Study suggests link between ultra processed foods and lung cancer
An international team of researchers tracked the health and food habits of more than 100,000 US adults, with an average age of 63.
After an average of 12 years the team identified 1,706 cases of lung cancer.
And food survey questionnaires revealed consumption of UPFs, including ice cream, fried foods, bread, cakes, pastries, salty snacks, breakfast cereals, instant noodles and soups, margarine, confectionery, soft drinks, sweetened fruit drinks, hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza.
The research team, led by academics in China, found that average UPF consumption was nearly three servings a day, but ranged from 0.5 to six.
The three types of food that featured the most were lunch meat and soft drinks.
People who consumed the highest amounts of UPFs were 41% more likely to develop lung cancer compared with those who consumed the least amount, academics wrote in the journal Thorax.
They found an increased risk found for both non small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer.
The authors said that they did make adjustments to their findings based on whether or not people smoked but they did not make adjustments for smoking intensity, which may have an impact.
They stress that 'causality cannot be determined' from their findings and the data should be interpreted with caution.
'Although additional research in other populations and settings is warranted, these findings suggest the healthy benefits of limiting UPF,' the authors said.
They added: 'Limiting trends of UPF intake globally could contribute to reducing the burden of lung cancer.'
Commenting on the study, Professor Sam Hare, consultant chest radiologist at the Royal Free London NHS Trust, said: 'A quarter of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers so we do need research exploring whether other factors are associated with lung cancer.
'We also know immunity is linked to cancer biology so it is a good idea to do research into factors like diet.
'However, further work is needed to establish direct causation between UPFs and lung cancer, crucially, whilst the study does make some adjustments for smoking status, the amount of smoking is not factored in, which is known to be directly related to lung cancer development.
'Dietary habits also change considerably over the course of such long-term studies, as such, it is difficult to directly conclude that lung cancer is related to the level of UPF consumption alone given it was only declared at the start of the study.
'That said, given the relative dearth of information on non-smoking related risk factors in lung cancer, it is important that the scientific community conducts more studies like this – we need genuine evidence-based advancement in the early diagnosis of lung cancer in non-smokers, but this study isn't quite able to give us the answers yet.'
It comes as a separate study examined teenage smoking rates over 50 years in the UK.
Researchers, led by academics from the University of Michigan in the US, looked at data on smoking among 16 and 17-year-olds in 1974, 1986 and 2018.
They found that teenage smoking dropped from 33% to 12% during the study period.
The 2018 study found that 11% of older teenagers used vapes.
The study authors estimate that teenagers who vape are more likely to go on to be smokers.
Writing in the journal Tobacco Control, they said that the likelihood of smoking was 1.5% among teenagers who do not vape, but 33% among those who do.
'Tobacco control efforts should continue to focus on the prevention of general youth nicotine use and to specifically target youth who use e- cigarettes because their risk of cigarette smoking is similar to youth in the 1970s,' they wrote.
