Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Cancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to Know

News Feed
Monday, August 12, 2024

August 12, 20245 min readCancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to KnowDo you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might saveyour lifeBy Karen E. Knudsen & Othman LarakiToday a woman in her 30s faces higher odds of a cancer diagnosis than her grandmother did at her age two generations ago. Cancer incidence and mortality are rising in millennials and even younger populations, according to American Cancer Society (ACS) data, while rates among older Americans are declining. In July, a study found that both members of Generation X and Millennials face a higher risk than older generations of 17 types of cancer.Cancer spares no one. Not a month goes by without the news of a celebrity, an acquaintance, a friend or a family member learning what each of us dreads to hear from a doctor: “You have cancer.” Just this March global attention was captured by the news of 42-year-old Catherine, Princess of Wales, who is married to the heir to the British throne, sharing the news of her cancer diagnosis.In January the annual ACS cancer statistics report showed that people in the under-50 group were the only ones in the U.S. to experience an overall increase in cancer incidence from 1995 through 2020. Take colorectal cancer: incidence rates have increased by 1 percent to 2 percent per year since the mid-1990s in those younger than 55 years of age and decreased among those 65 and older. Meanwhile, in people younger than 50, colorectal cancer has jumped four spots to become the leading cause of cancer death for men and the second-leading cause for women.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.As the rate of cancer diagnoses among younger Americans continues to rise, we can no longer think of cancer as a disease of the elderly. What is going on?Although we haven’t found a single reason for the increase, one thing is certain: we have a generational problem. Facts are stubborn things, and these alarming statistics demand answers. The 50-and-older population has benefitted from efforts to reduce cancer deaths. What new strategies can do the same for younger people?Let’s start with what we know. The evidence shows that we can save lives by detecting cancer early, when treatment is more effective, less intensive and far less expensive. Regular, guideline-based screenings for the most common cancers, such as breast, colorectal and lung cancers, give the best chance for early detection. Screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers can also detect warning signs before cancer develops, which aids in disease prevention. In developing screening guidelines, organizations such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and ACS conduct an extensive scientific evidence review and consider the benefits, limitations and harms of each test. Cancer screening can have downsides, including the fact that some patients will be recalled for further evaluation based on an abnormal sign that will prove not to be cancer or will be diagnosed with a cancer that may not ever become life-threatening. The benefits of recommended cancer screening substantially exceed these harms, however. So it’s critical that young people pay attention to whether they have risk factors that mean they should get screened.Continuing to raise awareness and discussing personal risk factors, such as unhealthy habits, environmental hazards and especially a family history of cancer, can significantly improve outcomes by guiding screening and treatment recommendations. But that formula and the system that activates it haven’t reached everyone under 50. For colorectal cancer, only 20 percent of eligible people aged 45 to 49 (ACS guidelines recommend this screening begin at age 45) reported being up-to-date with screenings in 2021 versus 80 percent of people aged 65 to 74.The benefits of following these guidelines go far beyond a screening appointment. An accurate diagnosis and thoughtful decision on the appropriate course of treatment are two sides of the same coin–especially if cancer is caught early. A diagnosis may not mean radical surgery or expensive medications. If a patient has a slow-progressing prostate cancer, the best care is watching and waiting, known medically as “active surveillance.” Francis Collins, who led the sequencing of the human genome and was formerly director of the National Institutes of Health, recently shared his journey closely tracking a slow-progressing case of prostate cancer, which ultimately progressed but appears to have been caught in time to save his life. That can’t happen without a screening in the first place.If you are under 50, you need to realize that you are not too young to develop cancer. Too often people with symptoms of cancer below the recommended screening age are reassured that they are too young to have cancer and that their symptoms must be linked to something less troublesome. And too often this delay in diagnosis has tragic outcomes. Screening guidelines are written for people at an average risk. A relatively small but meaningful percentage of adults instead have a family history and risk profile that warrants earlier screening. Almost one in three individuals who develop colorectal cancer when they are younger than 50 have a genetic mutation or relevant family history. Those who learn that they have hereditary risk factors through genetic testing should also start screening earlier.Low adherence to screening guidelines isn’t young people’s fault. Guidance around cancer screenings hasn’t adapted to reach younger audiences. Information should find you in places that are relevant to your life–such as the websites and apps you use most often. As with media, it’s become clear that younger people consume health care differently. Adults under 50 are less likely to have a primary care physician who can understand risk factors that inform where to begin screening and what tests to use. As a younger adult, you may experience more barriers to accessing health care. You may be more likely to make trade-offs when seeking care, weighing health care co-pays against payments for rent, student loans or other financial priorities. And with the gig economy reshaping the workforce, the traditional medical practice’s hours are inconvenient for many workers. We need doctors and their services to be designed around your needs and convenience. Employer-based programs can also act as an additional touchpoint to engage with workers early and often to close screening gaps.Nearly half of newly diagnosed cancers in the U.S.—42 percent, according to ACS researchers—are avoidable with a combination of prevention measures, such as eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy body weight. More than four million lives have been saved in the U.S. over the last 30 years because of a combination of cancer prevention–such as reduction in cigarette smoking–and improvements in early detection and treatments. With the right information about cancer risk, knowledge of screening and prevention options, as well as a path forward to receive the care they need, millennials can substantially reduce their risk of cancer. With two million cancer diagnoses in any age group expected in 2024—a record high—reaching younger Americans is more important than ever.

