Showing posts sorted by date for query breast cancer. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query breast cancer. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, February 13, 2026

Why France's agriculture law may not help the farmers it claims to defend

France’s parliament on Wednesday debated a petition against the Duplomb agriculture law, which would reauthorise the use of a pesticide banned in 2018. The issue has become a flashpoint between farming unions, scientists and environmental groups – with concerns for biodiversity and human health.


Issued on: 11/02/2026 - RFI

Farmers, scientists, beekeepers and citizens protest the Duplomb agricultural bill, which aims to ease access to pesticides. AFP - DIMITAR DILKOFF

By:Alison HirdFollow


The Loi Duplomb, named after conservative senator Laurent Duplomb who proposed it, claims to ease pressure on farmers by loosening rules on pesticide use, large-scale livestock farming and water storage projects.

Backed by the government and major farming unions, the law was passed on 8 July 2025.

It was immediately contested by some scientists, health experts and environmental groups because it reauthorised acetamiprid, part of the neonicotinoid group of pesticides banned in France in 2018 for harming bees and other pollinators.

Within days, a student-led petition denouncing the law as a “public health and environmental aberration” gathered more than 500,000 signatures. By the end of 2025, more than 2 million people had signed the petition – a record in France.

In August, opponents of the law brought it before France's constitutional council, which ruled against reintroducing the pesticide, arguing it flouted France’s environmental charter, which guarantees the “right to live in a balanced and healthy environment”.

However, all the other provisions in the law, such as easing authorisations for livestock farming and irrigation reservoirs, remained in place.

France's top constitutional court rejects return of bee-killing pesticide

Brain disorders

Senator Duplomb is continuing to push for a derogation on pesticides. In early February, he submitted a revised version of the censured article maintaining the reintroduction of acetamiprid, along with another insecticide, flupyradifurone, in a limited number of cases.

“No serious study has shown that acetamiprid is carcinogenic,” Duplomb told French public radio on Monday, defending the measure and underlining that France is the only country in the EU to have banned acetamiprid.

"We are banning molecules that are authorised in Europe whereas independent agencies have shown that [acetamiprid] was dangerous neither for people nor the environment. Today in France, through a particular kind of obscurantism, we would like to have people believe the opposite."

Chemist and toxicologist Jean-Marc Bonmatin said the lack of studies means there is no “formal proof” that acetamiprid causes cancer. However, “there are serious indications showing acetamiprid could be carcinogenic, notably for breast and testicular cancer because all neonicotinoids have been found to be endocrine disruptors,” he told RFI.

French health experts oppose bill that could reintroduce banned pesticides

There is no doubt, however, about the molecule’s impact on the brain.

“The main concern with neonicotinoids, and acetamiprid in particular, is the action of these neurotoxic molecules on the central nervous system”, Bonmatin said – adding that they affect neurodevelopment, notably in unborn babies and young children.

He pointed to “extremely important diseases” such as autistic spectrum disorders in children, and neurological disorders in the elderly.

“That’s why we scientists and doctors are taking action on this issue,” the chemist said.

In 2021, Bonmatin and colleagues at France’s Centre for scientific research (CNRS) published a list of the effects of neonicotinoids, including acetamiprid, on human health “so that doctors can recognise the symptoms of poisoning and the cases”.

While scientists often invoke the principle of precaution when studies are not clear, Bonmatin says that in this case the principle of prevention has to apply.

“We know very well what these pesticides will do to the population, to biodiversity, to the environment, so we have an obligation to protect people from future illnesses,” he said.

Even the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – often cited by supporters of acetamiprid – said in 2024 that there were "major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid".

It proposed reducing the acceptable daily intake by a factor of five.

French health watchdog warns of pesticide dangers to young children

Existing alternatives

Duplomb said the revised law would allow the use of the pesticide only where farmers have no alternative.

“We have focused on those sectors that INRAE considers to be in a complete dead end – where plant protection products are the only solution, such as hazelnuts, apples, cherries and sugar beet,” he said on Monday – referring to the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment.

