Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and The Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Summary

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315725512

Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global


Perspective. Summary

Technical Report · November 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 1,425

8 authors, including:

Geoffrey Cannon Greg Martin


University of São Paulo World Health Organization WHO
659 PUBLICATIONS   4,441 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   196 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Declarations, and public health (nutrition) View project

Why and how to eat well View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Geoffrey Cannon on 01 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


WORLD CANCER RESEARCH FUND GLOBAL NETWORK

OUR VISION

We help people make choices that reduce their chances of developing cancer

OUR HERITAGE

We were the first cancer charity

To create awareness of the relationship between diet and cancer risk

To focus funding on research into diet and cancer prevention

To consolidate and interpret global research to create


a practical message on cancer prevention

OUR MISSION

Today the World Cancer Research Fund global network continues

Funding research on the relationship of nutrition,


physical activity and weight management to cancer risk

Interpreting the accumulated scientific literature in the field

Educating people about choices they can make to reduce


their chances of developing cancer

The World Cancer Research Fund global network consists of the following charitable organisations:
The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR); World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK);
Wereld Kanker Onderzoek Fonds (WCRF NL); World Cancer Research Fund Hong Kong (WCRF HK);
Fonds Mondial de Recherche contre le Cancer (FMRC FR) and the umbrella association, World Cancer
Research Fund International (WCRF International).

Please cite the Report as follows: First published 2007 by the American Institute for Cancer Research
World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. 1759 R St. NW, Washington, DC 20009
Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global
Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR, 2007

© 2007 World Cancer Research Fund International


All rights reserved Printed in Mexico
S U M M A R Y

Introduction

This summary provides an abbreviated version of the full Panel has assessed and judged this evidence and agreed
Report. It highlights the wealth of information and data recommendations. The results are published in the full
studied by the Panel and is designed to give readers an Report and summarised here. A more detailed explanation
overview of the key issues contained within the Report, of this process is given in Chapter 3 of the Report and the
notably the process, the synthesis of the scientific evidence, research teams and investigators involved are listed on
and the resulting judgements and recommendations. pages viii–xi.
The Report is a guide to future scientific research, cancer
The first and second Reports prevention education programmes, and health policy
Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global around the world. It provides a solid evidence base for
perspective, produced by the World Cancer Research Fund policy-makers, health professionals, and informed and
together with the American Institute for Cancer Research, interested people to draw on and work with.
has been the most authoritative source on food, nutrition,
and cancer prevention for 10 years. On publication in 1997, The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)
it immediately became recognised as the most authoritative global network
and influential report in its field and helped to highlight the Since its foundation in 1982, the World Cancer Research
importance of research in this crucial area. It became the Fund global network has been dedicated to the prevention
standard text worldwide for policy-makers in government of cancer. All the members of the global network have the
at all levels, for civil society and health professional same goal: to prevent cancer worldwide.
organisations, and in teaching and research centres of The WCRF global network consists of WCRF
academic excellence. International and its member organisations. These are
Since the mid-1990s the amount of scientific literature on national charities based in the USA, the UK, the
this subject has dramatically increased. New methods of Netherlands, France, and Hong Kong.
analysing and assessing evidence have been developed, Each member organisation is supported by donations
facilitated by advances in electronic technology. There is from the public and is independent of government. Each is
more evidence, in particular on overweight and obesity; on a separate legal entity, responsible to its own board and
physical activity; and on whole life course events. Also, accountable to the donors who support it. All member
cancer survivors is a new field. The need for a new report organisations determine their own programmes, which are
was obvious; and in 2001 WCRF International in designed to be most effective in national and local
collaboration with AICR began to put in place a global environments. Through national education and research
process in order to produce and publish the Report in programmes, a primary goal of the WCRF global network is
November 2007. to help promote changes that will decrease rates of cancer
incidence. WCRF International provides each member with
How this Report has been achieved financial, operational and scientific services and support.
The goal of this Report is to review all the relevant research, From its beginnings in the early 1980s, the WCRF global
using the most meticulous methods, in order to generate a network has consistently been a pioneer and a leader of
comprehensive series of recommendations on food, research and education on food, nutrition, physical activity
nutrition, and physical activity, designed to reduce the risk and the prevention of cancer. The network has a special
of cancer and suitable for all societies. This process is also commitment to creation of the most reliable science-based
the basis for a continuous review of the evidence. recommendations, and their translation into messages that
Organised into overlapping stages, the process has been form the basis for action by professionals, communities,
designed to maximise objectivity and transparency, families and individuals. This work is being done for these
separating the collection of evidence from its assessment organisations in the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, France,
and judgement. First, an expert task force developed a and Hong Kong, and on behalf of people in all countries.
method for systematic review of the voluminous scientific The global network will remain one of the leaders of the
literature. Second, research teams collected and reviewed international cancer prevention movement, in the broader
the literature based upon this methodology. Third, an expert context of better personal and public health, worldwide.

