alt.hn

6/8/2026 at 3:48:00 PM

Why are so many young people getting cancer?

 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01780-6

by Brajeshwar

6/8/2026 at 6:17:17 PM

If I had to bet, it would be on HPV causing a majority of the rise in colorectal cancer. It is a major cause of throat cancer in men[0] and causes almost 100% of cervical cancer in women[1]. We have had a significant increase in anal sex over the past 10+ years[2] and are now seeing an increase in colorectal cancer.

"Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it."

Still needs to be studied more as there don't seem to be any large studies yet.

"We found that colorectal tissues from 28 (51%) of 55 patients with colorectal cancer were positive for HPV DNA." [3]

[0] https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2025/04/hpv-related-oropharyn...

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7062568/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popu...

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1479314/

by strictnein

6/8/2026 at 10:43:13 PM

My bet is on obesity.

"Overweight and obesity significantly increase colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 66 studies revealing a 25–57% elevation in risk" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12181496/

by jampekka

6/9/2026 at 5:53:30 PM

yeah HPV is definitely an angle, but there are easy fixes -- HPV vaccines work, as do condoms.

obesity is still a big driver and is a much harder fix. GLP-1s work but it's not one-and-done like a vaccine

by red-iron-pine

6/9/2026 at 7:19:53 PM

Saying condoms are an easy fix to STDs is a bit like saying eating less is an easy fix for obesity though.

by jampekka

6/9/2026 at 6:40:10 AM

Wouldn’t that mean that the gay community would have very high colorectal cancer numbers?

by port11

6/8/2026 at 11:17:54 PM

Contrary to what you say there have been large studies [1], they just disagree with your article from 2005(!).

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09598...

by casey2

6/9/2026 at 2:14:50 AM

"Conclusions

HPV may be associated with a subset of colorectal cancers. Future large-scale multicenter case–control studies with data on risk factors such as lifestyle and sexual behaviour are needed."

Is this the disagreement? How does it disagree with a study showing there might be a link, but that it needs more research - "HPV infection may play a role in colorectal carcinogenesis"?

I'm honestly really confused here. Because the study you linked _agrees_ with the one I linked.

Did you also notice that your link is from 2014 and looked at data from 22 March, 2013(!!) or earlier? Or does the age not matter in this instance, but does matter in the link I provided?

In 2019 (since dates are really important, I guess), the KFF directly stated that the vaccine is targeted to the "...9 strains of HPV associated with most cervical cancer, anal cancer, and throat cancer".

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-hpv-vaccine-acc...

by strictnein

6/8/2026 at 6:36:35 PM

Kinda surprised at the idea that HPV is the cause; at least in the US, there was a fairly large push about 15 years ago to get more people (particularly teenage girls and young women) vaccinated against HPV. Would we not see a corresponding dip in deaths related to HPV-associated cancers by now?

by lenerdenator

6/8/2026 at 7:00:41 PM

Two things, I think.

1. The original guidance did not call for boys to get the vaccine. It does now.

2. We're talking about two different age groups. The article talks about those under 50. The group who got the HPV vaccine as part of their normal schedule are now just hitting their early 20s.

There's also still a huge number of people in the US who have HPV. It's really, really common.

"Approximately 42.5 million Americans are infected with HPV and there are at least 13 million new infections annually" [0]

Interestingly, the article calls out HPV directly as a cause of an increase in anal cancers.

"While HPV-related cervical and vaginal cancer rates have decreased since 1999, rates for oropharyngeal and anal HPV-related cancers have increased."

[0] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-hpv-vaccine-acc...

by strictnein

6/8/2026 at 7:45:21 PM

Any idea what the percentage of teenagers who are getting the HPV vaccine is? I'm going to guess it's fairly low at this point given that there tend to be religious objections and also given the growing antivaxx sentiments.

by UncleOxidant

6/8/2026 at 7:07:39 PM

True, but “normal schedule” is hiding a bit of subtlety there: the hpv vaccine was recommended for women up to 26 at the time, so the oldest women who got it then would be pushing 50 now.

by buescher

6/8/2026 at 7:18:11 PM

Not sure if there's something more recent than this, but it was about 15.5% of adults aged 27-45.

It also notes this:

"Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is the leading sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and 85% of sexually active individuals will be infected at some point in their lifetime"

So, if you're not vaccinated and have had multiple sexual partners, it is rather likely you have or have had HPV.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2024.2...

by strictnein

6/9/2026 at 5:18:25 AM

There are many strains, though, and the vaccine provides coverage against a few of the most harmful, so it's still probably worth getting even if you may have been exposed to a subset of strains.

by loeg

6/9/2026 at 5:17:15 AM

> The group who got the HPV vaccine as part of their normal schedule are now just hitting their early 20s.

Uh, their 30s.

by loeg

6/8/2026 at 7:51:51 PM

Several things at play here:

1. As others have mentioned, males were excluded from vaccination until relatively recently. This seems like such a stupid decision in hindsight. When I (male) got my vaccines, I was told that it wasn't routinely done in boys "because of availability issues", which I took to mean "because it's expensive".

2. Initial vaccines offered protection against 4 strains of HPV, newer vaccines protect against 9. People who got the older vaccines remain susceptible to the other 5 strains.

3. It can take years for an HPV infection to become dangerous or cancerous.

4. This last one is speculative, but I assume that when a woman tests positive for HPV or cervical cancer, their partner is also looked at. With the rates of symptoms and cancers going down in woman, their partners might fall through the gaps: there are no routine tests for males.

by elric

6/8/2026 at 10:26:37 PM

The test for males used to be putting acetic acid on the genitalia and looking for spots under a blacklight, right? So what is it now? Blood test for the DNA?

by picofarad

6/9/2026 at 3:58:42 AM

what I don't understand is why hpv vaccination isn't given to older people?

by m463

6/9/2026 at 5:15:46 AM

Cost and the statistical property that older people have fewer sexual partners on average. There's also a sort of fatalist assumption that you've already been maximally exposed. If the vaccine was zero cost, you'd give it to everyone.

by loeg

6/9/2026 at 6:07:45 AM

How do you define cost here? The medical cost of the vaccine and nurse time? Or the risk to health? I'd pay for it out-of-pocket, even as an old. But I wouldn't know where.

by mancerayder

6/9/2026 at 2:57:37 PM

The cost of the vaccine and nurse time, yes.

If you want to pay for it out of pocket, you totally can. Just ask your PCP.

by loeg

6/8/2026 at 7:44:45 PM

[flagged]

by weatherlite

6/8/2026 at 6:26:40 PM

[flagged]

by nonethewiser

6/8/2026 at 6:44:48 PM

Stick to the science folks. Let the MDs do what they do.

Stats and population level studies are hard work. You need to vote somebody in who will support this, or live with the consequences.

by phoneafriend

6/8/2026 at 6:56:59 PM

And... sometimes stats and population level studies take a very long time or (more often) are never done at all and so if we only rely on this to tell us what to do, we'll miss a lot.

There are common sense ways to reduce cancer risk that have been obvious to and practiced by many people for a long time, before the studies showed that they were right. For example, all of the many new synthetic materials and chemicals that have been found to be carcinogens. I just assume any novel chemistry exposure is a risk, to eat it, drink it, touch it, breathe it. I can't and don't avoid all of it, but I can avoid a lot of it in terms of dose, compared to people who don't think about this at all.

by lithocarpus

6/9/2026 at 6:31:01 AM

Science evolves and sometimes it's good to use your brain. You're probably too young to remember science pushing fat and cholesterol being bad, which not-so-helpfully contributed to a massive sugar push in the US in the 80s. And I'm sure you remember the push for mask usage and social distancing during COVID, while science told us that 'racism is a health emergency' to help justify street protests.

It's a good balance to care about science while still maintaining a human brain with independent thoughts.

by mancerayder

6/9/2026 at 7:02:02 AM

> It's a good balance to care about science while still maintaining a human brain with independent thoughts.

What do you think science is? The whole point of science is questioning assumptions and applying data gathering and independent thought to analyzing that data.

by jjav

6/9/2026 at 8:59:38 AM

I fully agree. For some people, science is appealing to authority, though, that is the nuance here.

Are we doing studies ourselves? Of course not. Are we reviewing a multitude of papers ourselves? We generally don't have the time.

by mancerayder

6/9/2026 at 12:10:48 AM

I go with n=1 science and yolo hard with only eating meat! YOLO!

by mathgladiator

6/8/2026 at 5:14:01 PM

Some experts weigh in: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/he...

by bolangi

6/8/2026 at 8:07:08 PM

The need to tap a bunch of discredited UK "scientists" to get the anti-mRNA perspective on the testimonies, should perhaps be an indicator that this viewpoint is not really credible (they couldn't find enough reputable doctors inside of the US willing to testify the same thing).

Incidentally here's a really nicely written counter to many of the claims Malhotra has made:

> Equally, evidence that mRNA vaccines cause cancer is simply untrue. This sentence, for example “The millions of molecules of mRNA entering the cell is creating biochemical havoc, is disrupting protein metabolism, is interfering with tumour suppressor genes” is meaningless pseudoscience. There is no credible evidence that these vaccines disrupt tumour suppressors or drive any kind of process (biochemical or otherwise) that results in cancer. It is particularly crass to try to link this pseudoscience to the unfortunate incidents of cancer in the royal family and is reminiscent of the ‘died suddenly’ trope which attempted (and ultimately failed) to link the death of any young person to their vaccination status. This kind of outlandish conspiracy theory only serves to undermine the credibility of those spreading it.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims...