Do you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might save your life

August 12, 2024

5 min read

Cancer Rates Are Rising in Young People. Here’s What You Need to Know

Do you think you are too young to get screened for cancer? Think again. It might save
your life

By Karen E. Knudsen & Othman Laraki

Stock photo depicting a medical professional assisting a young patient during a mammography test in examination room

Today a woman in her 30s faces higher odds of a cancer diagnosis than her grandmother did at her age two generations ago. Cancer incidence and mortality are rising in millennials and even younger populations, according to American Cancer Society (ACS) data, while rates among older Americans are declining. In July, a study found that both members of Generation X and Millennials face a higher risk than older generations of 17 types of cancer.

Cancer spares no one. Not a month goes by without the news of a celebrity, an acquaintance, a friend or a family member learning what each of us dreads to hear from a doctor: “You have cancer.” Just this March global attention was captured by the news of 42-year-old Catherine, Princess of Wales, who is married to the heir to the British throne, sharing the news of her cancer diagnosis.

In January the annual ACS cancer statistics report showed that people in the under-50 group were the only ones in the U.S. to experience an overall increase in cancer incidence from 1995 through 2020. Take colorectal cancer: incidence rates have increased by 1 percent to 2 percent per year since the mid-1990s in those younger than 55 years of age and decreased among those 65 and older. Meanwhile, in people younger than 50, colorectal cancer has jumped four spots to become the leading cause of cancer death for men and the second-leading cause for women.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As the rate of cancer diagnoses among younger Americans continues to rise, we can no longer think of cancer as a disease of the elderly. What is going on?

Although we haven’t found a single reason for the increase, one thing is certain: we have a generational problem. Facts are stubborn things, and these alarming statistics demand answers. The 50-and-older population has benefitted from efforts to reduce cancer deaths. What new strategies can do the same for younger people?

Let’s start with what we know. The evidence shows that we can save lives by detecting cancer early, when treatment is more effective, less intensive and far less expensive. Regular, guideline-based screenings for the most common cancers, such as breast, colorectal and lung cancers, give the best chance for early detection. Screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers can also detect warning signs before cancer develops, which aids in disease prevention. In developing screening guidelines, organizations such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and ACS conduct an extensive scientific evidence review and consider the benefits, limitations and harms of each test. Cancer screening can have downsides, including the fact that some patients will be recalled for further evaluation based on an abnormal sign that will prove not to be cancer or will be diagnosed with a cancer that may not ever become life-threatening. The benefits of recommended cancer screening substantially exceed these harms, however. So it’s critical that young people pay attention to whether they have risk factors that mean they should get screened.

Continuing to raise awareness and discussing personal risk factors, such as unhealthy habits, environmental hazards and especially a family history of cancer, can significantly improve outcomes by guiding screening and treatment recommendations. But that formula and the system that activates it haven’t reached everyone under 50. For colorectal cancer, only 20 percent of eligible people aged 45 to 49 (ACS guidelines recommend this screening begin at age 45) reported being up-to-date with screenings in 2021 versus 80 percent of people aged 65 to 74.

