Science
Where will the next pandemic begin? The Amazon rainforest offers troubling clues
The ten-year-old took off working down a dust highway within the coronary heart of the Amazon rainforest, turning cartwheels, enjoying tag and selecting fistfuls of untamed bougainvillea.
Small fires flared throughout Darah Girl Assunção Oliveira da Costa and her younger cousins as males burned bushes to make room for extra farmland. On the horizon loomed what was left of still-virgin jungle, dense and impossibly inexperienced. A series noticed roared from inside.
Within the three a long time since Darah Girl’s widowed grandmother first arrived on this distant stretch of northern Brazil, clearing the jungle by hand to construct a home for her 14 kids, the household has pushed deeper and deeper into the Amazon. It has been pushed by the frontier maxim that prosperity comes when nature succumbs to human dominion.
A settler slashes and burns a patch of land close to the sting of the rainforest in Maruaga, Brazil. Massive and small encroachments occur all through the Amazon on any given day. Since 1970, greater than 1 / 4 million sq. miles of Brazilian rainforest have been destroyed.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
“To outlive, we have to use what we have now,” stated Darah Girl’s father, 60-year-old Aladino Oliveira da Costa, who toppled old-growth forest to construct houses for every of his 4 older kids.
He and the remainder of the group have been prepping Darah Girl and her 42 cousins for all times on the literal fringe of civilization, educating them which bugs to keep away from, which crops remedy colds and which wild animals might be hunted and eaten.
Darah Girl Assunção Oliveira da Costa, 10, picks flowers close to her house in a jungle settlement referred to as Maruaga. The woman’s grandmother settled within the space about 30 years in the past, clearing the land and constructing a house for her 14 kids. The household has pushed deeper into the Amazon with every passing technology.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
But their rising outpost in northeastern Amazonas state — one in every of 1000’s of casual settlements all through the world’s largest rainforest — might imperil not solely their kids’s future but in addition that of your entire planet.
It’s not nearly bushes. It’s about viruses.
Extra world pandemics like COVID-19 are on the way in which, scientists say, and the subsequent one is more likely to emerge from a group like Darah Girl’s, the place individuals are encroaching on the pure world and erasing the buffer between themselves and habitats that existed lengthy earlier than a shovel reduce this earth.
The World They Inherit
That is the sixth in a sequence of occasional tales concerning the challenges younger individuals face in an more and more perilous world. Reporting was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Middle.
From palm oil cultivation in Malaysia to mining in Africa or cattle ranching in Brazil, as individuals demolish forest, they not solely speed up world warming but in addition dramatically improve their danger of publicity to illness. Lurking in mammals and birds are about 1.6 million viruses, a few of which might be lethal after they leap to people. The stakes flip catastrophic if a virus proves transmissible between individuals.
That’s what occurred with COVID-19, which originated from shut contact between people and wild animals — whether or not it sprung from a pure setting or a laboratory.
The excessive rises of Manaus jut out of the Amazon rainforest alongside the Rio Negro in northwestern Brazil. Based within the nineteenth century as a middle for the rubber commerce, Manaus now could be a free import and export enterprise zone. Commerce and trade listed below are bustling.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
Scientists say that illness sizzling zones are multiplying from Africa to South America, and that deforestation has already triggered an increase in infectious illness. Zoologists have traced a couple of third of all identified outbreaks world wide to fast land use change, together with Nipah virus, malaria and Lyme illness. The issue is worsened by hotter temperatures introduced by local weather change that permit disease-carrying bugs to flourish.
Brazil has misplaced 270,000 sq. miles of the rainforest — the scale of two Germanys — since 1970. Darah Girl’s hamlet of Maruaga is rife with dangers for viral spillover, from omnipresent mosquitoes, roaming canines and chickens, and the wild sport her household recurrently eats. Contaminated bushmeat consumption in all probability sparked the 2013 Ebola outbreak within the West African nation of Guinea.
“Oh, it’s scrumptious!” Darah Girl stated of paca, a hunched, striped rodent that lives within the forest, as she and her cousins stopped to say good day to her father, who was smoothing mortar between concrete blocks, including a brand new room to their two-story home.
“However you may’t go overboard with the pepper,” Darah Girl continued. “There was this one time when he went to arrange the paca” — she caught her tongue out and panted — “and it was so sizzling!”
Her father, long-limbed and quick-witted like his daughter, smiled, placing his arm across the woman’s slender shoulders. “And tapir,” he added, referring to a jungle mammal that resembles a big pig with a trunk. “They’re additionally actually good.”