3
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

The Expert Sir Michael Marmot MBBS MPH PhD FRCP


FFPH (Chair)
University College London, UK

Report Panel Epidemiology and public health

Tola Atinmo PhD


University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Nutrition and obesity

The Report is the result of a five Tim Byers MD MPH


year process. This has included University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
examination of the world's literature Cancer prevention and epidemiology
by a panel of the world's leading
scientists, supported by observers
from United Nations and other Junshi Chen MD
international organisations. Here Chinese Centre for Disease Control and
they are. Prevention, Beijing, China
Nutrition and food safety

Tomio Hirohata MD DrScHyg PhD


Kyushu University, Fukuoka City, Japan
Cancer and epidemiology

Alan Jackson CBE MD FRCP FRCPCH FRCPath


University of Southampton, UK
Public health nutrition and developmental
origins of health and disease

W. Philip T. James CBE MD DrSc FRSE FRCP


International Obesity Task Force, London, UK
Obesity and nutrition

Laurence Kolonel MD PhD


University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI, USA
Epidemiology and cancer epidemiology

Shiriki Kumanyika PhD MPH


University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Biostatistics, epidemiology and obesity

Claus Leitzmann PhD


Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
Nutrition and food science

Jim Mann DM PhD FFPHM FRACP


University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Human nutrition

Hilary J. Powers PhD RNutr


University of Sheffield, UK
Human nutrition, micronutrients

K. Srinath Reddy MD DM MSc


Institute of Medical Sciences,
New Delhi, India
Chronic disease

4
S U M M A R Y

Elio Riboli MD ScM MPH Panel observers


Imperial College London, UK
Cancer epidemiology and Mechanisms Working Group
prevention John Milner PhD

Juan A. Rivera PhD Methodology Task Force


Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Jos Kleijnen MD PhD
Cuernavaca, Mexico Gillian Reeves PhD
Nutrition and health
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
Arthur Schatzkin MD DrPH
United Nations (FAO)
National Cancer Institute,
Rockville, MD, USA Rome, Italy
Cancer epidemiology and genetics
Guy Nantel PhD
Prakash Shetty MD PhD
Jacob C. Seidell PhD
Free University Amsterdam, International Food Policy Research Institute
the Netherlands (IFPRI)
Obesity and epidemiology Washington, DC, USA
Lawrence Haddad PhD
David E.G. Shuker PhD FRSC Marie Ruel PhD
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Diet and cancer, chemistry and
International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS)
biomolecules
Mark Wahlqvist MD AO
Ricardo Uauy MD PhD
Instituto de Nutricion y Technologia de los Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC)
Alimentos, Santiago, Chile Geneva, Switzerland
Public health nutrition and child health Annie Anderson PhD
Harald zur Hausen MD DSc
Walter C. Willett MD DrPH Curtis Mettlin PhD
Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston, MA, USA United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Epidemiology, nutrition and cancer New York, NY, USA
Ian Darnton-Hill MD MPH
Steven H. Zeisel MD PhD
Rainer Gross Dr Agr
University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, NC, USA
World Health Organization (WHO)
Human nutrition and cancer
Geneva, Switzerland
Robert Beaglehole ONZM FRSNZ DSc Ruth Bonita MD
Chair 2003 Denise Coitinho PhD
Was at: World Health Organization (WHO) Chizuru Nishida PhD MA
Geneva, Switzerland Pirjo Pietinen DSc
Now at: University of Auckland
New Zealand
Additional members
for policy panel

Nick Cavill MPH


British Heart Foundation Health Promotion
Research Group
Oxford University, UK

Barry Popkin PhD MSc BSc


Carolina Population Center, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Jane Wardle PhD MPhil


