Today the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee published a report on fixing the food environment as part of its food and weight management inquiry. Its message to Government is loud and clear: it is time to stand up to industry and move forward with a bold new approach to tackling obesity.
The environments in which we live, work and shop play a major role in shaping our health, yet many people are surrounded by the promotion and availability of unhealthy food options. Addressing this is essential for cancer prevention – excess weight is a cause of at least 13 types of cancer and is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer in the UK after smoking.
Many of the Committee’s recommendations are reflected in World Cancer Research Fund’s written evidence to the inquiry and, if implemented together, would help make the healthy choice the easy choice. In particular, we welcome the Committee’s recommendation that the healthy sales reporting policy should be introduced as soon as possible, with targets for major supermarkets set within the next 12 months and for the wider food industry by the end of Parliament. In practice, the policy would mean that large food businesses would be incentivised to have healthier products on their shelves and in promotions – leading to a potential reduction of obesity by around a fifth. We also strongly echo the Committee’s recommendation for the Government to exclude actors with a vested interest from discussions on the formation of policies on food, diet and obesity prevention.
Overall, the report sets out a clear roadmap for fixing our broken food environment. As the UK prepares for a new Prime Minister, we urge them to demonstrate their commitment to prevention by taking forward these recommendations at pace. This is a vital opportunity to fix our food environment, tackle obesity and prevent cancer for future generations.
Latest news and blogs
Every day, millions of people search online for answers about cancer, diet and health. Some of what they find is accurate and helpful. Much of it is not. And when it comes to cancer – a subject where fear, hope and complexity are factors – misleading information can cause real harm.
Proving the challenge
There is no doubt that social media influencers promote a vast amount of misinformation online, especially to younger people. New YouGov polling, commissioned by World Cancer Research Fund for Cancer Prevention Action Week (15–21 June 2026), reveals a striking pattern:
- Among adults who rely on social media as their main news source, 13% wrongly believe that certain foods or diets can “starve” cancer, compared with 7% of other adults.
- 15% wrongly think certain supplements can reduce cancer risk, compared with 11% of other adults who prefer sources other than social media.
- Younger adults are particularly affected: 20% of 18–34-year-olds say they are more likely to trust a health claim if it is shared by an influencer or account they follow, compared with just 7% of over-55s.
Positive influencers speak out
However, there are also large numbers of influencers and experts online who are fighting back against misinformation. We are enormously grateful to the more than 30 health professionals and experts who gave their time to support Science Not Fiction — their commitment and expertise made a real difference.
Deborah Cohen
Deborah Cohen is one such expert. A medically-qualified journalist and author of “Bad Influence”, she warns:
“Over time, [influencers’] recommendations can start to feel less like advice from a stranger and more like guidance from a trusted friend.
They sometimes use scientific language to create an impression of authority, while the actual evidence behind their claims is weak, selective or simply not there.”
For anyone affected by cancer, the stakes are high.
Dr Idrees Mughal, known as Dr Idz, is a medical doctor with a master’s degree in nutritional research and more than 1.5 million followers across TikTok and Instagram.
Dr Idz
He explains:
“The danger is not just wasted money, but that misinformation can push people away from evidence-based advice and proven cancer treatments.
When people delay or reject effective care in favour of unproven alternatives, the consequences can be devastating, and in some cases fatal.”
Professor Sander van der Linden is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Cambridge and author of FOOLPROOF.
He frames the broader challenge.
Professor Sander van der Linden
He says:
“Misinformation about cancer is rampant. One of the most important challenges is empowering people with skills to discern wellness quackery from evidence-based advice.”
The picture is not all bad online. The experts and influencers who joined us aren’t alone. Many doctors, dietitians, cancer specialists and science communicators are actively using social media to challenge misinformation with clear, evidence-based information.
How to tell the difference: the TRUST Test practical tool
That is exactly why World Cancer Research Fund has developed the TRUST Test – a simple, practical framework for evaluating health and nutrition information wherever you come across it. It gives you a clear set of prompts to help you pause and check before acting on a claim – whether you are reading a health blog, watching a video or seeing a claim shared in a group chat.
Join our campaign
Science Not Fiction is a three-year World Cancer Research Fund campaign tackling health misinformation and helping people find evidence-based information they can trust about cancer prevention, living with cancer, and nutrition.
Cancer Prevention Action Week 2026 was an important first step. The campaign reached a wide and influential audience, with backing from more than 30 health professionals and experts, support from organisations including the British Dietetic Association, IARC, Our Future Health and Alcohol Change UK, and coverage in national media.
You can be part of this work. Email us at pr@wcrf.org if you have a story to tell. You can also share the TRUST Test with friends, family or colleagues, and follow us on social media for reliable, evidence-based information about reducing your cancer risk and living with cancer.
Latest news and blogs
Dr Mike Coleman’s research sits at the intersection of cancer, metabolism and the immune system. But when he first began his Marilyn Gentry Fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill back in 2022, the path ahead was far less defined.
“My work concerns the idea that the body’s natural immune system is actually really good at controlling cancer most of the time,” says Dr Coleman. “This means that by the time someone gets a cancer diagnosis, it is usually indicative that their immune system has been tricked in some way by cancer.”
For over 25 years, the AICR/WCRF Marilyn Gentry Fellowship has supported emerging leaders in the field of diet, nutrition and cancer, funded by the American Institute of Cancer Research. Under the guidance of Professor Steve Hursting, a global expert in the field of nutrition and cancer, Dr Coleman was able to approach his research with real creativity. The fellowship gave him the freedom to explore and follow an emerging question that continues to define his research: how does obesity affect the immune system’s ability to fight cancer?