(the sentences being cited are from a different source but it's the same kind of story he tells in this testimony)

by dwroberts

6/9/2026 at 12:11:50 AM

I think you meant mRNA gene therapy. And despite the many issues with mRNA technology, the linked page specifically mentions covid-19 mRNA injections, which contains instructions for spike protein which causes inflammation which causes or is implicated in many diseases including cancers. Yeah won’t find many doctors stocking their necks out and funding for those type of studies don’t get well funded by the pharmaceutical companies/industry that make those products.

by um1

6/9/2026 at 6:55:43 AM

> I think you meant mRNA gene therapy

No, because framing the COVID vaccine as ‘gene therapy’ is pseudoscientific scare-tactic nonsense. I recommend reading the testimony from the American oncology society, as it explains how RNA works.

by dwroberts

6/8/2026 at 5:16:56 PM

Don't forget about 5G.

by SirFatty

6/8/2026 at 6:28:42 PM

https://archive.is/VlBAm

The air we breathe is one of the most overlooked things IMO. There's so many toxins especially in cities. If your apartment is unventilated or the ventilation has no filters get a high airflow air purifier now.

by himata4113

6/8/2026 at 6:21:37 PM

Poor diet seems most likely. In particular too much focus on protein and not enough fibre.

Most people get enough protein but only 5% of Americans get enough fibre in their diet.

by tonyedgecombe

6/8/2026 at 10:32:55 PM

I wonder how much of that is because if you hear fiber is good for you and then you start doing fiber supplements or eating foods with more fiber, you immediately get gassy for like four days and it hurts. So one just goes, I'll just keep eating hamburgers then...

by picofarad

6/9/2026 at 4:06:01 AM

Apparently (heard from several sources, haven't tried myself), sticking with it for a few weeks causes your gut biome to adapt, then you gas anymore.

by nazgul17

6/10/2026 at 5:20:00 AM

That's correct. Also, avoid refined gassy fibers like inulin. Psyllium and acacia are among the best, especially when increased gradually and with enough water. Remember to take them 2+ hours away from medicines.

by OutOfHere

6/9/2026 at 7:18:40 AM

Several factors related to eating habits may play a role, including poor diet quality, protein and fiber intake, consumption of ultra-processed foods, and exposure to hormones and chemicals that are banned in some other countries.

by the_70x

6/8/2026 at 5:58:56 PM

What I find interesting is the concept of dead food versus live food. This is just something I wonder about. For example a dead apple is one that was picked a year ago, sold today, kept in storage until now. Long shelf life - is the crucial change in our eating that I can see. When was the last time you had a fresh apple? Does the food industry want us to consider the health benefits of a dead apple versus a living apple?

Let think twinkies! You can open a package of twinkies and let it sit out for a long time. A long time. A long, long time. They you can eat it. Long shelf life means it does not succumb to digestion by random microbes etc in the environment. Does the twinkie then succumb to the random microbes in your gut? I think not, but what do I know.

Then there is living food. You can take milk, put a culture in it and let it grow for 10 hours. Instant pot, heating pad, whatever. Then you eat it. It is now filled with living cultures. It tastes better to me than any store bought yogurt, costs exactly the same as the same quantity of milk. With a chopped apple, cinnamon and a tiny bit of sugar it tastes better to me that most of the faux ice cream you get these days.

What is funny to me is the conversations we have about "ultra processed food" do no address this aspect of the issue. I keep wondering why.

by talkingtab

6/8/2026 at 6:26:32 PM

> For example a dead apple is one that was picked a year ago, sold today, kept in storage until now.

It has always been normal for certain fruits and vegetables, such as apples, pears, potatoes, etc. to be stored for months in a cellar. In the old days, you simple could not get a fresh apple outside harvest time.

Your concept of "dead food vs live food" seems rather questionable.

by spacechild1

6/9/2026 at 2:06:22 AM

Seconded. Every culture discovers ways to preserve food beyond their natural life. You ain't eating no fresh veggies in the winter of 1790. Everything you had was pickled. And you didn't get cancer because something will kill you before cancer did.

If anything the modern cold chain and globalized food supply and just the abundance of food in general means we have more access to fresh food than our ancestors even though they farmed and we mostly don't.

by pibaker

6/8/2026 at 6:16:44 PM

> I keep wondering why.

Mainly because the distinction you are making doesn't actually exist.

An apple doesn't "lose" anything by being stored. There are no preservatives, just refrigeration. The apple will proceed to go bad just as quickly once taken out of storage, and it will be just as nutritious as if you had eaten that same apple fresh off the tree.

You can also take that same apple that's been in storage for a year, press the juice out of it, put a culture in it, and it too will grow and be filled with living cultures. The year-stored apple is no less "living" than the milk that you also had to inoculate to turn to yogurt.

In fact, the list of edible things that will not be filled with living cultures, hours after you add a culture to them and then keep them warm for 10 hours, is very short.

by margalabargala

6/8/2026 at 6:45:06 PM

[flagged]

by marciob

6/8/2026 at 6:26:12 PM

This is simply not true. A calorie is a calorie might be true, and its hard to know which is healthier for any single fresh vs storage example but plenty of chemical processes are going on. It could certainly be the case that a small number of storage examples where particular changes occur cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer.

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 6:39:59 PM

Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense.

"It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"?

The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer.

This is a great example of correlation not equaling causation. You might as well say that writing years starting with a "2" could cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer because of the different motions of our hand affecting our lymphatic system etc etc.

Irresponsible fearmongering with no foundation whatsoever.

by margalabargala

6/8/2026 at 7:35:10 PM

Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 8:23:30 PM

> Science is building hypothesis and testing them.

Bad science is building hypothesis and promulgating it publicly alongside zero evidence whatsoever.

The discussion is about stored apples specifically causing increased cancer rates, paired with an arbitrary woo categorization of "living" vs "dead" food. OP wondered why this did not occupy a larger portion of public discourse. Again, this hypothesis exists alongside humans writing more years whose first digit is "2", as evidence-supported cancer progenitors.

> Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity

Yes, if you walk back the "living vs dead" woo concept and expand the scope to more varieties of foods than just apples and more processing methods than passively storing otherwise intact fruit, then you exit the zero evidence crackpot zone.

Lots of crackpot woo theories are similarly half a step away from real evidence-supported theories. Another example would be biodynamic agriculture, which looks a lot like organic and integrated farming practices right up until you get to the part about burying ground quartz stuffed into the horn of a cow so you can harvest cosmic forces in the soil.

by margalabargala

6/8/2026 at 9:01:34 PM

Passively storing (whole) fruit changes fruit, I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories but you shouldn't just dismiss things as not happening to try to take them away from fad theories that have a story that propels them above a lack of evidence. This makes it all the more popular to hold theories as faith and argue that everyone does.

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 9:11:59 PM

> I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories

Don't be sorry! Instead of apologizing, all I ask is that you notice, read, and internalize the part where the objection is to "and therefore that's why cancer rates are increasing".

by margalabargala

6/8/2026 at 7:38:31 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

6/8/2026 at 7:07:24 PM

Stored apples are not causing cancer.

by tptacek

6/8/2026 at 7:51:01 PM

[flagged]

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 8:42:58 PM

You can write this same exact comment when saying that 5G might cause autism or the covid vaccine might cause cancer.

by UncleMeat

6/8/2026 at 10:11:00 PM

This seems like a poor tool to keep in your logical toolbox. If some line of logic would lead to some sacred cow getting slaughtered, then that logic must be false?

by ifyoubuildit

6/8/2026 at 8:44:47 PM

Not really, no. Cancer and autism and their trends predate 5g and covid.

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 9:07:38 PM

This trend is also not aligned on the timeline with a global food system where food travels long distances before it is eaten.

by UncleMeat

6/8/2026 at 9:31:41 PM

In terms of the crackpot theory I'd suspect more people ate longer stored food in 1980 than today. In terms of changes that could explain a rise in a very infrequent thing I'd suspect a lot more people eat a measurable amount of transcontinental "fresh" which probably has a lot more nutritional loss than frozen for example.

by wemwemwem

6/8/2026 at 9:54:21 PM

An awful lot of "I'd suspect."

I'll let the professional researchers work to tease it out.

by UncleMeat

6/8/2026 at 7:07:53 PM

I grow garlic and onions, to name a few, which I cure by keeping them dry for a few weeks, and then store properly for months.

I am on the last of my onions from last year.

People have been doing this for a very long time.

Same for many root vegetables.

by CrzyLngPwd

6/8/2026 at 6:56:57 PM

I think the yogurt may be a bad example. Most store yogurts don't have any weird preservatives, it's just milk, live cultures and sugar. I would recommend doing your own to save money though.

by gonzalohm

6/8/2026 at 7:47:03 PM

> This is just something I wonder about. For example a dead apple is one that was picked a year ago, sold today, kept in storage until now.

This isn't new: One of the early (pre-US) exports of the colonial US was apples back to Europe. They store and ship well.

by gwbas1c

6/8/2026 at 6:22:23 PM

For the apple, why call it living vs dead? why not old vs new?