The benefits of following these guidelines go far beyond a screening appointment. An accurate diagnosis and thoughtful decision on the appropriate course of treatment are two sides of the same coin–especially if cancer is caught early. A diagnosis may not mean radical surgery or expensive medications. If a patient has a slow-progressing prostate cancer, the best care is watching and waiting, known medically as “active surveillance.” Francis Collins, who led the sequencing of the human genome and was formerly director of the National Institutes of Health, recently shared his journey closely tracking a slow-progressing case of prostate cancer, which ultimately progressed but appears to have been caught in time to save his life. That can’t happen without a screening in the first place.

If you are under 50, you need to realize that you are not too young to develop cancer. Too often people with symptoms of cancer below the recommended screening age are reassured that they are too young to have cancer and that their symptoms must be linked to something less troublesome. And too often this delay in diagnosis has tragic outcomes. Screening guidelines are written for people at an average risk. A relatively small but meaningful percentage of adults instead have a family history and risk profile that warrants earlier screening. Almost one in three individuals who develop colorectal cancer when they are younger than 50 have a genetic mutation or relevant family history. Those who learn that they have hereditary risk factors through genetic testing should also start screening earlier.

Low adherence to screening guidelines isn’t young people’s fault. Guidance around cancer screenings hasn’t adapted to reach younger audiences. Information should find you in places that are relevant to your life–such as the websites and apps you use most often. As with media, it’s become clear that younger people consume health care differently. Adults under 50 are less likely to have a primary care physician who can understand risk factors that inform where to begin screening and what tests to use. As a younger adult, you may experience more barriers to accessing health care. You may be more likely to make trade-offs when seeking care, weighing health care co-pays against payments for rent, student loans or other financial priorities. And with the gig economy reshaping the workforce, the traditional medical practice’s hours are inconvenient for many workers. We need doctors and their services to be designed around your needs and convenience. Employer-based programs can also act as an additional touchpoint to engage with workers early and often to close screening gaps.

Nearly half of newly diagnosed cancers in the U.S.—42 percent, according to ACS researchers—are avoidable with a combination of prevention measures, such as eating a healthy diet and maintaining a healthy body weight. More than four million lives have been saved in the U.S. over the last 30 years because of a combination of cancer prevention–such as reduction in cigarette smoking–and improvements in early detection and treatments. With the right information about cancer risk, knowledge of screening and prevention options, as well as a path forward to receive the care they need, millennials can substantially reduce their risk of cancer. With two million cancer diagnoses in any age group expected in 2024—a record high—reaching younger Americans is more important than ever.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Trees and Student Test Scores: What's the Link?

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 2, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Tree-lined streets and lush public parks appear to provide city...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 2, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Tree-lined streets and lush public parks appear to provide city schoolkids a brain boost.Chicago students’ test scores suffered when an invasive insect wiped out half the city’s ash trees, researchers reported in the journal Global Environmental Change.“We found that test scores in areas with ash borer infestations were reduced after the onset of those infestations, relative to unaffected areas that were similar,” lead researcher Alberto Garcia, an economics professor with the University of Utah, said in a news release from the college.Prior studies have found that students in neighborhoods with greater tree cover have better test scores, researchers said in background notes.The emerald ash borer provided a chance to gather more evidence, unfortunately.The ash borer has killed millions of ash trees along the streets and yards of Midwestern cities, researchers said.The invasive pest killed off half of Chicago’s ash trees between 2010 and 2020, leaving the remaining half dying or in decline, researchers said. Ash trees account for 18% of Chicago’s street trees.For this study, researchers tracked students’ standardized test scores from grades 3 through 8, between 2003 and 2012, to see whether the loss of the trees might affect their academic performance.“We got kind of lucky that the state of Illinois was administering this standardized test in that same window when the ash borer first arrived in the area,” Garcia said. “Every school in Illinois was taking the same test, so we had consistent data across schools and through time.”Results show that 1.2% fewer students met or exceeded standardized testing benchmarks in areas hit by the ash borer -- a seemingly modest drop that carries significant implications considering that there are more than 320,000 Chicago schoolkids.“We found that schools with more low-income students were less likely to experience infestations because these neighborhoods have less tree cover,” Garcia said. “But the low-income students at wealthier schools, where infestations were more common, seemed to bear the brunt of the impacts.”The loss of tree cover could affect student performance by increasing heat on city streets, contributing to air pollution, and robbing kids of the psychological benefits of greenery, researchers speculated.“Some possible explanations are just that those students don't have the same resources to go home and recover from, for example, extreme temperatures or pollution-induced headaches the same way that higher-income students at the same schools might have,” Garcia said.Efforts to maintain and restore urban tree cover could play a vital role in boosting kids’ education, particularly in poorer neighborhoods, Garcia concluded.“It’s not just about access to environmental amenities,” Garcia said. “It’s about understanding how their absence can create inequities that ripple through critical aspects of life, like education.”SOURCE: University of Utah, news release, Dec. 17, 2024Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Belgium becomes first EU country to ban sale of disposable vapes

