Cancer Awareness Without Panic: Why Evidence, Education and Responsible Communication Matter
If we are serious about cancer prevention in Kashmir, we must protect people not only from genuine hazards, but also from the harm of misinformation. Education, proportionality and responsibility remain our strongest tools.
Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
In Kashmir, where health anxiety already runs deep and access to reliable information is uneven, the word “cancer” carries an especially heavy emotional weight. Any suggestion that a commonly consumed food might cause cancer spreads rapidly through households, mosques, markets and unsupervised social media groups. Over the past few months, a series of alarming claims have done exactly that: rotten meat, chemically ripened fruit, biscuits, chillies, and now the sensational “andey ka funda” — the assertion that eggs contaminated with antibiotics cause cancer. The cumulative effect has been confusion, fear and a growing distrust of what people eat every day.
This anxiety is understandable, but it is also avoidable. Cancer awareness is vital, yet awareness that fuels panic rather than understanding does more harm than good. In a region where nutritional insecurity, economic stress and fragile health systems coexist, fear-driven dietary choices can undermine health rather than protect it. Awareness must therefore inform, not frighten; educate, not paralyse.
Cancer is not caused by suspicion, nor by headlines. In medicine, no substance is declared carcinogenic because it sounds plausible or because samples have been taken for laboratory test raises a red flag. This is precisely why evidence-based medicine exists. Evidence-based medicine, or EBM, is the careful integration of the best available research, clinical expertise and patient context. It exists to prevent decisions based on opinion, anecdote or viral misinformation, and to ensure that public health messages are grounded in reliable science.
Just as important is understanding what evidence-based medicine is not. It does not dismiss clinical judgment, nor does it impose rigid, one-size-fits-all rules. It evolves with new credible human research. What it firmly resists, however, is the elevation of weak or preliminary findings into definitive public claims. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in recent food-related cancer scares.
The link between food and cancer is complex. Carcinogenesis depends on multiple factors: the nature of the substance, the dose, the duration of exposure, the route through which it enters the body and the biological susceptibility of the individual. Genetics, immunity, lifestyle, nutritional status and cumulative exposure over time all matter. Detecting a residue in a food sample, or identifying a regulatory lapse, does not automatically translate into cancer risk for the consumer.
The recent alarm around eggs illustrates this gap between data and interpretation. In Kashmir, eggs are an affordable, accessible source of protein for children, students, labourers and the elderly. Claims that antibiotic residues in eggs “cause cancer” have circulated widely, often without context, type , animal studies , trials or population based human studies or trials . It is good to make public aware on potentiality of carcinogens is in environmental factors dietary behaviours or life style. While making head lines and lead stories none talked about scientifically, maximum residue limits existed or what lab testing results found , because risk is dose-dependent. Exceeding these limits points to the need for better regulation, monitoring and responsible antibiotic use in poultry farming. It does not, by itself, establish that eggs cause cancer.
In modern medicine, proving that something causes cancer requires strong human evidence, usually from long-term epidemiological studies showing consistent associations and dose–response relationships. Even then, conclusions are cautious. Animal studies and laboratory experiments are essential for generating hypotheses, not for issuing public verdicts. Many substances show carcinogenic potential in animals at doses far exceeding human exposure, yet never result in increased cancer risk in real-world populations. This distinction is often lost in public conversations in Kashmir, where scientific nuance struggles to compete with sensational messaging.
At this juncture, the role of media and regulatory communication becomes critical. Overzealous netizens and sections of the media appeared to be in a race to report first, not to report right. A common man readibg and interpreting these headlines could erroneously declare that “eggs cause cancer” new/ panic spread rapidly, without sufficient explanation of what was tested, what was found and what those findings actually meant. Preliminary market observations or routine regulatory sampling or inspection were presented with a certainty that science does not permit.
Food safety and vigilance departments in J&K carry a special responsibility. When samples are collected and results are yet to be confirmed by testing what is released to media or public , the language used must be precise, cautious and contextual. A quality concern or regulatory exceedance should never be allowed to be interpreted as definitive evidence of carcinogenic contamination. Without clear explanation of dose, exposure, duration and human risk, such disclosures risk triggering unnecessary fear and eroding public trust in institutions that are meant to protect health.
On December 20, FSSAI dismissed claims linking eggs to cancer as misleading and unscientific, reaffirming that eggs sold in India are safe to eat. It clarified that nitrofurans are banned in poultry, and that trace detections below the regulatory limit are only for enforcement purposes and pose no health risk.FSSAI said India’s standards align with those of the EU and the US, and that there is no scientific evidence linking normal egg consumption or trace nitrofuran exposure to cancer. Isolated, batch-specific findings should not be generalised, the authority added, urging reliance on verified scientific evidence and official advisories.
Public health communication must therefore move at the pace of evidence, not at the pace of headlines or social media trends. Transparency in education and awareness o health issues is essential, but transparency without interpretation can be dangerous. In Kashmir, where institutional trust is fragile and rumours travel fast, the cost of miscommunication is particularly high.
This pattern is not new. Similar waves of alarm have followed reports about adulterated milk, pesticides on vegetables, preservatives in packaged foods, chemically ripened fruits like water melon and contamination of traditional items. Many of these issues are real and deserve regulatory action. But conflating food safety violations with cancer causation creates chaos rather than clarity. When everything is portrayed as a cancer risk, the term itself loses meaning, and people become either paralysed by fear or dismissive of genuine warnings.
Precaution, when grounded in evidence, remains sensible. Avoiding visibly spoiled (rotten) food, ensuring proper storage, use of preservatives and food colouring agents or additives , encourage advisory on washing fruits and vegetables with warm water , diversifying diets, limiting ultra-processed foods and discouraging indiscriminate antibiotic use in agriculture are all rational public health measures. None of these require invoking cancer to justify them. They stand on their own scientific and ethical footing.
Equally important is improving public literacy in interpreting health news. Not every study changes medical advice. Not every laboratory finding applies to daily consumption. Strong evidence usually comes from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that combine multiple high-quality studies. Single studies, preliminary reports or isolated findings rarely provide definitive answers, yet they are often presented as such.
When evidence is evolving or insufficient, honesty is essential. Saying “we do not yet know” is not a failure; it is scientific integrity. Overstating certainty today risks losing credibility tomorrow. Kashmir cannot afford cycles of fear followed by fatigue and distrust.
A guideline for future eggs are generally safe and nutritious, despite recent concerns about antibiotic residues and cancer risk. Consumers can reduce any potential risk by choosing eggs from farms with good practices, following food safety guidelines, cooking eggs thoroughly, and diversifying protein sources. Those with specific health concerns may seek personalised advice from a healthcare professional or dietitian.
Cancer awareness in J&K must therefore move beyond fear-based messaging. The goal should be informed vigilance, awareness, taking precautions not dietary paranoia. People should trust that when authorities warn them, the warning is grounded in robust evidence, carefully interpreted and responsibly communicated. They should not be left wondering every few weeks whether another everyday food has suddenly become a silent killer.
In an age of instant information, restraint has become a public health necessity. Evidence-based medicine offers a compass in this noisy landscape. It reminds us that science advances through careful accumulation, not alarm. If we are serious about cancer prevention in Kashmir, we must protect people not only from genuine hazards, but also from the harm of misinformation. Education, proportionality and responsibility remain our strongest tools.
(Author is a medico promotes cancer education, awareness and preventive oncology programmes can be reached at drfiazfazili@ gmail.com)