Birds choose a tree within the central sq. of Manaus, Brazil. Constructed on the banks of the Rio Negro, town of two million individuals stands in the midst of the Amazon jungle. It’s a bustling middle for commerce, trade and commerce.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angles Occasions)
Their household has already battled zoonotic sicknesses — the time period used to explain infectious illnesses transmitted between animals and people. Darah Girl’s father is a survivor of malaria and Leishmaniasis, a illness carried by sand flies that causes flesh-eating pores and skin sores.
When 40% of a land space has been destroyed, in accordance with Tom Gillespie, an Emory researcher targeted on environmental change and illness, the area hits a form of tipping level: Wild animals are pushed nearer to people for meals, and viruses start to unfold.
Even small decreases in forest cowl can drive up publicity to pathogens. In Brazil, Zika, the mosquito-borne virus that causes devastating delivery defects, is a primary instance. Scientists say deforestation has contributed to file warmth and droughts that trigger extra individuals to retailer water in open containers — wonderful breeding grounds for mosquitoes. With world warming, these vectors will in all probability creep north, breeding in components of North America, Europe and East Asia the place it had beforehand been too chilly.
It’s possible Darah Girl will confront one other pandemic in her lifetime. However her household isn’t frightened. When COVID-19 swept by way of the Amazon, her family members say they survived by sipping tea made with the bark of a forest vine. Darah Girl’s grandmother Iracema, 81, went into the jungle to gather the elements.
“It’s one thing that God placed on the face of this Earth,” Darah Girl’s aunt Ivaneide Assunção da Silva stated of the virus. “And God gave us the instruments to remedy ourselves.”
A primate seems to be out from its cage at a wildlife analysis facility in Manaus, Brazil. Veterinarians and researchers continually monitor and catalog pathogens discovered within the Amazon jungle. As individuals proceed to encroach on the rainforest, buffers between people and wildlife are erased, rising the opportunity of pathogen transmission between species.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
The group right here revolves across the small neo-Pentecostal church Iracema helped construct. The church’s nationwide leaders have claimed that the coronavirus is attributable to Devil and won’t damage those that are usually not afraid of it. The entire household has declined to take the vaccine.
Iracema believes the household will meet any problem, even a future pandemic, with the assistance of God — and the fruits of the forest.
“It’s vital to know concerning the forest,” she stated. “As a result of, once we reside right here, there’s nobody to assist us. We’ve all the time been right here fending for ourselves.”
::
100 miles south of Maruaga, within the sprawling metropolis of Manaus, a cemetery edges up in opposition to the rainforest, a sea of recent picket crosses giving method to a seemingly countless thicket of bushes.
Through the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospitals in Manaus ran out of oxygen and medical doctors might do not more than prescribe morphine to sufferers as they slowly asphyxiated, employees razed acres of jungle so backhoes might dig mass graves for 1000’s of lifeless.
1000’s of individuals in Manaus died in two separate surges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly everybody on this metropolis of two million individuals is aware of somebody who died a sluggish and excruciating dying after native hospitals ran out of oxygen. Officers bulldozed components of the jungle for area to bury the lifeless.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
If there’s anyplace on the planet that understands simply how devastating a pandemic might be, it’s Manaus, a metropolis of two million that rises out of the forest alongside a tributary of the Amazon River. Scientists are involved Manaus is also the breeding floor for the subsequent world epidemic, and say its poor efficiency responding to COVID-19 suggests it’s nowhere close to prepared for what could come.
“We weren’t ready,” stated nursing assistant Ludernilce Peixoto Costa, 43, who works at one of many metropolis’s important hospitals treating COVID-19 sufferers. Peixoto misplaced each of her dad and mom to COVID-19. Within the ICU the place she works, her father died holding her hand.
She worries about her youngest brother, 16, who has grow to be more and more withdrawn — one other COVID-19 orphan in a metropolis filled with them. She worries, too, about her 6-year-old daughter, Adrielly, who can’t keep in mind a life earlier than protecting masks and who says she needs to be a physician someday as a result of she has identified so many sick individuals.
Peixoto wonders: What if the virus by no means actually goes away, or one other one seems, and the younger must reside with pandemics endlessly?
“It scares me lots,” Peixoto stated on a current morning after one other exhausting evening shift. “It’s an unsure future.”
Ludernilce Peixoto Costa, 43, and her daughter Adrielly, 6, at their house on the outskirts of Manaus, Brazil. Peixoto works at one of many metropolis’s important hospitals treating COVID-19 sufferers. She misplaced each of her dad and mom to COVID-19.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
Others share that fear, together with Nelcicleide Vasconcelos Barbosa Reis, 39, who works for a Catholic charity in a casual settlement about three hours north of Manaus.