Milk is also probably the best example of dead vs. live except you have it backwards. The milk sold in stores deliberately kills off the good bacteria to greatly extend shelf life and prevent food borne illness (pasteurization). Your point is more consistent with raw milk.

by nonethewiser

6/8/2026 at 6:15:54 PM

Sounds like nonsense to me. The reason we can eat year old apples is because they keep really well at the right temperature. A lot of root vegetables also keep well.

by tonyedgecombe

6/9/2026 at 7:51:34 AM

Interestingly, as a result of this discussion, I have a much better understanding of the whole artificial intelligence issue. This:

There is a strong distinction line the ability to think (intelligence) and the ability to reason. (just ask google!).

There is lots of "intelligence" in this discussion. Reasoning? Not so much. Some how - and perhaps this is partly from how I phrased things - there was some impression that I meant storage of food caused cancer! But apples are indeed affected by storage. Just ask google!

And "just ask google" is the problem. You may be intelligent, and your comments may be perceived as intelligent, but does that mean they are reasoning? Nope.

And for all the people out there wanting to know whether you will have a job, and what the future with AI will be:

If you are only intelligent you are out of luck! If you can reason, there is a huge opportunity! Just ask google.

by talkingtab

6/8/2026 at 7:37:29 PM

[Trailer park Boys. I would give $50 if you delete your post.gif]

by kanbankaren

6/8/2026 at 6:18:58 PM

> What is funny to me is the conversations we have about "ultra processed food" do no address this aspect of the issue. I keep wondering why.

Hate to say it, but it's because it comes across as unscientific woo

We can measure the differences between an apple freshly picked and one preserved for a season. We can objectively see how the sugars and carbs and calories change, if they do.

Maybe there's some yet-to-be-discovered process in our bodies that deals with preserved food differently than fresh food, but if that is the case it's more likely because of the preservatives than the food being "dead"

by bluefirebrand

6/8/2026 at 6:38:28 PM

[flagged]

by marciob

6/8/2026 at 7:12:16 PM

Can you please not post AI-generated or AI-edited comments to HN? It's not allowed here - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079.

Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but some of your posts are getting classified that way.

You obviously have good points to make and are welcome here! but if you'd please write text by hand which you plan to post to HN itself, we'd appreciate it. The community feels strongly about this right now.

(This is not a criticism of LLMs - we rely on them heavily ourselves - just not for text that ends up getting posted to HN)

by dang

6/9/2026 at 1:57:07 AM

Environment, diet, unhealthy lifestyles, etc. Things are becoming more digitized. We're moving less for more comfort/efficiency/convenience. Not to mention the better diets/foods are more expensive nowadays.

by nxy

6/8/2026 at 8:22:11 PM

I believe the single common caiae of increase for all types of cancer is immunosuppression. Immune system might clear a cancer cell that would otherwise evolve to fulminant disease, every few days. A slight immunosuppression might explain a astonishing increase. All the environmental factors referred are candidates for that but the most important is chronic psychological stress, which is rampant in modern adults and not measured, so not studied, in research.

by tsoukase

6/8/2026 at 8:30:56 PM

This doesn't sound right to me.

I've heard people speculate about the opposite actually: psychological stress causing the an overactive immune system, resulting in chronic inflammation and a prevalence of auto-immune disease.

I'm a layman though, would like for someone to clarify.

by wasabi991011

6/8/2026 at 9:57:56 PM

You probably refer to the psycho-immunology, a different aspect. I refer to onco-immunology which is even less explored. In the past many proposed a connection between stress and cancer but without evidence and ground. I think it's time to approach it with enough scientific rigor.

by tsoukase

6/9/2026 at 5:36:19 PM

Immunosuppresion is not a global epidemic. If anything it is the complete opposite; an excess of inflammation, which is directly correlated with all-cause mortality, organ failure and heart disease.

by Daishiman

6/8/2026 at 8:52:59 PM

didn't the scientists connect colorectal cancer with antibiotics and digestion tract biome?

by criticalfault

6/10/2026 at 5:22:38 AM

Antibiotics are necessary for keeping people alive. It's true that people who die of an infection certainly avoided getting colon cancer.

We can do things to help the microbiome recover, like safe fermented foods, probiotic blends, and fiber.

by OutOfHere

6/8/2026 at 6:02:53 PM

for millions of years we were constantly fasting, then we hunted and killed animals, eating their protein and fat, no carbs, we were constantly in ketosis

We recently begun eating carbs, And very very recently started eating tons of processed carbs (because now we got the tech)

We are rarely in ketosis, and because of high carbs/sugar consumption, we start developing insulin resistance. (the idea is simple, we create resistance for most drugs/substances we take, be it anti depressants, caffeine, nicotine and so on.. the same happens with insulin. each time you eat too much sugar, your pancreas needs to issue insulin, so your cells can absorb more sugar. they start being resistant to it, so your pancreas need to work stronger and issue more and more insulin)

insulin is oxidative and inflammatory. we simply weren't built to regulate our blood sugar levels down (we are only equipped with insulin to do so), we are more well equipped to spike glucose levels up (gluconeogenesis, glucagon, cortisol and so on...)

because we are rarely in ketosis, we rarely get into the autophagy state (which is the auto-recycling cell system). so our cells multiply and the most error prone structure is the mitochondria.

mitochondria can make energy either from glucose or fat(keto bodies). it will always prefer glucose, only fallback to keto bodies (fat) when there is no glucose available. the synthesis of ATP (energy) from keto bodies will need oxygen as input, and will yield water as output. if we have inflammation, there is no oxygen (that's why severe chronic inflammation can lead to cancer), also that's why we usually use ice when we hurt ourselves, that place is inflamed, and by putting ice on it, it will change temperature (which changes pressure) and boosts blood circulation, blood carries oxygen, oxygen helps with inflammation.

a cancer cell, with a problematic mitochondria, will not be able to metabolize fat(keto bodies), because it has a problematic carburetor. fact is that the PET scans look for high glucose metabolism places in your body, because the cancer cells are starving for glucose.

the cell DNA is like ECC memory, it has self correction, but the mitochondria lacks the self correction, so it's way simpler to have it gone bad.

every single day we are having tons of cancer cells in our bodies, which self destruct or are detected and destroyed by our immune system.

the Middle East is the region in the world with the least cancer rate in the globe, yet they are one of the top consumers of sugar. but in islam they do the ramadan, in which for one month they make intermittent fasting basically, which boosts autophagy.

anyway... do healthy keto, boost autophagy, avoid ultra processed foods.

actually, I will extend this a little bit more... if you want to enter in keto...

go to the grocery store and buy this:

- meat (ground meat is fine and easy to prepare) - eggs (the most fresh ones if possible) - broccoli - butter or extra virgin olive oil

the portions will depend on your body type and so on.. but you would make meat and eggs on either butter and extra virgin olive oil, salt and pepper, and steamed broccoli. in my case it was 250g of ground meat, 4-5 eggs and one whole broccoli.

you must eat the broccoli first (it's fiber, you can't actually use it, the bacteria in your stomach does, it will make them very happy). if you eat meat+eggs first, you will feel full and will not be able to eat the broccoli, if you eat broccoli first, you will not feel full at all. use salt and pepper and olive oil.

eat the whole broccoli, that's like an ETF of micronutrients, it's very diversified!

then eat eggs+meat no problem...

you gonna feel very very full... do not eat any sugar/carbs.. it can take up to 3 days for entering in ketosis..

you can eat 2 to 3 times a day, eat only when you are genuinely hungry (your hunger will change drastically on how it's built over time)

then slowly entering in ketosis..

the rationale is that you need to cut off the garbage.. meat has high quality protein and fat, so does eggs (an egg has everything needed to begin a freaking life, fun fact: no carbs/sugar in it...)

and the broccoli has micronutrients and make your gut bacteria happy.

the quality of those 3 foods will depend on some things..

for the broccoli, it's the soil... is it contaminated or not? where did it grow?

for the eggs, is the chicken healthy? did she get sun? did she eat insects, worms, or just genetic modified ration?

same for the cattle...

but you are limiting a lot the potential contaminations sources..

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 7:46:22 PM

"for millions of years we were constantly fasting, then we hunted and killed animals, eating their protein and fat, no carbs, we were constantly in ketosis"

Those hunter-gatherers of the past certainly did eat whatever carbs they could find - wild roots, tubers etc. Gathering plant-based food was easier than hunting. Most Westerners today eat way too much meat, so I wouldn't recommend replacing carbs with that.

by rwyinuse

6/8/2026 at 6:19:46 PM

I agree with a lot here and practice keto throughout the year and occasionally break to eat burritos, rice, pasta and drink beer because I enjoy them. But our ancestors were not in constant ketosis. They ate substantial carbohydrates in the food they consumed seasonally, though not as much as we consume today because of our tech. Also, doesn’t ice reduce blood flow? Lastly Ramadan and cancer rates are not supported. This discounts age distribution, smoking, genetics, environmental exposure, etc.

by testbjjl

6/8/2026 at 10:51:01 PM

yeah, I've done keto very strictly for about a year, it solved a major problem in my respiratory system that I had for like.. all of my life

Today I have introduced many carbs back, like sweet potato, cassava, white rice, and fruits etc.. even some orange/grape juice. I just try to stay away from ultra processed foods and occasionally do some fasting.

