The answer to … everything is …

42, as all fans of Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will instantly tell you. In the years before he produced his best-seller, a chance contact with Footlights had drawn me into spending many merry evenings with Douglas in The Baron of Beef public house, more or less opposite St John’s College, where he was studying – sporadically, he would doubtless have said – English.

Had a piece of work that’s just come out in The British Medical Journal been published 40-odd years earlier I suspect I would have mentioned it at one of those gatherings – early on before rational thought took alcohol-fuelled flight. It’s interesting because it says we can put off dying from the things that kill most of us (heart failure and cancer) by what Jason Gill, Carlos Celis-Morales and their pals in the University of Glasgow call ‘active commuting’. By that they mean cycling to work is good. Physical inactivity (e.g., spending happy evenings in the pub) is bad.

Had I mentioned it, rather than coming up with an entirely whimsical response to the “ultimate question of life”, Douglas would have spotted that the key to hanging on to life is “on your bike”. Just think: if Jason & Chums had got a move on, history would have been changed. Pondering all their evidence over several pints of The Baron’s best, it’s hard to imagine Douglas coming up with any title other than The Biker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

But hang on: isn’t this just another pretty useless survey?

Maybe – but for several reasons it’s hard to write it off.

First, there have been quite a few studies over the years showing that cycling is good for you.

Second, this is one was huge – so more likely to be meaningful. Using the UK Biobank data it looked for links between death and the way in which more than a quarter of a million people got to work.

Third, and the thing that really caught my eye: the key finding stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. Usually in surveys of things that might affect our health any trends are difficult to spot: eating X makes you live 10% longer or be 5% less likely to get Y … bla, bla, bla. But here you didn’t need to peer: cycling (a ‘long distance’) to work makes you 40% less likely to die – from anything!

Below is just one bit of their data: I’ve re-drawn it with the cycling result in red but it hardly needs that to highlight the difference between it, walking (blues) and the ‘non-actives’ (green: car or public transport). It’s true, a bit of biking can help (orange: mixed mode cycling) but the really clear benefit comes from cycling (lots) – though they don’t actually say how many miles per day counts as ‘long-distance cycling.’ Modes of transport and distances were self-reported and the latter just divided into ‘long’ and ‘short’.

How you get to work impacts your life expectancy. The figure shows the risk of death from all causes as hazard ratios (ratio of the hazard rates of death): the reference (hazard ratio 1) is travel by car or public transport (green). (From Celis-Morales, C. et al., 2017).

So what of heart failure and cancer?

Perhaps not surprisingly then, commuting by cycling was also associated with a markedly lower risk both of getting heart disease or cancer and of dying therefrom. To give one specific figure: cycling to work lowers the chance of developing cancer by 45%.

It can’t be the lycra

These are horrible studies to undertake, partly because they rely on human beings telling the truth but also because of what are called ‘confounding factors.’ For example, if someone plays a lot of sport and eats sensibly, you might guess they’d be relatively healthy, regardless of how they get to work. Conversely for smoking. However, Celis-Morales & Co did their best to allow for such things and therefore to come up with results that mean something.

But, if you take their findings at face value there remains a key question that the authors do not mention: what is it about biking that’s such a life-saver (assuming you don’t get knocked-off and squashed)? It’s a real puzzle because walking is generally held to be very good for you whilst cycling is the most energy-efficient means of transport devised by man. Both activities use nearly all of your muscles, albeit that biking really works out your glutes and quadriceps, but because bikes are so efficient you use less energy.

Counting the calories

You can do the sums – i.e. work out how many calories used walking, running or cycling on Wolfram Alfra. It’s just confirmed that my daily bike commute does indeed use about half the number of calories required for the same walk.

If you take your commute as training you would suppose that expending more energy (i.e. walking rather than biking) would strengthen your heart and cardiovascular system – and indeed this study shows commuters who did more than 6 miles a week at ‘typical walking pace of three miles an hour’ slightly lowered their risk of cardiovascular disease. But cycling was far more beneficial.

As to cancer, beyond the simplistic notion that fitness = strengthening your immune system and hence capacity resist abnormal cell growth, it’s hard to see a mechanism for biking being so much better than anything else.

So, never mind the science …

Away with Ford Prefect and latter-day variants, automotive  or otherwise! On your bike!! And if you can do it with a friend on a tandem, so much the better!!! Though if you’re going to do it à deux, it might be worth recalling that the Jatravartids had the wisdom to invent the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.


Celis-Morales, C. et al. (2017). Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 357 doi:

Through the Smokescreen

For many years I was lucky enough to teach in a cancer biology course for third year natural science and medical students. Quite a few of those guys would already be eyeing up research careers and, within just a few months, some might be working on the very topics that came up in lectures. Nothing went down better, therefore, than talking about a nifty new method that had given easy-to-grasp results clearly of direct relevance to cancer.

Three cheers then for Mikhail Denissenko and friends who in 1996 published the first absolutely unequivocal evidence that a chemical in cigarette smoke could directly damage a bit of DNA that provides a major protection against cancer. The compound bound directly to several guanines in the DNA sequence that encodes P53 – the protein often called ‘the guardian of the genome’ – causing mutations. A pity poor old Fritz Lickint wasn’t around for a celebratory drink – it was he, back in the 1930s, that first spotted the link between smoking and lung cancer.

This was absolutely brilliant for showing how proteins switched on genes – and how that switch could be perturbed by mutations – because, just a couple of years earlier, Yunje Cho’s group at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had made crystals of P53 stuck to DNA and used X-rays to reveal the structure. This showed that six sites (amino acids) in the centre of the P53 protein poked like fingers into the groove of double-stranded DNA.

x-ray-picCentral core of P53 (grey ribbon) binding to the groove in double-stranded DNA (blue). The six amino acids (residues) most commonly mutated in p53 are shown in yellow (from Cho et al., 1994).

So that was how P53 ‘talked’ to DNA to control the expression of specific genes. What could be better then, in a talk on how DNA damage can lead to cancer, than the story of a specific chemical doing nasty things to a gene that encodes perhaps the most revered of anti-cancer proteins?

The only thing baffling the students must have been the tobacco companies insisting, as they continued to do for years, that smoking was good for you.

And twenty-something years on …?

