Which Countries Have the Highest and Lowest Cancer Rates?

28

There were an estimated 14.1 million cancer cases around the world in 2012, according to the World Cancer Research Fund International. Of those cases, the United States had the sixth highest number of new diagnoses, with 318 cases per 100,000 people.

Below is an infographic showing the countries with the 10 highest and 10 lowest cancer rates:

5112-Ever-Wonder-Infographic.jpg

Comments Sort By Newest

28 thoughts on “Which Countries Have the Highest and Lowest Cancer Rates?

  1. Why should we have to play Russian Roulette with our lives ? People sit and try to figure out what is healthier to eat.. fruit or meats ? This is not how people are supposed to be living, being concerned all the time if we choose the right food to live or the wrong food to die ! If what they are doing, altering our foods is making people sick than people need to take a stand and sue the people that are allowing these life threating chemicals into our foods. No different than half other law suits out there, like when people sue Mc D’s for gaining weight, or suing car companies for not standing by their word as per gas millage only these chemicals are killing people. Is it the governments way of population control ? All these chemically enhanced altered foods are allowed on the market today and then the injected chemicals into our animals, and sometimes even cloning our livestock, it has really got to make people suspicious about everyone and everything when it comes to our food and health. How many years have they been “trying” to find cures for cancer
    but have not succeeded in the process. Think about when you were younger and if you can ever remember hearing of so many cancer cases on the news ? So what has changed from then until now? People grew up on T.V. dinners in the early days which was a popular food, so how can anyone pin point it? Maybe they are trying to find a cure when they should be looking at preventative shots against the cancer from attacking peoples systems, after all if it is coming from the foods we eat, than protect us from it !

  2. It’s because red meat nor fat is the culprit. Sugar is. A lot of scientific research has proven it, contrary to the common belief. People have always eaten meat and fat, sugar wasn’t so omnipresent as it is now.

  3. @Amanda, totally agree with you. It’s a shame scientists have discovered it so late, something which was obvious to me since I was a teenager. Cancer feeds on sugar, which is also in fruit, which is seemingly not that beneficial to your healh as they caimed it to be. I’d opt for meat, fish, eggs, veggies.

  4. Scientists are now thinking Cancer has a solid link to fructose. It’s the one thing our body doesn’t really need. It gets metabolized in our liver and coats it in fat.

    When fructose is fed to cancer cells, it causes them to divide and multiply rapidly. Fructose is in nearly every damn food you can pull off the shelf, and it’s usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

    Next time your in a store, look at a label. Look under carbs to see if it has sugar in it. If it does, it’s high fructose corn syrup, and nearly everything food out there has it.

    That is the culprit, and the only way you’ll avoid it is by sticking to a diet in red meat, chicken, fish, veggies, nuts and seeds, with fruit sparingly. Which is basically what our ancestors did.

    There is a reason why Japan is so low on the list in cancer yet have long lives; their traditional diets are basically absent of fructose.

  5. A female scientist contracted cancer she set to work researching cause of cancer. After lengthy research she came up with over 60 percent of cancers where coursed by outside influence for example vehicle exhaust fumes general pollutions in the atmosphere to much sun uv work environments aircraft pollution. Also polluted foods fruits and vegetables use of pesticides smoking cigarettes full of chemicals alcohol in particular excessive beer drinking which is now known to cause colon cancer.

  6. Shiva
    The prevalence of Cancer, i think must not be assessed just by these statistics. They keep varying and depend on a lot of factors. Better diagnostics and equipments always pave the way for better diagnosing. There are obviously some countries where there is no such modern cancer detection facilities. Henceforth, what needs to be addressed is the spiking cancer rates and their effective control and prevention all over the world. The need of the hour is to ascertain the risk factors and creating awareness about screening tests. There are however a lot of hospitals out there encashing and exploiting the rise in cancer. I have been made to remain dreaded of the disease as, i know the conditions here in India and i myself have many relatives who suffered from cancer.

  7. well it seems to me that we already have figured out what causes cancer and how to cure it just with the comments on this blog. Well done people you all have done what billions of dollars and hundreds of medical scientists couldn’t do.