The city, with a reputation, Rumo Certo, that interprets to Proper Path, sprung up from the jungle lower than three a long time in the past and is now sandwiched between a sequence of cattle ranches and a lake shaped by a hydroelectric dam.
Vasconcelos was busy ensuring kids didn’t fall behind whereas faculties have been closed when final 12 months she, her husband and their 9-year-old daughter fell sick.
Her husband died in a Manaus hospital in December. Her daughter, Emanuelle, is shattered, spinning with anxiousness when anyone mentions the phrase “COVID.”
“It’s unfair,” Emanuelle tells her mom. “Couldn’t God see {that a} child wants her dad?”
Colleges have been closed for properly over a 12 months and there’s no signal she’s going again.
Throughout a current celebration on the church, the place Emanuelle floated round with a bunch of youngsters, together with a toddler in a T-shirt emblazoned with {a photograph} of his father, who additionally died from COVID-19, Vasconcelos wiped away tears. She questioned if kids’s lives would ever really feel “regular” once more.
“Both they are going to mature shortly or they are going to get misplaced,” she stated.
::
The capuchin monkey was out chilly, sprawled on a steel examination desk as veterinarian Alessandra Nava gently searched its legs for an excellent vein.
The monkey, an unlawful pet turned over to Brazil’s federal environmental safety company, was malnourished and underweight, however Nava lastly discovered a good website for a draw on its thigh. Blood crammed a vial, and because the monkey was carried again to its cage to sleep off the sedatives, Nava dropped the vial right into a tank of liquid nitrogen — one other pattern for her database.
Veterinarian Alessandra Nava attracts blood samples from a primate at a lab in Manaus. Nava is a researcher with the Oswaldo Cruz Basis, Brazil’s most distinguished scientific establishment, and tracks viruses within the Amazon jungle.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
Nava is a virus hunter. As a researcher with Oswaldo Cruz Basis, a government-run lab, she spends her days in and round Manaus taking samples from primates, rodents and bats. These specimens are serving to construct up the establishment’s biobank — a library of the viruses which can be circulating amongst animals within the jungle.
Not like conventional biobanks that retailer human samples for genomics and personalised medication, these repositories serve a extra common function: surveilling viral circulation. The scientists know that whereas reservoir hosts just like the monkey can harbor many viruses with out ever falling sick, when these viruses make their approach into people, they’ll set off a disastrous outbreak.
Scientists like Nava stalk and examine the pathogens in hopes of outsmarting them. If a mysterious case of illness have been to look in a human, lab employees might sequence the virus’ genome and attempt to match it to a virus within the biobank, rushing up efforts to include it.
There are related initiatives in Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia — the place scientists fear a couple of Nipah virus spillover — and the Congo basin, the place Ebola and Marburg stay fixed threats.
Internationally, the International Virome Undertaking is probably the most strong instance: an enormous analysis venture that goals to catalog each virus that might threaten people. Dennis Carroll, the researcher who runs it, believes that if such an information set had been obtainable prior to now, the coronavirus that spilled into people some two years in the past would have been recognized a lot quicker.
However many zoologists think about it too bold. Estimates counsel the venture would value about $1.6 billion over a decade to establish 75% of all of the world’s viruses. And even a library of all of them wouldn’t reveal which might be transmitted between people. Some scientists suppose a wiser method is convincing particular teams of individuals to undertake much less dangerous behaviors: wet-market employees, mink farmers, chimpanzee hunters — and maybe households residing on the perimeter of the forest, like Darah Girl’s.
A lot of the analysis into zoonotic spillover has thus far targeted on Asia and Africa, however there’s rising consideration on the Amazon. Brazil misplaced an estimated 5 million acres of its part of the forest in 2020, and scientists warn that part might be decreased by greater than 40% by 2050. Outbreaks of zoonotic illness have elevated globally within the final 30 years, and the virus that can mutate to trigger the subsequent one, although maybe undetected, is already on the market.
A sloth takes refuge within the hair of a researcher with the Oswaldo Cruz Basis, Brazil’s most distinguished scientific establishment. As individuals proceed to encroach on the rainforest, buffers between people and wildlife are erased, rising the opportunity of pathogen transmission between species. Scientific researchers monitor and catalog pathogens present in animals from the Brazilian jungle.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
“They reduce down a bit of pristine forest and construct a shopping center, and folks suppose it’s progress,” Nava stated. “However while you do this, you’re leaving a complete group of animals with out a house.”