From early inspiration to impact
Dr Coleman’s interest in science began early. Growing up on a farm, he found himself drawn to problem-solving, and to understanding how diseases develop at a molecular level.
That curiosity led him to study biochemistry, before focusing his PhD on how mitochondria influence the spread of breast cancer. “I wanted to deep dive inside the cell and say, ‘what’s going on at this level?’” says Dr Coleman.
It was during his PhD that he first encountered the strong links between obesity and cancer risk, an observation that would later guide his fellowship research. And at this same time, he decided to expand his research from looking at a single cell towards whole body metabolism.
Investigating adoptive cell therapy
By the time Dr Coleman started the AICR/WCRF fellowship, it was clear that the immune system was going to be central to his work, which brought his attention to what we know as CAR T-cell therapy.
CAR T-cell therapy is a groundbreaking form of immunotherapy, also called adoptive cell therapy, that modifies a patient’s own immune cells to recognise and destroy cancer cells. “You take some blood from the patient and then re-engineer a certain set of immune cells to specifically target cancer cells. These cells can then be re-introduced to the patient and hopefully control the cancer growth,” says Dr Coleman. “I like to think of it as putting them through a cancer-killing boot camp so that when they re-enter the body, they are ready to attack tumour cells.”
While CAR T-cell therapy works very well with blood cancers, they are far less effective against solid tumours, such as breast cancer or colon cancer. “And I wanted to explore how obesity interacts with that,” says Dr Coleman.
Testing his hypothesis on triple negative breast cancer cells, his research showed that obesity-related inflammation can impair the ability of CAR-T cells to destroy tumours, thereby dampening their anti-tumour effects.
Overall, the findings highlighted obesity as an important but often overlooked factor influencing cancer immunotherapy outcomes. With 40% of Americans having obesity, Dr Coleman believes that understanding the role of obesity, and approaches to improve metabolic health, in immunotherapy response will be critical to maximize the potential of next cancer treatments.
Can weight loss affect tumour growth?
As part of Dr Coleman’s work to better understand the impact of obesity on the immune system, he wanted to determine whether weight loss has the potential to restore immune function.
Looking retrospectively at cancer incidence in people who have had bariatric surgery, there’s about a 30-50% reduction in obesity-driven cancer rates in women who have this procedure. “We wanted to understand whether there is something unique to bariatric surgery that is driving the kind of weight loss that sees these special benefits,” says Dr Coleman.
Using mouse models, they compared different weight loss approaches – including bariatric surgery and dietary changes – and examined their effects on tumour growth.
“Long story short is that the extent of weight loss, independent of how you got there, was really a major predictor of how protective an intervention was going to be,” says Dr Coleman.
They found that all forms of sustained weight loss reduced tumour growth and helped restore anti-tumour immune activity, but calorie restriction produced the strongest protective effects. Importantly, the study showed that the amount of weight and fat lost, rather than the specific method used, was a major driver of improved immune function and reduced cancer progression.
“It really set up this idea for me that losing weight has this potentially potent effect to fire the immune system up to control tumour growth,” says Dr Coleman. “And now we understand a lot more about the ways the immune system is dampened by obesity, and why that weight loss then might be so protective.”
A rapidly changing landscape
These findings are becoming even more relevant as new weight loss medications, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists, continue to transform the treatment landscape.
“In the past, sustained weight loss at this scale was mostly limited to bariatric surgery,” he says. “In general, folks who are eligible for bariatric surgery typically don’t undertake it, but we’re now entering an era where these medications are widely used and well tolerated.”
Interventions to study weight loss are generally hard to do. The game-changing feature with GLP-1 medications is that they are relatively well-tolerated and, in general, popular amongst people who are eligible for them. This opens new possibilities for cancer care. A recent publication found that GLP-1 use was significantly associated with improved survival and reduced recurrence among breast cancer patients with obesity.
Researchers can now begin to explore how weight loss interventions might be combined with immunotherapies to improve outcomes.
“This means we’re entering an era where you can now realistically imagine a case of standard oncology treatment where we begin to ask, ‘how do we incorporate Tirzepatide or other weight loss drugs into that care?” says Dr Coleman. “And ‘how can these drugs be used to protect immune function?’, or even ‘how can it synergise with therapies that we know are going to promote immune response?’”
Advice for future scientists
For his next research question, Dr Coleman is approaching adoptive cell therapies as an area of potentially huge growth for solid tumour oncology.
“Is there a way to customise adoptive cell therapy to be responsive to body weight or body composition?” he says. “The overall goal is to overcome obesity-driven resistance by customising the therapy or integrating interventions like GLP-1 drugs to protect immune cell function.”
Dr Mike Coleman (centre) with Dr Giota Mitrou (left) and Dr Helen Croker (right) from WCRF International.
Dr Coleman says that the fellowship gave him the security to chase the questions that sparked curiosity in him and allowed him to be a little more fearless.
When thinking about advice for early career researchers, Dr Coleman encourages scientists to think outside of their own silos. He says that the days of one lab solving a problem in isolation is waning, and projects are now being executed in bigger, broader teams. “Dipping a toe in the other research pools gives you a lot back and it will naturally create a network of people you could collaborate with in the future.”
By the end of his Marilyn Gentry Fellowship, Dr Coleman had not only built an extensive body of research, publishing over 20 papers, but helped strengthen the idea that obesity directly suppresses the body’s ability to fight cancer, and that restoring metabolic health could improve responses to future cancer treatments and immunotherapies.