University College London, UK

5
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

Overview of the second expert Report

The Report of which this is a summary has a number of inter- policy-makers, among others. These introductory chapters
related general purposes. One is to explore the extent to show that the challenge can be effectively addressed and sug-
which food, nutrition, physical activity, and body composition gest that food, nutrition, physical activity, and body compo-
modify the risk of cancer, and to specify which factors are sition play a central part in the prevention of cancer.
most important. To the extent that environmental factors such
as food, nutrition, and physical activity influence the risk of Part 2 — Evidence and Judgements
cancer, it is a preventable disease. The Report specifies rec- The judgements made by the Panel in Part 2 are based on
ommendations based on solid evidence which, when fol- independently conducted systematic reviews of the literature
lowed, will be expected to reduce the incidence of cancer. commissioned from academic institutions in the USA, UK,
and continental Europe. The evidence has been meticulous-
Part 1 — Background ly assembled and, crucially, the display of the evidence was
Chapter 1 shows that patterns of production and con- separated from assessments derived from that evidence.
sumption of food and drink, of physical activity, and of body Seven chapters present the findings of these reviews. The
composition have changed greatly throughout human Panel’s judgements are displayed in the form of matrices that
history. Remarkable changes have taken place as a result introduce five of these chapters, and in the summary matrix
of urbanisation and industrialisation, at first in Europe, on the fold-out page inside the back cover.
North America, and other economically advanced coun- Chapter 4, the first and longest chapter in Part 2, is con-
tries, and increasingly in most countries in the world. cerned with types of food and drink. The judgements of the
Notable variations have been identified in patterns of can- Panel are, whenever possible, food- and drink-based, reflect-
cer throughout the world. Significantly, studies consistently ing the most impressive evidence. Findings on dietary con-
show that patterns of cancer change as populations migrate stituents and micronutrients (for example foods containing
from one part of the world to another and as countries dietary fibre) are identified where appropriate. Evidence on
become increasingly urbanised and industrialised. Pro- dietary supplements, and on patterns of diet, is included in
jections indicate that rates of cancer in general are liable the two final sections of this chapter.
to increase. Chapters 5 and 6 are concerned with physical activity and
Chapter 2 outlines current understanding of the biology with body composition, growth, and development. Evidence
of the cancer process, with special attention to the ways in in these areas is more impressive than was the case up to the
which food and nutrition, physical activity, and body com- mid-1990s; the evidence on growth and development indi-
position may modify the risk of cancer. Cancer is a disease cates the importance of an approach to the prevention of can-
of genes, which are vulnerable to mutation, especially over cer that includes the whole life course.
the long human lifespan. However, evidence shows that only Chapter 7 summarises and judges the evidence as applied
a small proportion of cancers are inherited. Environmental to 17 cancer sites, with additional briefer summaries based
factors are most important and can be modified. These on narrative reviews of five further body systems and can-
include smoking and other use of tobacco; infectious cer sites. The judgements shown in the matrices in this chap-
agents; radiation; industrial chemicals and pollution; med- ter correspond with the judgements shown in the matrices
ication; and also many aspects of food, nutrition, physical in the previous chapters.
activity, and body composition. Obesity is or may be a cause of a number of cancers.
Chapter 3 summarises the types of evidence that the Panel Chapter 8 identifies what aspects of food, nutrition, and
has agreed are relevant to its work. No single study physical activity themselves affect the risk of obesity and
or study type can prove that any factor definitely is a cause associated factors. The judgements, which concern the bio-
of, or is protective against, any disease. In this chapter, build- logical and associated determinants of weight gain, over-
ing on the work of the first report, the Panel shows that reli- weight, and obesity, are based on a further systematic
able judgements on causation of disease are based on literature review, amplified by knowledge of physiological
assessment of a variety of well-designed epidemiological and processes.
experimental studies. The relevance of food, nutrition, physical activity, and body
The prevention of cancer worldwide is one of the most composition to people living with cancer, and to the pre-
pressing challenges facing scientists and public health vention of recurrent cancer, is summarised in Chapter 9.

6
S U M M A R Y

Improved cancer screening, diagnosis, and medical services chronic and other diseases. In addition, the Panel cited three
are, in many countries, improving survival rates. So the num- specific cases where the evidence is strong enough to be the
ber of cancer survivors — people living after diagnosis of basis for goals and recommendations, but which currently
cancer — is increasing. are relevant only in discrete geographical regions: maté in
The Panel agreed that its recommendations should also take Latin America, Cantonese-style salted fish particularly in the
into account findings on the prevention of other chronic dis- Pearl River Delta in Southern China, and arsenic contami-
eases, and of nutritional deficiencies and nutrition-related nating water supplies in several locations. Further details on
infectious diseases, especially of childhood. Chapter 10, also nutritional patterns and regional and special circumstances
based on a systematic literature review, is a summary of the can be found in section 12.3.
findings of expert reports in these areas. The main focus of the full Report is on nutritional and
The research issues identified in Chapter 11 are, in the other biological and associated factors that modify the risk
view of the Panel, the most promising avenues to explore in of cancer. The Panel is aware that as with other diseases, the
order to refine understanding of the links between food, risk of cancer is also modified by social, cultural, econom-
nutrition, physical activity, and cancer, and so improve the ic, and ecological factors. Thus the foods and drinks that
prevention of cancer, worldwide. people consume are not purely because of personal choice;
likewise opportunities for physical activity can be con-
Part 3 — Recommendations strained. Identifying the deeper factors that affect cancer
Chapter 12, the culmination of the five-year process, presents risk enables a wider range of policy recommendations and
the Panel’s public health goals and personal recommenda- options to be identified. This is the subject of a separate
tions. These are preceded by a statement of the principles report to be published in late 2008.
that have guided the Panel in its thinking. The public health goals and personal recommendations of
The goals and recommendations are based on ‘convincing’ the Panel that follow are offered as a significant contribu-
or ‘probable’ judgements made by the Panel in the chapters tion towards the prevention and control of cancer through-
in Part 2. These are proposed as the basis for public policies out the world. On the following pages of this summary, the
and for personal choices that, if effectively implemented, will recommendations themselves are shown, together with key
be expected to reduce the incidence of cancer for people, passages from the whole text in the full Report.
families, and communities.
Eight general and two special goals and recommendations
are detailed. In each case a general recommendation is fol-
lowed by public health goals and/or personal recommenda-
tions, together with further explanation or clarification as
required. Chapter 12 also includes a summary of the evi-
dence, justification of the goals and recommendations, and
guidance on how to achieve them.
The Panel’s
The process of moving from evidence to judgements and
to recommendations has been one of the Panel’s main
responsibilities, and has involved discussion and debate until
recommendations
final agreement has been reached. The goals and recom-
mendations in the Report have been unanimously agreed. The Panel’s goals and recommendations that follow are guid-
The goals and recommendations are followed by the ed by several principles, the details of which can be found
Panel’s conclusions on the dietary patterns most likely to pro- in Chapter 12. The public health goals are for populations,
tect against cancer. In order to discern the ‘big picture’ of and therefore for health professionals; the recommendations
healthy and protective diets, it is necessary to integrate a vast are for people, as communities, families, and individuals.
amount of detailed information. The Panel used a broad, The Panel also emphasises the importance of not smoking
integrative approach that, while largely derived from con- and avoiding exposure to tobacco smoke.
ventional ‘reductionist’ research, has sought to find patterns
of food and drink consumption, of physical activity, and of Format
body fatness, that enable recommendations designed to pre- The goals and recommendations begin with a general state-
vent cancer at personal and population levels. ment. This is followed by the population goal and the per-
The goals and recommendations are designed to be gen- sonal recommendation, together with any necessary
erally relevant worldwide and the Panel recognises that in footnotes. These footnotes are an integral part of the
national settings, the recommendations of the Report will be recommendations. The full recommendations, including
best used in combination with recommendations, issued by further clarification and qualification, can be found in
governments or on behalf of nations, designed to prevent Chapter 12 of the full Report.

