Everyday food exposing 75M Americans to CANCER
A whopping one in three Americans is still consuming fast food daily.
Two new CDC reports show more than 75million adults over 20 gobbled down burgers, fries and other foods every day between 2021 and 2023.
A further 6million of those ate fast food as more than half their daily calories.
People under 40 were twice as likely to rely on fast food compared to seniors — a find that worries researchers.
Often packed with preservatives, chemicals, and low-quality fats, it's thought that processed food quietly rewrites DNA, disrupts hormones, and fuels tumor growth.
Junk and fast foods are increasingly tied to deadly diseases like colon, breast, and pancreatic cancer.
Meanwhile, the data shows even kids aren't spared.
Nearly one in three children and teens ate fast food on any given day, and it made up 14 percent of their total calories — fueling fears of early-onset disease later in life.
Yet despite the startling figures, fast food consumption is actually down compared to previous years.
The amount of calories consumed from fast food fell between 2014 and 2023 by about 15 percent.
And for kids, these figures dropped 18 percent from 2015 to 2023.
Dr Charles Carlsen, an OBGYN and chief technology officer of DRSONO Medical, told the Daily Mail: 'It's also possible that increased expenses and inflation are also making fast food harder for some families to afford.
'There's also more awareness of health difficulties associated with fast food such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that's probably encouraged many to be more discerning about their choices of food.
Fast food is ultraprocessed, meaning it's packed with saturated fats, sugars and additives like emulsifiers and artificial dyes not typically found in home cooking.
As a result, they have been linked to heart disease, dementia, obesity and even some forms of cancer like colon cancer.
Recent studies have even suggested they could be responsible for over 120,000 early deaths in the US, more than top killers like fentanyl.
In particular, emulsifiers, which give milkshakes, sauces and processed meats a smooth and consistent texture, have also been linked to colon cancer. It's thought that they can attack protective intestinal barriers, leading to inflammation.
Inflammation stokes cell division, which increases the risk of DNA damage and cancer-causing mutations forming.
Both reports were part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, published by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
'Fast food' was defined as 'restaurant fast food/pizza.'
The data shows between August 2021 and August 2023, 32 percent of adults over 20 consumed fast food every day.
Of those, 11 percent got zero a quarter or less of their calories from fast food and another 12 percent ate fast food for up to half their diet.
Around nine percent, or 6million, turned to burgers, fries and shakes for over half their daily calories.
Roughly 30 percent of kids and teens picked up fast food every day, the data shows. About eight percent ate it for more than half their calories.
And teens in particular were worse off than younger children. They got about 15 percent of their daily calories from fast food on average, twice as many as kids under 11.
Dr Carlsen said: 'Teenagers, who are increasingly independent and have more spending power, are more likely to turn to fast food. Unlike younger kids, teens tend to make their own eating decisions and are sometimes guided by convenience or peer conduct.
'In addition, numerous teens have part-time jobs at fast food restaurants, which ingrains the behavior further.'
Younger adults generally ate more fast food than older generations. Fast food made up 15 percent of calories for adults ages 20 to 39 and eight percent for those 60 and older.
Dr Carlsen told this website: 'Young adult citizens would be likely to lead busy lives and hence be attracted to convenient and quick consumption. Older citizens may also have obtained better lifestyles over time or be better funded to dine at home.'
The report also looked at education levels.
Adults with least some college education were the most likely to eat fast food. Those who started but didn't finish college got 13 percent of their daily calories from fast food compared to 11 percent who either never went to college or had a bachelor's degree.
And adults who weighed more generally went through the drive through more than their thinner peers.
The CDC officials also looked at the relationship between weight and fast food consumption.
Obese Americans got about 14 percent of their calories from fast food compared to 10 percent for people with a normal weight. This is a 33 percent difference.
This aligns with mountains of research linking fast food and ultraprocessed food consumption to obesity.
However, both children and adults are eating less fast food than in years past, the data suggests.
Fast food consumption among adults decreased from 14 percent in 2013-2014 to 12 percent in 2021-2023, a 15 percent drop.
And 36 percent of kids and teens in 2015-2018 had fast food on a given day compared to 30 percent in 2021-2023, an 18 percent dip.
There were several limitations to the new reports, mainly including the lack of data on specific foods and any chronic health issues participants had.