“This fellowship didn’t just support my research,” he says. “It helped to shape the future direction of my career.”
Currently Dr Coleman’s work, at UNC Chapel Hill, continues to further understand how weight management and metabolic approaches can be used to revitalise immune response in cancer.
Latest news and blogs
Our Cancer and Nutrition Helpline is staffed by oncology dietitians who help people living with cancer and their loved ones find their way through the maze of misinformation about nutrition after a diagnosis.
Our dietitians are asked about cancer and nutrition myths more than any other subject. Here are a few of the questions they answer most often.
“I’ve just been diagnosed with cancer. What can I do to help myself before my treatment starts?” – Dave
Receiving a cancer diagnosis can feel overwhelming. It can also feel like you’re losing some of your independence as your calendar fills with hospital appointments. But there are steps you can take yourself to look after your health before treatment begins.
Healthy changes will stand you in good stead as you go through treatment so it’s helpful to make a start as soon as you can. That means following a healthy, balanced diet, being physically active and looking after your mental health. Ask your cancer care team for advice and let them know about any changes you’re making.
Some cancer centres run prehabilitation programmes designed to help you prepare for treatment in the days or weeks before it starts. Prehab programmes typically focus on your general health, including your diet and how active you are, and your emotional wellbeing. Their goal is to get you in the best state possible for treatment.
There’s increasing evidence of the benefits of prehab for people living with cancer. It can reduce your side effects or help you cope better with side effects linked to your treatment. It can shorten the time you need to spend recovering in hospital. And, sometimes, being fitter can mean you’re offered treatments you wouldn’t otherwise be suitable for.
You don’t need to take part in an official hospital prehab programme to benefit from making healthy changes and looking after your general health, but make sure you’re using information from a robust, evidence backed source like World Cancer Research Fund, the NHS website or other trusted information creators showing the PIF TICK symbol.
See it as taking steps to invest in your health which will not only bolster you to cope better with treatment, but also help with your recovery and lay foundations for healthy habits in the future.
“I’ve seen cancer-fighting diets advertised online. What’s your advice?” – Bernice
You may come across ‘fad diets’ which claim they can fight cancer and, with claims like that, it’s not surprising if they grab your attention. That’s exactly what they are designed to do, but there’s no scientific evidence that following any particular diet can cure cancer or replace cancer treatments.
Cancer and cancer treatment can be tough on your body so it’s really important that you give your body the energy (calories) and nutrients it needs. Some ‘fad diets’ suggest you restrict yourself to particular foods or cut out whole food groups like carbohydrates or dairy. These diets might stop you getting what your body needs and they aren’t backed by reliable scientific evidence.
It’s much safer to stick to a healthy, balanced diet before, during and after cancer treatment. If you have questions about healthy eating, ask your cancer care team or contact our Cancer and Nutrition Helpline – you can pick up the phone or drop them a line.
“Is a vegan diet a good idea during cancer treatment?” – Becky
There’s no evidence to suggest that a vegan or plant-based diet gives you any advantages during cancer treatment compared to a diet that includes animal products.
We do know that eating plenty of plant-based foods like fruit, veg, pulses (like beans, chickpeas or lentils) and wholegrains (like brown rice, bread and pasta) can help give your body essential nutrients like vitamins, minerals and fibre.
So a vegan diet isn’t something you need to avoid as long as there’s enough variety in what you eat so your body can fight infection, cope with treatment side effects and minimise weight loss. That means you need to make sure you get enough energy (calories), protein, vitamins and minerals.
Going vegan sometimes means you can struggle to get everything your body needs and to keep to a healthy weight, especially as cancer and cancer treatments can make you feel sick or affect your appetite. But a vegan diet which includes a variety of different foods can be a good substitute for an animal-based diet if it gives you enough energy and you don’t miss out on any essential nutrients.
If you’re following a vegan diet or want to swap to one, it’s a good idea to speak to a dietitian to check you’re still getting all the nutrients your body needs.
“Will taking supplements help me during my cancer treatment?” – Ian
Most people don’t need to take dietary supplements as long as they’re following a healthy balanced diet, and that includes people who are living with cancer. Some supplements can be harmful, increasing tumour growth, and some can interfere with how chemotherapy and radiotherapy work.
Let your cancer care team know about any supplements you’re taking, including the doses. That includes homeopathic, natural or herbal remedies. Even if a supplement is made from plants and seems natural, that doesn’t mean it’s safe. You should only take supplements that your doctor or dietitian has said are ok for you.
Even multivitamin supplements which include a wide range of nutrients will not give you all the benefits of substances naturally found in foods like fibre.
If you can’t manage to eat very much or you can’t eat a healthy balanced diet because of your cancer or the side effects of treatment, you might need advice from your doctor or a dietitian.
They can check if you’re missing out on essential nutrients like vitamins and minerals like iron and give you advice on how to top up on the nutrients you need. That may be through a small change to your diet or they may prescribe a supplement that’s safe to take during treatment.
Examples are calcium and vitamin D to support your bone health or protein-rich drinks or powder to give your body enough protein to repair itself when you are unwell.
“I heard that sugar makes cancer grow more quickly so should I try and cut it out completely?” – Kam
There’s no strong evidence to show that avoiding sugar can stop cancer cells growing or that sugar directly causes cancer. So the answer’s no, you don’t need to avoid sugar entirely.
Sugar comes into our diet from different sources. You don’t only find sugar in foods like cakes and biscuits, in soft drinks or added to savoury foods like soups and ready meals. It’s also found naturally in foods like fruit and milk.