7
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

The Panel’s judgements


This matrix displays the
Summary of conclusions
Panel’s judgements of the
strength of the evidence

nx
causally relating food,

nx
ry

s
gu
la

ry
nutrition and physical

yn ,
ar th

ha
ha

as
x,

h
ac
ph ou

e
op
op
activity with the risk of

cr
om
ng
M

es

n
as

a
Lu

Pa
St
O
N

G
cancer of the sites
reviewed, and with weight
gain, overweight and
obesity. It is a synthesis of
all the matrices
introducing the chapters
in Parts 1 and 2 of the
Report, and shows
judgements of
“convincing”, “probable”,
“limited - suggestive”, and
“substantial effect on risk
unlikely”, but not “limited
– no conclusion”. Usually
judgements of convincing
and probable generate
public health goals and
personal recommendation.
These are shown on the
following pages.

KEY

Convincing Probable Limited–suggestive Limited–suggestive Probable Convincing Substantial *The evidence i


decreased risk decreased risk decreased risk increased risk increased risk increased risk effect on risk †Judgement for
unlikely

8
al
lb
la
dd
er

Li
ve
r

Co
lo
re
ct
um

Men
Women

S U M M A R Y

s derived from studies using supplements


B
Pr rea
em st

r physical activity applies to colon and not rectum


en
op
au
Br se
Po ea
st st
m
en
op
au
se
O
va
ry

En
do
m
et
riu
m

Ce
rv
ix

Pr
os
ta
te

Ki
dn
ey

Bl
a dd
er

Sk
in

W
o e
ob ver igh
es we t g
ity ig ai
ht n,
an
d

9
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

RECOMMENDATION 1 RECOMMENDATION 2

BODY FATNESS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Be as lean as possible within Be physically active as part of everyday life


the normal range1 of body weight
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
The proportion of the population that is sedentary1
Median adult body mass index (BMI) to be to be halved every 10 years
between 21 and 23, depending on the
normal range for different populations2 Average physical activity levels (PALs)1 to be above 1.6

The proportion of the population that is overweight


or obese to be no more than the current level, PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
or preferably lower, in 10 years
Be moderately physically active, equivalent
to brisk walking,2 for at least 30 minutes every day
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
As fitness improves, aim for 60 minutes or more
Ensure that body weight through of moderate, or for 30 minutes or more of
childhood and adolescent growth projects3 towards the vigorous, physical activity every day2 3
lower end of the normal BMI range at age 21
Limit sedentary habits such as watching television
Maintain body weight within
the normal range from age 21
1
The term ‘sedentary’ refers to a PAL of 1.4 or less. PAL is a way of representing
the average intensity of daily physical activity. PAL is calculated as total energy
Avoid weight gain and increases in expenditure as a multiple of basal metabolic rate
waist circumference throughout adulthood 2
Can be incorporated in occupational, transport, household, or leisure activities
3
This is because physical activity of longer duration or greater intensity is more
1
beneficial
‘Normal range’ refers to appropriate ranges issued by national governments or
the World Health Organization
2
To minimise the proportion of the population outside the normal range
3
‘Projects’ in this context means following a pattern of growth (weight and
height) throughout childhood that leads to adult BMI at the lower end of the
normal range. Such patterns of growth are specified in International Obesity
Justification
Task Force and WHO growth reference charts Most populations, and people living in industrialised and
urban settings, have habitual levels of activity below levels
to which humans are adapted.
Justification
Maintenance of a healthy weight throughout life may be With industrialisation, urbanisation, and mechanisation,
one of the most important ways to protect against cancer. populations and people become more sedentary. As with
This will also protect against a number of other common overweight and obesity, sedentary ways of life have been
chronic diseases. usual in high-income countries since the second half of the
20th century. They are now common if not usual in most
Weight gain, overweight, and obesity are now generally much countries.
more common than in the 1980s and 1990s. Rates of over- All forms of physical activity protect against some cancers,
weight and obesity doubled in many high-income countries as well as against weight gain, overweight, and obesity; cor-
between 1990 and 2005. In most countries in Asia and Latin respondingly, sedentary ways of life are a cause of these can-
America, and some in Africa, chronic diseases including obe- cers and of weight gain, overweight, and obesity. Weight
sity are now more prevalent than nutritional deficiencies and gain, overweight, and obesity are also causes of some can-
infectious diseases. cers independently of the level of physical activity. Further
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of some can- details of evidence and judgements can be found in
cers. Overweight and obesity also increase the risk of condi- Chapters 5, 6, and 8.
tions including dyslipidaemia, hypertension and stroke, type The evidence summarised in Chapter 10 also shows that
2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Overweight in child- physical activity protects against other diseases and that
hood and early life is liable to be followed by overweight and sedentary ways of life are causes of these diseases.
obesity in adulthood. Further details of evidence and judge-
ments can be found in Chapters 6 and 8. Maintenance of a
healthy weight throughout life may be one of the most impor-
tant ways to protect against cancer.