Products banned on health and environmental grounds, while Milan outlaws outdoor smoking Belgium has become the EU first country to ban the sale of disposable vapes in an effort to stop young people from becoming addicted to nicotine and to protect the environment.The sale of disposable electronic cigarettes is banned in Belgium on health and environmental grounds from 1 January. A ban on outdoor smoking in Milan came into force on the same day, as EU countries discuss tighter controls on tobacco. Continue reading...

Belgium has become the first country in the EU to ban the sale of disposable vapes, in an effort to stop young people from becoming addicted to nicotine and to protect the environment.From 1 January, the sale of disposable electronic cigarettes is banned in Belgium on health and environmental grounds. On the same day, a ban on outdoor smoking in Milan came into force, as EU countries discuss tighter controls on tobacco.Announcing the ban last year, Belgium’s health minister, Frank Vandenbroucke, described electronic cigarettes as an “extremely harmful” product that damages society and the environment.“Disposable e-cigarettes is a new product simply designed to attract new consumers,” he told the Associated Press. “E-cigarettes often contain nicotine. Nicotine makes you addicted to nicotine. Nicotine is bad for your health.”The minister also cited the “hazardous waste chemicals” present in the cheap and widely available disposable vapes.Last year, Australia restricted the sale of all vapes to pharmacies as part of a series of anti-smoking measures described as world-leading. In the UK it will be illegal to sell single-use vapes from June 2025 in a move designed to combat their widespread use by children and prevent environmental damage.Vandenbroucke said Belgium was “playing a pioneering role in Europe to weaken the tobacco lobby” and called for an update of EU law.Belgium is seeking to reduce the number of new smokers to zero or near zero by 2040 and is taking other steps to “discourage and denormalise” smoking.Smoking in Belguim is now banned in playgrounds, sports fields, zoos and theme parks. From 1 April, tobacco products cannot be sold in supermarkets larger than 400 sq metres, or displayed at points of sale.An official Belgian Health Interview survey in 2018 found that 15.3% of the population aged 15 and over smoked every day, down from 25.5% in 1997. The 2023 survey, due to be released in September, is expected to show a further decline in smoking, but the government said further action was needed to meet its tobacco-reduction targets.Meanwhile, a ban on outdoor smoking in Milan, the northern Italian business and fashion hub long known for its smog, came into force on Wednesday.Smokers who light up on the city’s streets and in crowded public spaces will face fines of between €40 and €240. The ban is an extension of a measure imposed in 2021 which prohibited smoking in parks and playgrounds, as well as at bus stops and sports facilities.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to This is EuropeThe most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environmentPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe city’s officials said the ban was aimed at improving air quality and protecting health, especially against the effects of passive smoking. The ban, however, does not apply to e-cigarettes.Milan is located in the Po Valley, a huge geographical area straddling the regions of Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna. A Guardian investigation in 2023 found more than a third of the people living in the valley and surrounding areas breathed air four times above the World Health Organization’s guideline limit for the most dangerous airborne particulates.Although the number of smokers in Italy has gradually fallen over the past 15 years, still one in four people, or 24%, are smokers, according to data last year from the Higher Health Institute.An estimated 93,000 deaths each year in Italy are attributed to smoking, according to the health ministry. Italy’s first national anti-smoking measure was introduced in 1975, when smoking was banned on public transport and in classrooms. The ban was extended in 1995 to include public administration areas, and in 2005 smoking was banned in all enclosed public areas.

