How our Cancer Prevention Recommendations vary in different parts of the world.
World Cancer Research Fund’s Cancer Prevention Recommendations are generally relevant worldwide. However, some findings of the Continuous Update Project were not suitable for inclusion in the global Recommendations even though the Panel judged the evidence to be strong.
There are four main reasons why:
The following exposures are judged to be causally linked to cancer risk but are not necessarily within the capacity of any individual to alter, and therefore inappropriate to include in the global Recommendations.
There is convincing evidence that developmental factors leading to greater growth in length in childhood (marked by adult attained height) are a cause of cancers of the colorectum, ovary and breast (both pre- and post menopause).
Developmental factors leading to greater growth in length in childhood (marked by adult attained height) are probably a cause of cancers of the pancreas, kidney, endometrium, prostate and skin (malignant melanoma).
Factors that lead to greater birthweight, or its consequences, are probably a cause of premenopausal breast cancer.
There is convincing evidence that consumption of arsenic in drinking water is a cause of lung cancer.
There is convincing evidence that higher consumption of aflatoxin-contaminated foods is a convincing cause of liver cancer.
Some evidence on the consumption of certain food and drink is specific to particular regions of the world.
Consumption of mate, as drunk in the traditional style in South America, is probably a cause of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Consumption of foods preserved by salting (including salt-preserved vegetables, fish and foods in general) is probably a cause of stomach cancer.
Consumption of Cantonese-style salted fish is probably a cause of nasopharyngeal cancer.
For some exposures, although the Panel judged there to be strong evidence of an effect on cancer risk and the association was judged causal, some aspects of that evidence, such as the influence of dose, were inadequate to permit a meaningful recommendation.
Consumption of coffee probably protects against liver cancer and endometrial cancer. For liver cancer, no threshold was identified, and no evidence was found regarding specific components of coffee that might be responsible for the decreased risk.
For endometrial cancer, the effect was observed for both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee and could not be attributed to caffeine.
Across the globe, coffee is consumed in different ways. Before a general recommendation on cancer prevention can be made, more research is needed to improve understanding of how the volume and regularity of consumption, type of coffee, and style of preparation and serving (many people add milk and sugar) affect the risk of cancer.
Many studies have included a measure of adherence to the so-called ‘Mediterranean type’ dietary pattern. However, although there are recognised scores for quantifying adherence to such a diet, it is unclear exactly what such a diet comprises. It generally describes a diet rich in fruit, vegetables and unrefined olive oil, with modest amounts of meat and dairy, and some fish and wine.
This diet is traditionally associated with high levels of physical activity. Such a diet is one of many ways of life that could be followed to meet the Recommendations.
For some exposures, where the Panel judged there to be strong evidence of an effect on risk of one or more cancers, there was evidence of an opposite effect on another cancer or other disease. In these circumstances, a general recommendation is inappropriate.
The evidence on dairy products and diets high in calcium is challenging to interpret.
Consumption of dairy products probably protects against colorectal cancer. Consumption of calcium supplements probably protects against colorectal cancer. There is strong evidence of a decreased risk for colorectal cancer.
There is also limited but suggestive evidence that consumption of dairy products might increase the risk of prostate cancer.
Even though the strength of the evidence for prostate cancer fell below the general threshold required for making a recommendation, the possibility of an adverse effect is sufficient to warrant caution. The evidence of potential for harm means the Panel chose to make no recommendation on dairy products.