  8. What you must also take into consideration is diets. In these countries where there are lower instance rates they tend to have a more organic diet; ie eating native fruits and vegetables grown locally opposed to lots of protein in more industrialized nations. This also links to cancer incident rates. In America our life expectancy rate went DOWN from what it was in the past. This is because of poor eating habits, chemicals, gmo foods, etc not diagnosed in elderly but in an alarmingly increasing number of age ranges that should be healthy otherwise. To say poor detection is the reason of disparity among numbers and average life span is to ignore other scientific, quantifiable data that exists to the contrary. It is directly tied in to food systems, agricultural processes, toxins and added dna fragments to plant species in order to yield more desirable results on a profitability landscape. Do not brush these aside while compiling data and adhere biases propagated by the uneducated or poorly educated.

    • Agree 100% with Jutin Davis’ comments. The quality of life for the last 20 years of your life span is very poor in the most advanced countries like Norway, USA, Denmark due to the high toxicity levels in food in these countries……

  9. Cancer occurs mainly in old age and as such those countries with low cancer rates are the ones where the people die before they reach the cancer age.

    One top of that poorer countries like Niger, Bhutan and Gambia do not have enough of qualified doctors to make the diagnosis of cancer and most types of cancer needs sophisticated diagnostic personnel and equipment to facilitate the diagnosis.

  10. Another thing to consider is reportage, how many names for cancer are not cancer. Also, how about the fiasco up in northern Alberta in Canada where there were so many ”irregular” births that the data was removed from the web so as not to embarrass the fracking frackers at the SCAR sands.
    *Errors corrected

  11. Bad science. You didn’t factor in detection rates. That is the health care system in Denmark is better at detecting cancer than say the health care system in Nigeria. This is common sense and empirically verifiable.

    • Dear Peter —
      Thank you for your comment. This data for this infographic was sourced from the International Agency for Research on Cancer GLOBOCAN project. More information on the data, including sources and methods, can be found at http://globocan.iarc.fr. Thank you again for reading our Insight blog.

  12. It seems likely to me that age/longevity is the actual reason for these differences. We know that age is the single greatest risk factor for all cancers and we can see that the countries with the highest cancer rates have much greater longevity than the countries with the lowest rates.

    • These figures, with the highest and lowest frequency of cancer, are poorly made. They have not taken into consideration that the countries with the highest frequency of cancer is the wealthier countries with good medicine, hospitals and generaly have a much longer lifespan compared to the countries with the lower frequences of cancer, whereas people die before they reach the age when cancer is a problem.

      But that is not how the story ends. You always need to put the information in perspective, and look at it from another angle. You have to think about the richer countries that eat more red meat, deep fried food, and generaly more unhealthy than the finacially difficult countries. This unhealthy living can create more cancer among the people. Also the countries with higher cancer frequencies have paler skin because there is not as much sun in these countries, but when people go on a holiday for a week in some exotic place and become as red as a tomato, they increase the chance of cancer. Whereas the countries with low cancer frequencies, have darker skin and are more immune to strong UV rays from the sun. It is also because most days in the countries with lower cancer frequencies, the sun shines, this means that people will have a stable comsumption of UV rays, which they european countries have colder weather most of the year. Then when they are on holiday and get a burst of UV rays, the explosive comsumption of UV rays can spark mutations to occure more frequent by the unstable comsumption.

      • Have you ever thought that it has a lot to do with the lack of actual food, read the back of a Hungry Man TV dinner sometime, there are about 168 chemicals in one of those, yum. Americans have been eating red meat since we killed the first cow and we have not had cancer for 1000’s of years. How about the lack of fat in our diet. Our brains are made up of about 60 percent fat.

    • In my own personal opinion, looking at different research. Cancer might occur more often as you say as due to increased age, athough I haven’t read anything to support this. But regardless of age, Cancer is not something we are born with, we are not meant to be ill, therefore what we consume and the environment is the reason. Food, water, air, stress etc…but if you look at any research to see where the highest and lowest cancer rates you will see that countries which are poor, high in veg & fruit, but too expensive to buy meat, are where the less cancer rates are (parts of Africa, South-West Asia). Which suggests diet, our food, which is our fuel, is one of THE reasons.

    • Why live a longer life full of sorrow, loneliness, misery when you can die slightly younger with a full happy life. These people who have nothing walk around with a smile on there face I’ve seen it, there happy around there “FAMILY”.