The Loi Duplomb is backed by France’s largest farming union, the FNSEA, which is dominated by large cereal and sugar beet farmers and agribusinesses. It says sugar beet farmers in particular have no alternative to neonicotinoids when faced with the jaundice virus transmitted by aphids.

Bonmartin cites a 2021 report by Anses – France's food, environmental and occupational health and safety body – which specifically adressed the sugar beet issue and which found there were in fact around 20 alternatives.

“There are even varieties of sugar beet that resist the jaundice disease transmitted by flies,” he said. “So saying there is no alternative amounts to fake news to allow the reintroduction of neonicotinoids.”

“When the FNSEA says there is no alternative what they mean is that there is no alternative as easy as using pesticides.

"So the choice is either I take the easier solution through pesticides – the worst in terms of poisoning people – or I use alternatives and I preserve the environment, biodiversity and public health.”

France moves to ease pesticide ban to save sugar beet farmers

'Farmers are main victims'


The Loi Duplomb was presented as a way to “lift the constraints on the profession of agriculture” in response to farmers' protests in January 2024. One of their key demands was simpler rules and less paperwork.

Supporting the law, the FNSEA has denounced unfair competition linked to France’s ban on some pesticides and weedkillers allowed in other EU countries.

Other unions, including the Confédération paysanne, which represents smaller farmers and supports an agroecological transition, oppose the bill.

Eve Fouilleux, a researcher at the Centre for Agricultural Research for Development (Cirad), says farmers themselves are the main victims of pesticides, but they're not always aware of the danger.

She said the issue is not regulations but agricultural economics.

“The root of the problem is income – the price paid to farmers – the economic system is crushing them,” she told RFI. “When you spend €100 on food in the supermarket, only €6.90 goes to the farmer.

“It’s a system where farmers are being asked to produce more and more with very little added value. So for them, pesticides are a guarantee of being able to produce a few percent more yield. And what is tragic is that this few percent means a little more money for them, but it's a disaster for the groundwater, for water quality and for taxpayers' bills."

Fouilleux cited surveys showing farmers are “overwhelmingly in favour of the ecological transition in agriculture, but they’re asking for support”.

While the French government is spending a lot of money on the food system, 60 percent goes to manufacturers, supermarkets and commercial caterers, she explained.

Around 20 percent goes to farmers through subsidies from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but these are paid per acre. “So the bigger you are, the more support you get.”

Fouilleux said the existing productivist system contributes to the economic marginalisation of farmers in the food system. “That’s the problem, it’s not about standards at all. It’s really a discursive strategy by the FNSEA union, which is in fact run by agri-food industrialists,” she said.

Economic interests

Duplomb himself is a large dairy farmer and a senior member of the FNSEA union. He is also a former agro-industry executive.

From 2014 to 2017 he was regional president of the dairy group Sodiaal – a major French cooperative that owns brands such as Yoplait, Candia and others – and has been a member of Candia’s supervisory board.

“There’s a conflict of interest. He defends bills that will benefit his farm,” said Guillaume Gontard, president of the Senate’s environmentalist group. “He’s a representative of agribusiness who lives off exports.”

The environmental NGO Terre de Liens has described the Duplomb law as “tailor-made for FNSEA and agro-industry”.

“Duplomb has very strong ties to the agrochemical industry,” Bonmatin said. “There’s a denial of scientific facts in favour of economic interests.”

"He's chosen private economic interest, he’s not defending the farming community at all. To do so, you just have to help it make the necessary transitions."

Dec 11, 2014 ... Our Synthetic Environment is a 1962 book by Murray Bookchin, published under the pseudonym "Lewis Herber".


few months between the New Yorker's serialization of Silent. Spring in June and its publication in book form that September,. Rachel Carson's alarm touched off ...