10
S U M M A R Y

RECOMMENDATION 3 RECOMMENDATION 4

FOODS AND DRINKS THAT PLANT FOODS


PROMOTE WEIGHT GAIN Eat mostly foods of plant origin

Limit consumption of energy-dense foods1 PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS


Avoid sugary drinks2
Population average consumption of non-starchy1
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS vegetables and of fruits to be at least 600 g (21 oz) daily2

Average energy density of diets3 to be lowered Relatively unprocessed cereals (grains) and/or pulses
towards 125 kcal per 100 g (legumes), and other foods that are a natural source of
dietary fibre, to contribute to a population average
Population average consumption of sugary drinks2 of at least 25 g non-starch polysaccharide daily
to be halved every 10 years

PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Eat at least five portions/servings
Consume energy-dense foods1 4 sparingly (at least 400 g or 14 oz) of a variety2 of
non-starchy vegetables and of fruits every day
Avoid sugary drinks2
Eat relatively unprocessed cereals (grains)
Consume ‘fast foods’5 sparingly, if at all and/or pulses (legumes) with every meal3
1
Energy-dense foods are here defined as those with an energy content of more
than about 225–275 kcal per 100 g Limit refined starchy foods
2
This principally refers to drinks with added sugars. Fruit juices should also be
limited People who consume starchy roots or tubers4
3
This does not include drinks
4
Limit processed energy-dense foods (also see recommendation 4). Relatively as staples also to ensure intake of sufficient
unprocessed energy-dense foods, such as nuts and seeds, have not been shown non-starchy vegetables, fruits, and pulses (legumes)
to contribute to weight gain when consumed as part of typical diets, and these
and many vegetable oils are valuable sources of nutrients 1
5
This is best made up from a range of various amounts of non-starchy vegetables
The term ‘fast foods’ refers to readily available convenience foods that tend to
and fruits of different colours including red, green, yellow, white, purple, and
be energy-dense and consumed frequently and in large portions
orange, including tomato-based products and allium vegetables such as garlic
2
Relatively unprocessed cereals (grains) and/or pulses (legumes) to contribute
to an average of at least 25 g non-starch polysaccharide daily
3
These foods are low in energy density and so promote healthy weight
4
For example, populations in Africa, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region
Justification
Consumption of energy-dense foods and sugary drinks is
increasing worldwide and is probably contributing to the
global increase in obesity. Justification
An integrated approach to the evidence shows that most
This overall recommendation is mainly designed to prevent diets that are protective against cancer are mainly made
and to control weight gain, overweight, and obesity. up from foods of plant origin.
Further details of evidence and judgements can be found in
Chapter 8. Higher consumption of several plant foods probably protects
‘Energy density’ measures the amount of energy (in kcal against cancers of various sites. What is meant by ‘plant-based’
or kJ) per weight (usually 100 g) of food. Food supplies that is diets that give more emphasis to those plant foods that are
are mainly made up of processed foods, which often contain high in nutrients, high in dietary fibre (and so in non-starch
substantial amounts of fat or sugar, tend to be more energy- polysaccharides), and low in energy density. Non-starchy veg-
dense than food supplies that include substantial amounts etables, and fruits, probably protect against some cancers.
of fresh foods. Taken together, the evidence shows that it is Being typically low in energy density, they probably also pro-
not specific dietary constituents that are problematic, so tect against weight gain. Further details of evidence and judge-
much as the contribution these make to the energy density ments can be found in Chapters 4 and 8.
of diets. Non-starchy vegetables include green, leafy vegetables,
Because of their water content, drinks are less energy- broccoli, okra, aubergine (eggplant), and bok choy, but not,
dense than foods. However, sugary drinks provide energy but for instance, potato, yam, sweet potato, or cassava. Non-
do not seem to induce satiety or compensatory reduction in starchy roots and tubers include carrots, Jerusalem artichokes,
subsequent energy intake, and so promote overconsumption celeriac (celery root), swede (rutabaga), and turnips.
of energy and thus weight gain.
Continued on next page

11
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

RECOMMENDATION 5 RECOMMENDATION 6

ANIMAL FOODS ALCOHOLIC DRINKS


Limit intake of red meat1 and Limit alcoholic drinks1
avoid processed meat2

PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL


PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL
Proportion of the population drinking
Population average consumption of red meat more than the recommended limits to be
to be no more than 300 g (11 oz) a week, reduced by one third every 10 years1 2
very little if any of which to be processed

PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION
If alcoholic drinks are consumed,
People who eat red meat1 limit consumption to no more than two drinks a day
to consume less than 500 g (18 oz) a week, for men and one drink a day for women1 2 3
very little if any to be processed2

