Study finds strong link between sugary drinks and oral cancer in women
NEW YORK, March 29: It's not just tooth decay that could be a concern when consuming sugary drinks: new research indicates that these sweetened beverages might also raise the risk of oral cancer. A study conducted by researchers from the University of Washington found a strong association between sugary drink consumption and an increased likelihood of developing oral cancer.
The study analyzed the dietary habits of 162,602 women from a public health database, tracking their health records over a span of 30 years. During this period, 124 of the women developed oral cancer. Researchers found that women who consumed one or more sugary drinks daily were 4.87 times more likely to develop oral cancer compared to women who drank less than one sugary beverage per month.
For those who refrained from smoking and drinking alcohol but consumed sugary drinks daily, the risk was even higher. These women had a 5.46 times greater chance of developing oral cancer compared to those who consumed sugary drinks less frequently.
The researchers note that the incidence of oral cavity cancer (OCC) is rising among non-smokers and young individuals without traditional risk factors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. They wrote, 'High sugar-sweetened beverage intake was associated with a significantly increased risk of OCC in women, regardless of smoking or drinking habits, yet with low baseline risk."
While this study doesn't prove direct causality—other factors may play a role—it strongly suggests a link between sugary drink consumption and oral cancer risk. Oral cancer has traditionally been associated with smoking, heavy drinking, and HPV infection, but the increasing number of cases among those without these traditional risk factors raises concerns.
One potential explanation is the shift in dietary habits. Many people now regularly consume unhealthy foods that could be triggering long-term inflammatory responses from the immune system. The study's authors suggest that a "Western dietary pattern," characterized by high consumption of processed foods, saturated fats, and added sugars, could be a contributing factor.
"Our hypothesis is that diets with higher added sugar may contribute to chronic inflammation, which may, in turn, contribute to the risk of OCC," the researchers noted.
However, there are some limitations to the study, such as the focus on women only and the relatively small number of cancer cases. The researchers emphasize the need for further research to better understand this potential link and encourage more data collection.
Despite the limitations, the study adds to the growing body of evidence highlighting the health dangers of sugary drinks. While their link to obesity and other health conditions is well-known, this research suggests that sugary drinks could also have a significant impact on oral health.
Epidemiologist Raúl Zamora Ros, from the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) in Spain, praised the quality of the study. "The methodology and quality of the study are excellent, and the data has been analyzed in great detail," he said. "More studies are needed to confirm these associations and also to assess whether soft drinks with artificial sweeteners would be just as harmful, as many people substitute one for the other."
As we continue to uncover more about the long-term health impacts of sugary drinks, it serves as an important reminder to be mindful of what we consume.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab Times
2 days ago
- Arab Times
Israel killed at least 14 scientists in an unprecedented attack on Iran's nuclear know-how
PARIS, June 24, (AP): Israel's tally of the war damage it wrought on Iran includes the targeted killings of at least 14 scientists, an unprecedented attack on the brains behind Iran's nuclear program that outside experts say can only set it back, not stop it. In an interview with The Associated Press, Israel's ambassador to France said the killings will make it "almost" impossible for Iran to build weapons from whatever nuclear infrastructure and material may have survived nearly two weeks of Israeli airstrikes and massive bunker-busting bombs dropped by U.S. stealth bombers. "The fact that the whole group disappeared is basically throwing back the program by a number of years, by quite a number of years," Ambassador Joshua Zarka said. But nuclear analysts say Iran has other scientists who can take their place. European governments say that military force alone cannot eradicate Iran's nuclear know-how, which is why they want a negotiated solution to put concerns about the Iranian program to rest. "Strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades, nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon," U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy told lawmakers in the House of Commons. Here's a closer look at the killings: Zarka told AP that Israeli strikes killed at least 14 physicists and nuclear engineers, top Iranian scientific leaders who "basically had everything in their mind.' They were killed "not because of the fact that they knew physics, but because of the fight that they were personally involved in, the creation and the fabrication and the production of (a) nuclear weapon," he said. Nine of them were killed in Israel's opening wave of attacks on June 13, the Israeli military said. It said they "possessed decades of accumulated experience in the development of nuclear weapons' and included specialists in chemistry, materials and explosives as well as physicists. Zarka spoke Monday to AP. On Tuesday, Iran state TV reported the death of another Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohammad Reza Sedighi Saber, in an Israeli strike, after he'd survived an earlier attack that killed his 17-year-old son on June 13. Experts say that decades of Iranian work on nuclear energy - and, Western powers allege, nuclear weapons - has given the country reserves of know-how and scientists