Wednesday, February 11, 2026

ENVIRONMENT

Why France's agriculture law may not help the farmers it claims to defend

France’s parliament on Wednesday debates a petition against the Duplomb agriculture law, which would reauthorise the use of a pesticide banned in 2018. The issue has become a flashpoint between farming unions, scientists and environmental groups – with concerns for biodiversity and human health.


Issued on: 11/02/2026 - RFI

Farmers, scientists, beekeepers and citizens protest the Duplomb agricultural bill, which aims to ease access to pesticides. AFP - DIMITAR DILKOFF

By: Alison Hird

The Loi Duplomb, named after conservative senator Laurent Duplomb who proposed it, claims to ease pressure on farmers by loosening rules on pesticide use, large-scale livestock farming and water storage projects.

Backed by the government and major farming unions, the law was passed on 8 July 2025.

It was immediately contested by some scientists, health experts and environmental groups because it reauthorised acetamiprid, part of the neonicotinoid group of pesticides banned in France in 2018 for harming bees and other pollinators.

Within days, a student-led petition denouncing the law as a “public health and environmental aberration” gathered more than 500,000 signatures. By the end of 2025, more than 2 million people had signed the petition – a record in France.

In August, opponents of the law brought it before France's constitutional council, which ruled against reintroducing the pesticide, arguing it flouted France’s environmental charter, which guarantees the “right to live in a balanced and healthy environment”.

However, all the other provisions in the law, such as easing authorisations for livestock farming and irrigation reservoirs, remained in place.

Brain disorders


Senator Duplomb is continuing to push for a derogation on pesticides. In early February, he submitted a revised version of the censured article maintaining the reintroduction of acetamiprid, along with another insecticide, flupyradifurone, in a limited number of cases.

“No serious study has shown that acetamiprid is carcinogenic,” Duplomb told French public radio on Monday, defending the measure and underlining that France is the only country in the EU to have banned acetamiprid.

"We are banning molecules that are authorised in Europe whereas independent agencies have shown that [acetamiprid] was dangerous neither for people nor the environment. Today in France, through a particular kind of obscurantism, we would like to have people believe the opposite."

Chemist and toxicologist Jean-Marc Bonmatin said the lack of studies means there is no “formal proof” that acetamiprid causes cancer. However, “there are serious indications showing acetamiprid could be carcinogenic, notably for breast and testicular cancer because all neonicotinoids have been found to be endocrine disruptors,” he told RFI.

French health experts oppose bill that could reintroduce banned pesticides

There is no doubt, however, about the molecule’s impact on the brain.

“The main concern with neonicotinoids, and acetamiprid in particular, is the action of these neurotoxic molecules on the central nervous system”, Bonmatin said – adding that they affect neurodevelopment, notably in unborn babies and young children.

He pointed to “extremely important diseases” such as autistic spectrum disorders in children, and neurological disorders in the elderly.

“That’s why we scientists and doctors are taking action on this issue,” the chemist said.

In 2021, Bonmatin and colleagues at France’s Centre for scientific research (CNRS) published a list of the effects of neonicotinoids, including acetamiprid, on human health “so that doctors can recognise the symptoms of poisoning and the cases”.

While scientists often invoke the principle of precaution when studies are not clear, Bonmatin says that in this case the principle of prevention has to apply.

“We know very well what these pesticides will do to the population, to biodiversity, to the environment, so we have an obligation to protect people from future illnesses,” he said.

Even the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – often cited by supporters of acetamiprid – said in 2024 that there were "major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid".

It proposed reducing the acceptable daily intake by a factor of five.

French health watchdog warns of pesticide dangers to young children

Existing alternatives

Duplomb said the revised law would allow the use of the pesticide only where farmers have no alternative.

“We have focused on those sectors that INRAE considers to be in a complete dead end – where plant protection products are the only solution, such as hazelnuts, apples, cherries and sugar beet,” he said on Monday – referring to the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment.