1 1
‘Red meat’ refers to beef, pork, lamb, and goat from domesticated animals This recommendation takes into account that there is a likely protective effect
including that contained in processed foods for coronary heart disease
2 2
‘Processed meat’ refers to meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or Children and pregnant women not to consume alcoholic drinks
3
addition of chemical preservatives, including that contained in processed foods One ‘drink’ contains about 10–15 grams of ethanol

Justification Justification
An integrated approach to the evidence also shows that The evidence on cancer justifies a recommendation not to
many foods of animal origin are nourishing and healthy if drink alcoholic drinks. Other evidence shows that modest
consumed in modest amounts. amounts of alcoholic drinks are likely to reduce the risk of
coronary heart disease.
People who eat various forms of vegetarian diets are at low
risk of some diseases including some cancers, although it is The evidence does not show a clear level of consumption of
not easy to separate out these benefits of the diets from other alcoholic drinks below which there is no increase in risk of
aspects of their ways of life, such as not smoking, drinking the cancers it causes. This means that, based solely on the
little if any alcohol, and so forth. In addition, meat can be evidence on cancer, even small amounts of alcoholic drinks
a valuable source of nutrients, in particular protein, iron, should be avoided. Further details of evidence and judge-
zinc, and vitamin B12. The Panel emphasises that this over- ments can be found in Chapter 4. In framing the recom-
all recommendation is not for diets containing no meat — mendation here, the Panel has also taken into account the
or diets containing no foods of animal origin. The amounts evidence that modest amounts of alcoholic drinks are likely
are for weight of meat as eaten. As a rough conversion, 300 to protect against coronary heart disease, as described in
g of cooked red meat is equivalent to about 400–450 g raw Chapter 10.
weight, and 500 g cooked red meat to about 700–750 g raw The evidence shows that all alcoholic drinks have the same
weight. The exact conversion will depend on the cut of meat, effect. Data do not suggest any significant difference
the proportions of lean and fat, and the method and degree depending on the type of drink. This recommendation there-
of cooking, so more specific guidance is not possible. Red or fore covers all alcoholic drinks, whether beers, wines, spir-
processed meats are convincing or probable causes of some its (liquors), or other alcoholic drinks. The important factor
cancers. Diets with high levels of animal fats are often rela- is the amount of ethanol consumed.
tively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain. The Panel emphasises that children and pregnant women
Further details of evidence and judgements can be found in should not consume alcoholic drinks.
Chapters 4 and 8.

Recommendation 4, continued from previous page tively unprocessed cereals (grains), non-starchy vegetables
The goals and recommendations here are broadly similar to and fruits, and pulses (legumes), all of which contain sub-
those that have been issued by other international and nation- stantial amounts of dietary fibre and a variety of micronu-
al authoritative organisations (see Chapter 10). They derive trients, and are low or relatively low in energy density. These,
from the evidence on cancer and are supported by evidence and not foods of animal origin, are the recommended centre
on other diseases. They emphasise the importance of rela- for everyday meals.

12
S U M M A R Y

RECOMMENDATION 7 RECOMMENDATION 8

PRESERVATION, PROCESSING, DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS


PREPARATION
Aim to meet nutritional needs
Limit consumption of salt 1 through diet alone1
Avoid mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes)

PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL


PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Maximise the proportion of the population achieving
Population average consumption of salt from nutritional adequacy without dietary supplements
all sources to be less than 5 g (2 g of sodium) a day

Proportion of the population consuming more than 6 g PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION


of salt (2.4 g of sodium) a day to be halved every 10 years
Dietary supplements are not recommended
Minimise exposure to aflatoxins for cancer prevention
from mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes) 1
This may not always be feasible. In some situations of illness or dietary
inadequacy, supplements may be valuable

PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Avoid salt-preserved, salted, or salty foods; Justification


preserve foods without using salt1 The evidence shows that high-dose nutrient supplements
can be protective or can cause cancer. The studies that
Limit consumption of processed foods with added salt demonstrate such effects do not relate to widespread use
to ensure an intake of less than 6 g (2.4 g sodium) a day among the general population, in whom the balance of
risks and benefits cannot confidently be predicted. A
Do not eat mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes) general recommendation to consume supplements for
cancer prevention might have unexpected adverse effects.
1
Methods of preservation that do not or need not use salt include refrigeration, Increasing the consumption of the relevant nutrients
freezing, drying, bottling, canning, and fermentation through the usual diet is preferred.

The recommendations of this Report, in common with its


Justification general approach, are food based. Vitamins, minerals, and
The strongest evidence on methods of food preservation, other nutrients are assessed in the context of the foods and
processing, and preparation shows that salt and salt- drinks that contain them. The Panel judges that the best
preserved foods are probably a cause of stomach cancer, and source of nourishment is foods and drinks, not dietary sup-
that foods contaminated with aflatoxins are a cause of liver plements. There is evidence that high-dose dietary supple-
cancer. ments can modify the risk of some cancers. Although some
studies in specific, usually high-risk, groups have shown evi-
Salt is necessary for human health and life itself, but at lev- dence of cancer prevention from some supplements, this
els very much lower than those typically consumed in most finding may not apply to the general population. Their level
parts of the world. At the levels found not only in high- of benefit may be different, and there may be unexpected
income countries but also in those where traditional diets are and uncommon adverse effects. Therefore it is unwise to rec-
high in salt, consumption of salty foods, salted foods, and ommend widespread supplement use as a means of cancer
salt itself is too high. The critical factor is the overall amount prevention. Further details of evidence and judgements can
of salt. Microbial contamination of foods and drinks and of be found in Chapter 4.
water supplies remains a major public health problem world- In general, for otherwise healthy people, inadequacy of
wide. Specifically, the contamination of cereals (grains) and intake of nutrients is best resolved by nutrient-dense diets
pulses (legumes) with aflatoxins, produced by some moulds and not by supplements, as these do not increase consump-
when such foods are stored for too long in warm tempera- tion of other potentially beneficial food constituents. The
tures, is an important public health problem, and not only Panel recognises that there are situations when supplements
in tropical countries. are advisable. See box 12.4.
Salt and salt-preserved foods are a probable cause of some
cancers. Aflatoxins are a convincing cause of liver cancer.
Further details of evidence and judgements can be found in
Chapter 4.