If you decided to restrict all the sugar you have, of all types, that could mean limiting how much fruit and veg you eat. We know that having a mix of fruit and veg is important to give you the vitamins and minerals you need to help with your recovery.
Instead, for a healthy balanced diet, we recommend that you limit how much added sugar you have. That’s the sugar in sugar-sweetened syrups, cakes, biscuits, chocolate and full-sugar soft drinks. It’s also the sugar you often find in ready-made soups, sauces, ketchup and ready meals. You’ll see if these foods have had sugar added on the ingredients list on the packaging.
You don’t need to cut down on the sugars in fruit and milk because they are digested slower than added sugar and also come with other nutrients like fibre, vitamins and minerals.
It’s a good idea to try to limit the added sugar in your diet because over time the excess calories can affect your weight. We know that living with overweight or obesity increases your risk of cancer.
There can be exceptions to this. If your appetite is poor or you’re having cancer treatment and are losing weight without intending to, foods with added sugar can be useful to help you get enough calories to regain a healthy weight. A dietitian can advise if this would help you and can give you tips on which foods to choose.
Cancer and Nutrition Helpline
Looking for trusted nutrition advice after a cancer diagnosis? Our FREE Cancer and Nutrition Helpline offers expert answers and practical support for people living with cancer and those who care for them.
Latest news and blogs
This week, World Cancer Research Fund released new findings showing that 44% of patient-facing NHS staff encounter inaccurate or misleading information about nutrition and supplements at least once per week.
I am part of the 44%. Every week in my GP surgery, I see the consequences of health misinformation.
My patients arrive clutching newspaper stories, social media screenshots, printouts from wellness websites or saved videos from TikTok.
They are not reckless people, quite the opposite. They want better support for their treatment and to regain a sense of control.
Why “natural” doesn’t always mean safe
What worries me is not one miracle pill or herbal supplement. It’s the widely held belief that if something is sold over the counter, marked as “natural” or endorsed online, then it must automatically be safe. As doctors, we know that simply is not true.
Indeed, the full research for the action week shows that 42% of UK adults trust the health claims of products if they are legally sold in the UK.
There is also the dangerous assumption that “natural” means harmless, while prescribed medicines are somehow toxic. As I explain to patients, many of the medicines we rely on today originated from plants.
Nature can heal, but it can harm too. Doses matter, interactions matter and most of all, evidence matters.
Why health misinformation thrives online
In the digital age, separating evidence-based advice from misinformation has become extraordinarily difficult. We are bombarded with persuasive health claims, “life-changing” testimonials and confident voices that insist they have discovered what doctors do not want you to know.
I am incredibly cautious when someone is trying to sell certainty, especially when pushing a product.
Good doctors and other healthcare professionals do not make promises. We weigh up evidence, discuss risks and acknowledge the unknowns. Anyone claiming to hold “secret cures” or hidden truths should be approached with caution.
Because there is science and then there is science distorted, cherry-picked or stripped of context to put a price tag on hope.
Why false hope can be so powerful
This hope is a powerful currency. I know it not only as a doctor, but as a cancer patient myself.
When I was diagnosed with bowel cancer in my late thirties, I truly understood what vulnerability feels like. I would have done anything to get better, stay better and be with my children for longer.
People prey on this vulnerability.
The risks with supplements
As doctors, we talk about the importance of lifestyle factors because they matter: physical activity, diet, sleep, alcohol, weight. If I could prescribe exercise on the green prescription slip, I would.
On the contrary, the desire to improve our health can sometimes make us susceptible to oversimplified solutions or misleading claims. I have witnessed patients taking supplements that interfere with prescribed medication, or herbal remedies causing severe side effects on the skin and liver.
This is why it is so important to discuss any supplements, vitamins or alternative remedies with a healthcare professional.
You should never feel embarrassed about raising these conversations with your doctor. In my consultations, I want to make it as clear as possible: we are on the same team, and we both want you to get better.
Why questions are a good thing
No doctor knows everything; my patients teach me things every day. I have huge respect for informed for informed, curious people who ask questions and want to know more about their health.
In fact, I would trust a doctor who says “I don’t know, but let me find out” 100 times over one that claims to know all the answers.
How to spot health misinformation
When health information feels overwhelming or confusing, there are three simple steps you can take:
1. Pause before believing dramatic claims
Be sceptical of quick fixes, miracle cures and claims that sound too good to be true.
Take extra care if someone is selling a product alongside their advice.
2. Use trusted, evidence-based sources
Look for information from reputable organisations like World Cancer Research Fund.
They have developed a practical tool, called the TRUST Test, to help people assess health information before it causes harm.
3. Speak to a healthcare professional
You do not always have to speak to your GP.
Pharmacists, for example, are a valuable and accessible source of advice when it comes to medicine, supplements and the potential interactions between them.
Looking to a better future
Social media and the internet has transformed access to health information. At its best, it empowers people. At its worst, it leaves people vulnerable to exploitation, confusion and harm.
Good healthcare should never begin with fear or false promises. It should be built on honesty, evidence and trust.
Latest news and blogs
Health misinformation is widespread. Many people are still unaware that alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen, linked to at least 7 different cancers including breast and bowel. This is unsurprising when you consider the alcohol industry’s long documented history of downplaying these well-established risks.
What’s more, alcohol is an outlier when it comes to labelling. Did you know that there is more legally required information on a bottle of water than on a bottle of alcohol? This is despite the serious harm alcohol can do, and the clear evidence that when it comes to cancer there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.
