December 30, 2008

Food additive may up lung cancer risk, study says

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

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.

Foods containing a widely used additive may increase the growth of lung cancers or cause new tumors to develop, new research suggests.

Tumors were more plentiful in mice with lung cancer fed a diet containing 0.5 to 1 percent inorganic phosphates (equivalent to the 40 mg. that humans on average consume daily) for a month according to a study in next month's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The tumors' mass increased by 14 percent in the mice fed the most phosphates.

Inorganic phosphates are chemicals added to a variety of processed foods including cheese, meat, beverages and bakery products to increase water retention and improve their texture. The additives may disrupt the regulation of cell growth in the lungs, causing tumors to develop, says Myung-Haing Cho, a veterinarian at Seoul National University who co-authored the study.

But Stephen Spiro, deputy chairman of the British Lung Foundation, is skeptical there's a human link. "Whilst this may be a relevant observation, it has never been assessed in man," he told BBC News, "and any recent increase in high phosphate ingestion due to excessive phosphates in processed foodstuffs would be likely to take many years before they could affect tumor development in humans."

Image by iStockphoto/shapecharge

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American