who could continue any work toward building warheads to fit on Iran's ballistic missiles. "Blueprints will be around and, you know, the next generation of Ph.D. students will be able to figure it out," said Mark Fitzpatrick, who specialized in nuclear non-proliferation as a former U.S. diplomat. Bombing nuclear facilities "or killing the people will set it back some period of time. Doing both will set it back further, but it will be reconstituted.' "They have substitutes in maybe the next league down, and they're not as highly qualified, but they will get the job done eventually,' said Fitzpatrick, now an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think tank. How quickly nuclear work could resume will in part depend on whether Israeli and U.S. strikes destroyed Iran's stock of enriched uranium and equipment needed to make it sufficiently potent for possible weapons use. "The key element is the material. So once you have the material, then the rest is reasonably well-known,' said Pavel Podvig, a Geneva-based analyst who specializes in Russia's nuclear arsenal. He said killing scientists may have been intended "to scare people so they don't go work on these programs.' "Then the questions are, 'Where do you stop?' I mean you start killing, like, students who study physics?" he asked. "This is a very slippery slope.' The Israeli ambassador said: "I do think that people that will be asked to be part of a future nuclear weapon program in Iran will think twice about it.' Israel has long been suspected of killing Iranian nuclear scientists but previously didn't claim responsibility as it did this time. In 2020, Iran blamed Israel for killing its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, with a remote-controlled machine gun. "It delayed the program but they still have a program. So it doesn't work,' said Paris-based analyst Lova Rinel, with the Foundation for Strategic Research think tank. "It's more symbolic than strategic." Without saying that Israel killed Fakhrizadeh, the Israeli ambassador said "Iran would have had a bomb a long time ago' were it not for repeated setbacks to its nuclear program - some of which Iran attributed to Israeli sabotage. "They have not reached the bomb yet,' Zarka said. "Every one of these accidents has postponed a little bit the program.' International humanitarian law bans the intentional killing of civilians and non-combatants. But legal scholars say those restrictions might not apply to nuclear scientists if they were part of the Iranian armed forces or directly participating in hostilities. "My own take: These scientists were working for a rogue regime that has consistently called for the elimination of Israel, helping it to develop weapons that will allow that threat to take place. As such, they are legitimate targets,' said Steven R. David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. He said Nazi German and Japanese leaders who fought Allied nations during World War II "would not have hesitated to kill the scientists working on the Manhattan Project' that fathered the world's first atomic weapons. Laurie Blank, a specialist in humanitarian law at Emory Law School, said it's too early to say whether Israel's decapitation campaign was legal. "As external observers, we don't have all the relevant facts about the nature of the scientists' role and activities or the intelligence that Israel has,' she said by email to AP. "As a result, it is not possible to make any definitive conclusions.' Zarka, the ambassador, distinguished between civilian nuclear research and the scientists targeted by Israel. "It's one thing to learn physics and to know exactly how a nucleus of an atom works and what is uranium,' he said. But turning uranium into warheads that fit onto missiles is "not that simple,' he said. 'These people had the know-how of doing it, and were developing the know-how of doing it further. And this is why they were eliminated.'
Arab Times
03-06-2025
- Arab Times
At-home health tests are expanding - here's how to choose the right one
NEW YORK, June 3, (AP): The doctor is in - the mailbox, that is. You can now do self-administered tests for everything from thyroid function to HIV in the privacy of your own home - and that list continues to grow, as the Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first at-home cervical cancer test. While the tests can make it easier for people to access health care and can be helpful for those who have extreme anxiety about sensitive or invasive medical exams, experts warn that most of the tests cannot replace an actual in-person visit. Here's what doctors say you can test for at home, and when you should make the trek to your physician's office. There are two kinds of at-home tests.' In one type, the patient collects the sample and sends it off to a lab; the new cervical cancer test is like this. The other gives an instant result - think COVID-19 and pregnancy tests. HIV home-testing kits can improve rates of diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in rural communities and help people who are nervous about going to the doctor to seek a sensitive test, said Dr. Joseph Cherabie, an infectious diseases specialist in St. Louis. "You really want to get people to care as quickly as possible, but some people could be very anxious about that results as well," Cherabie said. "And they have very negative reactions.' Labs are required to report a positive HIV test, instead of putting the onus on the patient who took the test, Cherabie said, and, often, the patient is matched up with HIV support services. "If you are part of a sexual and gender minority community, going to a doctor's office can be full of a lot of historical trauma, and you may prefer to just do testing at home without anyone judging you or asking you invasive questions about your sex life,' Cherabie said. The new cervical cancer test - which tests for strains of human papillomavirus, or HPV - involves a testing swab that's like a tampon, said Dr. Susan Modesitt, a gynecologic oncologist at Emory