Well, it’s taken a couple of revolutions (scientific, of course!) but in that time we’ve advanced to being able to sequence genomes at a fantastic speed for next to nothing in terms of cost. In that period too more and more data have accumulated showing the pervasive influence of the weed. In particular that not only does it cause cancer in tissues directly exposed to cigarette smoke (lung, oesophagus, larynx, mouth and throat) but it also promotes cancers in places that never see inhaled smoke: kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas, stomach, cervix, colon, rectum and white blood cells (acute myeloid leukemia). However, up until now we’ve had very little idea of what, if anything, these effects have in common in terms of molecular damage.

Applying the power of modern sequencing, Ludmil Alexandrov of the Los Alamos National Lab, along with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute’s Michael Stratton and their colleagues have pieced together whole-genome sequences and exome sequences (those are just the DNA that encode proteins – about 1% of the total) of over 5,000 tumours. These covered 17 smoking-associated forms of cancer and permitted comparison of tobacco smokers with never-smokers.

Let’s hear it for consistent science!

The most obvious question then is do the latest results confirm the efforts of Denissenko & Co., now some 20 years old? The latest work found that smoking could increase the mutation load in the form of multiple, distinct ‘mutational signatures’, each contributing to different extents in different cancers. And indeed in lung and larynx tumours they found the guanine-to-thymine base-pair change that Denissenko et al had observed as the result of a specific chemical attaching to DNA.

For lung cancer they concluded that, all told, about 150 mutations accumulate in a given lung cell as a result of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for a year.

Turning to tissues that are not directly exposed to smoke, things are a bit less clear. In liver and kidney cancers smokers have a bigger load of mutations than non-smokers (as in the lung). However, and somewhat surprisingly, in other smoking-associated cancer types there were no clear differences. And even odder, there was no difference in the methylation of DNA between smokers and non-smokers – that’s the chemical tags that can be added to DNA to tune the process of transforming the genetic code into proteins. Which was strange because we know that such ‘epigenetic’ changes can occur in response to external factors, e.g., diet.

What’s going on?

Not clear beyond the clear fact that tissues directly exposed to smoke accumulate cancer-driving mutations – and the longer the exposure the bigger the burden. For tissues that don’t see smoke its effect must be indirect. A possible way for this to happen would be for smoke to cause mild inflammation that in turn causes chemical signals to be released into the circulation that in turn affect how efficiently cells repair damage to their DNA.


Sir Walt showing off on his return                         to England

Whose fault it is anyway?

So tobacco-promoted cancers still retain some of their molecular mystery as well as presenting an appalling and globally growing problem. These days a popular pastime is to find someone else to blame for anything and everything – and in the case of smoking we all know who the front-runner is. But although Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Europe (in 1578), it had clearly been in use by American natives long before he turned up and, going in the opposite direction (à la Marco Polo), the Chinese had been at it since at least the early 1500s. To its credit, China had an anti-smoking movement by 1639, during the Ming Dynasty. One of their Emperors decreed that tobacco addicts be executed and the Qing Emperor Kangxi went a step further by beheading anyone who even possessed tobacco.

And paying the price

And paying the price

If you’re thinking maybe we should get a touch more Draconian in our anti-smoking measures, it’s worth pointing out that the Chinese model hasn’t worked out too well so far. China’s currently heading for three million cancer deaths annually. About 400,000 of these are from lung cancer and the smoking trends mean this figure will be 700,000 annual deaths by 2020. The global cancer map is a great way to keep up with the stats of both lung cancer and the rest – though it’s not for those of a nervous disposition!


Denissenko, M.F. et al. ( (1996). Preferential Formation of Benzo[a]pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53.Science 274, 430–432.

Cho, Y. et al. (1994). Crystal Structure of a p53 Tumor Suppressor-DNA Complex: Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations. Science, 265, 346-355.

Alexandrov, L.D. et al. (2016). Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science 354, 618-622.

Bigger is Better

“Nonsense!” most males would cry, quite logically, given that we spend much of our time trying to persuade the opposite sex that size doesn’t matter. But we want to have it both ways: in the macho world of rugby one of the oldest adages is that ‘a good big ’un will always beat a good little ’un’.  Beethoven doubtless had a view about size – albeit unrecorded by history – but after he’d written his Eroica symphony, perhaps the greatest revolutionary musical composition of all, his next offering in the genre was the magical Fourth – scored for the smallest orchestra used in any of his symphonies. And on the theme of small can be good, the British Medical Journal, no less, has just told us that if we cut the size of food portions and put ’em on smaller plates we’ll eat less and not get fat!

Is bigger better?

Is bigger better?

All of which suggests that whether bigger is better depends on what you have in mind. Needless to say, in these pages what we have in mind is ‘Does it apply to cancer?’ – that is, because cancers arise from the accumulation in cells of DNA damage (mutations), it would seem obvious that the bigger an animal (i.e. the more cells it has) and the longer it lives the more likely it will be to get cancer.

Obvious but, this being cancer, also wrong.

Peto’s Paradox

The first person to put his finger on this point was Sir Richard Peto, most famous for his work with Sir Richard Doll on cancer epidemiology. It was Doll, together with Austin Bradford Hill, who produced statistical proof (in the British Doctors’ Study published in 1956) that tobacco smoking increased the risk of lung cancer. Peto joined forces with Doll in 1971 and they went on to show that tobacco, infections and diet between them cause three quarters of all cancers.

Whenever this topic comes up I’m tempted to give a plug to the unfortunate Fritz Lickint – long forgotten German physician – who was actually the first to publish evidence that linked smoking and lung cancer and who coined the term ‘passive smoking’ – all some 30 years before the Doll study. Lickint’s findings were avidly taken up by the Nazi party as they promoted Draconian anti-smoking measures – presumably driven by the fact that their leader, Gröfaz (to use the derogatory acronym by which he became known in Germany as the war progressed – from Größter Feldherr aller ZeitenGreatest Field Commander of all Time) was a confirmed non-smoker. Despite his usefulness, Lickint’s political views didn’t fit the ideology of the times. He lost his job, was conscripted, survived the war as a medical orderly and only then was able to resume his life as a doctor – albeit never receiving the credit he deserved.