13
F O O D , N U T R I T I O N , P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y, A N D T H E P R E V E N T I O N O F C A N C E R : A G L O B A L P E R S P E C T I V E

SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION 1 SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION 2

BREASTFEEDING CANCER SURVIVORS1

Mothers to breastfeed; children to be breastfed1 Follow the recommendations


for cancer prevention2

PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL


RECOMMENDATIONS
The majority of mothers to breastfeed
exclusively, for six months2 3 All cancer survivors3 to receive nutritional care
from an appropriately trained professional
PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION
If able to do so, and unless otherwise advised,
Aim to breastfeed infants exclusively2 aim to follow the recommendations for
up to six months and continue diet, healthy weight, and physical activity2
with complementary feeding thereafter3
1
Cancer survivors are people who are living with a diagnosis of cancer, including
those who have recovered from the disease
1
Breastfeeding protects both mother and child 2
This recommendation does not apply to those who are undergoing active
2
‘Exclusively’ means human milk only, with no other food or drink, including treatment, subject to the qualifications in the text
water 3
This includes all cancer survivors, before, during, and after active treatment
3
In accordance with the UN Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding

Justification Justification
The evidence on cancer as well as other diseases shows Subject to the qualifications made here, the Panel has
that sustained, exclusive breastfeeding is protective for the agreed that its recommendations apply also to cancer
mother as well as the child. survivors. There may be specific situations where this
advice may not apply, for instance, where treatment has
This is the first major report concerned with the prevention compromised gastrointestinal function.
of cancer to make a recommendation specifically on breast-
feeding, to prevent breast cancer in mothers and to prevent If possible, when appropriate, and unless advised otherwise
overweight and obesity in children. Further details of evi- by a qualified professional, the recommendations of this
dence and judgements can be found in Chapters 6 and 8. Report also apply to cancer survivors. The Panel has made
Other benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and their chil- this judgement based on its examination of the evidence,
dren are well known. Breastfeeding protects against infec- including that specifically on cancer survivors, and also on
tions in infancy, protects the development of the immature its collective knowledge of the pathology of cancer and its
immune system, protects against other childhood diseases, interactions with food, nutrition, physical activity, and body
and is vital for the development of the bond between moth- composition. In no case is the evidence specifically on can-
er and child. It has many other benefits. Breastfeeding is cer survivors clear enough to make any firm judgements or
especially vital in parts of the world where water supplies recommendations to cancer survivors. Further details of evi-
are not safe and where impoverished families do not readi- dence and judgements can be found in Chapter 9.
ly have the money to buy infant formula and other infant Treatment for many cancers is increasingly successful, and
and young child foods. This recommendation has a special so cancer survivors increasingly are living long enough to
significance. While derived from the evidence on being develop new primary cancers or other chronic diseases. The
breastfed, it also indicates that policies and actions designed recommendations in this Report would also be expected to
to prevent cancer need to be directed throughout the whole reduce the risk of those conditions, and so can also be rec-
life course, from the beginning of life. ommended on that account.

