Commentary: Don't be so quick to take fish off the menu after possible link to higher cancer risk - CNA

Although the researchers adjusted their analyses for factors that could affect results – such as physical activity, smoking, family history of cancer and alcohol intake – the adjustment for daily UV exposure was only based on the average UV index for the suburb they lived in. 

This means there was no adjustment for UV exposure related to a person’s occupation. They also did not have information on the melanoma risk factors such as mole count, hair colour, history of severe sunburn or individual sun-related behaviours.

FISH COULD STILL CONTAIN CONTAMINANTS

This study does not prove eating fish causes melanoma. This is because it’s a “cohort study”, meaning people were observed over time to see whether they developed melanoma or not.

There was no intervention to feed them specific amounts of fish, which would not have been practical to do over 15 years anyway. Researchers did measure a range of behaviours at the beginning of the study (or “baseline”), such as dietary intake and physical activity levels. But these could have changed over time.

So the results are based on observation rather than cause and effect. This doesn’t mean observational results should be ignored, though.

Fish, especially fatty fish such as tuna, can contain contaminants such as mercury and PCBs. This could contribute to the findings that eating more fish is associated with a higher rate of both malignant melanoma and melanoma in-situ (skin cancer).

PCBs are readily absorbed into the body, accumulating in fat stores and staying there for years.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vY29tbWVudGFyeS9maXNoLWluY3JlYXNlLXJpc2stY2FuY2VyLW1lbGFub21hLWJlbmVmaXRzLW9tZWdhLTI3NDYwODHSAQA?oc=5

2022-07-10 22:00:00Z
CBMiZGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vY29tbWVudGFyeS9maXNoLWluY3JlYXNlLXJpc2stY2FuY2VyLW1lbGFub21hLWJlbmVmaXRzLW9tZWdhLTI3NDYwODHSAQA