues to operate normally with a financial lifeline from the Commonwealth Bank, while a government-appointed taskforce negotiates with Healthscope's receivers, McGrathNicol. Progress, however, has been slow. The parties have not reached agreement over the price or exactly what it is that the government is going to buy. One of the problems is that the private and public components at NBH are closely integrated, unlike some other hospitals, where the private facilities are often housed in a separate building with its own services. NBH has separate wards, but many services – such as theatres, nursing staff, cleaning, , X-ray, pharmacy and pathology – are shared, with several operated by third-party private companies. The building itself had also been sold to a property trust, which leases it back to Healthscope, adding further layers of complexity. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The cost of building the hospital was well north of $1bn, with the government contributing $600m at the time. A report in 2015 said the total cost to taxpayers – for the building and for Healthscope providing the public hospital beds over the life of the contract to 2038 – was $2.14bn. Healthscope also has rights to operate the private component until 2046. But is it a lucrative deal or not? It was revealed in a scathing independent report by the NSW auditor general, Bola Oyetunji, released in April that Healthscope was anxious to exit from running the public hospital part of NBH and had made two offers to the government to sell in 2023. The special legislation passed in late June arguably tips the scales in the government's favour by making it clear that receivership is a breach and starts the clock ticking on a resolution. 'If a mutual agreement is not reached, the amendments would give the health minister the power to issue a termination notice to Healthscope,' the treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, said in a statement. 'In addition, the treasurer would have the power to ensure that compensation negotiations occur in a reasonable time frame and to appoint an independent person to determine compensation if agreement cannot be reached.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion But the approach by the government has drawn criticism from business and the opposition (which ultimately supported the bill) on the grounds that it amounts to retrospective alteration of a contract and raises the question of sovereign risk for future investors in NSW. For the time being, the receivers and the taskforce appointed by the government are back at the table. A spokesperson for Mookhey said they are looking for a quick resolution. The government has a pot of money available for the buyback of the hospital. The 2025-26 budget revealed unallocated funds of $860m. It could all go smoothly or it could end in the courts. 'We are continuing to engage in constructive discussions with the NSW government on the future ownership of Northern Beaches hospital,' Healthscope said in a statement. 'Given the government's policy position against further public-private partnerships in the health sector, we believe this is in the best interest of the Northern Beaches hospital staff, patients and wider community.' There have been serious questions about NBH's ability to provide reliable healthcare since it opened in 2018. Staff reported shortages of basic supplies and an inefficient IT system where records were divided over several databases. Some teething problems were resolved early on, but staff continued to be concerned about the tensions between profit and patient care. The auditor general's April report confirmed critics' concerns, finding the PPP 'creates tension between commercial imperatives and clinical outcomes'. It found the hospital had failed to act on warnings about risks to patient safety and outcomes, and its electronic medical record systems 'present quality and safety risks', which Healthscope and the government's Northern Sydney Local Health District had known about since the hospital opened in 2018. In 2019, Healthscope was bought by a Canadian private equity firm Brookfield. High levels of debt intensified Healthscope's financial pressures and resulted in more concerns about how the PPP was operating. At the same time, the private hospital sector was at war with private insurers over a reduction in payout amounts for in-hospital care, which added to financial pressures. NBH – or at least its public hospital operations – will be returned to public ownership. The more likely outcome is that the government will buy the whole hospital, though this is not certain. It hopes the sale can be resolved quickly – and without blowing the budget. That will be welcomed by nurses who want to be employed on the same terms as their colleagues working in government-owned hospitals, including better patient ratios. For patients on the northern beaches, there will hopefully be an improvement in services, though Healthscope insists it already performs well compared with other similar hospitals. One of the big changes is likely to be the types of operations offered at NBH. At the moment, more complex cases are channelled to the Royal North Shore hospital under opaque policies put in place by the Northern Sydney Local Health District. With the same ownership, there will be less incentive for this practice to continue.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
