Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Alcohol may boost breast cancer risk

CARLY WEEKS

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:58 PM EDT 16/04/08

Women who drink even moderate amounts of alcohol up to 50 per cent more likely to develop a common type of breast cancer ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Beyazet Ilderim from Scarborough?, Canada writes: I did a search on my own. I shall warn the readers that my research is not subsidised by Oil Companies or large corporations of any kind. I am just me and the keyboard and I do this just to help the world. The search result is that reading the G & M will sure bring cancer upon the reader. Same results I got when I substituted the G & M with Toronto Star....One can only swallow so much poison before bad processes start to take hold in the body....
  2. Chrissy Simon from Canada writes: What about past alcohol consumption? I'm thinking about women who partied and drank as teenagers, but not as adults, or recovering alcoholics. Do the higher rates of breast cancer drop back to normal once the heavy drinking stops?
  3. Anthony B from Kingston, Canada writes: Beyazet, what are you talking about? Your attempt at sarcasm and wittiness is shameful.
    This article in the G&M is the same as any article regarding a "scientific breakthrough" in any paper. Certain elements are exaggerated to sell papers. My advice to anyone who is curious about such articles is to contact your local college or university library who will most likely have subscriptions to most academic journal databases, and look up the original article yourself. This one here though doesn't have a peer-reviewed academic article as of yet, but it will soon.
  4. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    There is a recurring weakness in science articles of late in many newspapers, which is to paint a current study as somehow brand new and to ignore past studies that were highly related - if not identical - in their findings.

    This newspaper article, for example, leaves the impression that the idea that "alcohol may boost breast cancer risk" stems from only "a new study".

    In reality, not only have other scientists already published for years evidence supporting a link between alcohol and breast cancer, but in fact the exact finding in this news report has already been published by others. And it was published years ago.

    Back in 2005 a group in Sweden published their finding of a " statistically significant interaction between alcohol intake" and "the risk for estrogen and progesterone receptor positive tumors" of the breast.

    Their study appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and was titled "Alcohol and postmenopausal breast cancer risk defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status". And their study was even reported clearly by ABC News back then in 2005: Looking "at how alcohol in general increased the risk of breast cancer" and the finding was that "the increased risk (was) for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer, not for the less common estrogen receptor negative type".

    Based on today's events, I suppose the next step in this remarkable process will be for a student this year at the University of Chicago to invent a propellor-driven, heavier-than-air craft that can fly, and for today's city newspapers to report it as a headline: "Airplanes may be possible, new student's study discovers".

  5. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: This should be read with tung in cheek.

    Hundreds of other studies show the benefits of moderate drinking, like reduced risk of heart attack and stroke.