Returning to Richard Peto, it was he who in 1975 pointed out that across different species the incidence of cancer doesn’t appear to be linked to the number of cells in animal – i.e. its size.   He based his notion on the comparison of mice with men – we have about 1000 times the number of cells in a mouse and typically live 30 times as long. So we should be about a million times more likely to get cancer – but in fact cancer incidence is another of those things where we’re pretty similar to our little furry friends. That’s Peto’s Paradox.

It doesn’t seem to apply within members of the same species, a number of surveys having shown that cancer incidence increases with height both for men and women. The Women’s Health Initiative found that a four inch increase in height raised overall cancer risk by 13% although for some forms (kidney, rectum, thyroid and blood) the risk went up by about 25%. A later study found a similar association for ovarian cancer: women who are 5ft 6in tall have a 23% greater risk than those who only make it to 5 feet. A similar risk links ovarian cancer to obesity (i.e. a rise in body mass index from 20 (slim) to 30 (slightly overweight) puts the risk up by 23%). Statistically sound though these results appear to be, it’s worth nothing that, as my colleague Paul Pharoah has pointed out, these risk changes are small. For example, the ovarian cancer finding translates to a lifetime risk of about 16-in-a-1000 for shorter women going up to 20-in-a-1000 as they rise by 6 inches.

It’s true that there may be a contribution from larger animals having bigger cells (whale red blood cells are about twice as big as those of the mouse) that divide more slowly but at most that effect seems small and doesn’t fully account for the fact that across species the association of size and age with cancer breaks down: Peto’s Paradox rules – humans are much more likely to get cancer than whales.

What did we know?

Well, since Peto picked up the problem, almost nothing about underlying causes. The ‘almost’ has been confined to the very small end of the scale and we’ve already met the star of the show – the naked mole rat – a rather shy chap with a very long lifespan (up to 30 years) but who never seems to get cancer. In that piece we described the glimmerings of an explanation but, thanks to Xiao Tian and colleagues of the University of Rochester, New York we now know that these bald burrowers make an extraordinarily large version of a polysaccharide (a polymer of sugars). These long strings of glucose-like molecules (called hyaluronan) form part of the extracellular matrix and regulate cell proliferation and migration. They’re enormous molecules with tens of thousands of sugars linked together but the naked mole rat makes versions about four times larger than those of mice or humans – and it seems that these extra-large sugar strings restrict cell behaviour and block the development of tumours.

Going up!

Our ignorance has just been further lifted with two heavyweight studies, one from Lisa Abegglen, Joshua Schiffman and chums from the University of Utah School of Medicine who went to the zoo (San Diego Zoo, in fact) and looked at 36 different mammalian species, ranging in size from the striped grass mouse (weighing in at 50 grams) to the elephant – at 4,800 kilogram nearly 100,000 times larger. They found no relationship between body size and cancer incidence, a result that conforms to Peto’s paradox. Comparing cancer mortality rates it transpires that the figure for elephants is less than 5% compared with the human range of 11% to 25%.

107 final pic

Cancer incidence across species by body size and lifespan. A selection of 20 of the 36 species studied is shown. Sizes range from the striped grass mouse to the elephant. As the risk of cancer depends on both the number of cells in the body and the number of years over which those cells can accumulate mutations, cancer incidence is plotted as a function of size (i.e. mass in grams × life span, years: y axis: log scale). Each species is represented by at least 10 animals (from Abegglen et al., 2015).

It can be seen at a glance that cancer incidence is not associated with mass and life span.

The Tasmanian devil stands out as a remarkable example of susceptibility to cancer through its transmission by biting and licking.

How does Jumbo do it?

In a different approach to Peto’s Paradox, Michael Sulak, Vincent Lynch and colleagues at the University of Chicago looked mainly at elephants – more specifically they used DNA sequencing to get at how the largest extant land mammal manages to be super-resistant to cancer. In particular they focused on the tumor suppressor gene P53 (aka TP53) because its expression is exquisitely sensitive to DNA damage and when it’s switched on the actions of the P53 protein buy time for the cell to repair the damage or, failing that, bring about the death of the cell. That’s as good an anti-cancer defence as you can imagine – hence P53’s appellation as the ‘guardian of the genome’. It turned out that elephants have no fewer than 20 copies of P53 in their genome, whereas humans and other mammals have only one (i.e. one copy per set of (23) chromosomes). DNA from frozen mammoths had 14 copies of P53 but manatees and the small furry hyraxes, the elephant’s closest living relatives, like humans have only one.

The Utah group confirmed that elephants have, in addition to one normal P53 gene, 19 extra P53 genes (they’re actually retrogenes – one type of the pseudogenes that we met in the preceding post) that have been acquired as the animals have expanded in size during evolution. Several of these extra versions of P53 were shown to be switched on (transcribed) and translated into proteins.

Consistent with their extra P53 fire-power, elephant cells committed P53-dependent suicide (programmed cell death, aka apoptosis) more frequently than human cells when exposed to DNA-damaging radiation. This suggests that elephant cells are rather better than human cells when it comes to killing themselves to avoid the risk of uncontrolled growth arising from defective DNA.

More genes anyone?

Those keen on jumping on technological bandwagons may wish to sign up for an extra P53 gene or two, courtesy of genetic engineering, so that bingo! – they’ll be free of cancers. Aside from the elephant, they may be encouraged by ‘super P53’ mice that were genetically altered to express one extra version of P53 that indeed significantly protected from cancer when compared with normal mice – and did so without any evident ill-effects.

We do not wish to dampen your enthusiasm but would be in dereliction of our duty is we did not add a serious health warning. We now know a lot about P53 – for example, that the P53 gene encodes at least 15 different proteins (isoforms), some of which do indeed protect against cancer – but there are some that appear to act as tumour promoters. In other words we know enough about P53 to realize that we simply haven’t a clue. So we really would be playing with fire if we started tinkering with our P53 gene complement – and to emphasise practicalities, as Mel Greaves has put it, we just don’t know how well the elephants’ defences would stack up if they smoked.

Nevertheless, on the bright side, light is at long last beginning to be shed on Peto’s Paradox and who knows where that will eventually lead us. Meanwhile Richard Peto’s activities have evolved in a different direction and he now helps to run a Thai restaurant in Oxford, a cuisine known for small things that pack a prodigious punch. Bit like Beethoven’s Fourth you could say.