Air Quality, Not Just Fitness Level, Impacts Marathoners' Finish Times

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 26, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Runners put a lot of thought into how much they must eat and drink...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 26, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Runners put a lot of thought into how much they must eat and drink to endure a 26.2-mile marathon, properly fueling their bodies to sustain a record-setting pace.But the quality of the air they huff and puff during endurance events could also play a key role in their performance, a new study says.Higher levels of air pollution are associated with slower average marathon finish times, according to findings published recently in the journal Sports Medicine.“Runners at that level are thinking about their gear, their nutrition, their training, the course, even the weather,” lead researcher Elvira Fleury, a doctoral student at Harvard University, said in a news release. “Our results show that those interested in optimizing athletic performance should consider the effect of air pollution, as well.”Runners’ average finish times on a marathon steadily decreased for every increase in particle pollution of one microgram per cubic meter of air, results show.Men finished 32 seconds slower on average for every increased unit of air pollution, and women finished 25 seconds slower, researchers found.These effects also appeared to be more pronounced in faster-than-average runners, researchers said.“This means that air pollution can be a health risk not just for those who are elderly or susceptible — it can negatively affect even the most healthy and well-trained among us,” senior researcher Joseph Braun, a professor of epidemiology at Brown University, said in a news release from the college.For the study, researchers analyzed data from U.S. public marathons conducted between 2003 and 2019, involving more than 1.5 million male runners and more than 1 million female runners.The research team compared the runners’ finishing times with air quality data captured on event days, including the amount of particle pollution in the air along different points of the marathon route.“This really sophisticated spatial-temporal model of particulate matter allowed us to plot pollution at every mile of every course,” Fleury said. “Without a model like this, it wouldn't have been possible to look at so many different marathons in different states across different years.”Researchers specifically looked at levels of fine particle pollution, which are airborne particles smaller than the width of a human hair or grain of fine beach sand, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.These airborne particles are typically generated by fossil fuels burned by cars and power plants, although in recent years, wildfires have contributed to such pollution.Previous studies have shown that particle air pollution is associated with overall risk of death, as well as risk of heart disease, breathing problems and lung cancer, researchers said.Air pollution could be harming marathon runners’ performance by causing increases in blood pressure, constricted blood vessels, impaired lung function, and perhaps even short-term changes in brain function, researchers speculated.“People who can complete a marathon are generally quite healthy, and we can assume they have honed their cardiorespiratory fitness,” Braun said.“This study revealed a negative impact from air pollution, even at levels below current health-based standards, on these very healthy people,” Braun continued.These findings support efforts to reduce pollution emissions by shifting motor vehicles and power plants away from fossil fuels, researchers concluded.SOURCE: Sports Medicine, journal study, Dec. 18; Brown University, news release, Dec. 18, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Forty Years After the Bhopal Disaster, the Danger Still Remains

In many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. We must continue to fight for a future in which we all have the right to live in healthy environments.

