A study of more than 64,000 people born around the end of Britain's postwar sugar rationing found that those exposed to less sugar during their first 1,000 days had lower rates of five cancers decades later, including roughly 69% lower liver cancer risk and 36% lower breast cancer risk. They also "showed signs of slower biological aging" and "continued to consume less sugar and had healthier diets overall," according to the authors of a new study published in The Conversation. From the report: After the second world war, sugar remained rationed in Britain for several years. But in September 1953, rationing ended and people started eating a lot more sugar. Consumption nearly doubled. This meant that children born just a few months apart had very different levels of sugar exposure both in the womb and during early childhood. For our study, we used data from over 64,000 people born in Britain between 1951 and 1956. Those born earlier spent a larger share of their first 1,000 days under sugar rationing, while those born later experienced progressively less of it. [...] What is most surprising, however, is not the cancer results or the biological markers of ageing. It's how early-life sugar exposure continued to affect people's diets even 50 years later. We found that people who experienced sugar rationing early in life still consumed less sugar in adulthood, around age 50. They also ate less overall, and their diets were healthier and more diverse. This suggests that the level of sweetness people are exposed to very early in life may shape their taste preferences for a long time.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Miniature human organs and other tissues are to be grown from NHS patients' cells in a drive to improve medicine testing and reduce the number of animals used in drug development. Scientists will use the clumps of tissue to learn how diseases vary between patients, helping them identify which treatments are best for different people based on the particular pathology underlying their condition. The move marks a shift away from the traditional use of animals as models for human disease, towards what researchers believe will be more accurate and reliable tests based directly on human tissues. Researchers have been growing tiny clumps of human organs, known as organoids, for more than a decade. Tests show that pieces smaller than a millimeter can mirror key features of full-scale organs and tissues, including how they falter with disease and respond to drugs. Armed with organoids grown from diseased human tissues, scientists can investigate whether new drug candidates reverse pathological changes in all or a subset of patients, and quickly identify ineffective drugs early in the process. Historically, more than 90% of drugs that clear animal testing go on to fail in human trials, raising questions about the value of the tests. US and European medicines regulators now encourage other approaches if available. "It's going to have a major impact on the numbers of animals used and the way we develop new drugs in the future," said Matthias Zilbauer, a clinical professor of paediatric gastroenterology at the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. "We're not saying there won't be any animal use in the near or foreseeable future, because there are still certain issues that cannot be tested in these new models, but the reduction is very real." "A lot of human diseases either do not occur in animals or occur in a different way because they're not human," added Zilbauer. "We want tests and models that can tell us which treatments work, and in what patients, and a mouse cannot tell us that."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.