Cancers rising in under 50’s. Do we have any sensible hypothesis as to why?

[ThatPeachSnake]

Ultra Processsed Foods? Drinking? I feel like we don’t smoke as much as previous generations…

I’m so very worried

Most cancers occur before 5 and after 75. You’d expect increases in the latter as people are living longer. As for increases in the middle ground that tends to be driven by 1) bowel cancer (in white people - there’s a diet and genetic component), 2) skin cancer (in dark skinned people, due to lack of training in the UK), and 3) cancer caused by preventible causes like obesity / alcoholism.

This is worrying.

As a younger person, I suppose my questions are:

1. In real terms, how much are cases rising in people under-50? I see that the percentage rise globally pretty high. In real terms, though, how many more cases is this? Did the studies account for population growth? I've seen a global increase statistic of 79% (shit) but a UK-based increase of "only" 24%. Here are two articles I found: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/02/cancer-rates-under-50s-rise-24-percent-obesity-junk-food-inactivity https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/cancer-cases-in-under- 50s-worldwide-up-nearly-80-in-three-decades-study-finds
2. What are the cancers that people are developing earlier?
3. What can I actually do if I think I'm at increased risk? The NHS seem reluctant to do e.g. genetic testing, even though a lot of people in my family have had cancer.

It would be easy to attribute the increase in cancer cases to obesity, or drinking, or processed food but I don't think it's that simple. A lot of people who get early-onset cancers seem to be otherwise very healthy. It also smacks of victim blaming.

I don't buy the ultra-processed food stuff. Yes, some food is unhealthy when consumed in large quantities but "UPF" labelling is a grift unsubstantiated by science.

There have always been cancers that affect the younger generations, but 50 or 60 years ago they may not have been diagnosed or not caught early like they are now. It's the same now with a lot of diseases, exh has MS, when as part of a research programme into hereditary MS his family history was done his mum remembered an uncle who had exactly the same symptoms & died young, but then it wasn't diagnosed. His sister also has MS which the chances of a sibling having it are 1:500,000.

So interesting. I watched the Blue Zones documentary on netflix. Most people in these places seem to do a lot of walking/hiking, rather than any high intensity exercise.

'Courseofjustice · Yesterday 21:15
CassandraWebb · Yesterday 21:00

Not just farm workers either, people who live near agricultural land are at risk. That idyllic countryside is not quite so gentle as it looks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170243/
Show quote history
In England, farmers are bound by FAR stricter rules regarding use of pesticides than elsewhere in the world.'

Please don't answer, as I don't want to derail, but we are building on more and more of our farm land = imports from less strict areas!

We've seen a huge increase in autoimmune diseases which are linked to inflammation and can be caused by stress.
I wonder if stress plays a role in cancer. I believe we are more stressed as a population. There are higher documented cases of stress and anxiety. We're altogether busier - families mostly rely in 2 incomes for the standard of life they want. Fewer jobs are the physical or outdoor jobs which might help to counterbalance stress. We all need to decompress and spend more time interacting with other humans, being outdoors and properly switching off.
I am not saying this is causing individual cases of cancer. Cancer is indiscriminate. But I do think that the 'lifestyle' industry is making us lose track of what a healthy lifestyle is. Pottering in the garden and chatting to friends doesn't sell anything.

Ive been pondering this as it suddenly hits you when you see your peers going through it.

1. I don’t think you can underestimate the potential effects of passive smoking that people in their 40s would have experienced as children. The smoking ban only came into force in 2007 which is shocking really knowing everything we know about the negative effects on health. I remember coming home from my dancing class (in a hall next to a pub) stinking of smoke as a teen.

2. exposure to UPFs. People laugh at Jamie Oliver for what he did in schools but he was bloody right. Standards are higher now than when I was a child.

3. genetics and bad luck. I’ve heard anecdotally of mums and daughters getting cancer very close to each other which is devastating (although if genetics you wonder why the younger one has it at an earlier age). My dad’s friend in his late 70s has lost his wife and both daughters within 3 years to breast cancer.

In A- level biology we teach the ' two hit hypothesis '. The first hit is a genetic predisposition and the second hit is environmental. We live in a world where people are living longer and it's impossible to avoid chemical build- up in our food, water, air etc.

But these are unusual rates of cancer in the under-50s, under-40s, under-30s.

We are being exposed to chemicals starting in the uterus so I guess the cumulative effects will catch up with people at a younger age.

Unusual rates only in that they are different / higher than previously. Not unusual because cancer has changed.

We have to die of something and people aren't dying in childbirth (the main cause of death for women until 20th century), of infectious diseases that were everyday occurrences before vaccination, casual violence (when most men were armed), wars, industrial injuries, setting light to your clothing, etc. So there is cancer to mop up. A lot of those who would have died from some of the causes listed above would have been carrying cancerous cells in their bodies but they died before it could kill them.

