More than 40% of all cancers in Britain are linked to....(amongst other things)...breastfeeding

[Cucumberscarecrow]

Obviously this is complete rubbish but it's printed in today's Metro and therefore read by the masses and believed by quite a few of them.

I can't find the article on the online version but have scanned in* a copy of the offending page so you can share my absolute horror to see breastfeeding sitting alongside tobacco, alcohol, and inactivity in a list of vices.

*Apologies for poor quality scan.

Sapphire - same here! I can see the info is useful from a public health point of view, ie policies encouraging choices to have children earlier (if indeed such a choice is open to each individual) but beyond that, there is not much we can do with this information except worry about it!
I do agree that the article is very badly written though.

I can see why people might think breastfeeding increases risk of cancer. As a HCP I've seen 3 breastfeeding women diagnosed with breast cancer in the past year. They were in their late thirties, middle class professionals, so statistically more likely to breast feed. But it was the pregnancy, rather than BF that would have increased their risk.

Well considering some of the stat twisting and scare mongering you see re ff perhaps some posters will think twice before they post in future.

Not nice is it.

Retropear - you've put it a bit harshly but have to say I partially agree. IMHO there are definite health benefits for breast fed babies but benefits for mother's not as clear cut as the NHS, breast feeding advisors and various HCPs would have us believe. Breast feeding leaflets state that breast feeding will reduce a woman's risk of breast and ovarian cancer as if its a proven fact but its not.

Everything causes cancer. Might as well just enjoy your vices.

Ender don't post stuff like that without the crib notes!

Tried to wade through but they keep waffling on about mice. There is no clarity about if it's first pg over 35 or all subsequent pgs over 35. Nor what this "greatly increased risk" is (5% 95%???) Nor what social factors are taken into account.

Now wondering if DC3 at 36 is wise.

A friend of mine died of bc and was apparently told that it was because she bf. I can't dig into the whys and wherefores of this for obvious reasons, but from what I do know, she was told it was something to do with a blocked duct.

I have to say that I pooh pooh this a bit. Does it make any sense? I bf my Dc's for 6.4yrs between them, so it does concern me somewhat and I hope it's not correct and I hope it doesn't spell the end of what little encouragement women get to bf.

softlysoftly - as a non scientist I think I've got the gist but haven't read all the mouse stuff yet.

So this is my take on it.
We accumulate "pre-cancers" in our breasts which if we're lucky don't develop any further, or they may change so slowly that we die before they become harmful.
Pregnancy can trigger these pre-cancers to grow and become "proper" cancers. Makes sense in that pregnancy hormones have a growth stimulating effect.
Women under 22 haven't lived long enough to have many/any pre-cancers in their breasts. I've no idea how pregnancy might be protective for them in the future though. Perhaps that's what the mice experiments are about.

Cancer Research have published a response scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/04/29/breastfeeding-does-not-cause-cancer-quite-the-opposite/

Todays metro apparently -

Oh dear Lord. What a cock-up.

I would just like to say that I have noticed a 100% correlation between getting cancer and...

... being born.

Clearly this is a huge risk and we should try and limit it by stopping anyone else from being born. Just think, we could guarantee that no future generation ever has cancer again. Surely this should be a tabloid headline???

Oh, I'm really pleased there's been a correction. I've never written a letter or email to a newspaper before (bit of an armchair activist here) but was sufficiently upset by this to rise out of my armchair and take action.

Prolonged breastfeeding hid my friends lump. She did not realize she had a lump in her breast as she had spent the last 6 years either pregnant or breastfeeding. She only noticed when her youngest stopped after Christmas and her breasts returned to normal, by then it was quite big. Her body clearly was not aware of the statistics.

That can happen bf or not, hence the need for routine mammograms. Many women get a shock diagnosis after, who had no idea there was a lump or anything there. Bf women are also advised to check their breasts regularly and to express any concern to the GP.

Of course some women who bf will still get cancer. However statistically it is proven that the risk is less. It will never be zero though.

Pregnant for the first time at 36. Makes me anxious that I'm greatly increasing my risk of bc. And I would like more than 1 DC.

I guess all I can do is be vigilant and maybe get screened regularly.

Unfortunately cancer us so far reaching no one seems safe no what you do or don't do. Don't let it rule your life, especially when it comes to bf. Awareness of symptoms screening and early diagnosis is the best defense for cancer.

I'm a scientist, in a completely different field, but used to wading through geeky papers.

Summary:
. Breast-feeding lowers a woman's risk of breast cancers by about 4% for each BF year for each child. Also, there are health benefits for the baby.
Do get BC screening though, in case lumps are hidden.

. Having a first baby before 22 lowers BC risk.
. A young mum reduces lifetime risk by about 7% per child.

. Having a 1st child after 35 "significantly" increases risk, but I can't find a %
Breast-feeding could reduce the risk of a late 1st birth, but maybe not fully.
. Scientists do not fully understand the mechanism, so unclear how much having an early 1st baby compensates for having subsequent babies after age 35.

. Current theory: Pregnancy may stimulate existing cells with pre-cancerous mutations and early lesions. A woman is more likely to have such cells when older than in her 20s.

Comments:
. Age when giving birth is just ONE risk for one group of cancers (breast / ovarian) so don't worry too much. There are other lifestyle factors you can improve.
. Most important for all cancers is SMOKING
. Some women have a high genetic risk for BC
. BC risk is generally increased by a higher lifetime total of menstruation cycles, e.g. having 1st period at an early age plus final one at a late age, 55+.
. Additional risks: obesity, lack of exercise, heavy alcohol consumption, longterm HRT.

Somewhere between age 22 and 35, having a 1st baby changes from significantly decreasing to increasing risk.
It's still just a statistical average, though

Important to remember that "significantly" increases risk may not mean "hugely" or "importantly" increases the risk. It may mean that the increase reaches "statistical significance" i.e. unlikely to be the play of chance.

Scientese sometimes confuses non-scientists and I always think it is best avoided in news releases to avoid confusion. I also think it is important that scientific/epidemiological/statistical news releases should always include absolute risk as well as relative risk to place statistics in context. After all, a hundred per cent increase in something very rare is still very rare while a 5 per cent increases in an already big risk is really important.

About 1 in 8 women, i.e. 12.5 %, will have breast cancer over an 80-year lifespan.
So, for absolute risk, roughly divide any lifetime risk or benefit by 8.
Most absolute risk factors, except smoking and high genetic factors, are small.

Average absolute BC risk totalled for each decade:
. age 30 to 39, absolute risk is 1 in 227, i.e. 0.44% TOTAL during that decade
. age 40 to 49 is 1 in 68, or 1.47%.
. age 50 to 59 is 1 in 42, or 2.38%.
. age 60 to 69 is 1 in 28, or 3.56%.

Thanks for doing the maths BigChoc! Shows what a lazy cow I am…
I have a thing about seeing screeching headlines about x increases risk of y by 50%, when often it means by bugger all in the scheme of things...

NOT breast feeding increases mother's risk of bc .

Errors? Scaremongering? Par for the course for the spawn of the Daily Mail.

idly wonders how many people are vocal in their hatred of the DM but read the metro

In all seriousness though, this type of reporting is awful and utterly irresponsible.

That's incorrect thegreylady not bf does not increase your risk, bf just lowers the risk from the baseline risk level.