Peto, R. et al. (1975). Cancer and ageing in mice and men. British Journal of Cancer 32, 411-426.

Doll, R. and Peto, R. (1976). Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years’ observations on male British doctors. Br Med J. 2(6051):1525–36.

Maciak, S. and Michalak, P. (2015). “Cell size and cancer: A new solution to Peto’s paradox?”. Evolutionary Applications 8: 2.

Doll, R. and Hill, A.B. (1954). “The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits”. BMJ 328 (7455): 1529.

Doll, R. and Hill, A.B. (November 1956). “Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking; a second report on the mortality of British doctors”. British Medical Journal 2 (5001): 1071–1081.

Tian, X. et al. (2013). High-molecular-mass hyaluronan mediates the cancer resistance of the naked mole rat. Nature 499, 346-349.

Abegglen, L.M., Schiffman, J.D. et al. (2015). Potential Mechanisms for Cancer Resistance in Elephants and Comparative Cellular Response to DNA Damage in Humans. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13134.

Sulak, M., Lindsey Fong, Katelyn Mika, Sravanthi Chigurupati, Lisa Yon, Nigel P. Mongan, Richard D. Emes, Vincent J. Lynch, V.J. (2015). TP53 copy number expansion correlates with the evolution of increased body size and an enhanced DNA damage response in elephants. doi:

García-Cao, I. et al. (2002). ‘Super p53’ mice exhibit enhanced DNA damage response, are tumor resistant and age normally. EMBO Journal 21, 6225–6235.

Dennis’s Pet Menace

As it happened, I’d already agreed to appear on Jeremy Sallis’ Lunchtime Live Show on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire – the plan being just to chat about cancery topics that might be of interest to listeners. Which would have been fine – if only The World Health Organization had left us in peace. But of course they chose last Tuesday to publish their lengthy cogitations on the subject of whether meat is bad for us – i.e. causes cancer.

Cue Press extremism: prime example The Times, quite predictably – they really aren’t great on biomedical science – who chucked kerosene on the barbie with the headline ‘Processed meats blamed for thousands of cancer deaths a year’.

But – to precise facts – and strictly it’s The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), that has ‘evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.’

But hang on … haven’t we been here before?

Indeed we have. As long ago as January 2012 in these pages we commented on the evidence that processed meat can cause pancreatic cancer and in May of the same year we reviewed the cogitations of the Harvard School of Public Health’s 28 year study of 120,000 people that concluded eating red meat contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes. To be fair, that history partially reflects why the WHO Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries have taken so long to go public: they reviewed no fewer than 800 epidemiological studies! However, as the most frequent target for study was colorectal (bowel) cancer, that was the focus of their report released on 26th October 2015.

So what are we talking about?

Red meat, which means any unprocessed mammalian muscle meat, e.g., beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse or goat meat, that we usually cook before eating.

Processed meat: any meat not eaten fresh that has been salted, cured, smoked or whatever and commonly treated with chemicals to enhance flavour and colour and to prevent the growth of bacteria.

What did they say?

Processed meat is now classified as carcinogenic to humans – that is it goes into the top group (Group 1) of agents that cause cancer.

Red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). Group 2B is for things that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.


Because 12 of the 18 studies they reviewed showed a link between consumption of processed meat and bowel cancer and because it’s known that agents commonly added to processed meat (nitrates and nitrites) can, when we eat them, turn into chemicals that can directly damage DNA, i.e. cause mutations and hence promote cancers.

For red meat 7 out of 15 studies showed positive associations of high versus low consumption with bowel cancer and there is strong mechanistic evidence for a carcinogenic effect i.e. when meat is cooked genotoxic (i.e. DNA-damaging) chemicals can be generated. They put red meat in the probably group because several of the studies that the Working Group couldn’t fault – and therefore couldn’t leave out – showed no association.

Stop woffling

My laptop likes to turn ‘woffling’ into ‘wolfing’. Maybe it’s trying to tell me something.

But is The WHO trying to tell us something specific about wolfing? To be fair, they have a go by estimating that every 50 gram portion of processed meat (say a couple of slices of bacon) eaten daily increases the risk of bowel cancer by about 18%. For red meat the data ‘suggest’ that the risk of bowel cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion eaten daily.

And what might that mean?

In the UK about 6 people in 100 get bowel cancer: if you take The WHO maximum estimate and have everyone eat 50 grams of processed meat every day of their lives such that 18% more of them would get bowel cancer, the upshot would be 7 people in 100 rather than 6. So it’s a small rise in a relatively small risk.

As the report points out, the Global Burden of Disease Project reckons diets high in processed meat cause about 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide and, if the reported associations hold up, the figure for red meat would be 50,000. Compare those figures with smoking that increases the risk of lung cancer by 20-fold and The WHO’s estimate of up to 6 million cancer deaths per year globally caused by tobacco use and 600,000 per year by alcohol consumption.

All of which suggests that it isn’t very helpful to lump meat eating, tobacco and asbestos in the same cancer-causing category and that The WHO could do worse than come up with a new classification system.

And the message?

Unchanged. Remember mankind evolved into the most successful species on the planet as a meat eater. As the advert used to say: It looks good, it tastes good and by golly it does you good – not least as a source of protein, vitamins and other nutrients. Do some exercise and eat a balanced diet – just in case you’ve forgotten, that means limit the amount of red meat (The WHO suggests no more than 30 grams a day for men, 25 g for women) so try fish, poultry, etc. Stick with the ‘good carbs’ (vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc.), cut out the ‘bad’ (sugar – see Biting the Bitter Bullet), eat fishy fats not saturated fats and, to end on a technical note, don’t pig out.


‘The Divine Swine’ Castelnuovo Rangone, Italy

Meanwhile back on the Beeb

When the meat story broke I was a bit concerned that we might end up spending the whole of Lunchtime Live on how many bangers are lethal – especially as we were taking calls from listeners. Just in case things became a bit myopic I had Rasher up my sleeve. Rasher, you may recall, was Dennis the Menace‘s pet pig (in the The Beano‘s comic strip) who had a brother (Hamlet), a sister (Virginia Ham) and various other porky rellos. To bring it up to date we’d have introduced Sam Salami and Frank Furter and, of course, Rasher’s grandfather who was the model for the bronze statue named ‘The Divine Swine’ to be found in the little town of Castelnuovo Rangone in Pig Valley, Italy, the home of Parma ham.