Nava, who has a younger daughter, has been including photo voltaic panels and cisterns to her home to make her household extra self-sufficient within the face of future disasters. As she commutes round Manaus, with its city sprawl ever encroaching on the forest round it, she thinks about her child: “What sort of planet are we leaving her?”
If individuals actually care about avoiding future pandemics, she stated, they are going to notice that the most effective method just isn’t her personal — attempting to find out about viruses earlier than they take root in people — however to cease their unfold altogether.
“It’s not about trying to find the subsequent virus,” she stated. “Now we have to cease deforestation proper now.”
::
Aladino Oliveira da Costa, 60, and his daughter Darah Girl, 10, speak with a reporter exterior their house within the village of Maruaga. Oliviera cleared old-growth bushes from the jungle to construct houses for every of his 4 older kids. He hopes to sometime do the identical for Darah Girl.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
Oliveira bristles at options that households like his are doing one thing fallacious by increasing into the jungle.
He helps Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right firebrand who has allowed a rise of logging, mining and cattle farming within the Amazon — actions that scientists say are linked to the emergence of infectious illness.
Oliveira says if scientists need Brazil to cease slicing down the rainforest, they need to compensate these residing there. “Pay me to protect it and I’ll protect it,” he stated on a current morning, sipping espresso in an open-air gazebo along with his spouse and his spouse’s mom whereas Darah Girl sat in Sunday college on the group’s little church.
“Coming from the surface, you need the forest to stay standing,” he stated. “That’s great. However I reside right here within the forest. And I don’t survive on leaves and lizards.”
Round him have been indicators of how the expansion of his household’s compound has already altered a land that lower than a century in the past was untouched and pristine. A paved highway constructed lately is already lined with small shops and cattle ranches. Close by, building employees are getting ready to clear extra forest to construct a hospital. Even the place the plush inexperienced is comparatively undisturbed, thick electrical traces stretch over the cover, buzzing day and evening.
The youngsters trickled out of the church, Darah Girl clutching a Bible. She accepted kisses from all of the adults — together with her grandmother Iracema, who a long time in the past pushed again the forest to make a house — then sat down along with her cousins for a breakfast of fruitcake.
Greater than her elders, Darah Girl appeared to intuit the nuance of deforestation. Simply days earlier than, she had performed on lots that was being cleared.
It had as soon as been a dense universe of life — towering bushes, cacophonous birds, legions of uncommon bugs and animals. However now it seemed as if it had been flattened by a bomb, cleared of any helpful timber and blackened by a still-smoldering fireplace.
“I get type of unhappy,” Darah Girl stated. “As a result of, like, the forest is one thing I’ve beloved since I used to be little. They usually’re deforesting, proper? It’s destroying nature.”
A person burning jungle in a settlement named Maruaga in Brazil.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Occasions)
“However it’s additionally going to assist,” she stated, exhibiting a baby’s grasp of slash-and-burn agriculture. “This land they’re burning, these bushes, the vitamins from what they burn will go into the soil. And it’ll assist to plant new issues — like orange bushes, guava bushes — and folks can construct homes.”
On this Sunday morning, as she and her household completed up and retired to their house, smoke from farmers clearing extra land once more crammed the sky, an indication of each progress and peril. Darah Girl was so used to it, she barely observed.
Extra from ‘The World They Inherit’
Occasions workers author Linthicum and particular correspondent Ionova reported from Maruaga. Workers author Baumgaertner reported from Los Angeles.
(That is the sixth in a sequence of occasional tales concerning the challenges younger individuals face in an more and more perilous world. Reporting was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Middle.)
The Biden administration on Friday made final its long-awaited plan to offer billions of dollars in tax credits to companies that make hydrogen, in the hopes of building up a new industry that might help fight climate change.
When burned, hydrogen mainly emits water vapor, and it could be used instead of fossil fuels to make steel or fertilizer or to power large trucks or ships.
But whether or not hydrogen is good for the climate depends on how it is made. Today, most hydrogen is produced from natural gas in a process that emits a lot of planet-warming carbon dioxide. The Biden administration wants to encourage companies to make so-called clean hydrogen by using wind, solar or other low-emission sources of electricity.
In 2022, Congress approved a lucrative tax credit for companies that make clean hydrogen. But the Treasury Department needed to issue rules to clarify what, exactly, companies had to do to claim that credit. The agency released proposed guidance in 2023 but many businesses have been waiting for the final rules before making investments.