But academic commentators have said that this conclusion is 'not justified'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Food linked to rise of colon cancer now believed to be behind lung cancer, study finds
A pile of foods linked to the rise of colon cancer are also believed to increase the risk of lung cancer, a study suggests. A group of Chinese researchers have found that consuming ultra-processed foods (UPFs) such as packaged snacks, chips, sweetened beverages, soda and processed meats can raise your risk of being diagnosed with lung cancer by 41 percent. The study found that eating UPFs can increase the risk of non-small cell lung cancer, the most common type of lung cancer, by 37 percent, and small cell lung cancer by 44 percent. Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women in the US and about 230,000 people are expected to be affected this year. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 125,000 people will die from the disease in 2025. While lung cancer rates overall are decreasing in the US, there's a concerning trend of increasing cases among women and in young adults who have never smoked. While UPFs have been previously linked to increasing the risk of colorectal cancer due to cell DNA damage, the researchers said it was surprising to find links to lung cancer. Based on the discovery, the scientists said that while additional research was required, it was important to limit consumption of UPFs. The study, which was published in the medical journal Thorax, analyzed data from nearly 102,000 people who were cancer-free from 1998 to 2010. Participants were asked to answer questionnaires about their overall health and the food they ate 24 hours prior to the beginning of the trial. Based on their UPF intake, the volunteers were divided into four groups to measure their likelihood of developing lung cancer. Foods classed as UPFs included sour cream, cream cheese, ice cream, frozen yogurt, fried foods, bread, cookies, cakes, pastries, salty snacks, breakfast cereals, instant noodles and soups, sauces, margarine, candy, soft drinks, artificially sweetened fruit drinks, restaurant/industrial hamburgers, hot dogs and pizza. The researchers found that people in the lowest risk group had about 0.5 servings of UPFs a day while those who were most likely to develop lung cancer had six servings a day. On average, most participants ate about 2.8 servings of ultra-processed foods each day. The researchers also found that lunch meat comprised 11 percent of the participants' overall diets, caffeinated soft drinks were 7.3 percent and decaffeinated soft drinks were 6.6 percent. During the 12-year study period, participants self-reported lung cancer diagnoses through annual questionnaires and X-ray reports. By the end, a total of 1,706 cases of lung cancer were identified, out of which 1,273 were cases of non-small cell lung cancer and 233 cases of small cell lung cancer. Non-small cell lung cancer occurs when normal cells in your lungs change and grow uncontrollably over a period of time. This is the most common type of lung cancer, making up about 85 percent of all lung cancer cases and can quickly spread to other organs. Small cell lung cancer is a highly aggressive and fast-growing type of cancer that is known for its tendency to spread quickly to other parts of the body. After a thorough statistical analysis, they found that participants who ate the most UPFs had an overall 41 percent higher chance of of lung cancer compared with those in the lowest group. Additionally, low consumption of minimally processed foods such as fruits, vegetables, fish and whole grains was also linked to increased lung cancer risk. In particular, they noted that carrageenan, a food additive used as a thickening agent, can cause intestinal inflammation in cells, leading to gastrointestinal issues and an imbalance in the gut microbiome which may contribute to lung cancer. Examples of foods containing carrageenan include dairy products like ice cream and yogurt, non-dairy alternatives such as almond milk and soy milk, processed meats like deli meat and chicken sausage, and even some infant formulas. They also found that acrolein - a toxic component of cigarette smoke found in various foods, particularly those that have been cooked at high temperatures - can contribute to lung cancer by damaging basic call DNA. The formation of acrolein is primarily linked to the breakdown of fats, carbohydrates, and amino acids during processes like frying, roasting, and baking. Lastly, the scientists noted that UPFs may be contaminated by packaging materials, such polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used in fatty fish, meat and dairy products, which can increase affect lung cancer risk. PCBs were largely mass produced by agricultural giant Monsanto until they were banned in 1979 amid concerns that they harmed humans and the environment. According to the EPA, conclusive evidence has found that PCBs can cause cancer in animals, as well as harm their immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems. The agency classifies these chemicals as 'probably carcinogenic' to humans. According to the CDC, exposure to PCBs can lead to increased enzymes linked to liver damage, skin lesions, and respiratory issues. Animal studies have shown effects such as weight loss, fatty liver, thyroid damage, and cancer. While PCBs are banned and not intentionally used in new food packaging, they can still be present due to historical uses and accidental contamination. Specifically, PCBs can leach from recycled paper products or contaminated machinery used in manufacturing. Commenting on cancer-causing potential of UPFs Dr Matthew Schabath, an epidemiologist at Moffitt Cancer Center who was not involved in the study, told Prevention: 'Although ultra-processed foods are not—yet—classified as carcinogens, both epidemiological and laboratory data suggest they may be a potential cancer risk factor. 'Laboratory studies have shown that components of ultra-processed foods can alter gut microbiota, increase inflammation, damage DNA, and modify gene expression, among other effects. 'Diets high in ultra-processed foods also promote systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, both of which contribute to cancer development.'