Forty years ago this month, a Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, sprung a toxic gas leak, exposing half a million people to toxic fumes. Thousands of people lost their lives in the immediate aftermath, with the death toll climbing to more than 20,000 over the next two decades. Countless others, including children of survivors, continue to endure chronic health issues. In the United States, the events in Bhopal ignited a grassroots movement to expose and address the toxic chemicals in our water, air, and neighborhoods. In 1986, just two years after the disaster, this growing awareness led Congress to pass the first National Right to Know Act, which requires companies to publicly disclose their use of many toxic chemicals. In India, Bhopal victims have had a long struggle for justice. In 1989, survivors flew to a Union Carbide shareholders meeting in Houston to protest the inadequate compensation for the trauma they’d suffered. The settlement awarded each Bhopal victim was a mere $500—which a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, Union Carbide’s parent company, called “plenty good for an Indian.”  Union Carbide had the survivors arrested before they could enter the meeting. Meanwhile, their abandoned chemical factory was still leaking toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhoods and drinking water.  Nevertheless, Bhopal survivors never stopped fighting. They opened a free clinic to treat the intergenerational health effects caused by the disaster. They marched 500 miles between Bhopal and New Delhi. They staged hunger strikes. They created memorials to the disaster and established a museum to ensure that the horrors of their collective past are not forgotten.    The survivors even obtained an extradition order for Union Carbide’s former CEO, Warren Anderson, but the U.S. government never acted on that request. Forty years later, the factory in Bhopal has never been properly cleaned and is still leaking poison.  Unfortunately, the kinds of chemicals that flow through the veins of Bhopal survivors also flow through ours. The petrochemical industry has brought us together in a perverse solidarity, having chemically trespassed into places all over the world. According to one figure, Americans are exposed to dangerous chemical fires, leaks, and explosions about once every two days. In one dramatic example in early 2023, a rail tanker filled with vinyl chloride derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, forcing the evacuation of 2,000 residents.  Nearly all Americans now carry toxic substances known as PFAS in our bodies. These have been linked to cancer, liver and kidney disease, and immune dysfunction. And the continued burning of fossil fuels is killing millions of people each year around the world through air pollution.  Petrochemical and fossil fuel companies know they can only survive if they avoid liability for the damage they are doing to our health and the planet’s ecosystems. That’s why they are heavily invested in lobbying to prevent any such accountability. Polluting industries are certain to have strong allies in the coming Trump Administration, which plans to open even more land to fossil fuel production and, under the blueprint for conservative governance known as Project 2025, to slash environmental and public health regulations. But we can take inspiration from the people of Bhopal, whose fierce commitment to health and justice sparked a global movement. Earlier this month, on the fortieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, congressional allies of this movement including U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, introduced a resolution designating December 3 as National Chemical Disaster Awareness Day. “Chemical disasters are often the result of corporations cutting corners and prioritizing profits over safety,” said Merkley, who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. “These catastrophes cloud communities with toxic fumes, upending lives and threatening the health and property of those living and working close by.” He called for “stronger laws to prevent chemical disasters and keep our communities and workers safe.” This growing global alliance, which has been called the largest movement for environmental health and justice in history, is fighting for a future in which everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment. It’s a movement that unites us all. Because in many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service. Gary Cohen is the president of Health Care Without Harm and a long time member of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. Read more by Gary Cohen December 18, 2024 3:25 PM

Study Miscalculation Has Everyone Talking about Black Plastic Spatulas Again. Experts Are Still Concerned

The scientists behind a popular study on the health effects of flame retardants in black plastic cooking utensils and toys made a calculation error but still say their revised findings are alarming

