[mrs bouquet]

So now if you drink fruit juice, you are going to increase your risks of cancer.    I bet the "Man from Del Monte" isn't very pleased to hear that. .     What will it be next ?   Mrs Bouquet

[Goosegirl]

Er, water? Wherever it comes from there will be supposedly some sort of risk whether it be from a natural underground spring (what nasties has it picked up along the way?), treated water (no guarantees there), bottled water (does it react in some way with plastic?), rainwater (acid pollution?), distilled, de-ionised and boiled water (probably no fluorides left so tooth decay will be more prevalent) so we're left with so answers on a dew-drop please!

[jaydig]

If we listened to all the nay-sayers life wouldn't be worth living, anyway.  Just be sensible, eat well, move around and enjoy life.  We only get one crack at it, so there's no point being miserable.

[TonyB.]

A number of years ago the Daily Mail did a full centre page spread on benefits and risks with various food and drinks. It amused me to see so many things that raise the risk of one type of cancer but protect you from another type of cancer.
Personally I drink coffee and red wine. At least I can stay awake and be happy till the end. ;-)

[New shoot]

Fruit juice is high in sugar, but I would say way more preferable to a can of fizzy pop.  It can also help you get your 5 a day.  Just don't chug down an entire carton and I reckon you will be fine 

I'm with Jaydig and TonyB.  Having a happy life matters.  Who wants to live to 150 on rice cakes and cottage cheese 

[Goosegirl]

One has to wonder how on earth (literally) the human race has managed to exist to this current day. So much is now sanitised that you don't get any exposure to any bacteria and viruses so it means our immune system hasn't learnt from past experiences in order to protect us for future times, and whatever we eat is supposed to be bad for us. I would love to know what these supposed superior and noted scientists eat after a long hard day at work. 

[al78]

The question is what is the actual risk of getting cancer. Saying something increases the risk of cancer isn't useful for a risk assessment unless you have some absolute numbers. If the mean risk of cancer is 0.0001% per year, then doubling that risk is 0.0002%, in other words still a very small number, and arguably not worth worrying about. This is how the media tell you what to think, by only giving you the subset of the story that leans you towards their agenda, which works most of the time because the general public do not have training in statistical analysis.

[al78]

One has to wonder how on earth (literally) the human race has managed to exist to this current day. So much is now sanitised that you don't get any exposure to any bacteria and viruses so it means our immune system hasn't learnt from past experiences in order to protect us for future times, and whatever we eat is supposed to be bad for us. I would love to know what these supposed superior and noted scientists eat after a long hard day at work. 

This is somewhat exaggerated, but it is not the fault of the scientists that the media either accidentally or intentionally distort the results of their work, or don't give the full story. Much as you might lambast scientists, without scientific research, we would still be living in the stone age, thinking weather and astronomical phenomena was the result of powerful deities.

I can assure you there are plenty of bacteria and viruses around to expose yourself too. No-one is forcing you to sterilize your house to the level of a clean room.