More than a third of the most common cancers in developed countries could be prevented by healthy eating and exercise, says a report by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF).
These figures do not include smoking, which alone accounts for about a third of cancers. Source.
So over 2/3 of all cancer is preventable?
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus package) and President Obama’s proposed budget include a lot of money for cancer research. Including at least:
- $10 billion to NIH, including $1.3 billion for the National Cancer Institute
- $1 billion to CDC for prevention and wellness programs, including cancer screening and education.
- From the budget proposal: another $6 billion
Details are hard to find (without actually reading the entire stimulus bill), but I gather from the American Cancer Society that the passed bill eliminated funding increases for prevention measures and tobacco control.
Assuming the World Cancer Research Fund is correct, than aren’t we spending in the wrong place. If, as appears to be the case here, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, than why are we not directing the majority of that money to prevention efforts, rather than cure efforts.
What is the appropriate response to self-induced cancer? Today everyone knows the risk of smoking. If you continue to smoke and tomorrow are diagnosed with cancer what funding should be available to you. Should we, as a society, be spending billions of dollars every year to save you after your protracted suicide effort? Tobacco prevention programs are far more cost effective than lung cancer research. But since you are an unsympathetic individual do we fund neither? And what about healthy diet and exercise education? It is also very cost effective. But instead we are funding research, because research is sexy. Telling you to diet and exercise – not so much.