Cancer warnings on alcohol labels
To counter this and ensure people have access to clear, evidence-based information, World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and Balance are campaigning for a cancer warning to be included on the UK Government’s forthcoming mandatory alcohol labels, as outlined in our guest blog – It’s time to expose the great alcohol hoax. It is also imperative that industry-backed messaging such as ‘drink responsibly’ are removed, and that the policy is protected from industry influence more broadly.
The reality is that mandatory labels will take some time to come into force. In the meantime, WCRF has developed the TRUST Test, a simple tool to help people make sense of the health information they encounter online and separate fact from fiction. In our guest blog for Alcohol Change UK – Tackling persistent health misinformation on alcohol – we apply our TRUST Test to a common myth about red wine, showing how scientific research has been taken out of context.
Melissa Dando
The [red wine] myth originates from a study which found that a large amount of resveratrol, an antioxidant in the skin of purple and red grapes and therefore present in red wine, supported heart health in mice. The reality is that one would have to drink between 100 and 1,000 glasses of red wine a day to get anywhere near the amount of resveratrol equivalent to the doses that improved heart health in mice.
Health professionals also have a vital role to play. That’s why we’re calling for the upcoming NHS 10 Year Workforce Plan to provide additional staffing capacity and training on cancer prevention. This will help ensure that nurses and other patient-facing staff have the time and skills to counter the health misinformation, including on alcohol, that patients are increasingly bringing to their routine appointments.
Latest news and blogs
Despite widespread use of dietary supplements, research has shown that taking supplements does not reduce the risk of cancer. Instead, the strongest evidence continues to support following healthy lifestyle recommendations, including eating a balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active.
In our guest blog for MyNutriWeb, we explore common beliefs about supplements and cancer prevention, and highlight the challenges health professionals face when helping patients navigate conflicting nutrition information.
Why food comes first
While vitamins and minerals are essential for good health, experts recommend obtaining them through food wherever possible. Whole foods contain a complex mix of nutrients and other beneficial compounds that work together in ways supplements cannot replicate.
Rachel Clark
We recommend that people do not use supplements for cancer prevention. When it comes to cancer prevention, for most people, eating a healthy, balanced diet is more likely to help protect against cancer than taking dietary supplements.
Supporting informed conversations
With nutrition misinformation widely available online, health professionals have an important role in helping people understand what the evidence shows about supplements and cancer prevention.
The NutriWeb article provides practical insights to support evidence-based conversations and reinforces the importance of promoting healthy dietary patterns rather than relying on supplements.
What does reduce the risk of cancer?
While supplements do not prevent cancer, our cancer prevention guidance is grounded in decades of global research into diet, weight, physical activity and cancer.
We bring together the best available evidence to help people make informed choices – without hype or false promises.
Healthy dietary patterns, such as sustainable plant-based diets which prioritise vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, continue to show more consistent associations with cancer prevention than isolated supplements.
Learn more
To explore the evidence in more detail, join our webinar, Supplements versus food: What the evidence says about cancer prevention, which will examine the latest research and provide practical guidance for health professionals.
Latest news and blogs
One of the biggest health challenges of our time
Health misinformation is not a new challenge, but its scale and impact have increased significantly in recent years. At World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), we are increasingly concerned about the ways in which misleading and inaccurate health information is hindering the public’s understanding of cancer risk, preventing cancer, and survivorship.
The rate at which misinformation is generated and disseminated has increased exponentially in recent years, driven primarily through increased use of social media and the rise of influencers, celebrities, and others sharing health advice online without formal scientific or medical training. This is having real-world consequences with attention diverted away from what we know reduces cancer risk, to promises of quick fixes and miracle cures.
That is why this year for Cancer Prevention Action Week (CPAW), we’re launching a three-year campaign to tackle health misinformation.
To kick off the campaign, CPAW 2026 will focus on sharing the latest evidence on cancer prevention relating to diet, supplements and alcohol. We will also raise awareness of trusted sources and promote WCRF’s practical guides that provide clear and up-to-date information people can incorporate into their daily lives.
In recognition that the issue of health misinformation is a systemic one, WCRF will also set out policy recommendations to address its causes over the course of the campaign. In 2026, these focus on supporting healthcare professionals to counter health misinformation, with future years likely to focus on addressing its causes.
Support for health professionals
Polling commissioned by WCRF highlights the burden health misinformation relating to cancer prevention and survivorship is placing on healthcare professionals. The forthcoming NHS Workforce Plan is a key opportunity to ease this burden.
First, the Plan must increase the number of patient-facing staff, such as general practice nurses, to improve patient access and allow time for conversations about cancer prevention during routine appointments.
Secondly, the Plan must help ensure that healthcare professionals are equipped with the latest information on nutrition, alcohol and physical activity as it relates to cancer. This can be done by embedding protected time for training within workforce planning. Crucially, the NHS Workforce Plan should also encourage education bodies to include cancer prevention and survivorship training in both pre-registration education and as part of continuing professional development (CPD).
The Plan must also recognise the ability to identify and respond to health misinformation as a core skill for patient-facing staff. Crucially, any increase in training must not simply add to existing pressures – instead training must be supported by additional staffing capacity and protected learning time.
Finally, there are many great resources on cancer prevention and survivorship that can support patient-facing healthcare professionals. For example, WCRF’s Alcohol and cancer: Let’s talk guide on how to have conversations with patients about alcohol and cancer can be particularly useful. Guides for the public, such as our 10 ways to protect yourself against cancer poster, provide clear, simple information that can support discussions with patients.
