Chronic disease is mostly a cumulative reaction to what enters the body daily - contaminated food, medicines and cosmetics - not a fate that comes from outside.
Original statement
ومن هنا فإن المرض المزمن ليس قَدَرًا ينزل بالجسد من خارجه، بل هو في الغالب ردّ فعل تراكمي على ما يدخل إليه يوميًا من طعام ملوّث وأدوية ومستحضرات.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Chronic disease is mostly a cumulative reaction to what enters the body daily - contaminated food, medicines and cosmetics - not a fate that comes from outside.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (homepage introduction)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Written by archive operators; not attributed to Elawady.
- Population concerned
General
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
او مدخلات تحمل السموم الصريحه بقايا مضادات حيويه بقايا مخصبات ومنشطات وكيماويات واسمده نيتروجينيه بقايا مبيدات حشريه
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- بيان فلسفه النظريه (Open source)
- Published
- 14 February 2026
- Timestamp
- 0:03:06 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Chronic disease is mostly caused by food, medicines and cosmetics.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Diet contributes substantially (about 22% of adult deaths; I-SYS-01); some medicines have long-term harms (audited by other teams, e.g., PPIs).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Tobacco (15.4% of deaths), high blood pressure (19.2%), air pollution, alcohol and others are major causes (I-SYS-02); for cancer, smoking dominates and infections cause 2.2 million cancers yearly (I-CAN-02, I-CAN-05). About one-third of variation in cancer risk is heritable (I-CAN-04); the authors note that heritability is not an attributable fraction, and the large non-shared environmental component they found is compatible with many kinds of environmental causes, which the study does not break down into food, medicines or cosmetics. In GBD 2019, all 87 environmental, occupational, behavioural and metabolic risks combined explained 47.8% (45.3-50.1) of global DALYs (I-SYS-02), so most disease burden is not attributed even to the full set of quantified risks, let alone to food, medicines and cosmetics. Ageing is the strongest risk factor for most chronic diseases (general knowledge; not quantified here). Medicines and cosmetics are not identified as leading causes in these analyses.
4. What remains unclear?
The share of chronic disease attributable specifically to food contaminants, medicines and cosmetics (as opposed to overall dietary pattern) is not quantified in the global risk analyses reviewed. Because GBD covers only risks with sufficient evidence, the unattributed half of the burden may include exposures that are not yet quantified; this does not show that they are food, medicines or cosmetics.
5. Which studies support it?
I-SYS-01 (partial).
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-SYS-02, I-CAN-01, I-CAN-02, I-CAN-04, I-CAN-05.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
The global risk analyses (I-SYS-01, I-SYS-02) include European countries; the leading risks (tobacco, blood pressure, diet) are similar.
8. What is known about Egypt?
The global analyses include Egypt; Egypt-specific attributable fractions were not extracted.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Prevention should address several causes, not only food.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Global risk analyses identify many causes - tobacco, blood pressure, alcohol, air pollution, infections, genetics, ageing; diet is major but not 'mostly' the cause, and medicines/cosmetics are not leading causes.
- Source quality
Archive editorial.
- Regional transferability
High.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Overinterpreted – A real finding exists, but the claim draws more from it than the data allow (e.g. association taken as cause, animal data applied to humans, small effect presented as large).
Research question: Is chronic disease mostly a cumulative reaction to daily inputs (contaminated food, medicines, cosmetics) rather than fate?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- General population
- Intervention or exposure
- Food contaminants, medicines, cosmetics; other environmental and genetic factors
- Comparison
- Other causes
- Geographic scope
- universal; production-dependent for contaminants
- Outcomes
- Attributable disease burden
- Variance explained
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Genes explain a minority of chronic disease
Rappaport SM. PLoS One 2016 · PMID 27105432 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154387 Otherabstract checkednewly addedTwin-based PAFs: genetics explain a median 18.5% of chronic disease risk.
- Actual result
- 16.4% of deaths attributable to genetics plus shared exposures
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- supports 'not genetic fate'
- Limitations
- Non-genetic share includes chance and all exposures.
Environment matters more than genes for early death
Argentieri MA et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 39972219 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-024-03483-9 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedExposome explains more mortality variation than polygenic scores.