The final guidelines that were released Friday followed months of intense lobbying from lawmakers, industry representatives and environmental groups and roughly 30,000 public comments. They include changes that make it somewhat easier for hydrogen producers to claim the tax credits, which could total tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.
“Clean hydrogen can play a critical role decarbonizing multiple sectors across our economy, from industry to transportation, from energy storage to much more,” said David Turk, the deputy secretary of energy. “The final rules announced today set us on a path to accelerate deployment.”
Initially, Treasury had imposed strict conditions on hydrogen subsidies: Companies could claim the tax credit if they used low-carbon electricity from newly built sources like wind or solar power to run a machine called an electrolyzer that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Starting in 2028, those electrolyzers would have to run during the same hours that the wind or solar farms were operating.
Without those conditions, researchers had warned, electrolyzers might draw vast amounts of power from existing electric grids and drive a spike in greenhouse gas emissions if coal- or gas-fired power plants had to run more often to meet the demand.
Yet many industry groups and lawmakers in Congress complained that the proposed rules were so stringent, they could throttle America’s nascent hydrogen industry before it even got going.
Among the concerns: The technology to match hydrogen production with hourly fluctuations in wind and solar power is still in its infancy. Owners of nuclear reactors also said that they had been left out.
So the final rules contain several significant tweaks:
-
Hydrogen producers will get two extra years — until 2030 — before they are required to buy clean electricity on an hourly basis to match their output. Until then, they can use a looser annual standard and still claim the tax credit.
-
In certain states that require utilities to use more low-carbon electricity each year, hydrogen producers will now have an easier time claiming the credit, on the theory that those laws will prevent a spike in emissions. For now, Treasury said, only California and Washington meet this criterion, but other states could qualify in the future.
-
Under certain conditions, companies that own nuclear reactors that are set to be retired for economic reasons can now claim the credit to produce hydrogen if it would help the plants stay open. Existing reactors that are profitable would not be able to claim the credit.
-
The final rules also lay out criteria under which companies could use methane gas from landfills, farms or coal mines to produce hydrogen — if, for instance, the methane would have otherwise been emitted into the atmosphere.
The guidelines “incorporate helpful feedback from companies planning investments,” said Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary.
Some hydrogen producers said that many, though not all, of their biggest concerns had been addressed in the final guidance, which runs nearly 400 pages.
“There’s a degree of relief that the rules are, on balance, an improvement from the original draft,” said Frank Wolak, chief executive of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, a trade group. “But there’s a lot in the details that needs to be evaluated.”
The lack of clear guidance had been holding up investment, said Jacob Susman, chief executive of Ambient Fuels, a clean hydrogen developer that is planning roughly $3 billion in projects across the United States. “Now that we actually have something solid, we can get down to the business of building,” he said.
Environmentalists said that most of the safeguards in the original proposal to prevent emissions from surging had been kept in place.
“The extra flexibilities granted to the green hydrogen industry are not perfect from a climate perspective,” said Erik Kamrath at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But the rule maintains key protections that minimize dangerous air and climate pollution from electrolytic hydrogen production.”
The Energy Department estimates that the use of cleaner forms of hydrogen could grow to 10 million tons per year by 2030, up from virtually nothing today.
But political uncertainty looms. A new Congress could repeal the tax credits, although hydrogen generally enjoys support from both Democrats and Republicans and a number of oil and gas companies have invested in hydrogen technologies. The Trump administration could also revise the rules around the credits, although that could take years.
Economics are another hurdle. Producing cleaner hydrogen still costs $3 to $11 per kilogram, according to data from BloombergNEF. By contrast, it costs about $1 to $2 per kilogram to make hydrogen from natural gas.
The new tax credit will be worth up to $3 per kilogram, which could bridge the gap in some cases but not all. Technology costs would have to decline sharply.
Even with hefty subsidies to produce hydrogen, it’s not clear that enough buyers will emerge. Around the world, hydrogen companies have canceled several major projects over the last few years because of lack of demand. Steel makers and electric utilities that might have interest in the fuel often balk at the costly equipment required to use it.
“These new rules will probably help, even if they don’t go as far as many in industry wanted,” said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan Washington research organization. “But there’s still the challenge of finding the people to consume the hydrogen you produce.”
Alcoholic drinks are a leading cause of cancer and should carry a warning about that risk on their labels, the U.S. surgeon general said Friday.
Alcohol is a factor in nearly 100,000 newly diagnosed cancers each year and roughly 20,000 deaths from the disease, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said in an advisory intended to focus the public’s attention on the health risk. By comparison, traffic accidents tied to drinking kill about 13,500 Americans each year.
“Alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity,” the 22-page advisory said. “While scientific evidence for this connection has been growing over the past four decades, less than half of Americans recognize it as a risk factor for cancer.”
Labels on bottles and cans of alcoholic beverages already warn about drinking while pregnant. They also warn about drinking before driving or operating other machinery. In California, the voter-approved Proposition 65 also requires businesses that serve or sell alcoholic beverages to provide a warning about health risks, including cancer.
Any decision to update or expand the label would require congressional approval, an uncertain prospect. Murthy was appointed by President Biden, who has a little more than two weeks left in office. President-elect Donald Trump has picked Janette Nesheiwat, an executive at a New York-based chain of urgent care clinics, as his nominee for surgeon general.
Executives in the beer, wine and spirits industry said Friday that the scientific data linking alcohol to cancer are mixed.
Amanda Berger, senior vice president at the Distilled Spirits Council, noted that a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that alcohol was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer but did not find such associations with other types of cancer.
That report also concluded that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, compared with never consuming alcohol.
“The current health warning on alcohol products has long informed consumers about the potential risks of the consumption of alcohol,” Berger said. “Many lifestyle choices carry potential risks, and it is the federal government’s role to determine any proposed changes to the warning statements based on the entire body of scientific research.”
The surgeon general’s advisory said that cancers of the colorectum, esophagus, liver, mouth, throat and larynx are all tied to drinking, as is breast cancer in women. The risk of developing breast, mouth or throat cancers may increase with less than one drink per day, it said.
(Office of the U.S. Surgeon General)
Yet more than half of Americans are unaware that their drinking behavior affects their cancer risk. A survey by the American Institute for Cancer Research found that 89% of Americans recognized that smoking causes cancer and 53% knew that obesity was a risk factor, but only 45% realized that alcohol could cause cancer as well.
Nearly half of alcohol-related cancers in the U.S. are breast cancers in women, according to a study published by the American Cancer Society. About 1 in every 6 female breast cancers is due to alcohol, and the disease accounts for about 60% of all alcohol-related cancer deaths in women.
As a result, drinking is a bigger cancer risk for women than men. In 2019, about 54,330 women were diagnosed with a cancer that resulted from drinking, as were roughly 42,400 men. About 60% of alcohol-related cancer deaths in women are due to breast cancer, while liver cancer and colorectal cancer are responsible for about 54% of alcohol-related cancer deaths in men.
For women who consume less than one drink a week, the absolute risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer is 16.5%. Having one drink per day increases that risk to 19%, and having two drinks each day raises it to 21.8%, according to the advisory.
For men, drinking once a week is tied to a 10% absolute risk of an alcohol-related cancer. That risk rises to 11.4% by having one drink per day, and to 13.1% by having two drinks per day, the advisory says.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer says alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen, putting it in the company of tobacco, asbestos and ultraviolet radiation. The U.S. National Toxicology Program declared in 2000 that alcohol causes cancer in humans, and organizations including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the American Assn. for Cancer Research agree that at least seven kinds of cancer are related to drinking.
There is also evidence to suggest that drinking contributes to skin, prostate, pancreatic and stomach cancers, though more research is needed, the surgeon general’s advisory says.
Scientists first linked alcohol consumption to certain cancers nearly 50 years ago, and the evidence showing that drinking is a risk factor for at least seven types of cancer has grown since then, the advisory says.
For instance, an observational study of 28 million people in 195 countries and territories found that the more alcohol a person consumed, the higher their risk of cancer. A study involving more than 1 million women found that those who had up to 1 drink per day were 10% more likely to get breast cancer compared with those who abstained. Likewise, a study with 36,000 people found that those who consumed about a drink per day were 40% more likely to develop mouth cancer than people who didn’t drink.
Laboratory experiments have shown how alcohol leads to cancer.
When alcohol is metabolized in the body, it breaks down into a chemical called acetaldehyde that can attach itself to DNA. The resulting damage can trigger the uncontrolled cell growth that leads to cancer.
Drinking also creates unstable molecules called reactive oxygen species that can interfere with DNA, proteins and essential fats. They also increase inflammation, which makes the body more hospitable to cancer.
There is also evidence that alcohol fuels breast cancers by affecting levels of estrogen and other hormones, and that other kinds of carcinogens — such as those found in tobacco smoke — are more easily absorbed in the body when they are dissolved in alcohol.
The companies selling alcoholic beverages say they have long urged consumers to drink the beverages safely.
“The U.S. beer industry has been a champion of responsible consumption for decades,” a spokesperson for the Beer Institute said Friday. “We encourage adults of legal drinking age to make choices that best fit their personal circumstances, and if they choose to drink, to consume alcohol beverages in moderation.”