  13. What you must also take into consideration is diets. In these countries where there are lower instance rates they tend to have a more organic diet; ie eating native fruits and vegetables grown locally opposed to lots of protein in more industrialized nations. This also links to cancer incident rates. In America our life expectancy rate went DOWN from what it was in the past. This is because of poor eating habits, chemicals, gmo foods, etc not diagnosed in elderly but in an alarmingly increasing number of age ranges that should be healthy otherwise. To say poor detection is the reason of disparity among numbers and average life span is to ignore other scientific, quantifiable data that exists to the contrary. It is directly tied in to food systems, agricultural processes, toxins and added dna fragments to plant species in order to yield more desirable results on a profitability landscape. Do not brush these aside while compiling data and adhere biases propagated by the uneducated or poorly educated.

    1. Agree 100% with Jutin Davis’ comments. The quality of life for the last 20 years of your life span is very poor in the most advanced countries like Norway, USA, Denmark due to the high toxicity levels in food in these countries……

  14. Cancer occurs mainly in old age and as such those countries with low cancer rates are the ones where the people die before they reach the cancer age.

    One top of that poorer countries like Niger, Bhutan and Gambia do not have enough of qualified doctors to make the diagnosis of cancer and most types of cancer needs sophisticated diagnostic personnel and equipment to facilitate the diagnosis.

  15. Scientists are now thinking Cancer has a solid link to fructose. It’s the one thing our body doesn’t really need. It gets metabolized in our liver and coats it in fat.

    When fructose is fed to cancer cells, it causes them to divide and multiply rapidly. Fructose is in nearly every damn food you can pull off the shelf, and it’s usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

    Next time your in a store, look at a label. Look under carbs to see if it has sugar in it. If it does, it’s high fructose corn syrup, and nearly everything food out there has it.

    That is the culprit, and the only way you’ll avoid it is by sticking to a diet in red meat, chicken, fish, veggies, nuts and seeds, with fruit sparingly. Which is basically what our ancestors did.

    There is a reason why Japan is so low on the list in cancer yet have long lives; their traditional diets are basically absent of fructose.

  16. well it seems to me that we already have figured out what causes cancer and how to cure it just with the comments on this blog. Well done people you all have done what billions of dollars and hundreds of medical scientists couldn’t do.

  17. Bad science. You didn’t factor in detection rates. That is the health care system in Denmark is better at detecting cancer than say the health care system in Nigeria. This is common sense and empirically verifiable.

    1. Dear Peter —
      Thank you for your comment. This data for this infographic was sourced from the International Agency for Research on Cancer GLOBOCAN project. More information on the data, including sources and methods, can be found at http://globocan.iarc.fr. Thank you again for reading our Insight blog.

  18. It seems likely to me that age/longevity is the actual reason for these differences. We know that age is the single greatest risk factor for all cancers and we can see that the countries with the highest cancer rates have much greater longevity than the countries with the lowest rates.

    1. In my own personal opinion, looking at different research. Cancer might occur more often as you say as due to increased age, athough I haven’t read anything to support this. But regardless of age, Cancer is not something we are born with, we are not meant to be ill, therefore what we consume and the environment is the reason. Food, water, air, stress etc…but if you look at any research to see where the highest and lowest cancer rates you will see that countries which are poor, high in veg & fruit, but too expensive to buy meat, are where the less cancer rates are (parts of Africa, South-West Asia). Which suggests diet, our food, which is our fuel, is one of THE reasons.

    2. These figures, with the highest and lowest frequency of cancer, are poorly made. They have not taken into consideration that the countries with the highest frequency of cancer is the wealthier countries with good medicine, hospitals and generaly have a much longer lifespan compared to the countries with the lower frequences of cancer, whereas people die before they reach the age when cancer is a problem.

      But that is not how the story ends. You always need to put the information in perspective, and look at it from another angle. You have to think about the richer countries that eat more red meat, deep fried food, and generaly more unhealthy than the finacially difficult countries. This unhealthy living can create more cancer among the people. Also the countries with higher cancer frequencies have paler skin because there is not as much sun in these countries, but when people go on a holiday for a week in some exotic place and become as red as a tomato, they increase the chance of cancer. Whereas the countries with low cancer frequencies, have darker skin and are more immune to strong UV rays from the sun. It is also because most days in the countries with lower cancer frequencies, the sun shines, this means that people will have a stable comsumption of UV rays, which they european countries have colder weather most of the year. Then when they are on holiday and get a burst of UV rays, the explosive comsumption of UV rays can spark mutations to occure more frequent by the unstable comsumption.