- Actual result
- 17 vs <2 percentage points
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- supports 'environment > genes'
- Limitations
- Main drivers smoking/SES/activity, not food contaminants.
What speaks against the claim?
Global health 2023
GBD 2023 Disease and Injury and Risk Factor Collaborators. Lancet 2025 · PMID 41092926 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01637-X Risk assessmentabstract checkednewly addedGBD 2023: all 88 quantified risks explain about half of DALYs; leading risks SBP, air pollution, glucose, smoking.
- Actual result
- 1.27 of 2.80 billion DALYs
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Model-based.
High blood pressure and tobacco are the top risk factors for death worldwide
GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2020 · PMID 33069327 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2 Risk assessmentfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentGBD 2019: tobacco, blood pressure and others major; medicines/cosmetics not leading causes.
- Actual result
- As recorded
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Model-based.
Random copying errors in cells and cancer
Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011 Ecological studyabstract checkednewly addedChance replication errors explain many cancer mutations.
- Actual result
- ~2/3 of mutations
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- contradicts 'mostly inputs'
- Limitations
- Contested.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Chronic disease is largely not genetic fate - environment and behaviour matter more - but the main identified drivers are tobacco, blood pressure, air pollution, glucose/BMI, diet, alcohol, socioeconomic factors and chance, not mainly food contaminants, medicines and cosmetics.
Why some studies weigh more
GBD analyses quantify drivers; exposome and twin studies support the 'not fate' kernel only.
Is a causal relationship established? Not established No evidence quantifies contaminants, medicines and cosmetics as the main cause.
Remaining uncertainty
Unmeasured exposures may account for part of the unattributed burden.
Justified conclusion
The 'not fate' part is reasonable; the 'mostly food contaminants, medicines and cosmetics' part is not supported.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal human biology; applies in Egypt, Germany and elsewhere.
- Eating habits
- Not decisive for this claim.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Contaminant exposure differs by country; no robust data show contaminants as the main driver of chronic disease in Egypt or Europe.
- National production conditions
- Not relevant.
- Legal rules
- Not relevant.
- Actual monitoring data
- See residues teams for contaminant monitoring.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Share attributable to all quantified risks – 45.4%. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Main causes of chronic disease burden
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Reasons for downgrading
- indirectness (model-based)
- Result
- moderate
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- WHO: Cancer - fact sheet (2026) · Original publication
About 38% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diet, inactivity, air pollution); about 10% are attributable to infections; many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:"Genetic Factors Are Not the Major Causes of Chronic Diseases" | supporting evidence | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (exposome OR "environmental exposures" OR "chemical exposures") AND ("chronic disease" OR "non-communicable") AND (attributable OR "burden") AND (TITLE:exposome OR TITLE:chemicals) AND (review OR meta-analysis) | supporting evidence | 118 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:"Integrating the environmental and genetic architectures of aging and mortality" | both directions | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (Tayebat OR Tayibat OR Elawady OR "El-Awady diet" OR "Al-Awady") | both directions | 377 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (exposome[ti]) AND (chronic disease[tiab] OR mortality[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 58 |
How deeply was this checked?
12 linked studies: 3 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 9 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
Unchanged; new studies support the 'not genetic fate' kernel (I-SYS-103, I-SYS-104) but identify other drivers than food contaminants, medicines and cosmetics.
New sources: I-SYS-102 I-SYS-103 I-SYS-104 I-CAN-117 I-CAN-130
In plain language
The archive says chronic diseases are mostly a reaction to food, medicines and cosmetics. Food matters a lot. But large studies show that tobacco, high blood pressure, alcohol, air pollution, infections, genes and ageing also cause much chronic disease. Medicines and cosmetics are not among the leading causes.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (8)
-
High blood pressure and tobacco are the top risk factors for death worldwide
GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2020 · PMID 33069327 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyIn 2019, high blood pressure was linked to 10.8 million and tobacco to 8.7 million deaths.
Multiple causes
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Rank risk factors.
- How was the study done?
GBD 2019.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
204 countries.
- What was actually found?
High blood pressure and tobacco lead; dietary risks rank among the top five; all 87 risks together explain 47.8% of global disease burden.