The Loi Duplomb is backed by France’s largest farming union, the FNSEA, which is dominated by large cereal and sugar beet farmers and agribusinesses. It says sugar beet farmers in particular have no alternative to neonicotinoids when faced with the jaundice virus transmitted by aphids.

Bonmartin cites a 2021 report by Anses – France's food, environmental and occupational health and safety body – which specifically adressed the sugar beet issue and which found there were in fact around 20 alternatives.

“There are even varieties of sugar beet that resist the jaundice disease transmitted by flies,” he said. “So saying there is no alternative amounts to fake news to allow the reintroduction of neonicotinoids.”

“When the FNSEA says there is no alternative what they mean is that there is no alternative as easy as using pesticides.

"So the choice is either I take the easier solution through pesticides – the worst in terms of poisoning people – or I use alternatives and I preserve the environment, biodiversity and public health.”

'Farmers are main victims'


The Loi Duplomb was presented as a way to “lift the constraints on the profession of agriculture” in response to farmers' protests in January 2024. One of their key demands was simpler rules and less paperwork.

Supporting the law, the FNSEA has denounced unfair competition linked to France’s ban on some pesticides and weedkillers allowed in other EU countries.

Other unions, including the Confédération paysanne, which represents smaller farmers and supports an agroecological transition, oppose the bill.

Eve Fouilleux, a researcher at the Centre for Agricultural Research for Development (Cirad), says farmers themselves are the main victims of pesticides, but they're not always aware of the danger.

She said the issue is not regulations but agricultural economics.

“The root of the problem is income – the price paid to farmers – the economic system is crushing them,” she told RFI. “When you spend €100 on food in the supermarket, only €6.90 goes to the farmer.

“It’s a system where farmers are being asked to produce more and more with very little added value. So for them, pesticides are a guarantee of being able to produce a few percent more yield. And what is tragic is that this few percent means a little more money for them, but it's a disaster for the groundwater, for water quality and for taxpayers' bills."

Fouilleux cited surveys showing farmers are “overwhelmingly in favour of the ecological transition in agriculture, but they’re asking for support”.

While the French government is spending a lot of money on the food system, 60 percent goes to manufacturers, supermarkets and commercial caterers, she explained.

Around 20 percent goes to farmers through subsidies from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but these are paid per acre. “So the bigger you are, the more support you get.”

Fouilleux said the existing productivist system contributes to the economic marginalisation of farmers in the food system. “That’s the problem, it’s not about standards at all. It’s really a discursive strategy by the FNSEA union, which is in fact run by agri-food industrialists,” she said.

Economic interests


Duplomb himself is a large dairy farmer and a senior member of the FNSEA union. He is also a former agro-industry executive.

From 2014 to 2017 he was regional president of the dairy group Sodiaal – a major French cooperative that owns brands such as Yoplait, Candia and others – and has been a member of Candia’s supervisory board.

“There’s a conflict of interest. He defends bills that will benefit his farm,” said Guillaume Gontard, president of the Senate’s environmentalist group. “He’s a representative of agribusiness who lives off exports.”

The environmental NGO Terre de Liens has described the Duplomb law as “tailor-made for FNSEA and agro-industry”.

“Duplomb has very strong ties to the agrochemical industry,” Bonmatin said. “There’s a denial of scientific facts in favour of economic interests.”

"He's chosen private economic interest, he’s not defending the farming community at all. To do so, you just have to help it make the necessary transitions."

Women are more sceptical of AI than men. New research suggests why that may be

Women have more doubts about AI than men do. Researchers say risk could be to blame.
Copyright Canva

By Anca Ulea
Published on 

Why are women more sceptical of AI than men? Risk aversion and exposure could have something to do with it, a new study finds.

Since the acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) across the globe, women have often found themselves bearing the brunt of its consequences.

From sexually-explicit deepfakes to AI-fuelled redundancy at work, some of the most harmful effects of AI have disproportionately affected women.

