Recently there has been a little talk about the potential for one of our products to cause cancer and this talk has also lead to a few accusations that we care more about making a few dollars than we do about the health of our customers. I would like to state outright that customer satisfaction and health are PRIORITIES of ours and we take any accusation seriously.
The first point is that cancer is a very complex topic and it far extends my knowledge to comment on it fully , however what I can point out is when taken in isolation (or Googled out of context) then the correlation between Cancer risk and Arachidonic Acid supplementation does appear, at least on the surface, to be rather disconcerting. So let's look at the evidence:
It has also been suggested that other ARA mediators are actually inhibit tumour growth - but this doesn't mean we can lay claim it protects against cancer, so it doesn't seem fair that the opposite can be used against us. It depends entirely on the context.
As prostate cancer was specifically mentioned, lets look into the data behind that:
If I was to do the same with protein, I would note that mTOR activation increases proliferation of cancerous cells (as it also causes proliferation of non cancerous cells) and therefore tell everyone that any supplement purported to increases mTOR, would also cause cancer. However as always, it is not this simple and overlooks confounding variables that play vital roles.
The first point is that cancer is a very complex topic and it far extends my knowledge to comment on it fully , however what I can point out is when taken in isolation (or Googled out of context) then the correlation between Cancer risk and Arachidonic Acid supplementation does appear, at least on the surface, to be rather disconcerting. So let's look at the evidence:
The issue is that Cancer progression and development is reliant on MANY different factors, not just one and so stating "X causes cancer" fails to take into account other conditions that may have played a far more vital role. If we observe the data in its entirety we note that, rather than being causative, Arachidonic Acid has played only a speculative role in the development of Cancer (I will use the term broadly).Analysis of the information in the Multiethnic Cohort Study found that intake of different types of fat indicated no association with overall prostate cancer risk or with non-localised or high-grade prostate cancer [6]. A prospective cohort study and a clinical trial failed to find evidence for an association between fat intake and colorectal cancer [7,8]. A dietary intervention study demonstrated that a reduction in fat intake reduces the risk of skin cancer [9,10], but the evidence from observational studies [11,12] has been controversial. Japan is a high-risk area for stomach and lung cancer, but no association with fat intake and these types of cancer has been suggested [2].
It has also been suggested that other ARA mediators are actually inhibit tumour growth - but this doesn't mean we can lay claim it protects against cancer, so it doesn't seem fair that the opposite can be used against us. It depends entirely on the context.
As prostate cancer was specifically mentioned, lets look into the data behind that:
Prostate cancer
Major characteristics are shown in Table 4[46,67-81]. Four articles did not provide sufficient information about the methodology of outcome measurement. As well as well-known confounding factors, specific factors for prostate cancer, for instance BMI, physical activity, and total energy, were considered in some articles; however, no confounding factors were adjusted for in seven articles.
Table 4. Summary of observational studies on the association between ARA and risk of prostate cancer
One cohort study and three case-control studies examined dietary ARA intake. They showed no significant change in prostate cancer risk according to increased ARA intake.
Blood ARA levels were estimated in nine case-control studies and three cross-sectional studies. The precision of blood analysis was mentioned in only five articles, and masking of disease status was conducted in only four. Ukori et al. (2010) reported that prostate cancer risk of African-Americans decreased in the fourth quartile of blood ARA level, and that the overall trend was significant (P for trend < 0.05). A significant change in prostate cancer risk or a significant difference in blood ARA levels was not found in the other 11 articles.
And further:The findings from articles for colorectal cancer differ depending on the methodology of ARA exposure assessment. A positive dose-response relationship between dietary ARA intake and colorectal cancer was indicated in two reports [30,31], whereas four articles [38,40,43,46] indicated a negative association or significant ARA decrease with blood ARA levels, and no article reported a positive relationship between colorectal cancer risk and tissue ARA level. These inconsistent results seem to indicate that there is little firm evidence that ARA correlates with the risk of cancer.
It must be made clear that correlation does not equal causation. If X does not equal Y ALL THE TIME, then we must consider the possibilities surrounding that fact. Much like the fear of fat propaganda that took over the 80's, 90's and 00's when people took correlation and implied causation, they failed to take into account that may of these "higher fat eaters" lead vastly unhealthy lifestyles that contributed to their conditions. They simply looked at their high dietary fat levels, saw they were ill and implied the two were connected.Among studies for breast and prostate cancer, a strong positive association and a clear dose-response relationship between increased cancer risk and ARA exposure were not observed, although the results were replicated in different settings using different methods. This suggests that ARA exposure is not associated with increased breast and prostate cancer risk.
If I was to do the same with protein, I would note that mTOR activation increases proliferation of cancerous cells (as it also causes proliferation of non cancerous cells) and therefore tell everyone that any supplement purported to increases mTOR, would also cause cancer. However as always, it is not this simple and overlooks confounding variables that play vital roles.