Mar 13, 2012 - 2:32 am
Now there's a study claiming that that circumcision is associated with a 15% reduced risk of prostate cancer.
Here are some articles on the study:
While there may be a statistical correlation based on the study, I seriously doubt that they can prove causation and most commentators seem to be backing way from such a conclusion.
Circumcision and prostate cancer are most prevalent in the United States, other English speaking nations, the Middle East and parts of Africa (where it's considered an HIV preventative). However, circumcision is generally not practiced in Europe, Central and South America or (with the exception of Korea) in Asia.
I believe the PCa is more closely associated with diet (than circumcision) and that you'll find much lower rates of PCa in Asia (where circumcision is NOT routinely practiced) because of their high veggie and low protein/dairy diet rather than a higher rate of PCa because men there are not circumcised.
An interesting comparison would also be with European men, who are also not routinely circumcised and whose diet is similar to that eaten in America. If the correlation holds up, you'd expect a higher incidence of PCa in Europe than in America (controlling for the comparable diet) if the lack of circumcision is directly associated with PCa.
IMHO, until such comparative studies are done, it's misleading to suggest that PCa has anything at all to do whether a man is circumcised or not and any such suggestion should be disregarded.