Lifestyle could go a long way to reducing cancer risk says Dr. Greg Stewart

By Dr. Greg Stewart

IS CANCER PREVENTABLE?

Over the years, and recently, the local media has remarkably covered stories of cancer victims. They relate the tragedy, the struggle, the victory and the loss. As a family doctor there is not a day that goes by that I do not deal with the devastating individual and family ramifications of this horrible disease. Despite some improved treatment options, we seem to be losing ground on many fronts. That being said, there are two points that I think we need to be aware of as a society.

1) In the journal Nature, published in December of 2015, it was calculated that only 10-30 per cent of all cancers are likely caused by genetic factors. This leaves an astonishing 70-90 per cent being caused by external or environmental/lifestyle factors. That being the case, would we not be wise to search for ways to lower these risks?

2) Many people are familiar with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and the increased risk of breast cancer that they confer on those who possess them. What is not so well known is that Dr. King, who discovered the genes, went back to look at some data:

• She found that the risk of breast cancer before age 50 for BRCA gene carriers born before 1940 was 24 per cent.
• She found that the risk of breast cancer for BRCA carriers in that same age group in 2003 was over 70 per cent, with a lifetime risk of 82 per cent.

The massive increase in risk is not from these same genes but rather things that we are exposing ourselves to that cause these gene to be activated, resulting in cancer. Dr. King went on to say that we owe it to these women to find what factors are pushing up the risk.

The BRCA illustration reinforces the first point that extrinsic factors are a major contributing factor in what is causing this horrible disease.

The journal Current Oncology published an article in 2011 that showed for women born in 1935-1950, the risk of getting breast cancer was one per cent per year. For women born from 1970-1985, the risk increased to four per cent per year. Again, this does not represent a change in the gene pool but rather is caused by the things that we are doing in our lives that dramatically increase the risk.

I want to be perfectly clear that I am not pointing the finger at any cancer patient and saying this is their fault. Absolutely not. That would be incredibly unfair as we can never truly know the origin for any one individual. My intention is to inform society at large and to let people know that the major influence on this disease is from the environment we live in and the lifestyle we choose to live. That being said, nothing we can do can make us completely risk free.

Some of the factors that are implicated in an increased rate of cancer I believe are:

• We eat ten times the amount of sugar that we ate 100 years ago. The average North American eats 150-180 lbs of added sugar per year. This does not count the processed flour (breads and pasta) that equals approximately the same amount as the added sugar, and turns to sugar in our bloodstream just as fast. Sugary drinks, such as soft drinks, energy drinks, ice tea, fruit juice, etc. are the biggest source of sugar increase from previous years.
• Eating processed foods has increased exponentially. We eat food that is filled with chemical names we can not pronounce and does not go bad if it sits on the counter for days.
• Obesity has increased 400 per cent in half a generation. This is unprecedented in history. Childhood obesity has unfortunately skyrocketed and 70 per cent of adults now fall into the category of overweight or obese.
• We do not exercise enough.
• We smoke too much.
• GMO foods are a growing issue and are present in virtually all boxed processed foods.
• Pesticide and herbicide use has skyrocketed mainly due to GMO proliferation.

I will close with a startling note. There are 30,000 to 40,000 chemicals permitted to be used in our country. Less than 500 have extensive safety testing. New products are passed on the basis of information given to the government by the manufacturers and sellers. When the Act that regulates toxic substances was passed in 1999, the existing 23,000 chemicals were grandfathered in without testing, deemed “safe as used”.

Lastly, and most unfortunately, when we see endocrine, immune, reproductive and neural problems on a significant rise, we must look to what these tissues were exposed to during the most sensitive time period: infancy. Canada’s Environmental Defence group tested three random (not selected due to a high risk) newborns in southern Ontario and in the umbilical cord blood they found 137 toxic chemicals. For many of these chemicals there is no level that is found to be safe.

We should take note that experts tell us that for the “first time in history” (that should get our attention) our children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. My desire is not to point fingers but rather to encourage people to take account of their environment and their lifestyle. There is no golden ticket or magic wand but this evidence tells us that we can significantly decrease our risk of many chronic diseases and hopefully prevent much pain.

Be well,
Greg Stewart MD

Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.