With better education & diagnosic techniques we are identifying more cancers. Also cancer is no longer a taboo so more people are talking about it, aware of it, getting tested for it. So more cases identified.

Then (but I think this is less relevant) our current Western lifestyle isn't very healthy so we have less healthy bodies to start with.

This argument explains why one in two of us will now get cancer over our lifetime: that's caused by all the things you mention, and also the revolution in treatment of heart disease over the last fifty years.

But I don't think it stacks up for this discussion.

We are talking about the under 50s here. And we're comparing with the 1980s and 90s, not the 1930s when death from disease was rife.

Most importantly what there stats are actually telling us is that a given 40 year old is around twice as likely to have bowel cancer as the equivalent 40 year old in 1990. Yes a few of today's 40 year olds would have died of car crashes or SIDS or heart disease in earlier times. But that only explains the stats if there's some common factor which makes you disproportionately vulnerable to both SIDS/car crashes/heart disease and bowel cancer: that the ones who've survived the former thanks to modern medicine/airbags/safe sleeping are the ones who are making up the cancer stats.

@the2andahalfmillion would be really interested to know (and see the data) as to which countries and demographics are less affected. This would surely give some pointers as to possible cause.

genetics and bad luck. I’ve heard anecdotally of mums and daughters getting cancer very close to each other which is devastating (although if genetics you wonder why the younger one has it at an earlier age).

I know next to nothing about genetics - but there are some genetic disorders where age of onset decreases through generations. Huntington's disease for example, if you inherit it from your father you are more likely to show symptoms younger than he did (if you inherit from your mother it's more likely to show symptoms at the same age she did).
I don't know whether some genetic cancers show similar patterns. But I assume it's possible.

I can't help but wonder if the effects of the Chernobyl incident have affected more people than first thought

I definitely think there is a strong environmental link: general pollution, all those non stick coatings, plastics, chemicals we're exposed to eg. on carpets, furniture, pesticides, weedkiller etc. I do think there a lot of endocrine disrupters in these things, who knows what else?!
Interesting when you have a scan and it says the amount if radiation in comparison to a flight, people panic about scans yet will happily jump on a plane.
I do wonder about the heavy prescribing of HRT. I know the link between it and breast cancer was disproven but do wonder if we will see an upsurge in coming years. I've met several women through my treatment who were on HRT then were diagnosed with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.
I've never given Chernobyl a thought but definitely feasible.

I know a terrible storyrecently daughter died age 27 of bc mum did not know it butdied of liver six minths later aged 54. Left two young children, its just tragic.

What do you mean, please don't answer? That's not how chat forums work!

We may be now but not as much as we should be and we certainly weren't in the past. And I have seen the devastating effects first hand

And yes, food from abroad will be a huge risk factor too

But agricultural countryside comes with lots of it's own pollution too, it's not just people in cities who should worry about their environment

Pollution, microplastics and forever chemicals (don't like this term but things like bpa).

A lot of these are bowel and stomach cancers- surely that's because of what we eat, food additives and so on.

The link between HRT and bc wasn't disproven. It's real, but less serious for newer types, and many women feel
that the additional risk is worth it for the benefits.

Passive smoking is an interesting hypothesis. Were generation x/millennials more likely to have been exposed to mothers smoking in the home? Women only started smoking in large numbers later than men, and you'd expect female smoking to have more of an impact on child exposure than men.

But it doesn't stack up. The generations now getting early cancers were born and grew up at a time when smoking rates were already coming down rapidly.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-06-pollution-cars-and-vans-costs-%C2%A36billion-year-health-damages

I know noone likes talking about this, because people love their cars. They are status symbols and a comfortable and convenient way to get around.

But the worst exposure to pollution is when you are in your car. So even if you won't drive less for selfless reasons, it is definitely worth thinking about how much time you and your loved ones spend on the car

And as an absolute minimum please don't leave your engine idling while parking as close to the school gates as possible. It's utterly disgusting behaviour.

HcbSS · Yesterday 19:16
Unhealthy lifestyles. Too fat, too sedentary, smoking, drinking, partying, too much stress.

yes there are exceptions. But overall people need to buck their ideas up.

I am recovering from colon cancer at the moment and there are many folk on mn recovering from different types of cancers. I find your comment rather insensitive. I wish people would think before they post. Have a bit of respect for people here who are fighting cancer

Just ignore people like that, it reflects badly on them, noone else. Maybe it is a need to feel invincible, maybe it is an insecurity that means they have to find people to look down on.

I hope you are recovering well