Should you throw out your black plastic spatula? A recent study that reported alarming levels of several flame retardants in common black-colored plastic items (including cooking utensils, toys and hair products) had many people suddenly taking stock of their inky array of plastic kitchenware and considering wood or metal alternatives. And the reasons for the concern were understandable: the study’s findings, published in Chemosphere, highlighted potential health effects from exposure to the flame retardants, particularly decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE)—a chemical the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned in 2021 for its apparent links to cancer and reproductive, developmental and immunologic toxicity effects.But this week the study’s authors issued a correction that suggests exposure to decaBDE from the tested products isn’t as close to the EPA’s safety reference level as they initially thought. The decaBDE exposure they estimated from the screened products is still correct, but it’s one tenth of the reference dose. The study had miscalculated the comparison by an order of magnitude.The amount of flame retardants in such products is “not as harmful, with respect to the EPA guidance, as [the researchers] originally stated, although, with these chemicals, they may be harmful when you’re exposed to small amounts over a long period of time,” says Andrew Turner, a biogeochemist at the University of Plymouth in England, who wasn’t involved in the research and studies the disposal and recycling of plastic consumer goods. “It’s difficult to put numbers on these chemicals.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The study authors issued an apology for the mistake in which they maintained that the “calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper.”“Our results still show that when toxic additives are used in plastic, they can significantly contaminate products made with recycled content that do not require flame retardancy,” says Megan Liu, a co-author of the recent study and science and policy manager at Toxic-Free Future, an environmental health research and advocacy group. “The products found in this study to contain hazardous flame retardants included items with high exposure potential, such as things that touch our food, as well as toys, which come in contact with kids.”Why might some black plastics contain flame retardants? Flame retardants are required in certain products (often including computers, TVs and other common electronic items) to meet fire safety regulations. To reduce the amount of e-waste and fossil fuels needed to make new plastics, some of these items are recycled into black plastics. But the problem is that “you could also recycle the flame retardants and other chemicals that are associated with that plastic,” says Stuart Harrad, an environmental chemist at the University of Birmingham in England, who wasn’t involved in the paper. “Now that’s fine to some degree, I suppose, if you’re only recycling the plastic into uses like TV sets, where you need to meet fire safety regulations. But the point is here is that that isn’t happening.”The new study’s main goal was to identify any flame retardant chemicals in various common products. The researchers screened 203 items, ranging from plastic sushi take-out trays to toy necklaces—and found 17 of them were contaminated with high levels of flame retardants. Fourteen of those products contained high levels of decaBDE.The U.S. has largely banned decaBDE and other polybrominated-diphenyl-ether-based flame retardants. New electronic goods use safer flame retardants, but older electronics that contain decaBDE could still be in many households or might have been only recently tossed out for recycling, Turner says. “When you talk about some electronic devices, they last quite a long time,” he adds. These older devices might only be reaching recycling plants now.The new study’s findings generally line up with past evidence that recycled plastics—and flame retardants—can end up in toys and cooking utensils, Harrad says. But it’s been unclear whether the mere presence of flame retardants in a cooking utensil pose any health threat to humans; there are many contributing factors, including the source, the dose, the duration of exposure and any other chemicals that may be present. In a 2018 study Harrad and his colleagues tested potential exposure from black plastic cooking utensils and found that uptake through the skin from simply holding them was negligible. But when they tested them in prolonged cooking experiments with hot oil, about 20 percent of the flame retardants in a utensil transferred into the oil on average. “That’s really because the oil, particularly hot oil, is going to be a pretty good way of extracting these chemicals,” Harrad says.How did the miscalculation occur?The authors of the new study estimated humans’ potential exposure to decaBDE from the plastic products by using the calculation in Harrad’s 2018 study. They applied this calculation to the median levels of decaBDE detected in the products they tested. This wound up being an estimated 34,700 nanograms per day of decaBDE. They then compared that figure with the EPA’s reference dose of 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day. (Some researchers note that this measurement was derived from lab tests and animal models, not direct human testing). To better assess human risk, the scientists calculated a reference dose based on a 60-kg (132-pound) person and initially found 42,000 ng per day, a value alarmingly close to the 34,700 ng per day of exposure they estimated from the new data. But 7,000 multiplied by 60 is actually 420,000. This may have been a simple math error, but the correction massively reduces how close the amount of exposure is to the maximum acceptable limit.The figure with the miscalculation was “contextualizing the levels that we saw in our study, thinking that it could be helpful for people,” Liu says. “This was really just one part of our study that isn’t even part of our key findings.”She and her co-authors have emphasized that the error shouldn’t detract from one of the study’s main conclusions: that none of these flame-retardant chemicals, especially those that have been banned, should be found, in any amount, in these products in the first place.“They're probably banging their head in frustration when they found out they made that calculation error,” Harrad says, adding that the rest of their findings “were perfectly plausible.”“The study does highlight the fact that we’ve not sorted this out yet—that we’re still finding these chemicals coming through into new goods that contain recycled plastics,” Harrad says. “We do need to step up our efforts to isolate these chemicals from waste and make sure that they don't get recycled.”So should you really ditch your black plastic spatula? Harrad says you should avoid leaving it in a hot pan or pot for long periods of time. Some experts don’t recommend reheating food in black plastic containers, although studies haven’t confirmed if this causes chemicals to leach into food. Importantly, “if you see that your black utensil is damaged in any way, just [get rid of it] and go for something else,” Turner says—pieces of the plastic could potentially break off into food.When looking for new cooking ware, Turner says that it’d be more sustainable, and potentially safer, to reduce the use of black plastic items and opt for a material or color that’s more easily recyclable. Liu says wood, stainless steel or silicone products are some safer alternatives. She adds, however, that people can’t “shop” their way out of a larger societal issue. “We can’t expect that everyone can immediately switch over to safer alternatives,” Liu says. “That’s ultimately why we’ve been calling on greater regulatory action at both the corporate and government level to regulate and restrict these harmful chemicals.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.