Dr. Laura Catena, a winemaker and physician, said that she would “welcome any kind of alert or communication from the surgeon general about the cancer risks of heavy alcohol drinking,” but that it shouldn’t go beyond the established science.
The American Assn. for Cancer Research says alcohol use is responsible for 5.4% of all cancer cases in the U.S. That makes it a bigger risk factor than exposure to UV radiation, poor diet, and infections from pathogens like hepatitis and the human papillomavirus. (For comparison, 19.3% of U.S. cancers are attributable to smoking, according to the association.)
Studies suggest that people who cut back on alcohol or eliminate it can reduce their risk of these cancers by 8%, and reduce their overall cancer risk by 4%.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services say there is no health reason for nondrinkers to start consuming alcohol. Those who do drink can minimize their risk by limiting their intake to no more than one drink per day for women and no more than two drinks per day for men.
A 5-ounce glass of wine, 12-ounce bottle of beer or 1.5-ounce tumbler of distilled spirits count as a single drink.
The surgeon general’s advisory says about 83% of alcohol-related cancer deaths occur in people who exceed those limits. But that means 17% of deaths were in people who engaged in moderate drinking.
Alcohol is a leading preventable cause of cancer, and alcoholic beverages should carry a warning label as packs of cigarettes do, the U.S. surgeon general said on Friday.
It is the latest salvo in a fierce debate about the risks and benefits of moderate drinking as the influential U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans are about to be updated. For decades, moderate drinking was said to help prevent heart attacks and strokes.
That perception has been embedded in the dietary advice given to Americans. But growing research has linked drinking, sometimes even within the recommended limits, to various types of cancer.
Labels currently affixed to bottles and cans of alcoholic beverages warn about drinking while pregnant or before driving and operating other machinery, and about general “health risks.”
But alcohol directly contributes to 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 related deaths each year, the surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, said.
He called for updating the labels to include a heightened risk of breast cancer, colon cancer and at least five other malignancies now linked by scientific studies to alcohol consumption.
“Many people out there assume that as long as they’re drinking at the limits or below the limits of current guidelines of one a day for women and two for men, that there is no risk to their health or well-being,” Dr. Murthy said in an interview.
“The data does not bear that out for cancer risk.”
Only Congress can mandate new warning labels of the sort Dr. Murthy recommended, and it’s not clear that the incoming administration would support the change.
Still, President-elect Donald J. Trump does not drink, and his choice to head the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., swore off alcohol and drugs decades ago, and says he regularly attends AA meetings.
There is no question that heavy consumption is harmful. But supporters of moderate drinking — including makers of wine, beer and spirits, and some physicians and scientists — argue that a little alcohol each day may reduce cardiovascular disease, the No. 1 killer in the United States.
Newer scientific studies have criticized the methodology of earlier studies, however, and have challenged that view, which was once a consensus.
While most cancer deaths occur at drinking levels that exceed the current recommended dietary guidelines, the risk for cancers of the breast, the mouth and the throat may rise with consumption of as little as one drink a day, or even less, Dr. Murthy said on Friday.
Overall, one of every six breast cancer cases is attributable to alcohol consumption, Dr. Murthy said. More recent studies have also linked moderate alcohol consumption to certain forms of heart disease, including atrial fibrillation, a heart arrhythmia.
Two scientific reviews will be used to inform the updated recommendations about alcohol consumption in the federal dietary guidelines.
Five years ago, the scientific report that informed the writing of the 2020-2025 dietary guidelines acknowledged that alcohol is a carcinogen and generally unhealthy and suggested “tightening guidelines” by capping the recommendation for men at one standard drink, or 14 grams of alcohol a day.
When the final guidelines were drafted, however, there was no change in the advice that moderate drinking of up to two drinks a day for men was acceptable.
But the government acknowledged emerging evidence indicating that “even drinking within the recommended limits may increase the overall risk of death from various causes, such as from several types of cancer and some forms of cardiovascular disease.”
Since then, even more studies have linked alcoholic beverages to cancer. Yet any attempt to change the warning labels on alcoholic beverages is likely to face an uphill battle.
The current warning label has not been changed since it was adopted in 1988, even though the link between alcohol and breast cancer has been known for decades.
It was first mentioned in the 2000 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. In 2016, the surgeon general’s report on alcohol, drugs and health linked alcohol misuse to seven different types of cancer.
More recently, a scientific review of the research on moderate drinking, carried out under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, was commissioned by Congress.