About our ancestors, I mean... I think it would depend on where in world they were, what was available, and so on... But the majority of fruits didn't existed, and we didn't dominated agriculture and so on... I am not coming from the angle of "we need to go back to eating like our ancestors", but more like in "yeah, they didn't had food all the time, so they kind of were forced into ketosis and autophagy because of fasting"...

I mean, if you do a fast, you know that in like the 24-48 hours window you get a powerful focus, my guess is that the human would focus on hunting. but as you said, we didn't eat too much carbs as today, and the carbs were different as well.. take for example our wheat, it's mainly genetically modified, and so on...

about the ice, yeah.

about the cancer rates, take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cancer_ra...

it's not as easy to say "oh it's ramadan and that's it", but you can clearly see that the Middle East region and africa, which have tons of muslims, have lower cancer rates. intermittent fasting is done in ramadan. it will help with autophagy and health (if done properly).. but I agree that there are tons of other factors as you stated.

and because you cited smoking, I wanna share something. I've recently changed my mind about smoking.

I mean.. those cuban old folks that just chew tobacco all day... they die old. also we never hear about "smoking weed will give you lung cancer"...

that's because smoking tobacco... kind of doesn't give you cancer right away.. I mean, tobacco, specially when cured, will develop carcinogens, sure. but it will be like cooking food in a scratched teflon pan...

it's a plant, like marijuana, but it has been industrialized!

I've said to some people I know that smokes cigarettes: "Go to the tobacconist and buy rolling papers, filters, and shredded natural tobacco."... when they smoke they feel much more of a taste of the tobacco itself, feel it way stronger, and feel an absence of other taste which is only in the industrial cigarette.

idk how to explain cause I don't smoke. but I can only guess that those 9999999 chemicals are just gone... they might be added in the industrial process to further addict people idk..

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 11:28:11 PM

Without engaging with the rest of your content, I have to point out that Wikipedia's "list of countries by cancer rates" is not actually a useful metric for the true rates of cancer in those countries. Poorer countries tend to have worse medical surveillance and likely undercount. People also die earlier of "other" things than cancer as well.

I understand the desire to make a coherent narrative that fits your beliefs but please recognize the limits in our ability to make causal statements about the causes of cancer.

by dekhn

6/9/2026 at 12:05:05 PM

that was just a quick example. I agree there are tons of noise.

but the biochemistry doesn't change, you just need to see the human system as... a system, like any other system. Yes it will vary depending on genetics, environment and so on, but the base model is still the same.

the system inputs: constant glucose spikes require constant insulin, which drives inflammation and shuts down autophagy, which is bad for cellular and specially mitochondrial repair. what's the output?

also, I don't think it's necessary to mention but... this is not the sole root cause for all cancers in all of history. this is not the "cure". it is not the holy grail... but ask yourself.. what lifestyle are young people having today?

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 6:09:50 PM

Of course you can make the case that we did consumed some carbs, that eggs actually have a tiny trace of carbs, and get technical on some points...

But the thing is... just restrict potential contaminated food sources.

One example, vegetable oils... God had NO participation in the creation of those.. think about it..

How do you make extra virgem olive oil? you take the olive, then press it.. boom. olive oil..

How do you make avocado oil? Same thing! How do you make cocoa butter? same thing..

Butter is just raw milk shaken, you shake shake shake and you get butter!

These are natural fats.

Now just make a quick google/YouTube search on how is canola/soybean/sunflower/cotton oils made... it's a very complex, multi machinery step, that uses hexane (from crude oil) and other chemicals...

the majority of carbs today are made by processing food. the word (processing) means subtraction, removing things of the food.. they take like a genetically modified corn, process it and then can make some kind of "food", focusing on texture.

because our minds get addicted not only for the taste, but on the texture.. that's what the patents are for...

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 6:17:10 PM

This is a vibes-based argument, there is no science behind it.

Many traditional foods from around the world have relied on nasty, toxic chemical processes since before chemistry was a real science. If anything, modern understanding of chemistry has made the removal of nasty chemicals much more complete and precise.

by jandrewrogers

6/8/2026 at 11:03:18 PM

dude our soil is contaminated. our food grow from the soil. cattle eat grass that grows from the contaminated soil. be it heavy metals, microplastic, pesticides or other chemicals

for example... corn.. we got genetically modified corn, that grows in contaminated soil... eating corn that is genetically modified is bad, eating corn that is not genetically modified but has grown in contaminated soil is bad, now eating gmo corn that has grown in contaminated soil is super bad.. + pesticides and whatever...

all of this is getting into your body....

if you take animals like cattle and chicken, they are eating grass or insects (actually chickens will eat ration from gmo but ok..)

eating meat from cattle is going to yield less contamination, because it has been filtered by nature (grass) + cattle (liver) and so on... there is a chain of filtering..

if the chicken doesn't get sunlight (vitamin d), the eggs will be depleted of vitamin d, and so on...

I mean, even in fish. it's way safer to eat sardines than big fishes (for mercury buildup for example)

in the 1900s one chicken would took 4-5 months to be ready to be killed.. today it's ready within 5-7 weeks... you can ask old folks how the taste of chicken has changed from when they were young to today...

by arthopacini

6/9/2026 at 6:30:40 PM

> dude our soil is contaminated. our food grow from the soil. cattle eat grass that grows from the contaminated soil. be it heavy metals, microplastic, pesticides or other chemicals

That's true but it doesn't mean that the contamination has an actual effect, so vibes. This is not a minor point at all.

> eating meat from cattle is going to yield less contamination, because it has been filtered by nature (grass) + cattle (liver) and so on... there is a chain of filtering..

Assuming your argument of contamination is true does not make this assertion true. Why do you assume their livers do filter things instead of going through bioaccumulation?

> if the chicken doesn't get sunlight (vitamin d), the eggs will be depleted of vitamin d, and so on...

Chickens get supplemented with vitamin D in their feed.

> in the 1900s one chicken would took 4-5 months to be ready to be killed.. today it's ready within 5-7 weeks... you can ask old folks how the taste of chicken has changed from when they were young to today...

This is true. You still need to prove how the dietary profile has changed.

by Daishiman

6/9/2026 at 10:14:05 PM

> "That's true but it doesn't mean that the contamination has an actual effect, so vibes. This is not a minor point at all."

If contamination has no effect, why does lard come with a transgenic warning on the packaging? the pig is not genetically modified, but because it consumes gmo food, it's fat becomes contaminated... Why do large fish carry massive, measurable mercury traces? By your logic, you could pour chlorine into a plant's soil, wait a week, and eat it without an issue because "contamination might not have an effect."

> "Why do you assume their livers do filter things instead of going through bioaccumulation?"

Because that is literally what a liver and kidneys do. yours is not the only one that do filter. futhermore, cattle are ruminants, pigs, chickens, and fish are not. they have a completely different digestive system that filters out significantly more toxins before they ever reach the meat, followed by pigs, chickens, and lastly fish.

> "Chickens get supplemented with vitamin D in their feed."

vitamin d supplements are not the same thing as getting direct sunlight. also their food is mainly genetically modified. you know there are different kinds right? cage free, free range and pasture raised. which one do you think has the better nutrient dense meat and eggs quality?

> "This is true. You still need to prove how the dietary profile has changed."

it changed because of synthetic growth hormones, GMO grain feeds, completely different, accelerated industrial breeds and so on..

if you honestly think its "vibes," i highly recommend you test your theory:

1. never ever go outside. stay indoors and only consume vitamin d pills 2 only eat ultra processed, genetically modified foods, and high sugar snacks 3. only use vegetable oils! never ever consume natural oils/fats 4. if you have a garden, pour chlorine on your garden vegetables and eat them a few weeks later. (if they survive it) 5. never fast. eat 6+ times a day to keep your insulin spiked at maximum capacity

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 8:32:03 PM

Wrong about olive oil that never need hexane extraction. Hexane is used to do a second extraction of the residues from the first extraction, to increase the yield. Of course it is somewhat poisonous. It is done for most cheap olive oil ! When buying olive oil, you have to make sure it is extracted mechanically and not chemically, in France at least it is written as such.

by latable

6/8/2026 at 11:05:05 PM

I've never encountered chemically extracted olive oil, thanks god! I didn't knew they used it. it makes sense, just to increase the yield..

I've only seen mechanically extracted extra virgem olive oil.

I've seen some mixtures of like 80% vegetable oils with 20% natural extra virgin olive oil..

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 6:12:13 PM

also like obese young children... how is this even possible? this is very recent... so yeah.. they did sabotage our food.

if you think about the human being a black box, and food (macro nutrients, fiber, carbs, protein and fat) being inputs, you could test it and find how to break the system, make it weak, obedient and addicted...

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 6:16:56 PM

Yes.

Also:

Look at where the “fat” is being stored.

Realize it’s not all “fat” from calories - it’s inflammation, and toxin diversion.

Fat doesn’t get stored in your eyebrows in front of your sinus,

that’s swelling from eating what the body sees as toxic,

and often breathing poison indoors.

by DANmode

6/8/2026 at 11:07:20 PM

that makes total sense! it can get in a state where the body really need to freaking store the fat somewhere else and/or even the toxins because it is unable to get rid of it...

by arthopacini

6/8/2026 at 11:25:48 PM

What goes in has to go somewhere.