University in Atlanta. It is not, Modesitt said, a replacement for a Pap smear, the exam in which a metal speculum is inserted in the vagina to scrape cervix cells. A doctor's visit also involves a pelvic exam, a chance to talk about abnormal bleeding - a sign of endometrial cancer - and other symptoms and issues, like menopause or STIs. "There are so many other reasons to see your doctor and get an exam outside of a cervical cancer screening,' she said. The at-home cervical cancer test from Teal Health requires a prescription, and the company said that results are not left for the patient to interpret. Some at-home tests can replace a trip to the doctor's office. That's especially true in rural areas, where it can be difficult to get a colonoscopy. "The colonoscopy requires a pre-op, and you have to drive maybe 70 miles for it,' said Dr. Steven Furr, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians who practices in rural Alabama. "You get anesthesia. It's actually almost like a surgical procedure in many ways. "So, for a lot of people, that's pretty arduous. That's where an at-home test can come in handy.' But, Furr said, if your test reveals issues, you need to go to your doctor. Plus, patients should always discuss test results with their physician instead of interpreting them on their own, he said. If you have symptoms of what you're testing for, go to the doctor. At-home colon cancer tests aren't the right option for people with a history of colon cancer or high-risk conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, said Dr. Zachariah Foda, a gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins. He added that they're also not recommended for people who are having GI symptoms. While there are tests for many things - running anywhere from $15 to $400, depending on what is being evaluated - Furr said it's essential to make sure that your test is FDA-approved so you can better trust the results. "Anytime we get people involved in their own health care and help them understand what's going on, I think that's a good thing and it gives us a chance to talk,' he said. "Any kind of screening is better than no screening.'
Kuwait Times
19-05-2025
- Kuwait Times
WHO faces $600m shortfall this year as US leaves
LONDON/GENEVA: Hundreds of officials from the World Health Organization will join donors and diplomats in Geneva from Monday with one question dominating their thoughts - how to cope with crises from mpox to cholera without their main funder, the United States. The annual assembly, with its week of sessions, votes and policy decisions, usually showcases the scale of the UN agency set up to tackle disease outbreaks, approve vaccines and support health systems worldwide. This year - since US President Donald Trump started the year-long process to leave the WHO with an executive order on his first day in office in January - the main theme is scaling down. 'Our goal is to focus on the high-value stuff,' Daniel Thornton, the WHO's director of coordinated resource mobilization, told Reuters. Just what that 'high-value stuff' will be is up for discussion. Health officials have said the WHO's work in providing guidelines for countries on new vaccines and treatments for conditions from obesity to HIV will remain a priority. One WHO slideshow for the event, shared with donors and seen by Reuters, suggested work on approving new medicines and responding to outbreaks would be protected, while training programs and offices in wealthier countries could be closed. The United States had provided around 18 percent of the WHO's funding. 'We've got to make do with what we have,' said one Western diplomat who asked not to be named. Staff have been getting ready - cutting managers and budgets - ever since Trump's January announcement in a rush of directives and aid cuts that have disrupted a string of multilateral pacts and initiatives. The year-long delay, mandated under US law, means the US is still a WHO member - its flag still flies outside the Geneva HQ - until its official departure date on January 21, 2026. Trump - who accused the WHO of mishandling COVID, which it denies - muddied the waters days after his statement by saying he might consider rejoining the agency if its staff 'clean it up'. But global health envoys say there has since been little sign of a change of heart. So the WHO is planning for life with a $600 million hole in the budget for this year and cuts of 21 percent over the next two-year period. As the United States prepares to exit, China is set to become the biggest provider of state fees - one of the WHO's main streams of funding alongside donations. China's contribution will rise from just over 15 percent to 20 percent of the total state fee pot under an overhaul of the funding system agreed in 2022. 'We have to adapt ourselves to multilateral organizations without the Americans. Life goes on,' Chen Xu, China's ambassador to Geneva, told reporters last month. Others have suggested this might be a time for an even broader overhaul, rather than continuity under a reshuffled hierarchy of backers. 'Does WHO need all its committees? Does it need to be publishing thousands of publications each year?' said Anil Soni, chief executive of the WHO Foundation, an independent fund-raising body for the agency. He said the changes had prompted a re-examination of the agency's operations, including whether it should be focused on details like purchasing petrol during emergencies. There was also the urgent need to make sure key projects do not collapse during the immediate cash crisis. That meant going to donors with particular interests in those areas, including pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic groups, Soni said. The ELMA Foundation, which focuses on children's health in Africa with offices in the US, South Africa and Uganda, has already recently stepped in with $2 million for the Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network known as Gremlin - more than 700 labs which track infectious disease threats, he added. — Reuters