But I shouldn’t have worried. All was well in the hands of Jeremy Sallis who, being a brilliant host, ensured that we mainly chatted about meatier matters than what to have for breakfast.


Press release: IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat.

Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.

Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Published online October 26, 2015

Gentlemen! For goodness’ sake …

I reckon there should be a 21st century addition to the family etiquette handbook banning laptops at the breakfast table. It’s anti-social and indeed downright rude: at best you get to your emails ten minutes quicker but it’s also really stupid because computers do not thrive on a diet of milkdrops, cornflake fragments and bits of toast. I never appear without mine – and with it I bring another potential, disgraceful side-effect, manifested in our household on the second day of the New Year when, a few minutes after I’d sat down, booted up and started munching, the air gradually began to turn blue. “Oh dear” muttered youngest son: “he’s on to the science pages of the broadsheets: fingers in ears.” How shrewd. And what good advice.

Rattling my cage

So what was it that so wound me up when I was looking forward to a rather non-sciency, tranquil opening to the year? “Most cancers are caused by bad luck not genes or lifestyle, say scientists”, a headline trumpeted by The Telegraph was a great start, backed-up by much the same parroted in The Independent and The Guardian. The only good news was that, try as I did, I could find no equivalent coverage in The New York Times or The Sydney Morning Herald. Let’s hear it for the colonials – or at least their science editors!

What’s my problem?

Why is it that this sort of journalism so annoys and certainly did so on further reading of those new year contributions? Well, partly because it’s headline-driven rather than a thoughtful effort to inform the public. And then because what’s propagated isn’t totally wrong – that would be easy to deal with – but rather it’s a confused mish-mash of half-truths guaranteed to confuse utterly anyone who doesn’t have an assured grip on their molecular wits.

Let’s get things clear

First let’s get the basic picture clear, then see what “the scientists” really said in this new piece of work and finally illustrate how the Gentlemen (and Gentlewomen) of the Press get me so incensed.

Asked to sketch a current cancer portrait one might say: Cancers are caused by damage to DNA, i.e. mutations. Of our 20,000 or so genes several hundred can acquire mutations that change the activity of the proteins they encode to contribute to cancer development. Only a small number (half a dozen or so) of these ‘driver’ mutations, acting together, are required for cancer to emerge. Thus almost limitless combinations of drivers can arise. The effect of these cancer ‘drivers’ is to make cells proliferate (i.e. divide to make more cells) either at a faster rate than normal, or at the wrong time or in an abnormal place. Environmental factors (e.g., smoking) can increase the mutation rate and hence the chance that cancers will evolve. Most mutations accumulate during the lifetime of the individual (hence most cancers are ‘diseases of old age’). However, about 10% of cancers are started by inherited mutations (that the patient is born with), with further mutations being acquired after birth.

We should also bear in mind that collectively cancer comprise about 200 distinct diseases and that at the level of DNA sequence every tumour is unique.

Pancreatic cancer cells


Cancer cells dividing. Photograph: Visuals Unlimited, Inc./Dr. Stanley Flegler.




What’s new?

The work that the journalists caught on to didn’t describe any new experiments but instead looked at the long-standing puzzle of why cancers, although able to arise anywhere in the body, have a strong tissue bias. For example, tumours are twenty times more common in the large intestine than in the small intestine.

Noting that within many tissues most cells are short-lived and don’t give rise to progeny (and so are unlikely to initiate a tumour), the authors focused on the cells that can self-renew and are therefore responsible for the continued existence and repopulation of the tissue (often called stem cells). Searching the literature, they found 31 tissue types for which it was possible to work out how many stem cell divisions occur in an average human lifetime. Lo and behold, it turned out that the number of divisions correlated quite well with the lifetime risk for cancer in that tissue type i.e. the more replications of stem cells that a tissue requires over its lifetime to sustain its functional, the greater the risk of a tumour emerging in that tissue.

An interpretation of this is that the majority of cancers arise (i.e. are started) as a result of random mutations occurring during DNA replication in normal, non-cancerous cells. The underlying point here is that every time one cell makes two it must first duplicate its genetic material (i.e. replicate its DNA). This process is amazingly efficient but it’s not perfect (cells make a mistake once for every one thousand million coding units (i.e. bases) incorporated into new DNA). In the abstract of their paper the authors describe cancers initiated by these naturally occurring mutations as “bad luck” – unfortunately in my view, as the expression was a sure-fire red rag to the press bulls.

A really irritating example

From The Telegraph: “For years health experts have warned that tumours are driven by a bad diet, lack of exercise, or gene errors passed down from parents… But now a study has shown that most cancers are primarily caused by bad luck rather than poor lifestyle choices or defective DNA.”

NO IT HASN’T. Do you not read what you’ve written and consider how it might come across to readers who think they’ve grasped the basic picture, as summarized above under Let’s get things clear?

What the study confirms is that the major force behind cancers is the accumulation of mutations (defective DNA if you wish) as cells replicate during the lifetime of the individual. To the risk of getting cancers posed by this background to life may be added environmental factors that promote DNA damage and inherited variants in DNA (see A Taxing Inheritance for more about parental contributions).

Is this really anything new?

Well, it’s marginal and certainly not enough to merit the above headlines. The new work doesn’t alter in any way our summary. However, it’s interesting in that it offers an explanation for the wide variation in cancer incidence across different tissues and makes the point, for instance, that the relatively high rate of cell renewal in the lung makes this organ particularly susceptible to the mutagenic effects of cigarette smoke.

So, what about luck?

First we remain as we were: cancers are a fact of life – they’re hard-wired into the biology of life and they’ll come to all of us if we live long enough.

It is certainly true that there are many cancer patients who have had bad luck. They may have always eaten healthily, kept active and physically fit and been teetotal since birth and yet be stricken by, for example, a brain tumour or pancreatic cancer for which there are no known environmental risk factors that we can do anything about. They may have never smoked but nonetheless develop lung cancer (think of Roy Castle).

