Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-DRY-109 in-depth review

Genetic study: milk does not clearly cause prostate cancer but may protect against bowel cancer

Genetically proxied milk consumption and risk of colorectal, bladder, breast, and prostate cancer: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.

Overview

Larsson SC et al.. BMC Med 2020 · PMID 33261611 · DOI 10.1186/s12916-020-01839-9

Prostate OR 1.01 (0.99-1.02) per milk allele; colorectal 0.95.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Test cause and effect using genes linked to milk drinking.

How was the study done?

Mendelian randomisation.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans.

What was actually found?

No overall prostate effect; lower bowel cancer.

How large was the observed effect?

Prostate OR 1.01.

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Milk is unlikely to be a strong cause of prostate cancer.

What are the study's limitations?

Instrument limits; milk only.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Weakens the causal claim.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

European data.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot exclude a small effect.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Larsson SC et al.
Journal
BMC Med
Year
2020
Identifier
PMID 33261611 DOI 10.1186/s12916-020-01839-9
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Cancer Research UK, MRC, Wellcome (record).

2. Research question

Is milk consumption causally related to colorectal, bladder, breast and prostate cancer?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Other – Two-sample Mendelian randomisation using the lactase-persistence variant (rs4988235/rs182549) as instrument for milk intake
Population

UK Biobank, FinnGen, BCAC, PRACTICAL (European ancestry)

Country

Europe

Period

n/a

Sample size

UK Biobank 367,643; FinnGen 135,638; PRACTICAL 140,254 men

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Consortium data

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Genetically proxied milk intake

Comparator

Per allele

Endpoints

Cancer incidence

Statistical methods

MR (Wald ratio/IVW across cohorts)

5. Actual results

Results

Colorectal cancer OR 0.95 (0.91-0.99) per milk-increasing allele; bladder 0.99 (0.94-1.05); breast 1.01 (1.00-1.02); prostate 1.01 (0.99-1.02), but FinnGen prostate 1.07 (1.01-1.13).

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Findings strengthen evidence for a protective role of milk on colorectal cancer; no or limited evidence that milk affects bladder, breast and prostate cancer.

6. Strengths

  • Reduces confounding and reverse causation
  • Large consortia

7. Weaknesses

  • Single-variant instrument; effect per allele, not per glass
  • Pleiotropy cannot be fully excluded
  • Only milk, not cheese

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
none applicable
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

MR assumptions.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Prostate OR close to 1 with narrow CI; the slight asymmetry of 0.99-1.02 is a rounding artefact.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Genetic evidence does not support a causal effect of milk on prostate cancer overall (one consortium positive), while supporting protection against colorectal cancer.

11. Independent contrary findings

Cohort associations (A-DRY-02, I-DRY-108).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

European ancestry; lactase-persistence genetics differ in Egypt.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Limits causal interpretation of the dairy-prostate association.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessindirect
Reproducibilityunknown
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Power for small effects; other dairy types.

15. Linked fact checks