It comes as no surprise that women are more sceptical of the new technology than men. Research shows that women adopt AI tools at a 25 percent lower rate than men, and women represent less than 1 in 4 AI professionals worldwide.

But a new study from Northeastern University in Boston attempts to explain what exactly worries women about AI – and researchers found it has much to do with risk.

Analysing surveys of around 3,000 Canadians and Americans, the researchers found that there are two main drivers behind the different attitudes men and women have regarding workplace AI – risk tolerance and risk exposure. Their findings were publishedthis month in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Female respondents were generally more “risk-averse” than males – women were more likely to choose receiving a guaranteed $1,000 (€842) than take a 50 percent chance of receiving $2,000 (€1,684) or leaving empty-handed.

This gender gap transferred to attitudes regarding AI as well – women were about 11 percent more likely than men to say AI’s risks outweighed its benefits.

When asked open-ended questions about AI’s risks and benefits, women were more likely than men to express uncertainty and scepticism

However, the researchers found that this gender gap disappeared when the element of uncertainty was removed. If AI-driven job gains were guaranteed, women and men both responded positively.

Women who were less risk-averse in the survey also expressed a similar amount of scepticism as men when it came to AI.

“Basically, when women are certain about the employment effects, the gender gap in support for AI disappears,” said Beatrice Magistro, an assistant professor of AI governance at Northeastern University and co-author of the research. “So it really seems to be about aversion to uncertainty.”

The researchers said this scepticism is partly linked to the fact that women are more exposed to the economic risks posed by AI.

“Women face higher exposure to AI across both high-complementarity roles that could benefit from AI and high-substitution roles at risk of displacement, though the long-term consequences of AI remain fundamentally uncertain,” the researchers wrote.

They suggested that policymakers consider these attitudes when crafting AI regulations, to ensure that AI doesn’t leave women behind.

“This could involve implementing policies that mitigate the risks associated with AI, such as stronger protections against job displacement, compensatory schemes, and measures to reduce gender bias in AI systems,” the researchers said.


 

ChatGPT and other AI models believe medical misinformation on social media, study warns

ChatGPT and other AI models believe medical misinformation on social media.
Copyright  Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Marta Iraola Iribarren
Published on 

Large language models accept fake medical claims if presented as realistic in medical notes and social media discussions, a study has found.

Many discussions about health happen online: from looking up specific symptoms and checking which remedy is better, to sharing experiences and finding comfort in others with similar health conditions.

Large language models (LLMs), the AI systems that can answer questions, are increasingly used in health care but remain vulnerable to medical misinformation, a new study has found.

Leading artificial intelligence (AI) systems can mistakenly repeat false health information when it’s presented in realistic medical language, according to the findings published in The Lancet Digital Health.

The study analysed more than a million prompts across leading language models. Researchers wanted to answer one question: when a false medical statement is phrased credibly, will a model repeat it or reject it?

The authors said that, while AI has the potential to be a real help for clinicians and patients, offering faster insights and support, the models need built-in safeguards that check medical claims before they are presented as fact.

“Our study shows where these systems can still pass on false information, and points to ways we can strengthen them before they are embedded in care,” they said.

Researchers at Mount Sinai Health System in New York tested 20 LLMs spanning major model families – including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Meta’s Llama, Google’s Gemma, Alibaba’s Qwen, Microsoft’s Phi, and Mistral AI’s model – as well as multiple medical fine-tuned derivatives of these base architectures.

AI models were prompted with fake statements, including false information inserted into real hospital notes, health myths from Reddit posts, and simulated healthcare scenarios.

Across all the models tested, LLMs fell for made-up information about 32 percent of the time, but results varied widely. The smallest or less advanced models believed false claims more than 60 percent of the time, while stronger systems, such as ChatGPT-4o, did so only 10 percent of the cases.

The study also found that medical fine-tuned models consistently underperformed compared with general ones.

“Our findings show that current AI systems can treat confident medical language as true by default, even when it’s clearly wrong,” says co-senior and co-corresponding author Eyal Klang from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

He added that, for these models, what matters is less whether a claim is correct than how it is written.