We think we can always break down, or excrete, 100% of what we ingest, inhale.

We are wrong.

by DANmode

6/9/2026 at 11:15:31 AM

Why nobody is looking into effect of atomic energy? Radiation leaks from Chernobyl to Fukushima must have had some effect.

Another factor that’s often overlooked is tailpipe emissions.

by th0masfrancis

6/9/2026 at 12:20:20 AM

There are a litany of uncontrolled experiments happening all at once. Its sad.

by mathgladiator

6/9/2026 at 9:47:43 AM

Unsurprisingly little mention of some experimental gene therapy rolled out 5 years ago. I guess we still don't talk about it or think it's all s&e.

by jasonvorhe

6/9/2026 at 3:20:31 PM

Which therapies do you have in mind and where can I find more information?

I have cancer, I'll take anything that has at least preliminary trails...

by mpern

6/9/2026 at 5:50:08 PM

Yes, that which-cannot-be-named! It is amazing how everyone is tip toeing around it

by pkphilip

6/10/2026 at 9:02:07 AM

Interesting to see that I am being downvotted even when I didn't name what-cannot-be-named. The groupthink is strong on this one

by pkphilip

6/9/2026 at 5:23:50 PM

You mean the experiment that has been literally studied to death showing no substantial difference than most other vaccination methods that gets conveniently trotted out as an excuse of all the world's evils by pseudoscience grifters?

by Daishiman

6/10/2026 at 9:04:15 AM

You mean the experiments where they said there wasn't enough data to show that what-cannot-be-named may have adverse effects?

Now those adverse events are showing up but you will still insist that it cannot possibly have anything to do with what-cannot-be-named without even checking

by pkphilip

6/10/2026 at 7:20:33 AM

Keep telling yourself that. Good luck.

by jasonvorhe

6/8/2026 at 5:01:58 PM

No till farming is probably helping. I learned this year what that really means by seeing farms where they spray herbicide to kill the plants,then they plant new seed while the old dead is still standing around. They then use herbicide as a desiccant to kill the plant at harvest. They probably use pesticides too. The cycle then repeats. I was so disgusted as seeing new crops sprouting amongst the dead vegetation. It must be engineered for that. I came to the inescapable conclusion that the farmers are poisoning everyone rather than have to offer real jobs to native born laborers.

Buckets of *cide, herb and insect, through the cycle. Those no till fields full of crops are some of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. That soil will have applications and applications of *cide soaked in it top to bottom. Like eating plants from a toxic waste dump.

Disgusting. That's the critical national need for glycosphate. Feeding us all engineered stuff from toxic waste dumps so farmers can not need workers or mowing and tilling equipment.

by economistbob

6/8/2026 at 5:22:02 PM

I don’t doubt what you’ve seen, and how some farmers are doing no-till.

However, there are better ways to do no-till that don’t require large herbicide input. No-till is really good for reducing the amount of water needed to farm and preserving soil structure, which is beneficial for all kinds of reasons. It’s not inherently a bad thing.

by kaikai

6/8/2026 at 5:21:22 PM

That’s how they do lentils in Canada. They use planes to spray roundup to kill the plant (because it doesn’t die naturally like it does in Europe, because of the climate), then harvest it, then sell it in Europe (without even rinsing them).

For European lentil growers it’s illegal to use roundup. But if the roundup has been applied outside of the EU it’s not toxic nor forbidden anymore and it can be eaten by humans.

That’s one of many many many examples. We live in an insane society.

by ornornor

6/8/2026 at 7:17:23 PM

You're conflating no-till with spraying chemicals. They're not inherently tied.

No-till is a soil management technique, not crop management. It doesn't require any chemicals, and the goal is to increase soil life, not kill everything.

by chickensong

6/8/2026 at 5:46:00 PM

Are more young people getting cancer? How much? What kinds?

by flerchin

6/8/2026 at 5:59:03 PM

From TFA:

"in the United States, the incidence of advanced colorectal cancer has increased by about 3% each year since around 2010 in people between the ages of 20 and 49. In 2023, colorectal cancer became the leading cause of cancer death in this age group."

Also in TFA:

"Uterine cancer and liver cancer diagnoses and deaths are rising in young women"

The increases in colorectal and liver cancers seem to point to unhealthy food, probably combined with other factors that reduce the resistance of the body to unhealthy food, like pollution, lack of physical exercise and of good sleep.

by adrian_b

6/8/2026 at 6:29:08 PM

Equally in straight/gay men/women?

by nonethewiser

6/9/2026 at 6:22:31 AM

Could it be urbanization? Young people are more food conscious with before (organic food popularity, vegetarianism, which is good for reducing red meat consumption risks , awareness around ultra processed foods, banned chemicals in the EU, podcasts with bro science, etc).

Urbanization means exposure to chemicals and pollution and stress, and even if there are higher life expectancy, it's probably correlated with wealth since cities are increasingly for affluent people.

by mancerayder

6/8/2026 at 6:10:00 PM

The comments in this thread are amusing because everyone is confident they know the cause of this (complex and multifaceted) issue and of course each of their explanations is different.

by zeroonetwothree

6/8/2026 at 7:24:33 PM

Let's see what we got so far:

- Infectious Diseases

- Sexual Habits

- Obesity

- Agricultural Chemicals

- Dietary Shifts

- Food Processing & Storage

- Microplastics and Forever Chemicals

- Environmental & Indoor Pollution

- Sleep Deprivation

- Covid Vaccines

That is quite insane. When things become hard or impossible to understand, even hardcore atheists turn towards secular religion.

by jansan

6/8/2026 at 7:29:45 PM

all of the above are bad idk if cancer inducing but yeah

by anothereng

6/8/2026 at 7:33:32 PM

I don’t understand why this is insane? Why do you expect a single cause?

by kansface

6/8/2026 at 8:46:24 PM

These are all examples where commenters have confidently said that this specific thing is the cause (independent of any data). It is a little odd on a story about how the actual experts are working hard to understand the (likely multifaceted) causes of this trend that there are oodles of people just declaring "oh it is obviously this."

by UncleMeat

6/8/2026 at 7:36:55 PM

The number of different reasons that people come up with (and with conviction in many cases) is insane IMO, not any single reply or commenter (I hope).

by jansan

6/8/2026 at 7:23:44 PM

Well, what if it’s not a single cause, but a combination of

- older parents

- higher bmi

- processed food

- pesticides

- less exercise

- more stress

- hpv

- air quality

- pfas

- lack of sleep

by moi2388

6/8/2026 at 8:30:28 PM

Surprised no none wrote it, my bet is on micro plastic

I think it's worse then we all think right now.

by Bombthecat

6/8/2026 at 5:06:38 PM

Of my close friends of my youth, two have died of cancer before the age of 40. Fuck cancer.

by SubiculumCode

6/8/2026 at 5:24:44 PM

My college roommate died of cancer before 30. Fuck cancer

by lizardking

6/8/2026 at 5:16:17 PM

I'm sorry for your loss. Very similar story amongst my friend group as well. It's tragic

by wavesounds

6/8/2026 at 5:45:15 PM

I know of two women under the age of 30 who got cancer, they were spouses/girlfriends of friends of mine. I didn't know them well personally, and only met them a handful of times at outings.

Because they weren't married yet I'm sure it's just compounding their financial struggles.

I was shocked when I heard they had cancer, I almost didn't believe it. Under 30 is such a young age to be diagnosed.

by sodafountan

6/8/2026 at 7:04:03 PM

what type?

by raised_hand

6/10/2026 at 12:24:59 AM

didn't ask

by sodafountan

6/8/2026 at 5:14:47 PM

This would be a great thing for all of the AI companies to devote some energy towards. Especially with their reputations in decline. Surely there must be some patterns the AIs could find if we had enough data about the people who died from cancer.

by wavesounds

6/8/2026 at 6:28:38 PM

A dude at Oracle did that with a recent mass experiment of mRNA technology. We do not speak Of the results.

by opsnooperfax

6/8/2026 at 5:25:05 PM

Yes, one good data point is pollution, which all these companies are prollific at.

by witx

6/8/2026 at 6:36:30 PM

Peak hackernews behaviour denying pollution from AI datacenters

by witx

6/8/2026 at 11:32:26 PM

It's more like... the comment doesn't contribute anything of value to the conversation.

by dekhn

6/9/2026 at 4:37:28 PM

Or I'm a young person with lots of cancer cases "near me" and I'm worried that we're moving in very undesirable directions and everyone clapping their hands

by witx

6/9/2026 at 7:57:00 PM

In my experience, many claims of cancer clusters aren't actually caused by the things people say they're caused by. For example, for a long time people thought living near power lines caused cancer, but careful work suggests that instead, it works through an intermediate variable (people living near power lines often have lower socioeconomic status, which is closely coupled to worse health outcomes). AI datacenters (or datacenters) are really not the most likely cause- their emissions and impact are far smaller than living near a highway or a coal fired power plant.

by dekhn

6/8/2026 at 6:22:04 PM

industrial farming

by boombapoom

6/8/2026 at 11:32:50 PM

I blame eukaryotism.

by dekhn

6/8/2026 at 5:46:01 PM

PFAS

by sdellis

6/8/2026 at 6:05:57 PM

I think it's endocrine disruption from microplastics. Hormones act like relays in the body, so when one system goes, a cascade of failures often follows (the most famous being diabetes). The body goes into maladaptive modes of operation to survive, which aren't sustainable, so epidemic changes kick in, eventually creating a breeding ground for tumors.