We also host a range of free, CPD certified webinars for health professionals, with one on supplements taking place on Wednesday 24 June – register for your place.
Addressing the drivers of health misinformation
While healthcare professionals have an important role to play in countering health misinformation, the responsibility does not rest solely with them. Instead, a broader, system-wide response is needed.
We know that around 40% of cancer cases in the UK are preventable. The evidence is clear: eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, regular physical activity, and limiting alcohol reduce cancer risk. Yet online, this evidence competes daily with a vast and growing volume of content promoting fad diets, ‘anti-cancer’ supplements, detox regimens, and misleading claims about alcohol. Often commercially motivated and algorithmically amplified, this content frequently promises miracle cures and quick fixes.
The bottom line is that it’s unreasonable to expect people to navigate the overwhelming amount of health misinformation online without any safeguards. Currently, regulations in the UK permit ‘legal but harmful content’, which includes health misinformation. For example, an influencer promoting a supplement which they claim can cure cancer is producing content that is legal, despite it being harmful and untrue. This is unacceptable.
Algorithmic amplification then exacerbates the issue of legal but harmful content. A platform hosting misleading health content passively is one thing, but algorithms and paid advertising actively feeding it to people searching for health advice is more serious. While individual users should be held liable for what they post online, the platforms they post on should also be responsible, especially with regard to the systems they use to moderate, circulate and amplify content.
These are some of the challenges that we will be looking to address as our misinformation campaign develops. In the meantime, we have developed the TRUST Test, a simple tool that can help health professionals and their patients make sense of the health misinformation they encounter.
Join our Cancer Prevention Action Week campaign
Health misinformation online is not an issue that has arisen overnight and it will not be solved quickly, but Cancer Prevention Action Week (15-21 June) is a crucial start. Find out more about the campaign and how to get involved by visiting wcrf.org/CPAW2026.
Latest news and blogs
Patient-facing NHS staff are regularly being asked about inaccurate or misleading nutrition and supplement claims, while people who rely on social media for news are more likely to believe some misleading cancer-prevention claims, according to our new research released for Cancer Prevention Action Week 2026.
The YouGov research we commissioned found that 44% of patient-facing NHS staff say patients raise inaccurate or misleading nutrition or supplement information at least once a week – 6% say this happens daily or almost daily.
Social media
We also found a mismatch between confidence and understanding online. While 62% of UK adults say they feel confident finding trustworthy nutrition information online, this rises to 72% among people whose main news source is social network websites.
Despite their confidence, the same primary users of social media are more likely to believe some inaccurate cancer-prevention claims. Compared with people whose main news source is not social media, they are:
- More likely to wrongly think that certain supplements can reduce cancer risk (15% vs 11%).
- More likely to wrongly think that certain foods or diets can “starve” cancer (13% vs 7%).
- Less likely to identify (correctly) that eating plenty of fibre can reduce cancer risk (48% vs 55%).
More broadly, our polling found that nearly 1 in 5 UK adults say detoxes or “cleanses” are good for health, while more than 1 in 5 spend over £10 a month on dietary supplements.
Our warning therefore is that misleading advice can distract people from everyday habits known to reduce cancer risk, such as eating sensibly, staying active and reducing alcohol use, at a time when around 4 in 10 cancer cases in the UK are preventable through such changes.
Launching our TRUST Test
As part of this year’s Cancer Prevention Action Week, themed Science Not Fiction, we are launching our TRUST Test – a simple tool to help people check health information before acting on it or sharing it.
Action on training and resources
We are also calling on the UK Government to use the NHS Workforce Plan to better equip frontline staff with evidence-based knowledge on nutrition, supplements, cancer prevention and survivorship – and ensure staff have the time, skills and knowledge to address misinformation in routine care.
Previous UK research in authoritative publications has found that more than 70% of medical students and doctors surveyed reported receiving fewer than two hours of nutrition training at medical school.
We are already working with medical schools at the Universities of Lincoln and Southampton to create practical teaching resources for tomorrow’s doctors on diet, weight and cancer risk. Its pilot scheme with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde also makes the charity’s Cancer and Nutrition Helpline part of many patients’ cancer care pathways.
Rachael Hutson, Chief Executive of World Cancer Research Fund, said:
“Too many people are trying to make important health decisions in a fog of online misinformation. When advice is confusing or misleading, it can take people away from the everyday habits we know help reduce cancer risk and towards claims that are exaggerated, distorted or simply untrue.
Our TRUST Test is there to help people feel more confident about what they see online because when it comes to cancer prevention, it should be based on science, not fiction.”
Dr Liz O’Riordan, former breast surgeon, three-time breast cancer patient, keynote speaker and author, who is supporting the campaign, said:
“As a breast surgeon and breast cancer patient, I know how overwhelming it can be trying to make sense of all the information out there. When something sounds hopeful, it’s very easy to think ‘why not try it too?’ even if it’s not based on solid evidence. A lot of this information sounds convincing, but it doesn’t always tell the full story.”
Cancer Prevention Action Week runs from 15–21 June 2026.
Latest news and blogs
The internet and social media have transformed the way people access health information. While these platforms can help people learn more about cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment, they have also become major channels for the spread of misinformation.
Our article, Cancer misinformation, social media, and the need for trusted evidence published by BMJ Leader, examines how cancer misinformation is affecting individuals, healthcare systems and public trust.