- How large was the observed effect?
19.2% and 15.4% of deaths.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Check blood pressure; avoid tobacco; diet is one lever.
- What are the study's limitations?
Modelling.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Multiple causes.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual risk.
-
Smokers die about ten years earlier; quitting gives years back
Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AECohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking tripled death rates; stopping at 30 avoided almost all the excess risk.
Tobacco, not food, major cause
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure smoking hazards over 50 years.
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
34,439 doctors.
- What was actually found?
Smokers die ~10 years earlier.
- How large was the observed effect?
3-fold mortality.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Stopping smoking at any age helps.
- What are the study's limitations?
Men only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts smoking dismissal.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects of other tobacco products.
-
Four in ten cancers in the USA are linked to avoidable risk factors, led by smoking
Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking accounted for 19% of cancers and 29% of cancer deaths; excess weight and alcohol followed.
Tobacco, alcohol, infections, UV - not only food
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate preventable cancers.
- How was the study done?
PAF analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US 2019.
- What was actually found?
40% of cases attributable.
- How large was the observed effect?
Smoking 19.3%/28.5%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not smoking, healthy weight, less alcohol and a diet with fibre, fruit and vegetables lower risk.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet matters but is not the main cause.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual cause.
-
About a third of cancer risk is inherited
Mucci LA et al.. JAMA 2016 · PMID 26746459 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.17703Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentHeritability of cancer overall was 33% in 200,000 Nordic twins.
Genetics as cause
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate heritability.
- How was the study done?
Twin cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
203,691.
- What was actually found?
33% heritability.
- How large was the observed effect?
Melanoma 58%, prostate 57%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Family history matters for screening.
- What are the study's limitations?
Nordic, mainly white population; twin models assume equal shared environments, which cannot be tested.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Not all cancer is lifestyle.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the remaining two-thirds of risk is due to food; heritability is not the share of cancers preventable by lifestyle (authors); specific genes.
-
Infections cause about 2.2 million cancers a year worldwide
de Martel C et al.. Lancet Glob Health 2020 · PMID 31862245 · DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checkedH. pylori, HPV and hepatitis B/C viruses cause most infection-related cancers.
Infections as cause
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate infection-related cancer.
- How was the study done?
PAF.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Global.
- What was actually found?
2.2 million cases.
- How large was the observed effect?
ASIR 25/100,000.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Vaccination (HBV, HPV) and treatment of infections prevent cancer.
- What are the study's limitations?
Modelling.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Not all cancer is food-related.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual cause.
-
Global causes of ill health in 2021
GBD 2021 Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2024 · PMID 38762324 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00933-4Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAir pollution, high blood pressure and smoking were the top single risks; poor diet as a group ranked fifth.
Air pollution, blood pressure, tobacco, malnutrition lead
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Rank risk factors worldwide.
- How was the study done?
Global modelling study.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
204 countries.
- What was actually found?
Air pollution and high blood pressure lead.
- How large was the observed effect?
PM 8.0%, SBP 7.8%, smoking 5.7% of DALYs.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Diet matters a lot but is not the only or first cause.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly contradicts 'food is the first cause'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Exact causal shares.
-
Global health 2023
GBD 2023 Disease and Injury and Risk Factor Collaborators. Lancet 2025 · PMID 41092926 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01637-XRisk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout half of all ill health is linked to known risk factors; high blood pressure, air pollution, high blood sugar and smoking lead.
Only ~half of burden attributable to all quantified risks
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Global burden 2023.
- How was the study done?
Modelling.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
204 countries.
- What was actually found?
Half of burden from known risks.
- How large was the observed effect?
1.27/2.80 billion DALYs.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Many causes besides food.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts food-only explanations.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Unmeasured causes.
-
Random copying errors in cells and cancer
Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011Ecological studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout two-thirds of cancer mutations may come from random errors when cells divide; preventable causes still matter.
Chance mutations, not only inputs, drive cancer
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate sources of cancer mutations.
- How was the study done?
Modelling across countries and genomes.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
17 cancer types, 69 countries.
- What was actually found?
Replication errors are a major source.
- How large was the observed effect?