But it remains the case that for many cancers, it isn’t just about luck, it’s about choices, both for society and for individuals. Mention of environmental factors reminds us that mankind really isn’t doing very well on the self-help front. Eliminating smoking would reduce the global cancer burden (14 million new cases, over 8 million deaths per year) by about 22%. Infections, for example from contaminated drinking water, start about 20% of all cancers whilst alcohol consumption has a hand in about 4% and in the UK over 20% of bowel cancers are linked to eating red and processed meat.

Calm down!

I know that for all the effect my wittering about the quality of science journalism will have I might as well get on to the sports pages. I actually have some sympathy with the Gentlemen of the Press: writing about science is difficult – perhaps we should rejoice that there’s any national coverage. But there is a recurrent problem in the British press (see Not another ‘Great Cancer Breakthrough’!!!) that can easily be avoided. Just report evolving science stories as precisely and clearly as possible. They’re often sensational tales in their own right, so leave the sensationalism to the other pages and tell it as it is.

Rant over. Happy new year. Now, where’s the marmalade?


Tomasetti, C. and Vogelstein, B. (2015). Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science 347, 78-81.

What Took You So Long?

A long, long time ago – 25 years to be precise – I was lucky enough to work for a few months at The University of New England in Armidale, up on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. And jolly wonderful it was too. You could see grazing kangaroos from my lab window and I got to play grade cricket! To anyone who’ll listen I can still describe in vivid detail the scoring of my first run in Oz. We’d won the toss and … (that’s quite enough cricket, Ed).

Equally wonderful is the fact that, in part courtesy of The University of Queensland, I’m going again to Oz – this time to do what I didn’t manage then: visit all the major cities. We begin in Brisbane this week giving a lecture in the U of Q’s Global Leadership series (yes really!), explaining the biology of cancer to an audience of largely non-scientists – at least I hope I’ve got the right brief! We end up in Perth in May having, in between if I can stick the pace, given a variety of talks and seminars to the general public, to schools and to cancer research institutes in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. How good is that? Being invited to warble on about one of your favorite subjects whilst touring Oz? Wow!

What’s new?

All of which makes you think a bit about Father Time and what has happened in the interim. Answer quite a lot, of course. Collapse of communism, collapse and resurgence of Australian cricket (that’s your last warning, Ed) and so on but we’re supposed to inform and enthuse about cancer here so how’s that faired, particularly in Australia? Well, in the year I first followed Captain Cook (watch it, Ed) onto the shore of Botany Bay about 60,000 Australians were diagnosed with cancers of one sort or another and some 30,000 died from these diseases. At that time one in three men and one in four women would be directly affected by cancer in the first 75 years of life.

A Cook

Alastair Cook

And now? This time round the estimated numbers are 128,000 and over 43,000 with one in two men/one in three women discovering they have cancer by time they’re 85. All told, cancer accounts for about three in ten Australian deaths – much the same contribution as heart disease. To add to the gloom the numbers are going up not down so the prediction is 150,000 new cancer cases in 2020.

Not a lot and no surprise

Well, you may be thinking, no change there then – or even I told you so. After all, I’m forever in these pieces elaborating on current cancer stories holding forth about how slow is the progress of science: one step forward, two back, more of a shuffle than a step really, and so on. Or as Martin Schwartz more eloquently puts it, describing science as the art of productive stupidity – being ignorant by choice. This follows almost inevitably from the nature of research because working on what we don’t understand puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. As Schwartz has it, one of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. That’s why I keep telling you to ignore the “great breakthough” newspaper headline dribble – that’s just the hacks trying anything to persuade their editors to give them space to promote themselves.

But wait a mo.

All that sounds consistent with the signs that things in Oz have been going backwards at a rate of knots over the last 20-odd years. But hang on. As ever, bare stats can be a bit misleading (remember what Disraeli said). Thus although around 19,000 more people die each year from cancer than 30 years ago, this is due mainly to population growth and aging – Australian life expectancy has gone up by over four years since 1990 (it’s now 82). The death rate from cancers has fallen by more than 16% and the survival rate for many common cancers has increased by 30 per cent in the past two decades. So that’s great: terrific ad for living in Oz and something of a triumph for medical science.

A sunny side in Oz?

What’s more you can put a positive twist on even the gloomy side of the picture by noting that, if indeed there’s strength in unity, Australia’s trends are much the same as everyone else’s in what we like to call the developed world. Well sort of but there’s a serious negative for Australia Fair, as you might put it, something that sticks out like a sore thumb (or an itchy mole) when you glance at the stats. Between 1980 and 2010 the incidence of skin cancer has shot up in Australia by around 60%. The most common type is non-melanoma skin cancer – usually treatable as it generally doesn’t spread around the body. The nasty version is malignant melanoma – which does metastasize, although is essentially curable if caught before some of its cells escape from the primary site. And the really bad news is that it is now the third most common cancer in Australians and in those aged 15-44 years it is the most common cancer. In 2012, over 12,000 Australians were diagnosed with melanoma and it killed over 1,600. This disease is usually set off by ultraviolet light from sunlight (or sunbeds) damaging DNA (i.e. causing mutations) and you will not have missed the allusion to the fact that people with fair skin (or blue or green eyes/red or blond hair) are most at risk.So the current Oz figures are a bit of a blow to Richie Benaud’s campaign of which I made great play in Slip-Slop-Slap Is Not Enough.


ABCD rule illustration: On the left side from top to bottom: melanomas showing asymmetry, a border that is uneven, ragged, or notched, coloring of different shades of brown, black, or tan and diameter that had changed in size. The normal moles on the right side do not have abnormal characteristics (no asymmetry, even border, even color, no change in diameter).

Meanwhile in the lab?

It’s pretty sobering for me to reflect that it was only a few years before I went to Oz that the first human cancer gene (oncogene) was discovered. That was RAS, detected in human cancer cells in 1982 by Geoffrey Cooper at Harvard, Mariano Barbacid and Stuart Aaronson at the NIH, Robert Weinberg at MIT and Michael Wigler at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Between then and 2003 several hundred more cancer genes were identified in a huge frenzy of molecular stamp collecting. Then came the human genome sequencing project and in its wake analysis of tumours on a scale and level of detail that is almost stupefying and would have been unimaginable before 2003. To appreciate the mountain of cancer data that has been assembled over that period, screen the literature data base for research papers that have ‘RAS’ in the title: that is, contain significant info relating to that gene. Answer: 76,000. That’s seventy-six thousand separate pieces of research that have made it through all the peer review and editorial machinery to see the light of day in print. And RAS, massive player though it is, is not the biggest. Do the same check for a gene called P53 and the number is: over 145,000!!