Dr Carlsen said: 'Though consumption at fast eateries is on the decline, it is still at the core of American consumption habits. Price, health-consciousness, and convenience are still leading determinants of consumption behavior, but slowly things are changing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
What Ozempic really does to your face: All the tell-tale signs of using skinny jabs, from bigger lips to sunken eyes
The Ozempic boom has seen a drug widely used to treat diabetes and manage obesity in adults transform into 'miracle' weight loss jab that's coveted by anyone with a few extra kilos to shed. Ozempic and other alternatives like Mounjaro and Wegovy are all different brand names for the drug semaglutide that mimics the the actions of GLP-1 - a hormone in the brain that regulates appetite and feelings of fullness. Weekly doses of these blockbuster weight loss medicines can help people shed 15 to 20 per cent of their body weight on average - but it can also pile on the years and make you look older than you are, experts say. The rapid and drastic weight loss triggered by these medicines has left people 'freaking out' about developing so-called 'Ozempic face', celebrity nutritionist Rose Ferguson told Femail. The 49-year-old former model, who is close friends with Kate Moss and boasts 116,000 followers on Instagram, reported a rise in the number of her clients who are worried about their face transfroming from these injections. Semaglutide, which is not a targeted drug, does not just cause loss around the stomach and thighs, but the entire body - including the face. This means that, although it has helped millions around the world achieve their weight loss goals, the 'skinny shot' can also famously make users look extremely gaunt over time - a phenomenon critics have unflatteringly labelled 'Ozempic face'. But how exactly does Ozempic manifest? Dermatologists, aestheticians and cosmetic surgeons break down the tell-tale signs to watch for, as more information about the drug's side effects become known. More visible wrinkles People using skinny jabs like Ozempic might notice a greater number of wrinkles all over their visage - including on the forehead - as these 'miracle' weight loss treatments cause a loss of volume in the face. According to New York-based cosmetic dermatologist Dr Michele Green, 'this volume loss can also worsen the appearance of existing fine lines, wrinkles, and skin laxity' and, therefore, contribute to a more 'aged' look with continued use. Eyes sink Experts also pointed out how Ozempic can make your eyes look more sunken as a result of rapid weight loss - with people reporting anywher Speaking to US-based plastic surgeon pointed out a 'hollowing under the eyes' and 'more wrinkles' and fine lines around them as the weight loss drug begins to show results. Noting how the face of Robbie Williams, who admitted to taking 'something like Ozempic' to shed pounds and manage his 'type-2 self-loathing', she added: 'With Robbie, you can see the direct results of weight loss.' Cheeks sag When you lose weight over an extended period of time, it allows the skin to contract and shrink with the body - but drugs like Ozempic significantly accelerate the process. And while this weight loss reduces facial or subcutaneous fat - as well as making the body leaner - it also leads to loose skin because it hasn't had enough time to retract. This leads to cheeks that sag or droop, and is one of the main characteristics of 'Ozempic face'. 'By depleting the subcutaneous fat, the skin appears thinner, with more wrinkling and often lipstick lines,' New York-based plastic surgeon Dr Barry Weintraub told this website. Lips get bigger While the most common symptoms of this condtion include drooping around the cheeks, sunken eyes, and an increased number of wrinkles, a plumper, more pronounced pout can also occur in people who have injectable fillers. Speaking to MailOnline, aesthetician Kayti Brooks said that 'Ozempic face' makes lip fillers look more pronounced. The expert - who runs Grey Door Aesthetics in Hove - said: 'Losing weight at the phenomenal rate Ozempic allows will lose the fat all over the body including the face - but overfilled lips will not shrink. 'Any filler won't have the support structure of the skin. The filler will stay and the lips stay big or bigger! With the skin laxity disappearing the client may feel the need to plump up with filler. 'This is hugely ageing and so obvious what procedures have been carried out.' Folds at the corner of the mouth Dr Green told that 'Ozempic mouth' is something she is seeing among many of her clients taking the blockbuster weight loss medication. She said: 'Many users of Ozempic who I know report noticeable volume loss in the face, which can result in the formation of fine lines, wrinkles, sagging skin, and jowls around the mouth. The condition is considered part of a broader phenomenon dubbed 'Ozempic face' where rapid weight loss causes sagging in the cheeks and around the mouth. Dr Green noted that the appearance of an aged mouth is especially apparent on people who rapidly lose weight from higher doses of the GLP-1 drug. It is characterised by deep folds at the corners of the mouth, increased vertical wrinkles on the lips, sagging skin around the borders of the lips and and drooping skin around the chin. Dr Green has noticed a number of celebrities suffering from Ozempic mouth as the result of taking weight loss drugs, with some of her standout examples being Sharon Osbourne, Rebel Wilson and Whoopi Goldberg. Tooth decay The latest side effect linked to the use of skinny jabs is tooth decay, with experts noting a rise in the number of patients complaining of 'Ozempic teeth'. The unofficial umbrella term refers to dental problems such as tooth decay and gum disease linked to these weight loss drugs that are now used by millions across the world. 'While there is no direct scientific evidence yet, in clinical settings semaglutide drugs like Ozempic are starting to show correlation with damaged teeth,' Dr Sandip Sachar, a dentist, told The Standard. Experts told the outlet there could be a couple of different reasons for this. First, GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic can lead to less saliva being produced and, consequently, hinder the mouth's self-cleansing abilities. The second reason is linked to acid reflux, a common side-effect of these jabs. An increase in the amount of acid 'can erode your teeth,' Dr Daniel Atkinson, clinical lead at told the paper. Finally, Ozempic's appetite-suppression qualities can make it difficult for the body to get the nutrients it requires to maintain healthy teeth.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Should Australia worry about RFK Jr's shock flu vaccine move?