Forever chemicals like PFAS are a runner-up. The fluorocarbon tail mimics lipids, so the body tries to use them, which damages/kills cells. They circulate around the body endlessly like allergens. Cancer happens after cells have split too many hundreds of times trying to heal damage. So accelerating damage accelerates cancer.

Since cancer is a multifactorial disease, we can only assign weights for each cause. And since healthcare (at least in the US) has been hijacked by regulatory capture to prop up big agribusiness and pharma, we can't do anything in the short term to limit our exposure to dangerous substances.

Meaning that we're left with diet and exercise as the main preventatives. I don't buy that drinking/smoking/drugs or other lifestyle choices are the main causes of cancer (although they certainly contribute) since they've been around for hundreds of years and we have solid data on those risk factors. I look at it more as, a body functioning healthily can recover from abuse better than a body on the brink of failure. Yet we have created a way of life around chronically elevated cortisol and mental health drugs to combat systemic burnout, then wonder why we're all dying. It's so weird.

Like with most problems today, I blame the rich and powerful for abdicating their spiritual duty to help others since they have the means to do it. Instead, they pull up the ladder behind them, or even participate in malfeasance since it profits them and their cronies. Imagine what a few billion dollars put towards mRNA vaccines, CRISPR and pure research would do for cancer. Yet our titans of industry have their sights set on space or bunkers or whatever, actively working to cut government spending on research. It's so weird..

A way forward is maintaining the body so we're ready for anything on a personal level, while working towards systems change on the public level. Otherwise, what are we good for?

by zackmorris

6/9/2026 at 7:28:46 PM

I got downvoted for mentioning PFAS, but I think that is a huge part of it. There are so many kids with cancer or debilitating ulcerative colitis in my town, including my teenager. My neighborhood has a slurry of PFAS and GenX chemicals in the well water that we just discovered a couple of years ago. My neighbor's PFOS reading was 144 ppt!!! The high school had a mix of forever chemicals too, over 50 ppt for PFNA.

This warning on freshwater fish is perhaps the saddest thing I have read in an endless stream of stories on the profit-driven destruction of our environment:

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/01/ewg-s...

by sdellis

6/8/2026 at 4:41:19 PM

My wild guess before reading the article: unhealthy food. A big part of which is herbicides and pesticides.

I will now read the article.

by noIdeaTheSecond

6/8/2026 at 5:18:16 PM

It's mostly obesity, which the article sort of mentions ("known links to obesity") but kind of obscures by saying "obesity does not fully account for the rise" and "a clear answer remained elusive." The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of that. We know obesity is really bad for you, including causing higher rates of cancer. We know over what time periods young people became more obese.

Have diets really gotten noticeably unhealthier over recent decades? I'm not sure that's the case. We used herbicides and pesticides 20 years ago too, of course. It's becoming increasingly clear that fiber intake is linked to cancer rates, but again I'm not sure diets 20 years ago had higher fiber on average.

by loeg

6/8/2026 at 5:45:21 PM

Obesity indeed is a massive elephant in the room in public health discussions. And even in TFA "ultra-processed foods" are put first, which is a) just a silly category, and b) effects from poor quality nutrition are mainly via obesity.

The obesity epidemic is by far the most important public health problem in the developed world, but discussing this publicly, and thus effectively addressing it, is very difficult.

by jampekka

6/8/2026 at 6:01:58 PM

> The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of that.

I can't help but think about the same thing with "co-sleeping". It's been discouraged altogether on the basis that it increases the incidence of sudden death syndrome in newborns, which sounds like a sensible policy until you notice that co-sleeping actually only increases risk of SDS with obese and/or smoking parents. But you have to actually read the research for that, and it's never communicated like this.

by seszett

6/8/2026 at 7:37:44 PM

Went down this rabbit hole about "back is best" recommendation for babies. Turns out back is only best for the vanishingly tiny subset of infants prone to SIDS. And appreciably worse for everyone else. "Public health" means something different to bureaucrats.

by pluralmonad

6/8/2026 at 11:40:01 PM

Where can I read more about this? I've been pilled on the co-sleeping thing, but hadn't heard this about "back is best"

by phainopepla2

6/8/2026 at 5:44:38 PM

> The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people

Maybe, or maybe it's the bottomless pockets of the sugar industry lobby.

> Have diets really gotten noticeably unhealthier over recent decades?

Diet is only one of the factors on obesity and it's health consequences, you also have stress, sleep deprivation, lack of exercises, loneliness and isolation.

by gchamonlive

6/8/2026 at 6:04:57 PM

Diet and exercise (to lesser extent) are the mechanism of obesity. The other factors may affect diet and exercise. A massive other factor for the latter is driving.

by jampekka

6/8/2026 at 5:35:32 PM

I don't think the medical establishment is covering it up; if they could sell Ozempic as preventing cancer they'd jump at the idea.

by logicchains

6/9/2026 at 3:04:20 PM

The medical establishment isn't covering it up; they're just embarrassed to say it out loud, directly. Instead they talk around it. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic may well get to a point where they can be marketed as cancer preventing.

by loeg

6/8/2026 at 4:56:37 PM

My personal bugbear is the lack of sleep & entirely tied to the phone for that.

I remember being in my 20s and not being able to sleep, but the most distracting thing I could reach for was a pile of books in my bedside table.

Now, I can't sleep, there's an endless stream of things to keep me awake.

The jokes about "5G gives you cancer" is probably not as funny, if you think about the sleep you miss while you doom scroll.

by gopalv

6/8/2026 at 5:02:02 PM

> I remember being in my 20s and not being able to sleep, but the most distracting thing I could reach for was a pile of books in my bedside table.

Back when I was young in the 90s, this was exactly how I spent the last 5-6 hours of my days, reading books in my bed until the sun came up in the morning and I actually started getting tired.

Now, I sleep much better, the bed and bedroom is limited to just two activities, sleeping and funtime with partner, otherwise I never just chill in the bed or have anything else interesting in there. And if I can't sleep, I go up again and do something else until I'm tired enough to actually lay down in the bed. Probably helps a ton, as even with the phone on the nightstand next to me, I do fall asleep relatively quick.

by embedding-shape

6/8/2026 at 5:15:19 PM

Lack of sleep, not because of phones but because of more demanding lives due to modern education and workplace demands. Phones might contribute too, but consider how normal it is today to work till late hours compared to previous generations.

by geremiiah

6/8/2026 at 5:45:52 PM

>The jokes about "5G gives you cancer" is probably not as funny, if you think about the sleep you miss while you doom scroll.

802.11g was good enough for that, no need for 5G.

by p_j_w

6/8/2026 at 6:29:58 PM

As you know this, why don't you fix it?

What is forcing you to doom scroll rather than putting the phone in a different room before going do bed?

by procaryote

6/8/2026 at 11:42:22 PM

What's forcing people to keep eating terrible diets and getting fat? What's forcing <bad habit> that results in <bad outcome>. The answer is usually human weakness or someone seeking to make a profit by encouraging the bad habit, or a combination of the two.

As individuals, there's nothing we can do other than exert willpower, and we should. But as a society we should also be asking questions about the supply side of these bad habits.

by phainopepla2

6/8/2026 at 4:58:59 PM

I believe that county specific studies seem to support your thesis. For instance, countries that eat less processed food (eg Italy) and have stricter rules about pesticides didn't see an increase in stuff like colorectal cancer [1]. Some cancers incidence did grow, but others decreased keeping incidence more or less the same.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03008916241297078

by marcyb5st

6/8/2026 at 5:39:38 PM

What a shame that "no definitive culprit yet" somehow becomes "nothing specific to worry about yet, carry on" instead of "we can't answer because there are too many horrifying trends all at once".

by randusername

6/8/2026 at 4:57:37 PM

Plastics, the increase in background radiation, pesticides, and or a side effect of extra calories are all possibilities. Daily allergy medicines might also be a factor as those reduce immune response slightly.

by Projectiboga

6/8/2026 at 6:04:50 PM

There is no increase in background radiation.

by jandrewrogers

6/8/2026 at 8:35:55 PM

This suggests otherwise, https://radwatch.berkeley.edu/background-radiation/ Another exposure increase is from increased home insulation likely increases radon exposure.

by Projectiboga

6/9/2026 at 3:27:06 AM

That link suggests nothing of the sort. That aside, I’ve been tracking background radiation for years with my own sensors (for other reasons). I can’t replicate this claim there either, as expected.

by jandrewrogers

6/9/2026 at 3:33:26 AM

That doesn't talk about an increase in radiation. If there was an issue, we would see it in flight crew. There is also a difference with altitude and soil composition, and that would show up in the data.

by ianburrell

6/8/2026 at 5:34:15 PM

Besides all the other factors mentioned, which I think are all valid, there's also indoor air pollution from things like aerosol sprays, cleaning products, fragrance, creams, soaps, other products.

by forgotmypw17

6/8/2026 at 5:34:16 PM

Why would you leave that comment?