Confused? The plot so far …

First up we noted that the cancer burden in Oz has got a lot heavier over the last 25 years, then we reminded you that advances in science are of the snail-like variety – so you shouldn’t be surprised when things seem to go backwards. But, flipping to the other hand, we trotted out another set of figures saying things have actually got much better (life expectancy and cancer survival rates have steadily climbed). Though, switching hands again, melanoma’s gone through the roof. However, going back to the first hand, if we can still locate it, we noted the massive explosion in the facts mountain of cancer biology for which the blue touch paper was only lit about 25 years ago.

And your parliamentary candidate is …

What with all this sleight-of-hand, flip-flopping and U-turning, it occurs to me that I’m shaping up rather well as a prospective politician. I’m quite taken with the idea, especially as if I stood as an MP in my own constituency I’d be up against Andrew Lansley who, as you’ve probably forgotten, was once upon a time Secretary of State for Health. Being a virtuous and helpful soul, when Betrayed by Nature came out I sent him a copy as a gift, a freebie, – figuring that, as a career civil servant and politician who’d become responsible for the nation’s health, he might find it useful to read a basic primer on something that was killing 150,000 UK citizens every year. Thoughtful, you’d say? Indeed. Did I expect to find him on my doorstep next day gushing gratitude and thirsting for more knowledge? Maybe not, even though he only lives round the corner and we have actually met in the dim past. But at least one might have received a note – a one line email, perhaps – from his PA, who can scarcely be too busy to be polite. But no. Nothing. Zippo. So I came up with a brief sentence that summarised my take on this example of voter wooing, or indeed plain good manners, but I can’t remember it now – for the best perhaps. What is it the Bible says about getting narked? Something along the lines of “whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.”

So thank heavens we’ve side-stepped that but nevertheless, Andrew, it really would be a joy to give you a bloody nose – electorally speaking, of course – so let’s just give those credentials one more buffing. We started by lowering your expectations of science with the reminder that things proceed at a snail’s pace {you do realise that common analogy is very unfair on snails? Scientists have shown they can bowl along at a metre an hour (yippee, we do discover things!) – not much slower than your average supermarket trolley-pusher, but here’s the thing. Snail’s pace means they can get round the garden in one night. That’s the whole of their world covered in one go – without mechanical assistance!! Not so slow after all, eh?}. But the flip side is that the genomic era has already seen the development of a number of drugs that are effective against malignant melanoma. They’re not perfect but at least they take us a step further in dealing with this cancer once it has spread around the body.

And the message?

(That’s quite enough politics, Ed). OK. Let’s abandon a promising career and go back to being a scientist with a typically punchy summary. Australia’s wonderful but when it comes to cancer it’s not much different to any other rich country (not really a flip that, just a statement of fact). Folk are living longer so, of course, more of us will ‘get’ cancer but we seem to think that longevity buys us more time to smoke, booze, burn ourselves pink and eat crappy food. Medical science is doing wonders in detection and treatment: at nearly $400 million a year on cancer research, almost a quarter of all health research expenditure in Australia, it jolly well should. But if we don’t do more to help ourselves the cancer burden is going to overwhelm health resources not just ‘down under’ but all over.


Schwartz, M.A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. J Cell Sci 2008 121:1771; doi:10.1242/jcs.033340


A Refresher from the BBC

Regular readers will probably feel they know all this stuff but if you’re interested in a spirited and wide-ranging conversation about cancer with the wonderful Jeremy Vine on his BBC Radio 2 show yesterday you can find it at: about 1 hour 10 min from the beginning.

BBC Radio 4As ever, any arising thoughts, questions or comments appreciated – apart, of course, from the below the belt: “Judging by the photo it’s a good job it was radio not t.v.”


Wake up at the back

Living with someone of the opposite sex, or getting married as it used to be known, is an interesting experience. One of the things you rapidly discover that your Mum never warned you about is that women are a distinct species.  You missed that revelation in your biology classes? Serves you right for snoozing on the back row but, as a recap of the evidence, consider the following. Species often show major differences in sensory perception – thus our cat is much better than I am at seeing in the dark, though he misses out a bit in daylight as cats don’t have colour vision. When it comes to hearing it’s a bit the other way round: most of the time you can shout at him til you’re hoarse with absolutely no effect – but one faint clink of a food bowl at the back door and, yet again, he’ll set a new Feline Fifty metres Steeplechase record from the front garden. And dogs, as is well known, hear frequencies way beyond what we can pick up.

Not in my lectures!!

The gentle sex has similarly evolved beyond what mere man can manage. Take colour, for example, at which men are, as we’ve noted, quite good – compared to cats. But, as you discover the first time you are taken ‘clothes shopping’ by your wife, other half, inamorata, partner, mistress or whatever, women have evolved far beyond merely spotting that blue is different from red and being able to recite Richard Of York (to remind themselves of the rainbow sequence). They see ‘combinations’ – so you are curtly informed that what has taken your fancy ‘just doesn’t go together’ in the sort of voice that adds ‘any nitwit can see that’ without the need to expend breath on the last seven syllables.

They’re at a similarly lofty level of evolution when it comes to sound. My lady wife avers that I snore – all the time (when asleep, that is) and very loudly. So much so that she tends to use a bed at the opposite end of the house for sleeping and only ventures within sonar range for other purposes. I’d always explained this behaviour as a manifestation of the amazing imagination possessed of the female that us boys are, of course, completely lacking. However, I’ve now come to appreciate that, like Fido (who sleeps in the kitchen), she simply has exquisitely sensitive aural apparatus. So maybe I do snore – but only very quietly or at ultra high frequency, so that I would be undetectable at rest to my own species and only my beloved and the dog would know what was going on (oh, and the cat because he can see the heaving chest).

Which is very reassuring since some fellows at the Universities of Wisconsin and Barcelona have got together to discover that snoring makes you nearly five times more likely to develop cancer. Strictly the problem is sleep disordered breathing (SDB) – which happens when there’s some kind of blockage of the upper airway and, apart from disrupting sleep, it can make you snore. Of course, there’s evidence that sleep disruption can contribute to all sorts of problems from heart disease to car crashes but this is the first study making a link to cancer.