An influential US vaccine panel has recommended against seasonal influenza vaccines containing a specific preservative, causing concern among medical and scientific experts who fear the decision may impact future vaccine availability. But what is the preservative, why is it the subject of controversy and will it affect vaccines in Australia? Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic and the United States' health secretary, overhauled the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). He fired all 17 former members and appointed his ideological allies, some of whom have been associated with the spread of vaccine misinformation. The chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, Dr Sean O'Leary, said the world was looking at the new ACIP 'in horror', and that it was 'truly an embarrassment'. On Friday (Australia time) ACIP voted to recommend against influenza vaccines containing thimerosal, known in Australia as thiomersal. Anti-vaxxers have long scaremongered about thiomersal, a vaccine preservative, even though it is safe and makes vaccines safer by preventing bacterial and fungal contamination. There are concerns the move could make vaccines more expensive and harder to get, and broader concerns are that ACIP's decision could fuel misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Of the ACIP panel, five voted in favour, one abstained and Dr Cody Meissner, a paediatrics professor, was the sole 'no' vote. 'Removing thimerosal from all vaccines used in other countries … is going to reduce access to these vaccines, it will increase costs, and I think it's important to note that no study has ever indicated any harm from thimerosal,' he said. Thiomersal is a safe and effective preservative that is rarely, but sometimes, used in vaccines. It is contains ethylmercury, which is not to be confused with methylmercury, which accumulates in the body and has toxic effects. Ethylmercury, on the other hand, is more quickly converted in the body to inorganic mercury, then excreted. The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) says it has been used in very small amounts since the 1930s to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination, particularly in multi-dose vials where contamination is more likely. At about the same time as Andrew Wakefield's thoroughly debunked work that falsely linked vaccines with autism, a study on methylmercury (not ethylmercury, the one in thiomersal) came out. People falsely conflated the two types of mercury and linked it with Wakefield's false claims that vaccines were connected to autism. None of the vaccines listed on the National Immunisation Program use thiomersal. It is only present in the vaccine for Q fever, which is only recommended for people at risk through their contact with animals. Thiomersal has not been used in any of the vaccines routinely given to children in Australia since 2000. Dr Gary Grohmann, the former head of immunobiology evaluating vaccines at the Therapeutic Goods Administration, says Australia has one of the world's best vaccine programs and is 'pretty autonomous' from the US. Grohmann also worked for the World Health Organisation in Geneva as a virologist. He says thiomersal is generally not needed because Australia mostly uses single-dose vaccines that are not at the same risk of contamination as multi-dose vaccines. He says as well, out of an overabundance of caution and a concern with public perception, Australia decided not to use thiomersal even though it is safe. In part, Professor Julie Leask, a social researcher specialising in vaccination at the University of Sydney, says that may have done more harm in the end, by 'legitimising this idea' that it was harmful. Also, while there is no evidence of potential harm, there was a purely theoretical concern about higher intakes in premature babies with low birth weights, as well as a more general wish to reduce children's exposure to mercury. Leask says it will have 'very little impact on vaccine availability' in Australia. But there are other concerns. A speculative one, she says, is that vaccine manufacturers could get spooked by ACIP's move 'throwing shade' on thiomersal and remove funding for vaccine research using it. The far bigger problem she said, is the 'super-spreading of misinformation or distortion of evidence' to make vaccines look harmful, by the sort of expert committee we were meant to be able to trust. 'This anti-vax sentiment is now at this very high level in the US government, and that gives it a form of legitimacy that it's never really had before,' she says. 'We've never seen a western government so willing to undermine public confidence in vaccinations. I have never been so concerned about the propensity for vaccine confidence to be eroded by what's happening in the US right now.' Grohmann agrees. 'The biggest problem is disinformation, which stops people getting their children vaccinated,' he says. 'Then you might get outbreaks of measles, of whooping cough, in unvaccinated communities.' Leask says people should use their critical faculties to judge what they read, particularly online. 'When you seem to be bombarded with scary information about vaccines, often that is highly cherrypicked,' she says. 'Keep an eye on advice from Australia. 'You can still trust what you can read from authoritative sources in Australia, including NCIRS and the government.' Grohmann says as well as dismissing disinformation and fearmongering about rare side effects, people should understand the benefits of vaccines for saving lives and for the economy. Each dollar spent on vaccination saves $16, he says. 'There's a positive economic benefit in terms of hospitalisations, GP visits, parents not missing work, kids not missing school,' he says. His other advice is to 'listen to experts, not YouTubers'. 'We vaccinate for a reason,' he says. 'It's to stop people from dying.' And, Leask says, there will be interesting tussles in the US between those who know the evidence and those who would distort it. 'There are still heroes within US agencies who are fighting a quiet, internal battle to keep good evidence in the spotlight,' she says.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cancer experts alarmed over ‘gut-wrenching' Trump plan to cut research spending by billions