That analysis found a link between alcohol consumption and a slight increase in breast cancer, but no clear link to any other cancers. The report also revived the theory that moderate drinking is linked to fewer heart attack and stroke deaths, and fewer deaths overall, compared with never drinking.
The World Health Organization says there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption, however, and 47 nations require warnings on alcoholic beverages. But cancer is rarely mentioned.
To date, only South Korea has a label warning about liver cancer, though manufacturers can choose alternative labels that don’t mention cancer. Ireland is currently slated to introduce labels that say there is a “direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” in 2026.
The industry has a strong history of fighting warning labels that mention cancer, and alcohol-producing nations have also challenged warning labels under international trade law.
Industry opposition led to the premature termination of a federally funded Canadian study of the impact of warning labels that mentioned cancer.
The surgeon general’s advisory provided a brief overview of research studies and reviews published in the past two decades, including a global study of 195 countries and territories involving 28 million people.
They all found that higher levels of alcohol consumption were associated with a greater risk of cancer.
Other studies looked at specific cancers, like breast cancer and mouth cancer, finding the risks increased by 10 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for those who had just one drink a day, when compared with those who did not drink.
The report described the biological mechanisms by which alcohol is known to induce cancerous changes at the cellular level.
The most widely accepted theory is that inside the body, alcohol breaks down into acetaldehyde, a metabolite that binds to DNA and damages it, allowing a cell to start growing uncontrollably and creating a malignant tumor.
Animal experiments have shown that rodents whose drinking water was spiked with either ethanol, the alcohol used in alcoholic beverages, or with acetaldehyde developed large numbers of tumors all over their bodies.
Research has shown that alcohol generates oxidative stress, which increases inflammation and can damage DNA.
It also alters levels of hormones like estrogen, which can play a role in breast cancer development, and makes it easier for carcinogens like tobacco smoke particles to be absorbed into the body, increasing susceptibility to cancers of the mouth and the throat.
The surgeon general’s report also goes into detail about the increase in risk associated with drinking, differentiating between the increases in absolute risk and in relative risk.
For example, the absolute risk of breast cancer over a woman’s life span is about 11.3 percent (11 out of 100) for those who have less than a drink a week.
The risk increases to 13.1 percent (13 of 100 individuals) at one drink a day, and up to 15.3 percent (15 of 100) at two drinks per day.
For men, the absolute risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer increases from about 10 percent (10 of every 100 individuals) for those who consume less than one drink a week to 11.4 percent (11 per 100) for those who have a drink every day on average. It rises to 13 percent (13 of 100 individuals) for those who have two drinks a day on average.
Many Americans don’t know there is a link between alcohol and cancer.
Fewer than half of Americans identified alcohol use as a risk factor for cancer, compared with 89 percent who recognized tobacco as a carcinogen, according to a 2019 survey of U.S. adults aged 18 and older carried out by the American Institute for Cancer Research.
Yet alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer, after tobacco and obesity, according to the surgeon general’s report.
Dr. Murthy said it was important to know that the risk rises as alcohol consumption increases. But each individual’s risk of cancer is different, depending on family history, genetic makeup and environmental exposures.
“I wish we had a magic cutoff we could tell people is safe,” he said. “What we do know is that less is better when it comes to reducing your cancer risk.”
“If an individual drinks occasionally for special events, or if you’re drinking a drink or two a week, your risk is likely to be significantly less than if you’re drinking every day,” he added.
WEATHER: Major highways still closed across east-central, northeast Kansas
Florida school employee arrested after he allegedly opened fire at Kentucky police officers
Louisiana AG to launch full review of New Orleans security plan after Bourbon Street attack: report
Maine electricity bills increased again this month
Maryland, Baltimore City declare state of emergency as winter storm nears
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
How Jimmy Carter Launched His Career and Cemented His Legacy in Atlanta
Biden takes departing jab at Trump, says he was a 'genuine threat to democracy'
The Take: What lies ahead for world politics in 2025?
Coldest air so far this season expected overnight in North Texas
New Orleans Attacker Visited City Twice and Made Trips to Egypt and Canada
-
Health1 week agoNew Year life lessons from country star: 'Never forget where you came from'
-
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24982514/Quest_3_dock.jpg "Meta’s ‘software update issue’ has been breaking Quest headsets for weeks")
Technology1 week agoMeta’s ‘software update issue’ has been breaking Quest headsets for weeks
-
Business5 days agoThese are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture5 days agoThe 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports5 days agoThe top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics3 days agoNew Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics3 days agoCarter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics1 day agoWho Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?