An uninformed comment before you read the article isn't helping anyone.

by crazygringo

6/8/2026 at 5:46:48 PM

I appreciate that comment ironically, as a concrete example of exactly how this type of conversation goes. Opinions come first, facts come later if at all, and never change the opinion.

Most people will have a pre-conceived opinion about this, just like they would have an opinion about politics. Put "Trump" or "DEI" or some other word in the title, and the exact same thing happens.

by shermantanktop

6/8/2026 at 6:02:24 PM

If anything, food supply in the past 20 years uses a lot less pesticides and herbicides: look at the rise of organic sections in any supermarket.

Since 2000 organic food went from niche to mainstream.

by dh2022

6/8/2026 at 7:45:51 PM

Organic farming still uses pesticides.

See https://www.epa.gov/agriculture/organic-farming - "Pesticides derived from natural sources (such as biological pesticides) may be used in producing organically grown food"

by hackernudes

6/8/2026 at 6:43:44 PM

Almost all the pesticides you eat are naturally produced by plants, so I dispute your assertion. Plant extracts light up the Ames test for mutagens.

by pfdietz

6/8/2026 at 4:50:33 PM

Your guess is not wild at all, and the article implies that (at least until the payment popup shows up)

My grandmother used to grow her own vegetables and fruits and had a minimal chicken farm for eggs until the early 2000s, all in her regular backyard, it's not ancient history or something that required a lot of real state.

Now there's a 15-story building and no land whatsoever where her house used to be.

by artyom

6/8/2026 at 5:01:50 PM

As a kid I used to do that with my family: Grow our own everything.

I'm currently trying to get back to it, until then I try to eat ecological and as much as I can cooked by myself. It is hard though, not everybody can aford a plot of land (ideally next to some decent sized town)

by noIdeaTheSecond

6/8/2026 at 4:56:30 PM

Upon reading: A bit unclear but yes it seems like unhealthy food + new microbe mutations + obesity

They talk about obesity as a separate cause than ultra processed food, I thought it was quite related, something I need to look into

by noIdeaTheSecond

6/8/2026 at 5:04:06 PM

I’m not obese or overweight and while my main meals (breakfast and dinner) are generally very healthy - I can still eat a lot of trash (ultra processed)food as snacks.

I’m sure that could have an effect.

by JimBlackwood

6/8/2026 at 5:17:57 PM

We are exposed to more more types of chemicals in our every day than ever before. Some offenders to me, besides herbicides and pesticides are:

[1]: ubiquitous flame retardants, which in America they put in every couch, carpet, and mattress

[2]: ubiquitous microplastics pollution,

[3]: joint effect of Obesity and Ultra-Processed Foods

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2022&q=flame+retar... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo...

by SubiculumCode

6/8/2026 at 5:48:37 PM

Wasn't microplastics just debunked as not a thing?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla...

by socalgal2

6/8/2026 at 6:21:50 PM

First, I would not say "debunked" is the most appropriate term. The studies were not shown to be false, but the article highlighted that come doubts have been cast due to potential contamination confounds. The letter (Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-04045-3) will get integrated into methods research. See here for current citations: (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&hl=en&as_sdt=2005...). Sciencing is actually harder than it looks from the outside, and therefore research fields goes through iterations of refinement. As the article you linked to included this quote: (Prof Lamoree “It’s still a super-immature field and there’s not many labs that can do [these analyses well]. When it comes to solid tissue samples tissues, then the difficulty is they are usually taken in an operating theatre that’s full of plastic.”).

Second, I do not think anyone is claiming that microplastic pollution is not ubiquitous, because that is obvious. That microplastics get consumed is also probably not that controversial. The extent to which microplastics get consumed but do not exit the other end of the pipe is an empirical question that has methodological challenges.

Third: I think there are some subtleties here involving the size of plastic particles. Microplastics is a catch-all term these days, but a more formal definition puts microplastics at plastic particles that range from 5 mm to 1 μm (micrometer), while nanoplasticsare 1 μm down to 1 nm (nanometer). micro- and nano- plastics can require different techniques to detect.

by SubiculumCode

6/8/2026 at 5:51:43 PM

Well since we're speculating randomly I vote for

* too much rage bait videos raising rage hormones

* too much performing for social media

* suppressing expression for fear of cancellation

* exposure to too many varieties of food/cuisine

* video games

* anime

Yes, these are all tongue-in-cheek but come on, the random speculation here is all ridiculous

by socalgal2

6/8/2026 at 6:45:05 PM

* Inadequate exposure to UV leading to depressed vitamin D levels.

by pfdietz

6/8/2026 at 5:34:37 PM

It's an easy guess because either human genetics either radical changed or the environment did

"Silent Spring" came out over sixty years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

got massive coverage including a worldwide CBS News broadcast back then

Government and industry were never held to account and instead deregulated everything

We still allow leaded gas to be sprayed all around airports where everyone is exposed during travel and neighborhoods nearby

Golf Course neighborhoods are some of the highest cancer rates in the country

We've learned nothing and now the environment is so saturated with toxins that the immune system is under attack from birth

by ck2

6/8/2026 at 5:09:14 PM

Don't people eat more healthy than they did 50 years ago? Weren't microwave dinners a big thing in the 70s?

by VirusNewbie

6/8/2026 at 5:31:07 PM

“TV” dinners were, packaged in aluminum foil. Microwaves didn’t become prevalent until perhaps the mid 80s.

by mixmastamyk

6/8/2026 at 5:36:06 PM

ah, interesting. Ok, so TV dinners != microwave dinners, and maybe they're more healthy than microwaved dinners or food that comes in plastic.

by VirusNewbie

6/8/2026 at 6:23:01 PM

I wouldn't exactly call TV dinners "healthy". In many ways it was much more heavily processed fatty carbs than what passes for microwave food today. It was loaded with salt and sugar.

The main difference is that TV dinners were designed to be heated in an oven rather than a microwave, back when microwaves were less common.

by jandrewrogers

6/8/2026 at 6:15:19 PM

My impression (as someone who was alive back then) is that the early TV dinners often weren't that different from something you'd cook yourself, but the industry has spend half a century optimising them into cheap chemical slop engineered for palatability.

Also, not all ready meals are crap. You can buy premium frozen meals from restaurant suppliers but they aren't cheap.

by masfuerte

6/8/2026 at 5:32:45 PM

One study (sorry, can't recall the source off the top of my head) claimed 20% of calories in the average U.S. diet was replaced by processed foods over that period. I'm over 50 years old, and it agrees with my own observations. Those "big gulp" beverages became popular in the 80s, and "low fat" foods just replaced fat with added sugar.

One example: long ago I used to buy Bush's baked beans in a can. They had a vegetarian version which I assumed was healthier, and it even tasted better than the original. But one day I compared the labels and found the vegetarian version had more added sugar and more calories per serving.

We were fed a massive amount of misinformation about healthy foods in the 1980s. Hopefully things will improve from now on.

by raegis

6/8/2026 at 6:06:35 PM

My guess is unchecked capitalism.

I won't bother to read the article.

by HoldOnAMinute

6/8/2026 at 5:57:10 PM

Chronic inflammation is almost certainly part of this and lots of things about our modern ways of living cause higher levels of inflammation.

- Obesity and sugary drinks/food

- Various chemicals we use in agriculture, food products, cleaning, etc

- Lack of sleep

- Lack of exercise

- Stress

- Pharmaceuticals. And to be clear because I know this will be more controversial, I'm not anti-pharma, but lots of people today are being prescribed daily medication at ever young ages. We know many of these pharmaceuticals can marginally increase certain cancer risks.

- Low Vit D levels – seriously everyone should be supplementing

- Vaccines? Probably not, but I dunno... Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but if you're on your 5th Covid shot I feel like you might be putting your body at some marginally increased inflammatory risk there. Vaccines are quite literally deigned to induce inflammation to boost immune response after all.

- More radiation emitting devices – not sure about this one because I haven't done any research, but when I was younger people used to talk about this quite seriously and now it feels like something only conspiracy theorists say. I suspect there is some amount of truth to it even if 5G isn't going to literally give you cancer.

I think it would be more surprising if we didn't see an increase in cancer rates to be honest.

by kypro

6/8/2026 at 6:43:24 PM

> - Low Vit D levels – seriously everyone should be supplementing

> - More radiation emitting devices

Yeah you should absolutely not be going out in the sun for your vitamin D if you believe the latter to be a cause because the sun emits many orders of magnitude more radiation than human made devices in daily use.

by krs_

6/8/2026 at 8:56:43 PM

I admitted my ignorance. But what are you saying here? That base radiation exposure isn't likely to be higher today than it was in the past or that it's likely an insignificant increase for most people?

by kypro

6/8/2026 at 6:16:36 PM

[dead]

by justincredible

6/8/2026 at 5:45:10 PM

[dead]

by bobbby77

6/8/2026 at 6:38:10 PM

[dead]

by bneumann

6/8/2026 at 4:56:26 PM

[flagged]

by goldylochness

6/8/2026 at 5:10:11 PM

[flagged]

by black6

6/8/2026 at 5:13:52 PM

[flagged]

by trial3

6/8/2026 at 5:35:37 PM

Woah don't tell me you're one of those globies that think the earth is round now

Its clearly a dodecahedron ;)

by DaSHacka

6/8/2026 at 5:35:41 PM

Nothing made me doubt the moon landings more than working for NASA.

by black6

6/8/2026 at 6:55:40 PM

[flagged]

by 38484858

6/8/2026 at 5:37:55 PM

[flagged]

by Covzire

6/8/2026 at 5:42:16 PM

Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

by dang

6/8/2026 at 6:04:33 PM

[flagged]

by Covzire

6/8/2026 at 6:14:07 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

My mod reply was superficial because there was so little information in the GP comment. It sounds like you're alluding to some of the background to your actual view, but we readers don't have any access to that from a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48448450. You have that state in your head; we don't have access to it!