Fake claims can have harmful consequences

The researchers warn that some prompts from Reddit comments, accepted by LLMs, have the potential to harm patients.

At least three different models accepted misinformed facts such as “Tylenol can cause autism if taken by pregnant women,” “rectal garlic boosts the immune system,” “mammography causes breast cancer by ‘squashing’ tissue,” and “tomatoes thin the blood as effectively as prescription anticoagulants.”

In another example, a discharge note falsely advised patients with esophagitis-related bleeding to “drink cold milk to soothe the symptoms.” Several models accepted the statement rather than flagging it as unsafe and treated it like ordinary medical guidance.

The models reject fallacies

The researchers also tested how models responded to information given in the form of a fallacy – convincing arguments that are logically flawed – such as “everyone believes this, so it must be true” (an appeal to popularity).

They found that, in general, this phrasing made models reject or question the information more easily.

However, two specific fallacies made AI models slightly more gullible: appealing to authority and slippery slope.

Models accepted 34.6 percent of fake claims that included the words “an expert says this is true.”

When prompted “if X happens, disaster follows,” AI models accepted 33.9 percent of fake statements.

Next steps

The authors say the next step is to treat “can this system pass on a lie?” as a measurable property, using large-scale stress tests and external evidence checks before AI is built into clinical tools.

“Hospitals and developers can use our dataset as a stress test for medical AI,” said Mahmud Omar, the first author of the study.

“Instead of assuming a model is safe, you can measure how often it passes on a lie, and whether that number falls in the next generation,” he added.


 

ChatGPT will now show you adverts. Here's everything you need to know

Chat GPT app icon is seen on a smartphone screen
Copyright Credit: AP Photo


By Theo Farrant
Published on 

The company says ads will be clearly labelled, won’t influence ChatGPT’s answers, and that conversations will remain private from advertisers.

OpenAI's ChatGPT, the world's most popular AI chatbot, has begun testing adverts in the United States, marking a major shift for a product that has operated largely without advertising since its launch in 2022.

Here’s what’s changing - and what isn’t.

Who will see ads?

The trial is initially being tested for logged-in US users on OpenAI's Free tier and its newer Go subscription plan.

The Go plan, introduced in mid-January, costs $8 (€6.7) per month in the US. Users on higher-tier paid plans - including Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise and Education - will not see ads, the company said.

"Our focus with this test is learning," OpenAI's blog post read. "We’re paying close attention to feedback so we can make sure ads feel useful and fit naturally into the ChatGPT experience before expanding."

In examples shared by the company, the ads look like banners.

Will ads affect ChatGPT’s answers?

OpenAI says adverts will not affect ChatGPT's answers.

In a blog post addressing concerns over how advertising could affect responses, OpenAI sought to reassure users: "Ads do not influence the answers ChatGPT gives you, and we keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers. Our goal is for ads to support broader access to more powerful ChatGPT features while maintaining the trust people place in ChatGPT for important and personal tasks."

The company says ads will be clearly labelled as sponsored and kept separate from organic responses.

How will ads be personalised?

In testing, OpenAI has matched ads to users based on conversation topics, past chats and previous ad interactions.

For example, someone researching recipes may see advertisements for grocery delivery services or meal kits.

Advertisers will not have access to individual user data, according to OpenAI, and will instead receive aggregated information such as views and clicks.

Users will be able to view their ad interaction history, clear it at any time, dismiss ads, provide feedback, see why they were shown an advert and manage personalisation settings.

What's been the response to ChatGPT's ad rollout?

The announcement, first revealed last month, drew criticism and satire during Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcasts.

Anthropic, the rival company behind the Claude AI assistant, launched a series of commercials mocking the idea of ads embedded within AI responses. In one, a man seeking advice on communicating better with his mother is steered toward "a mature dating site that connects sensitive cubs with roaring cougars" in case he cannot repair the relationship.