~2/3 of mutations.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not every cancer is caused by lifestyle, but many are preventable.
- What are the study's limitations?
Contested method.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports internal origin, not a 'plan'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Purpose or benefit of cancer.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (4)
-
Poor diet is linked to about one in five adult deaths worldwide
GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30954305 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study11 million deaths in 2017 were attributed to dietary risks, mainly too much salt and too few whole grains and fruits.
Diet major but not majority of causes
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Quantify diet-attributable deaths.
- How was the study done?
GBD comparative risk assessment.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
195 countries.
- What was actually found?
11 million deaths (22%).
- How large was the observed effect?
Sodium 3 m, whole grains 3 m, fruit 2 m deaths.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Eat more whole grains and fruit, less salt.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational inputs.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet matters; the main dietary problems differ from the system's forbidden list.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That food is the sole cause.
-
Environment matters more than genes for early death
Argentieri MA et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 39972219 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-024-03483-9Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyLifestyle and living conditions explained 17% of variation in mortality, genes less than 2%; smoking and social factors led.
Environment beats genes for mortality; main drivers smoking, SES, activity
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare genes and environment.
- How was the study done?
UK Biobank cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
~490,000 adults.
- What was actually found?
Environment explains more.
- How large was the observed effect?
17 vs <2 points.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Disease is mostly not fate, but food is only one part.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports, partly contradicts.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate-high.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Role of food contaminants.
-
Genes explain a minority of chronic disease
Rappaport SM. PLoS One 2016 · PMID 27105432 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154387Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checkedGenetic factors explained a median of 18.5% of the risk of 28 chronic diseases.
Genetics explain a minority of chronic disease risk
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate genetic share.
- How was the study done?
Twin data analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
28 diseases.
- What was actually found?
Genes minor.
- How large was the observed effect?
Median 18.5%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Disease is largely not fate.
- What are the study's limitations?
Assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports the claim's 'not fate' part.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Which exposures matter.
-
Most cancer risk comes from outside factors
Wu S et al.. Nature 2016 · PMID 26675728 · DOI 10.1038/nature16166Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyModelling suggests that internal 'bad luck' explains only about 10-30% of lifetime cancer risk; the rest depends on external factors.
Cancer risk heavily influenced by extrinsic (environmental) factors - but not specifically food, medicines or cosmetics
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate intrinsic vs extrinsic cancer risk.
- How was the study done?
Modelling with several approaches.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable.
- What was actually found?
Extrinsic factors dominate.
- How large was the observed effect?
Intrinsic <10-30%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Much cancer is preventable.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based; contested.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'not caused by external agents'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Which specific exposures.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
The global risk analyses (I-SYS-01, I-SYS-02) include European countries; the leading risks (tobacco, blood pressure, diet) are similar.
Egypt
The global analyses include Egypt; Egypt-specific attributable fractions were not extracted.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false Chronic disease has many causes; food is an important one, not the main one in all cases.
This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.
References
- Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.. GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2020 · PMID 33069327 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2
- Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors.. Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE
- Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States, 2019.. Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858
- Familial Risk and Heritability of Cancer Among Twins in Nordic Countries.. Mucci LA et al.. JAMA 2016 · PMID 26746459 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.17703
- Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis.. de Martel C et al.. Lancet Glob Health 2020 · PMID 31862245 · DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7
- Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.. GBD 2021 Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2024 · PMID 38762324 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00933-4
- Burden of 375 diseases and injuries, risk-attributable burden of 88 risk factors, and healthy life expectancy in 204 countries and territories, including 660 subnational locations, 1990-2023: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.. GBD 2023 Disease and Injury and Risk Factor Collaborators. Lancet 2025 · PMID 41092926 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01637-X
- Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention.. Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011
- Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30954305 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8
- Integrating the environmental and genetic architectures of aging and mortality.. Argentieri MA et al.. Nat Med 2025 · PMID 39972219 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-024-03483-9
- Genetic Factors Are Not the Major Causes of Chronic Diseases.. Rappaport SM. PLoS One 2016 · PMID 27105432 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154387
- Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development.. Wu S et al.. Nature 2016 · PMID 26675728 · DOI 10.1038/nature16166