    Oh well, follow the golden rule 'publish or perish'!
  6. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Scientific study finds that by staying in bed all day, people reduce their risk of falling down by 100%. Now that's news!! Fearmongering is alive and well here, as long as the cash flows for "studies".
  7. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: Just another hot air study. What people eat has far more importance on their health then a couple of beers or two glasses of wine after work. These studies must be make work programs funded by the loonie element in government.
  8. Kevin MacDonell from Antigonish NS, Canada writes: "Even a drink a day can cause an increased risk," said Jasmine Lew, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Chicago ... - What an irresponsible statement! Just how, I would like to know, did this study distinguish between correlation and causation? To say, as Lew does later, that alcohol consumption is "positively associated with breast cancer" is quite a different thing than to say that a drink a day CAUSES cancer. Sometimes I wish that journalists would simply ignore all these new studies with their limited scope (and broad, exaggerated conclusions) and give us solid overviews of what a whole body of studies seems to be telling us. Because frankly, this type of journalism provides no useful information for people trying to making healthy choices and still enjoy life.
  9. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: This link has been studied since the 1980s (that's when I first heard about it.) You'd think they'd have figured out something more definitive by now. Instead they come up with another study alleging a possible link. So? Studies have been saying that for 20 years.
  10. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....alcohol consumption is "positively associated with breast cancer" is quite a different thing than to say that a drink a day CAUSES cancer. Sometimes I wish that journalists would simply ignore all these new studies with their limited scope (and broad, exaggerated conclusions)....."
    For the same reason that Dr. Fong(a psychologist at U of Wateloo/Guelph claimed to be renowned expert on SHS issues) is supremely worthy of a $4.1 million tobacco control, study grant.
    The biased study is "de rigeur" and it doesn't matter who does it(graduate/post graduate student; engineer; psychologist; sociologist; etc.) as long as it conforms to the agenda and can somehow be "related". The health scaremongering age is upon us be it tobacco, alcohol, obesity, and more to come. The "Health Scare of the Day" has replaced the Health Scare of the Week, which in turn, has replaced the Health Scare of the Month. The study grant junkies are in abundance, the rubber stamp "approval crowd"(Health Canada to name just one) is behind them, and there are plenty of unquestioning fools(reporters/commentators inclusive) who believe them.
  11. Samantha Cukier from Lunenburg, NS, Canada writes: Quoted directly from The Lancet, Vol. 8, April 2007, (p.292-3), Bann et al., on behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group: "Overall, the Working Group confirmed that alcoholic beverages are “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1),20 and concluded that the occurrence of malignant tumours of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, liver, colorectum, and female breast is causally related to alcohol consumption." Note the last line: *causally* related -- this information is coming from the World Health Organization reporting on over 53 studies showing the increased relative risk. Note as well, as others have mentioned, that everything we do has a relative risk factor attached to it. It's up to us to assess these risks and reduce them as we see fit. If there was a history of breast cancer in my family, though, I would do anything I could to PREVENT it and/or reduce my risk.
  12. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: As indicated by Samantha's post, the risk from alcohol is not confined to breast cancer. And even if you don't drink, regular use of a mouthwash containing alcohol increases the risk of oral cancer.

    Sigh...I'm gonna miss my extra-large ice-cold gin martini Saturday nights.
  13. Dr Demento from Canada writes:

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than to have a frontal labotomy . . .
  14. Banofee Pie from Toronto, Canada writes: Yeah, I'm still going to have the occasional glass of wine or two. Honestly, with all these studies, we're not supposed to do or eat anything. Why not just stop living? I agree with moderation, and I agree with not eating processed garbage because that's just common sense...but c'mon. One day we're supposed to have two glasses daily for good health and then next it's "don't drink the wine! You'll get Cancer!" Give me a break..actually, on second thought, give me a glass of wine...
  15. pete peters from Pincher Creek, Canada writes: I gave up responding to media cancer scares after the coffee fiasco a few years ago. You remember: first, more than a cup a day gives you cancer; followed by: no link between coffee and cancer; followed by: a cup a day gives lab rats cancer.

    The truth is journalists are just too stupid to interpret scientific studies or put them in context. Keep this in mind next time you read a global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-all story in the Global or some other equally unreliable source.
  16. Barbara in BC from Canada writes: Funny, I was just reading a study that proved women who drink wine (rather than beer or liquor) are less likely to get dementia in old age. Trying to guess what to do next... would I rather avoid dementia or breast cancer? Maybe avoid alcohol entirely?
  17. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: Statistician is the subspecies of the parasite races (such as sociologists, historians, political scientists or philosophers) spotted at every university corner. Their actual intention has nothing to do with understanding the mechanisms or the causality but they just make conclusions out of any input about anything. Such studies are not only waste of money and time but are usually politically motivated as well. They just find what they are assigned to find. If failed, just do not publish that study, redefine the inputs until you get the output you want.

    Can "asking subjects" be a reliable metholdology for God's sake? If I conduct a survey and somehow manage to find out that drunken driving reduces accidents, will you start drinking like fish before driving? If there is a statistically significant correlation between the cancer incidents and the rate of tails the subjects get after coin tossing, can we deduct that the ones who get more tails are more likely to develop cancer? Alternative studies may be horoscopy, homeopathy, astrology etc. Futurology or witchcraft experimentations should have ended already.