No problem for me (discounting the wife’s super sonar) but should real, habitual snorers panic? Please don’t for most of the usual reservations to this type of study apply – relatively small numbers (1522) for example. The volunteers came from an alluringly named body of men and women called the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort, set up in 1988 for prospective studies of sleep disorders. In fact the interesting ones here are what we might call the Winsomniacs – the 365 of the Cohort who can’t do it rather than the majority of Badger State dreamers. Split in this case into sub-groups of SDB severity – the strongest association being with the most severe SDB. Although the authors did their best to allow for other factors (obesity – a common cause of SDB – diabetes, smoking, etc.) it’s almost impossible in this type of study to eliminate everything bar the one factor you’re focussing on.

The most frequent linked cancer was of the lung, followed by bowel, ovary, endometrial, brain, breast, bladder, and liver. And the cancer risk was up to four-fold greater for the worst afflicted.

Do the boffins have any helpful suggestions? Not really. Those unlucky enough to be severely affected can try a gadget called a continuous positive airway pressure device but, for the rest, console yourselves that the risk is small and the data so far are very preliminary. Put another way, you have more important things to think about – like finding a partner (preferably with sub-standard sonar detection capability) who loves you so much they’re willing to poke you in the ribs whenever you become aurally intrusive.


Javier Nieto, F.J. et al. (2012). Sleep-disordered Breathing and Cancer Mortality: Results from the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 186, Iss. 2, pp 190–194.

Unkinking Kindle

In response to a wonderfully appreciative email about the book I’m posting the pictures (some in colour!!) because the reader couldn’t get Kindle to show them – although my publisher’s digital book manager cannot find any problem with the files.

Photographs (Plates 1 to 10) in Betrayed by Nature:

Plates 1 and 2

Plates 3 and 4

Plate 5

Plate 6

Plate 7

Plate 8

Plate 9

Plate 10

Biting the bitter bullet

The other day we took a short trip around obesity (Obesity and Cancer) in the course of which we noted that the former is a bad thing. So, you might say, they make a good pair – indeed they quite often come hand-in-hand, as obesity significantly increases the risk of quite a lot of cancers as well as other unpleasant conditions. The nasty effects include heart diseases and diabetes, a collection of problems often referred to as metabolic syndrome.

Fed up?

Obesity is usually caused by eating too much of the wrong stuff whilst parked on your rear end. True enough, but folk sometimes get a bit cheesed off by repeatedly being told to do something about it. As it happens, turning to Cheddar, if you can face the stuff, may actually help weight loss as cheese is high in protein and fills you up. And you might just go for that escape route when you’ve been leaned on by a recent article that, in effect, calls for draconian measures to limit the amount of sugar we eat. To be slightly more precise, the target is the USA because, as is well known, Americans lead the world in pretty well everything, including bad eating habits. The scientific dynamite propelling the charge is that sugar consumption worldwide has gone up three-fold in the last 50 years. The average American now eats over 600 grams of the stuff every day, a feat that leaves the rest of the world scarcely within range of a podium spot. It may seem a bit odd to be left trailing at anything by the most obese nation in the world (let’s leave Nauru –pop. 9265 – and a few other South Sea islands out of it)  but the link here is, of course, that sugar is a great source of calories and that the more calories you shovel down – in whatever form – the bigger you tend to become. But don’t get too cheeky about Yankee obesity as us Brits aren’t in great shape either.

Condensed facts

Very roughly an ‘average’ person needs about 2,100 calories a day. 600 grams of sugar would give between one third and one quarter of that total requirement. For an historical perspective that’s about 14 times as much sugar as the denizens of Great Britain were allowed during the second world war under rationing – a period when our diet is generally considered to have made us healthier than we’ve ever been. So you could say an element of control has been lost.

Calorific confusion

The ‘2,100 calories’ above are ‘food calories’, the unit sometimes used in nutritional contexts. It’s 1000 times bigger than ‘scientific’ calories, or gram calories (cal). Scientifically therefore, we mean 2,100 kilocalories (kcal). Which is why your fruit juice carton may tell you one glass contains 50 kcal. And, just to stop you asking, 1 calorie is the heat (energy) you need to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water from 14.5oC to 15.5oC.

An all-round view of the problem

Sugar consumption has ski-rocketed, eating too much of it unbalances your diet and bad eating habits can cause obesity and metabolic syndrome. But these things aren’t black and white: 20% of obese people have normal metabolism and a normal lifespan whilst 40% of those of normal weight will get metabolic syndrome diseases. So, whilst obesity indicates metabolic abnormality, it is not per se the cause.

The underlying science remains a matter of debate – a story well summarized by Gary Taubes. What is not in question is that we eat more sugar than we need and the real crunch is that sugar is like tobacco and alcohol – no, it doesn’t make you smelly or do Sinatra impressions – but it is addictive. It actually manipulates your pathetic brain cells so you keep asking for more.

On your Marx

So we’re seduced into eating more and more of something that can help us get fat and ill. What’s to be done? Lenin, who was fond of asking this question, would have dealt with it in a trice by limiting sugar supplies to one tenth of the dietary minimum and seeing who survived. Ah! The good old days. But the authors of the recent article had to come up with a pc 21st century equivalent. Of course! Taxation. And they’ve a point – you can tell people that smoking will give them lung cancer til you’re blue in the face but the only thing that stops them committing suicide is jacking the price up. Don’t ask me. Something to do with human nature. So it sounds like a good idea – but to have an effect on sugar you’d need a huge increase across a vast range of foods – fruit juice, ‘sports’ drinks, chocolates, sweets, cakes – forget it.

Do I have a solution? Of course! Bring back rationing. For all foods. Set at the UK second world war levels. Now we’d think about what we eat – carbohydrate, protein and fat – reverse obesity trends, solve world food problem, slash health service costs, cut queues at supermarkets (so they’d be normarkets). And we’d be rid of most of those damned cheffy t.v. programmes. Vote for me!!


Lustig, R.H., Schmidt, L.A. and Brindis, C.D. (2012). The toxic truth about sugar. Nature 482, 27-29.

Gary Taubes (2011). Is Sugar Toxic? The New York Times.