STV News
3 days ago
- STV News
Eating fewer ultra-processed foods could boost weight loss, trial suggests
Eating minimally processed foods and avoiding ultra processed foods (UPFs) could help people lose twice as much weight, a new trial has found. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, researchers suggest. UPFs include the likes of processed meals, ice cream, crisps, some breakfast cereals, biscuits and fizzy drinks. They tend to have high levels of saturated fat, salt and sugar, as well as additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, like preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours. The trial, led by experts at University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH), involved 55 people split into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. Dr Samuel Dicken, of the UCL Centre for Obesity Research and UCL department of behavioural science and health, said: 'Previous research has linked ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' He said the main aim of the study was to explore the role of food processing and how it impacts weight, blood pressure, body composition and food cravings. Some 50 people completed the trial, with both groups losing weight. However, those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06%) compared to the UPF diet (1.05% loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, researchers said. Dr Dicken said: 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. Professor Chris van Tulleken, of the UCL division of infection and immunity and UCLH, said: 'The global food system at the moment drives diet-related poor health and obesity, particularly because of the wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food. 'This study highlights the importance of ultra-processing in driving health outcomes in addition to the role of nutrients like fat, salt and sugar.' The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1% of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The normal diets of the trial participants tended to be outside national nutritional guidelines and included an above average proportion of UPF, which may help to explain why switching to a trial diet consisting entirely of UPF, but that was nutritionally balanced, resulted in neutral or slightly favourable changes to some secondary health markers. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritising high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. 'Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
North Wales Chronicle
3 days ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Eating fewer ultra-processed foods could boost weight loss, trial suggests
Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, researchers suggest. UPFs include the likes of processed meals, ice cream, crisps, some breakfast cereals, biscuits and fizzy drinks. They tend to have high levels of saturated fat, salt and sugar, as well as additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, like preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours. The trial, led by experts at University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH), involved 55 people split into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. Dr Samuel Dicken, of the UCL Centre for Obesity Research and UCL department of behavioural science and health, said: 'Previous research has linked ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' He said the main aim of the study was to explore the role of food processing and how it impacts weight, blood pressure, body composition and food cravings. Some 50 people completed the trial, with both groups losing weight. However, those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06%) compared to the UPF diet (1.05% loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, researchers said. Dr Dicken said: 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. Professor Chris van Tulleken, of the UCL division of infection and immunity and UCLH, said: 'The global food system at the moment drives diet-related poor health and obesity, particularly because of the wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food. 'This study highlights the importance of ultra-processing in driving health outcomes in addition to the role of nutrients like fat, salt and sugar.' The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1% of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The normal diets of the trial participants tended to be outside national nutritional guidelines and included an above average proportion of UPF, which may help to explain why switching to a trial diet consisting entirely of UPF, but that was nutritionally balanced, resulted in neutral or slightly favourable changes to some secondary health markers. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritising high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. 'Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health.' Commenting on the study, Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, said: 'These findings support what we have long suspected – that the way food is made might affect our health, not just the nutrients it contains. 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on ultra-processed foods. 'Unlike earlier observational studies, this was a randomised controlled trial where participants were provided with all their meals, and the diets were carefully matched to meet the Eatwell Guide – this allowed researchers to isolate the effect of food processing itself, making it more likely that the differences seen after eight weeks were due to how the food in their diets was processed, not just what was in it. 'Completely cutting UPFs out of our diets isn't realistic for most of us, but including more minimally processed foods – like fresh or home cooked meals – alongside a balanced diet could offer added benefits too. 'Mediterranean-style diets, which include plenty of minimally or unprocessed foods such as fruit, vegetables, fish, nuts and seeds, beans, lentils and wholegrains, have consistently been shown to reduce our risk of heart attacks and strokes.'