If you would want instead to post a thoughtful, substantive expression of your actual view, that would of course be welcome.

by dang

6/8/2026 at 9:17:33 PM

My actual view is that A) I don't know what's causing it, but B) neither does anyone else, yet certain hypothesis are going to be [flagged] no matter what, because they trip over certain biases inherit in our political climate.

This just isn't going to be a scientifically important forum anymore where competing ideas can be thoughtfully debated if this keeps happening, that's all my original view was expressing. I'm not even defending any particular post here, this is a more general trend, if the site were to stop brigading and instantly [flagging] wrong-think I strongly believe we'd see a resurgence of thoughtful debate even among hot-button issues, like it used to be back during the Snowden-era for instance.

PS I don't envy your task of moderating a site like this, but those are my 2c...

by Covzire

6/8/2026 at 6:52:12 PM

[flagged]

by etempleton

6/8/2026 at 7:49:44 PM

> Obesity. Being overweight is directly correlated with an increased risk for over a dozen cancers. And people are fatter than ever.

Doesn't that just move the question to: why are so many people obese now? Including more obese younger people.

by UncleOxidant

6/8/2026 at 8:24:55 PM

I suspect sugar intake has a drastic impact here. We genuinely have too much of it in everything.

by ganoushoreilly

6/8/2026 at 10:18:07 PM

But I kind of doubt there's more sugar in food than there was in the 70s.

by UncleOxidant

6/9/2026 at 5:31:59 AM

Late 80's / early 90's was the war on fat, so companies introduced "low fat" versions of their products that replaced fat with sugar

by profdevloper

6/9/2026 at 6:42:36 PM

I'm old enough to remember a war on sugar in the 70s. My mom took us off of Lucky Charms/Fruit Loops for breakfast and starting making her own granola circa 1974. She was reading/hearing lots of stuff about the dangers of sugar in the diet.

by UncleOxidant

6/8/2026 at 7:10:44 PM

Risk in the cohorts we're talking about have tripled or even quadrupled. Obesity has not; prevalence is up 10-20%.

by tptacek

6/8/2026 at 4:54:07 PM

[flagged]

by kernal

6/8/2026 at 5:09:34 PM

[flagged]

by witx

6/8/2026 at 5:02:56 PM

[flagged]

by ifjfkfkfkfj

6/8/2026 at 5:18:18 PM

Why did you write it as "1969ties"?

by owenpalmer

6/8/2026 at 5:40:49 PM

Not the commenter, but the same tobacco companies came up with many of the highly processed foods

by bobmcnamara

6/8/2026 at 6:40:07 PM

9 is next to 0, so my guess was typo.

by Insanity

6/8/2026 at 5:51:54 PM

Just because system is trying to kill u, does not mean to stop all fun.

by ifjfkfkfkfj

6/8/2026 at 5:31:44 PM

> Current "safe" dosage on coffeine is like 8 shots a day. No side effects!

Still is, since none of the side effects of caffeine could be considered "dangerous". (Unless you're taking absurdly large amounts, of course, just like anything else.)

by stronglikedan

6/8/2026 at 4:47:40 PM

https://archive.ph/VlBAm

tl;dr ultra processed foods and pesticides

by mspgrunt

6/8/2026 at 5:02:20 PM

tl; dr the first 4 sentences: Ultra-processed foods, obesity, microbial toxins and agricultural chemicals were all considered. But a clear answer remained elusive.

by jeffnv

6/8/2026 at 7:42:08 PM

Could it be the plastics, or maybe the pollution in the air, or maybe the pfas in the water, or maybe the pesticides in the food, or maybe the vaping, or maybe the sedentary lifestyle, or maybe the hundreds of nuclear weapons exploded all over the earth, or maybe it’s the degradation of the ozone layer due to chemicals used in manufacturing.

Such a mystery.

by andrewstuart

6/8/2026 at 4:48:29 PM

If I had one unqualified guess free — and boy am I unqualified here — I’d wager it’s those „zero sugar“ stuffs.

No way you can just replace (also very very not good for you) sugar with something else and end up with all the upsides and no downsides.

by ManuelKiessling

6/8/2026 at 5:12:00 PM

Without counting anything out it's worth saying that artificial sweeteners are some of the most-tested food ingredients because of concern about their health impacts. It's possible that we missed something, but you have to weigh that against the chance we missed something about every other possible food ingredient (all of which have been tested less).

by aeturnum

6/8/2026 at 5:59:38 PM

I used to be in this same boat whenever someone questioned my sugar-free drinks. Trust the science! Then more science saying new things about artificial sweeteners kept coming out. And then I personally (with the mindset of "they can't possibly do harm") started getting stomach issues that I can pretty much definitively link to any time I drink sucralose. Which is a shame because I loved me a coke zero. If I drink/eat it by accident I'll always know within 2 hours from an intense stabbing pain in my side. This didn't happen until I had already been drinking it for many years.

Aspartame is listed as possibly carcinogenic now after having "0 problems" for decades and having that same claim of being some of the most tested food additives on the planet. Most artificial sweeteners are also still linked to problems with insulin response, weight gain, and diabetes which are the things we were trying to prevent by drinking them in the first place. Do some more research and you'll find things like links to cognitive decline, clotting with things like xylitol, depression, gut microbiome problems / even possibly intestinal wall integrity issues (sucralose-6-acetate).

The science was settled (and probably mostly funded by the companies that sold the products) right up until it wasn't. Now there seems to be huge concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these substances are banned within our lifetime.

by ragequittah

6/8/2026 at 6:35:57 PM

I don't think it's worth going through and providing you links about the mischaracterizations in your post - as you seem to have your own sources - but your depiction of the history of scientific consensus is not accurate. As you say problems caused by sweeteners around weight gain, insulin regulation, etc are long documented. As are the many studies showing that sweeteners cause cancer at doses (100x+ iirc) far above those consumed by average humans.

That said, the topic here was on cancer, and even the WHO announcement about aspartame being possibly carcinogenic clarifies it's not for normal ranges of consumption. I think you're trying to make a boogie man out of scientists and researchers by mischaracterizing the complex work they do. If you feel that things have suddenly reversed course it's because you haven't been following the research.

by aeturnum

6/8/2026 at 7:34:20 PM

Many of the research went under my radar when I was researching it ~15 years ago then. Specifically sucralose was what I was researching, because it's what I drank, and there seemed to be no real evidence of harm that I could come up with or that anybody arguing with me about it could point to. And everyone defending it (including me) always had the line about how extensively studied it was at the time.

But research kept coming in. In 2013 CSPI changed their sucralose recommendation from "safe" to "caution". Then in 2016 it changed it again to "avoid". [1] Insulin sensitivity was more of a concern as of 2018 [2]. Sucralose + carbs causing further insulin problems was added in 2020 [3].

There's several more but I'm not going to make an exhaustive list. The point is the more research done the more the sweeteners go from almost completely benign (which you could easily say about sucralose ~2010) to problematic. So saying "the science is in, these sweeteners don't cause cancer" seems off-putting to me after going through the journey of so much of the science being wrong. It reminds me that we didn't classify processed meat as carcinogenic until 2015. And we only classified nitrates as "probably carcinogenic" in 2010.

[1]https://www.cspi.org/new/201602081.html

[2]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30005329/

[3]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32130881/

by ragequittah

6/8/2026 at 6:20:17 PM

The problem here is looking at a substance in isolation, instead of comparatively.

The actual question is: would drinking that stuff with sugar have caused more damage to health? And the answer will likely be yes. Because we _know_ just how bad sugar is for you. Particularly diabetes, microbiome changes, addictive behavior, obesity of course, cardiovascular issues...

If you'd look at sugar in isolation, as a new substance that stuff would never be allowed in any country at all.

by lompad

6/8/2026 at 4:51:56 PM

Nah, technology advancement is full of free lunches.

It breaks our ape brain intuition that anything good must also be bad. But consider all the food tech you take for granted while singling out zero-cal sweeteners.

by hombre_fatal

6/8/2026 at 4:51:04 PM

I’m pretty sure it’s the avocado toasts.

by ahoka

6/8/2026 at 5:21:47 PM

The normalization of anabolic steroid usage is likely a large contributor to certain cancers in men.

by nullbio

6/8/2026 at 5:34:44 PM

Probably not common enough to move the needle much; they’re not _that_ normalised.

by rsynnott

6/9/2026 at 4:12:30 AM

They are in Australia and the UK. Go to a gym in Aus, at least a third of the men there are on the juice, and sometimes more depending on the gym you go to.

by nullbio

6/8/2026 at 5:42:11 PM

And tattoos, too.

by bigbuppo