Unproven treatments and miracle cures
In the article, we highlight how false or misleading claims about cancer can spread quickly online, often reaching large audiences before accurate information has a chance to catch up. These claims can range from unproven treatments and miracle cures to misleading advice about cancer prevention and risk factors.
Misinformation can have serious consequences. It may discourage people from seeking medical advice, delay diagnosis and treatment, or lead individuals to make health decisions based on inaccurate information. It can also contribute to confusion and mistrust around established scientific evidence.
“Research suggests misinformation spreads particularly effectively when it taps into fear, hope, personal identity or distrust.”
Instilling confidence in evidence
The article argues that addressing cancer misinformation requires a collective response. Researchers, healthcare professionals, charities, policymakers and digital platforms all have a role to play in ensuring that reliable, evidence-based information is accessible and visible.
We also emphasise the importance of health literacy and helping people develop the skills needed to evaluate information critically. Building public confidence in trusted sources is essential if we are to counter misleading claims and support informed decision-making.
At World Cancer Research Fund, we are committed to providing clear, evidence-based information on cancer prevention and survivorship. As part of Cancer Prevention Action Week 2026, we continue to highlight Science Not Fiction – the importance of trustworthy health information and the need to tackle misinformation wherever it appears.
The full article explores these issues in greater depth and sets out why stronger collaboration across sectors is needed to protect public health and strengthen trust in evidence-based cancer information.
“We invite leaders across healthcare, public health and research to join us in ensuring that science, not fiction, shapes how cancer risk is reduced globally.”
Read Vanessa Gordon-Dseagu and Lilly Matson’s article, Cancer misinformation, social media and the need for trusted evidence, published in BMJ Leader.
Latest news and blogs
New evidence, published today, shows that sticking to five lifestyle recommendations improves survival after a later cancer diagnosis.
The findings provide encouraging evidence that simple, achievable habits established before a cancer diagnosis can play a role in improving long-term health and the health of those following a cancer diagnosis.
The Cancer Prevention Recommendations analysed in the study include:
- Be a healthy weight
- Be physically active
- Eat wholegrains, vegetables, fruit and beans
- Limit red and processed meat
- Limit alcohol consumption
The latest research led by Newcastle University, UK, published in Cancer was funded by Wereld Kanker Onderzoek Fonds, (WKOF) – the Netherlands-based charity within theWorld Cancer Research Fund International network of charities that also includes World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The Recommendations were developed in 2018 by World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) as evidence-based lifestyle guidance which aim to reduce cancer risk.
Although previous research in cancer survivors has indicated some positive effects, this new study provides the most comprehensive evidence to date of their association with improved survival for people living with and beyond cancer.
Professor John Mathers, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition at Newcastle University, who led the study, said:
“This research is incredibly exciting because, for the first time, we have shown that higher adherence to the WCRF/AICR 2018 Recommendations may reduce the risk of mortality for people diagnosed with cancer in a UK cohort.
The results of this paper add to an existing body of evidence on the WCRF/AICR Recommendations and cancer survivors and could be informative for those developing policies and clinical guidelines to improve health and longevity following a cancer diagnosis.”
Breaking down the results
The research team assessed the dietary and lifestyle data of 28,550 individuals who were assigned score points from 0-5 in relation to how closely the Recommendations were followed at the time of recruitment to the Biobank, prior to a cancer diagnosis. The UK Biobank is a large, population-based database, established to allow detailed investigations of the genetic and nongenetic determinants of the diseases of middle and old age.
Based on decades of research, the key WCRF/AICR Recommendations were developed in 2018.
The research team found that each 1-point increment in score, equivalent to fully meeting one Recommendation, was associated with an 8% lower chance of dying from any cause over time. Overall, having a score in the highest third of the study population was associated with a 16% lower chance of all-cause mortality, compared with those in the lowest third.
This association was consistent regardless of whether the individual smoked and also held true for multiple cancer types such as breast and liver cancers, suggesting broad survival benefits.
Calls for interventions for healthy living
The findings show that following a healthy lifestyle is not only important for cancer prevention but may also have implications for long-term health after a cancer diagnosis.
Dr Fiona Malcomson, researcher at Newcastle University and co-author of the paper said:
“The take home message is that the 2018 WCRF/AICR Cancer Prevention Recommendations apply to cancer survivors too. Having a healthier eating pattern, being more physically active and avoiding being too heavy, as described in the Recommendations, is associated with better long-term outcomes for those living with and beyond cancer.
The scientists behind the research suggest that these findings support prioritising the development of interventions to enhance adherence to the WCRF/AICR Recommendations– including after diagnosis – that may potentially lower mortality risk among people diagnosed with cancer. This means that cancer survivors can take action to improve their health and should be encouraged to do so by healthcare providers.”
Nadia Ameyah, Director of WKOF, the Netherland-based charity within WCRF International said:
“This tremendously exciting study further cements the status of our evidence-based Recommendations as one of the best ways of maintaining your health when living with and beyond cancer. We have always prided ourselves on the scientific grounding of our Recommendations for primary prevention, and this is the first time we have had such robust evidence for survivorship. Cancer survivorship and quality of life after cancer diagnosis are key priorities of WKOF.
We look forward to seeing how these findings will inform health policy and the design of healthcare interventions to help those living with and beyond cancer to live happier, healthier lives.”
Latest news and blogs
Coming into my new role as Interim Head of Policy and Public Affairs 1 at World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) International, I was immediately faced with trying to understand what ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are and how they might, or might not, contribute to cancer risk.
