Ultra-processed foods and cancer risk in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) — The Association Specialists
  1. Schedule
  2. Oral Presentations - Cancer causes and control
  3. Ultra-processed foods and cancer risk in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS)

Ultra-processed foods and cancer risk in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) (24154)

Julie K Bassett 1 2 , Brigid M Lynch 1 2 , Priscila Machado 3 , Harindra Jayasekara 1 2 4 , Melissa C Southey 1 5 6 , Roger L Milne 1 2 5 , Allison M Hodge 1 2
  1. Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  2. Cente for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  4. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  5. Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  6. Department of Clinical Pathology, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are defined by Nova (the system developed to categorise foods from least to most processed) as formulations manufactured from substances derived from foods, with minimal whole food content and typically including flavours, colours and other cosmetic additives. An estimated 42% of energy intake for Australians comes from UPFs. A recent umbrella review linked UPF consumption with higher risk of mortality, obesity and cancer. We examined associations between UPF intake and cancer risk in an Australian cohort study.

 

Methods

Participants from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study who completed a baseline 121-item Food Frequency Questionnaire (1990-94) were included. Foods were classified using Nova. Incident cancers were ascertained by registry linkage. Flexible parametric survival models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for total cancer risk and obesity-related cancer (13 cancers) risk associated with UPF intake, calculated as a proportion of total food intake (in grams/day). As BMI and diet quality may act as confounders or mediators, they were excluded from our primary analysis but included in sensitivity analyses. 

 

Results

Among 35,019 study participants, 10,443 developed cancer (including 4,122 obesity-related cancers) over a median of 22.8 years. Mean (SD) UPF was 25.2% (10.7) of total food intake (grams/day) ranging from 12.5% (2.8) in the lowest UPF quintile to 41.7% (8.1) in the highest.  There was a positive association between UPF intake and risk of cancer (HR =1.03 (1.01, 1.06), per SD increment) and obesity-related cancer (HR =1.04 (1.01, 1.08). Associations were attenuated after adjusting for BMI or diet quality.

 

Conclusion

Higher UPF consumption was weakly associated with increased cancer risk in this large Australian cohort. Attenuation after adjusting for BMI and diet quality suggests these factors partly mediate the relationship. Reducing UPF intake and improving overall diet quality may be important strategies for reducing cancer risk.