14
WCRF/AICR Alison Bailey Julia Wilson PhD Barrie Margetts MSc PhD Kenneth E L McColl FRSE
Global Network Science Writer Science Programme MFPH FMedSci FRCP
Executives Redhill, UK Manager University of Southampton Western Infirmary
WCRF International UK Glasgow, UK
Marilyn Gentry Poling Chow BSc
President Research Administration Robert Owen PhD Sylvie Menard ScD
WCRF Global Network Assistant Art & Production German Cancer Research Istituto Nazionale Tumori
WCRF International Centre Milan, Italy
Kelly B Browning Chris Jones Heidelberg, Germany
Chief Financial Officer Kate Coughlin BSc Design and Art Director Massimo Pignatelli MD PhD
WCRF Global Network Science Programme Design4Science Ltd Gillian Reeves PhD MRCPath
Manager London, UK Cancer Research UK University of Bristol, UK
Kate Allen PhD WCRF International Epidemiology Unit
Director Emma Copeland PhD Oxford University, UK Henk van Kranen PhD
WCRF International Cara James Text Editor National Institute of Public
Associate Director for Brighton, UK Elio Riboli MD ScM MPH Health and the Environment
Kathryn L Ward Research Was at: International (RIVM)
Senior Vice-President AICR Rosalind Holmes Agency for Research on Bilthoven, the Netherlands
AICR From 2003 to 2005 Production Manager Cancer (IARC)
London, UK Lyon, France
Deirdre McGinley-Gieser Jennifer Kirkwood Now at: Imperial College Systematic
Operations Director Research Administration Mark Fletcher London, UK Literature Review
WCRF International Assistant Graphics Centre Leads
From 2001 to 2005 WCRF International Fletcher Ward Design Arthur Schatzkin MD DrPH
From 2003 to 2004 London, UK National Cancer Institute University of Bristol, UK
Jeffrey R Prince PhD Rockville, MD, USA George Davey Smith
Vice-President for Education Anja Kroke MD PhD MPH Ann O’Malley FMedSci FRCP DSc
and Communications Consultant Print Manager David E G Shuker PhD Jonathan Sterne PhD MSc
AICR University of Applied AICR The Open University MA
Sciences Milton Keynes, UK
Stephenie Lowe Fulda, Germany Geoff Simmons Istituto Nazionale Tumori
Director of International 2002 Design & Production Michael Sjöström MD PhD Milan, Italy
Finance Manager, WCRF UK Karolinska Institute Franco Berrino MD
WCRF Global Network Kayte Lawton Stockholm, Sweden Patrizia Pasanisi MD MSc
Research Administration
Karen Sadler Assistant Methodology Task Pieter van ‘t Veer PhD Johns Hopkins University
Head of WCRF UK, WCRF International Force Wageningen University Baltimore, MD, USA
From 2003 to 2006 From 2006 to 2007 the Netherlands Anthony J Alberg PhD MPH
Development Director Asia Advised on systematic
WCRF Hong Kong Lisa Miles MSc literature review Chris Williams MD University of Leeds, UK
Science Programme methodology Cochrane Cancer Network David Forman PhD FFPH
Lucie Galice Manager Oxford, UK Victoria J Burley PhD MSc
General Manager WCRF International Martin Wiseman FRCP RPHNutr
WCRF UK From 2002 to 2006 FRCPath
Area Director Chair Mechanisms London School of Hygiene
WCRF France Sarah Nalty MSc Project Director Working Group & Tropical Medicine, UK
Science Programme WCRF International Alan D Dangour PhD MSc
Pelagia de Wild Manager Advised on mechanisms of
General Manager WCRF International Sheila A Bingham PhD cancer process University of Teesside
WCRF Netherlands FMedSci Middlesbrough, UK
Edmund Peston MRC Dunn Human Nutrition John Milner PhD Carolyn Summerbell PhD
Mirjam Kapoen Research Administration Unit Chair SRD
Senior Executive Assistant Cambridge, UK National Cancer Institute
WCRF Netherlands WCRF International Rockville, MD, USA Penn State University
From 2004 to 2006 Heiner Boeing PhD University Park, PA, USA
Heidi Lau German Institution of Nahida Banu MBBS Terryl J Hartman PhD MPH
Development Manager Serena Prince Human Nutrition University of Bristol, UK RD
WCRF Hong Kong Research Administration Berlin, Germany
Assistant Xavier Castellsagué Pique Kaiser Permanente
Katie Whalley WCRF International Eric Brunner PhD FFPH PhD MD MPH Oakland, CA, USA and
Development Manager From 2004 to 2005 University College London Catalan Institute of The Cancer Institute of
WCRF France UK Oncology New Jersey,
Melissa Samaroo Barcelona, Spain New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Research Administration H Bas Bueno de Mesquita Elisa V Bandera MD PhD
Secretariat Assistant MD MPH PhD Sanford M Dawsey MD Lawrence H Kushi ScD
WCRF International National Institute of Public National Cancer Institute
Martin Wiseman FRCP From 2006 to 2007 Health and the Environment Rockville, MD, USA Wageningen University
FRCPath (RIVM) the Netherlands
Project Director Elaine Stone PhD Bilthoven, the Netherlands Carlos A Gonzalez PhD MPH Pieter van ‘t Veer PhD
WCRF International Science Programme MD Ellen Kampman PhD
Manager David Forman PhD FFPH Catalan Institute of
Geoffrey Cannon WCRF International University of Leeds, UK Oncology
Chief Editor From 2001 to 2006 Barcelona, Spain
WCRF International Ian Frayling PhD MRCPath
Rachel Thompson PhD Addenbrookes Hospital James Herman MD
Ritva R Butrum PhD RPHNutr Cambridge, UK Johns Hopkins University
Senior Science Advisor Review Coordinator Baltimore, MD, USA
AICR Andreas J Gescher DSc
Ivana Vucenik PhD University of Leicester, UK Stephen Hursting PhD
Greg Martin MB BCh MPH Associate Director for Was at: University of North
Project Manager Research Tim Key PhD Carolina
WCRF International AICR Cancer Research UK Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Epidemiology Unit Now at: University of Texas
Susan Higginbotham PhD Joan Ward Oxford University, UK Austin, TX, USA
Director for Research Research Administration
AICR Assistant Jos Kleijnen MD PhD Henry Kitchener MD
WCRF International Was at: University of York University of Manchester, UK
Steven Heggie PhD From 2001 to 2003 UK
Project Manager Now at: Kleijnen Systematic Keith R Martin PhD MTox
WCRF International Reviews Penn State University
From 2002 to 2006 York, UK University Park, PA, USA
View publication stats

You might also like