The harms caused by UPFs have been a growing concern in public health, cancer research and nutrition policy over recent years. The increasing number of scientific publications such as Kevin Hall’s 2019 research and the recent Lancet series on UPFs and human health have further amplified and elevated attention to this critical issue. However, to be certain of the risks between UPFs and cancer, there is a need to identify, review and judge the strength of the evidence related to these potential links.
Foods can go through many different types of processing, not all of which are unhealthy. From common practices such as baking homemade bread and pasteurising milk, to commercial and industrial production which breaks foods down and recombines them, often using artificial preservatives and ingredients that aren’t normally found in a kitchen.
In 2010, the NOVA system of food classification was introduced and is now a common tool to categorise foods according to their level of processing:
- Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, containing no added fats, salt, sugar or other additives. Examples include frozen fruit and vegetables, and pasteurised milk.
- Processed culinary ingredients. These are ingredients that aren’t created to be eaten alone and are often used alongside foods in group 1 such as oils, sugars and salt.
- Processed food, where a product from group 2 – like salt, sugar, fat or vinegar – is added to minimally-processed foods. Examples include tinned goods such as lentils and beans, salted nuts and cheese.
- Ultra-processed foods. Many of the foods we consume daily fall into this category: pre-packaged meals (and yes, I have to admit, I am partial to an easy-to-cook ready meal on a Friday night), industrialised bread, sweets, soft drinks and sweetened yoghurt.
Why is this important and what does it mean for health?
Across the world, the average share of UPFs in a person’s diet ranges from 9% in Iran to 60% in the USA2. Recent UK data shows that 57% of the calories British people eat come from UPFs: a figure that rises, worryingly, to 63.5% for children aged 1.5-11 years and 68% for adolescents aged between 12-18 years. Furthermore, there are critical health equity dimensions to the consumption of UPFs, with greater exposure to UPFs often being found among lower-income, marginalised or socially disadvantaged populations.
The increasing consumption of UPFs is a trend that is being seen not just in high-income countries, but also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), leading to a double burden of malnutrition, with many LMICs being faced with challenges of both undernutrition and overweight and obesity at the same time3.
Alongside the growing body of evidence suggesting that UPFs are harmful to health, these trends are concerning. Combining the steady increase of UPF production and consumption in both high-income and lower-income countries, the way in which producers of UPFs undermine food systems and dietary patterns (by displacing minimally processed foods and being more affordable than freshly prepared meals), and the impact of UPFs on pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, it is abundantly clear that the growing consumption of UPFs requires urgent policy action.
But what is the link between UPFs and cancer?
Well, the honest answer is that, at the moment, we are not entirely sure. The recent Lancet review of available evidence found some indications that an ultra-processed dietary pattern increased risk of a range of chronic diseases, including cancer-related morbidity and mortality. A small number of studies found an association between the consumption of UPFs and increased overall incidence of cancer.
However, to be certain of the risks between UPFs and cancer, there is a need to identify, review and judge the strength of the evidence related to the potential links between UPFs and cancer risk. This includes the evidence related to the biological mechanisms that may be driving these links. It may also be the case that UPFs, in and of themselves, do not increase our risk of cancer directly but increase the risk of things we know do. For example, the Lancet study found a clear association between UPFs and overweight or obesity – and we know that people living with overweight or obesity have an increased risk of at least 13 different types of cancer. We also know that one way to prevent cancer is to avoid processed meat as we highlight in our 10 Cancer Prevention Recommendations.
What have I learned so far?
In my second week in my new role, I was fortunate enough to attend a policy forum on UPFs organised by Imperial College London. The forum set out a clear case for action and highlighted some excellent examples of good practice in national policy implementation to reduce consumption of UPFs. Two things struck me during this forum:
- The scale of the challenge we are facing: from the force of social media algorithms that dramatically increase exposure to UPF marketing practices, to the power large industry holds over food production and manufacturing processes, and the challenges of implementing regulatory policies that tackle rather than exacerbate health inequities.
- That we can do something about it: the UPF Policy Forum also highlighted progress being made to emphasise the contents of food to consumers (such as high amounts of sugar, salt or fat) using front-of-packing labels. These advances, as demonstrated in the Americas, are a WHO Best Buy policy that can improve consumers’ understanding and choices of foods they eat, as well as push food producers to improve the quality of foods they are making.
My third observation, or question, coming out of the UPF Policy Forum, however, was ‘what does this mean for me in my new role at WCRF International?’ I can see that there are some linkages between UPFs and cancer, but these are in no way conclusive. How can I legitimately argue that by reducing consumption of UPFs you can reduce your risk of cancer when there are still so many unanswered questions? And how can I advocate for policy change without robust scientific evidence?
The good news is that this evidence is coming
WCRF International’s Global Cancer Update Programme, CUP Global, has this year included a systematic review of evidence on UPFs and cancer risk. While there is no guarantee that this review will lead to a clear conclusion on the linkages between UPFs and cancer, it will certainly add more evidence to help inform the debate.
With that in mind, I’m looking forward to July when our CUP Global Expert Panel will come together and review the latest evidence on this. So, if you want to keep informed on the links between UPFs and cancer risk, keep watching this space. Or even better, follow us on LinkedIn and sign up to our monthly e-news for the latest updates.
Notes and references:
1 I’ll be covering this role while Kate Oldridge-Turner is on maternity leave.
2 Monteiro C, Louzada M, Steele-Martinez E et al. Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and evidence. The Lancet, 2025; 406, 266702684.
3 Popkin B, Corvalan C, Grummer-Strawn L Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. The Lancet, 2019; 395, 65-74.