      1. Have you ever thought that it has a lot to do with the lack of actual food, read the back of a Hungry Man TV dinner sometime, there are about 168 chemicals in one of those, yum. Americans have been eating red meat since we killed the first cow and we have not had cancer for 1000’s of years. How about the lack of fat in our diet. Our brains are made up of about 60 percent fat.

    3. Why live a longer life full of sorrow, loneliness, misery when you can die slightly younger with a full happy life. These people who have nothing walk around with a smile on there face I’ve seen it, there happy around there “FAMILY”.

  19. Another thing to consider is reportage, how many names for cancer are not cancer. Also, how about the fiasco up in northern Alberta in Canada where there were so many ”irregular” births that the data was removed from the web so as not to embarrass the fracking frackers at the SCAR sands.
    *Errors corrected

  20. A female scientist contracted cancer she set to work researching cause of cancer. After lengthy research she came up with over 60 percent of cancers where coursed by outside influence for example vehicle exhaust fumes general pollutions in the atmosphere to much sun uv work environments aircraft pollution. Also polluted foods fruits and vegetables use of pesticides smoking cigarettes full of chemicals alcohol in particular excessive beer drinking which is now known to cause colon cancer.

  21. It’s because red meat nor fat is the culprit. Sugar is. A lot of scientific research has proven it, contrary to the common belief. People have always eaten meat and fat, sugar wasn’t so omnipresent as it is now.

  22. Why should we have to play Russian Roulette with our lives ? People sit and try to figure out what is healthier to eat.. fruit or meats ? This is not how people are supposed to be living, being concerned all the time if we choose the right food to live or the wrong food to die ! If what they are doing, altering our foods is making people sick than people need to take a stand and sue the people that are allowing these life threating chemicals into our foods. No different than half other law suits out there, like when people sue Mc D’s for gaining weight, or suing car companies for not standing by their word as per gas millage only these chemicals are killing people. Is it the governments way of population control ? All these chemically enhanced altered foods are allowed on the market today and then the injected chemicals into our animals, and sometimes even cloning our livestock, it has really got to make people suspicious about everyone and everything when it comes to our food and health. How many years have they been “trying” to find cures for cancer
    but have not succeeded in the process. Think about when you were younger and if you can ever remember hearing of so many cancer cases on the news ? So what has changed from then until now? People grew up on T.V. dinners in the early days which was a popular food, so how can anyone pin point it? Maybe they are trying to find a cure when they should be looking at preventative shots against the cancer from attacking peoples systems, after all if it is coming from the foods we eat, than protect us from it !

  23. @Amanda, totally agree with you. It’s a shame scientists have discovered it so late, something which was obvious to me since I was a teenager. Cancer feeds on sugar, which is also in fruit, which is seemingly not that beneficial to your healh as they caimed it to be. I’d opt for meat, fish, eggs, veggies.

  24. Shiva
    The prevalence of Cancer, i think must not be assessed just by these statistics. They keep varying and depend on a lot of factors. Better diagnostics and equipments always pave the way for better diagnosing. There are obviously some countries where there is no such modern cancer detection facilities. Henceforth, what needs to be addressed is the spiking cancer rates and their effective control and prevention all over the world. The need of the hour is to ascertain the risk factors and creating awareness about screening tests. There are however a lot of hospitals out there encashing and exploiting the rise in cancer. I have been made to remain dreaded of the disease as, i know the conditions here in India and i myself have many relatives who suffered from cancer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Blue Captcha Image
Refresh

*

Latest Tweets

Dana-Farber @danafarber
Enter to win tix to Chefs Cooking for Hope by sharing a photo of a healthy recipe you’ve made using #CookForHope: https://t.co/qAF4myi0Lq
Dana-Farber @danafarber
Preventing mouth sores during #cancer treatment: https://t.co/8SWDqwQlpf. #LivingWithCancer #DFCItips
Dana-Farber @danafarber
What Is the Difference Between Hodgkin #Lymphoma and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma? [Infographic] https://t.co/8D8CEtpxDf https://t.co/lErZ80p4uC

Make An Appointment

For adults: 877-442-3324

Quick access: Appointments as soon as the next day for new adult patients

For children: 888-733-4662

Republish our posts on your blog

Interested in sharing one of our stories on your blog? Feel free to republish this content! We just ask that you credit Dana-Farber, link to the original article, and refrain from making edits that change the original context. Questions? Email the editors at insight_blog@dfci.harvard.edu.

All content in these blogs is provided by independent writers and does not represent the opinions or advice of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute or its partners.