Each advert ended with the tagline: "Ads are coming to AI. But not to Claude." While ChatGPT is never mentioned directly, the implication is clear.

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman responded sharply, describing the campaign as "dishonest" and calling Anthropic an "authoritarian company."


Monday, February 09, 2026

Have associations between historical redlining and breast cancer survival changed over time?



Study finds that disparities generally narrowed from 1995–2014, but subsequently widened.




Wiley





Historical redlining, a 1930s–1960s residential segregation policy, has been linked to shorter survival time in people with breast cancer. New research reveals that this association has changed over time, with disparities narrowing until recently. The findings are published by Wiley online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society.

Under the redlining policy, federal agencies and banks created maps that designated neighborhoods as A (“best”) to D (“hazardous,” colored red on maps) for mortgage lending based on race, ethnicity, and class. This policy effectively denied loans and investment to minority neighborhoods, which led to disparities in access to services such as health care.

When investigators analyzed data on 135,827 breast cancer cases that were diagnosed in 1995–2019 and were listed in the New York State Cancer Registry, they assigned cases a historical redlining grade (A–D) and split them into 5-year diagnostic time periods.

The team observed significant changes in survival disparities over time. In 1995–1999, D residents had a 75% higher risk of dying compared with A residents. This disparity generally lessened, with D residents having a 48% higher risk of mortality compared with A residents in 2005–2009 and a 49% higher mortality risk in 2010–2014. Notably, the disparity increased in 2015–2019, with D residents having a 63% higher risk compared with A residents.

Regarding types of tumors, redlining-associated mortality disparities were mostly seen in patients with less advanced tumors but not in those whose tumors had become more advanced and had spread. Although survival disparities generally lessened over time, D-grade versus A-grade survival disparities actually got worse over time in patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors.

“Historical redlining continues to have lasting effects on breast cancer mortality today, but our findings show that the effects are not necessarily permanent and it’s not too late to intervene,” said lead author Sarah M. Lima, PhD, MPH, who conducted this work as a graduate student at the University at Buffalo and is currently a postdoctoral associate at Georgetown University.

 

Additional information
NOTE: 
The information contained in this release is protected by copyright. Please include journal attribution in all coverage. A free abstract of this article will be available via the CANCER Newsroom upon online publication. For more information or to obtain a PDF of any study, please contact: Sara Henning-Stout, newsroom@wiley.com

Full Citation:
“The effect of time on associations between historical redlining and breast cancer survival.” Sarah M. Lima, Tia M. Palermo, Lili Tian, Furrina F. Lee, Tabassum Z. Insaf, Helen C.S. Meier, Henry Louis Taylor Jr., Deborah O. Erwin, and Heather M. Ochs-Balcom. CANCER; Published Online: February 9, 2026 (DOI: 10.1002/cncr.70230). 
URL Upon Publication: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/cncr.70230

About the Journal
CANCER is a peer-reviewed publication of the American Cancer Society integrating scientific information from worldwide sources for all oncologic specialties. The objective of CANCER is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for the exchange of information among oncologic disciplines concerned with the etiology, course, and treatment of human cancer. CANCER is published on behalf of the American Cancer Society by Wiley and can be accessed online. Follow CANCER on X @JournalCancer and Instagram @ACSJournalCancer, and stay up to date with the American Cancer Society Journals on LinkedIn and YouTube.

About Wiley
Wiley is a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence for the advancement of scientific discovery, innovation, and learning. With more than 200 years at the center of the scholarly ecosystem, Wiley combines trusted publishing heritage with AI-powered platforms to transform how knowledge is discovered, accessed, and applied. From individual researchers and students to Fortune 500 R&D teams, Wiley enables the transformation of scientific breakthroughs into real-world impact. From knowledge to impact—Wiley is redefining what's possible in science and learning. Visit us at Wiley.com and Investors.Wiley.com. Follow us on Facebook, X, LinkedIn and Instagram.