    When the cause is UNKNOWN, it is nonsense to conduct studies choosing random variables to statistically associate. And if you are examining the data of 185.000 subjects to find out what was not obvious so far, you are certainly trying to arrive at a point you want. Stabbing kills, no survey or sample needed. Excessive consumption of anything (water included) kills, people who are older than 120 tend to die sooner than those at 20, and lack of oxygen is fatal. These do not take a statistician to enlighten you and the moment the statistician enters, is the moment you need a second opinion.

  18. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: Barbara in BC from Canada, was the sponsor of the study a wine company?
    Alternative title is:
    "Readers' comments may lessen pseudoscientific survey risk."
  19. Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: Mr Tyler Williams, a man of precise details, why did you not capitalized the 's' in Seattle?
  20. Gillian Moody from Toronto, Canada writes: .
    "A drink a day?"
    .
    Sorry, do you mean 1% proof or 40% proof?
    .
    If you expect me to buy that I'll get breast cancer from something w such a low amout of alcohol that I can get it at the local grocery store, sorry, but not going to happen.
    .
    If the 1% proof REALly is a "problem" then, I can get sick from anything.
  21. Russ Barth from Ottawa, Canada writes: .... and a recent german study shows how marijuana actually helps the body resist cancer!

    but shhhhhh..... we don't want anyone to know pot is safer than booze!
  22. S N from Toronto, Canada writes: It is good news for people who do not drink and sobering news for those addicted to booze! So why is LCBO still hanging around, any thoughts?
  23. a salajan from To, Canada writes: S N from Toronto, Canada writes: It is good news for people who do not drink and sobering news for those addicted to booze! So why is LCBO still hanging around, any thoughts?

    SN, how is this good news for non-drinkers? Their chances of developing cancer did not change, did they? Or is it good news because they needed re-assurance that alcohol -free life style is better for your health? Or is it good news because they can say now "in your face" drinkers (or addicts, as you choose to called them)?
  24. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: Mr Tyler Williams, a man of precise details, why did you not capitalized the 's' in Seattle?
    ========================================

    Joseph T, spoken like the true idiot that you are. What has this to do with anything?
  25. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: New Study shows %100 of babies born will succumb to DEATH at some point.

    FEH! I think this whole bloody world is physically, mentally and spiritually toxic.

    Pass the bottle.
  26. Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks than in the drink with my boat on the rocks.
  27. Liz Doesit from Canada writes: A glass or two of wine a day, is indeed okay, even improves good looks, or is it just people that drink wine that are more attractive ? Just thinking of my mother inlaw, who never drank any wine. She sure is wrinkled and shriveled, a drink or two might have relaxed her, and kept her looking younger!
  28. Babbleon ! from Canada writes: And spit is the cause of stomach cancer.

    Get a grip!
  29. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: Tyler Williams - agreed. It's kind of annoying to see that journalists can be ignorant of past research on a subject. This study, while scientifically valuable, is hardly breaking new ground.

    Also, I'd like to point out something odd. The author writes: "[Tim Stockwell] also said it's possible that some studies linking moderate consumption with positive benefits may be misleading, because people who report themselves as moderate to light drinkers may be more likely to be in good health than heavy drinkers."

    Shouldn't the opposite also be true? As in "it's possible that some studies linking heavy consumption with breast cancer may be misleading because women who are heavy drinkers may make other lifestyle choices that increase risk?" I'm not suggesting that's the case at all, but an argument can be made. I'd be interested to know how, if at all, studies of this nature controlled for other lifestyle choices that could result in spurious conclusions.
  30. Expert Eel from OttaPettaOshawawawawa, Canada writes: but but but ... all the antioxidants in wine that are good for you ?????
  31. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Dick Garneau: What's a "tung"?
  32. travel bug from Canada writes: Everything in moderation I suppose - I also heard that red wine is great for preventing blood clots from forming for about 24 hours after you drink it- so before the next long flight be sure to have a tipple of red wine!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top