More patients may die as a result of plans drawn up by the Trump administration to cut billions of dollars from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), veteran federal government workers and experts have warned. Nearly $2.7bn would be cut from the agency, which is the largest funder of cancer research in the world – a decline of 37.2% from the previous year – under a budget proposal for 2026, in the latest effort to cut staff and funding. 'These cuts are absolutely gut wrenching,' Erin Lavik, former deputy director and chief technology officer at the NCI's division of cancer prevention, told the Guardian. Lavik was fired along with a swath of probationary workers at the institute in February; put on administrative leave in response to a judge's ruling to halt the firings in March; and then terminated again in April. 'We're not making things more efficient or better,' she said. 'What's being left is sort of the non-impactful iterative work, and we're pruning all of the potential for transformative science.' The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network has cautioned that the proposed cuts 'will set this nation back dramatically in our ability to reduce death and suffering' and noted that cancer is expected to kill more than 618,000 Americans this year. Julie Nickson, vice-president of Federal Advocacy and Coalitions, said: 'This wouldn't just be a blow to science, it's a blow to families, communities, and our economy. Every day counts in the fight against cancer and with more than 2 million Americans expected to be diagnosed with this horrible disease in 2025 alone, now is not the time to go backwards.' Jennifer R Brown, secretary of the American Society of Hematology and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told the Guardian that cuts under Donald Trump have 'already been devastating', with key research halted that can't easily be restarted. 'What the public needs to know is that the science that may not sound so obvious, or that they may not know that much about, is really what drives our cancer treatments and our cancer cures. And so if we cut that, we're going to lose it,' said Brown. Cancer research historically funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which houses the NCI, 'is the basic science that figures out what to target in the cancer cell', she said. 'Then a drug may be developed that may be from an academic, it may be from a pharma company, but the trials are then also run by academics and pharma in collaboration, and academics who are funded by NIH, who do the legwork to figure out how the drug is working in patients. 'Pharma companies take the drug to the finish line. And so if we don't have this basic research, we're not going to be able to identify new targets, and that means we're not going to have new therapies, and ultimately more patients may die.' Brown sees a direct link between NIH-funded academic research and cancer drugs for chronic lymphocytic leukemia that helped patients live longer. 'People who would have died in a few months, lived for years with the first version of this drug,' she said. Hundreds of staff have been terminated from the NCI in recent months, including dozens of communications workers. 'Our website, is used worldwide and is the ground truth for cancer information,' said one fired communications employee at the institute, who requested to remain anonymous. 'Science isn't finished until it's communicated.' Between 28 February and 8 April, more than $180m in NCI grants were cancelled by the Trump administration. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion NIH declined to comment, deferring to comments on the budget proposal cuts to the office of management and budget, which did not respond to requests for comment. NIH did not comment on how many employees at the agency remain after several rounds of cuts and layoffs. Lavik said the cuts are likely to threaten large-scale research programs, such as the National Community Oncology Research program, which covers community hospitals all over the US and ensures patients have access to clinical trials, cutting edge cancer care, prevention and screenings. 'I am deeply concerned about the future of these really important clinical trials programs that are really hard to rebuild if you stop them,' she said. 'In the prevention program, there are large scale screening trials, and they have large data sets. We were working really hard on policies to make those data sets more accessible and available to the research community. And we're all gone.' Drastic cuts across federal science funding is causing scientists to consider leaving science and eliminating opportunities for younger scientists to enter training pipelines as undergraduate researchers, graduate researchers and postdocs, according to Lavik. 'The things that are transformative are fundamentally high-risk, high-reward research,' she said. 'We start to move into the clinic, and that's what leads to the new kinds of treatments that don't just help a little bit, but really change the face of how we treat patients, how we prevent cancers, how we treat other conditions. 'You have to be willing to do lots and lots of things that don't work. There are so many ways we should be more efficient about what we do. But to do that, you really need those young scientists, those new people in the field; you need the people who've come into the NIH and the NCI, who are thinking differently about doing things and willing to take those big swings.'
