I was a vegetarian for years when I was younger (18-21), a vegan for about 6 months when I was 22. I have never had more health problems in my life than during that time. I became deficient iron, vit B12, and developed what my physician classified as "IBS." It has taken me since then (I am currently 26) to heal my gut and repair the damage I did to my body during that time. Since introducing healthy meats (organic beef, chicken, pork, eggs, etc) back into my diet along with plenty of probiotics I am no longer deficient in any vitamins or minerals. I have gained 10 lbs of lean body mass and lost 5 lbs of fat and my cholesterol panel (which was not too bad to begin with) has improved drastically! I mast caveat by stating that I rarely eat processed meats and NEVER eat refined grains (including "whole grains"). I can only go by my own experience which has been that I was sick eating a "healthy vegetarian diet" and have never felt/looked better in my life since I started eating meat again.
7
But James Coughlin, a nutritional toxicologist and a consultant for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said the panel’s conclusions were based on “weak associations” that did not support its overall conclusions.
I'M SHOCKED that James would say such a thing! Could there be a possible financial motivation?
I'M SHOCKED that James would say such a thing! Could there be a possible financial motivation?
2
It seems as if on an almost monthly basis, some new food is found which causes Cancer. I am getting rather sick and tired of these report. One day they tell you to eat it and the next they tell you it causes Cancer.
I have stopped worrying about these new cancer-causing foods. I have eaten red meat and bacon all my life ( I love raw bacon) and at 80 I see no point in worrying about which new food will cause cancer.
I have stopped worrying about these new cancer-causing foods. I have eaten red meat and bacon all my life ( I love raw bacon) and at 80 I see no point in worrying about which new food will cause cancer.
3
Read Martha Rosenberg's excellent book, "Born With a Junk Food Deficiency" to see how both prescription drugs, brought to you courtesy of BigPharma, and drugs laden with antibiotics, Round-up, and all the rest, courtesy of BigMeat, can kill you.
Occasional meat from an organic source, organic vegetables, wild caught fish, etc., will not.
Quality food, in moderation, is the way to go.
Occasional meat from an organic source, organic vegetables, wild caught fish, etc., will not.
Quality food, in moderation, is the way to go.
3
Processed meats specifically? An increase so slight we shouldn't be worried? My local 11 o'clock newscast last night opened with a visual of steaks on the grill and headlined, "New study shows that eating meat gives you cancer." How many times can the media cry wolf about health issues before we tune them out entirely? (Thanks, NYT, for a slightly less misleading headline and a more detailed explanation.)
2
Such scaremongering without explaining the real implication behind it.
The media, researchers, and the WHO should explicitly declare that there was CORRELATION NOT CAUSATION. Second, just because it's 1A carcinogen like cigarette, it doesn't mean it's as carcinogenic as cigarette. The classification is based on the strength of the evidence, not the probability of carcinogenic. Third, the research declares eating 50g of processed meat every day increases 18% of colon cancer. If someone is eating 50g of processed meat every day, there's more thing to worry about than colon cancer. The diet is simply wrong. Second, 18% increase means nothing unless you tell me what was the base rate. If the colon cancer rate in average population is 1%, then 18% increase only makes it to 1.18%. There is no real life implication between 1% and 1.18%. Obviously, if the base cancer rate was higher, then it gains more significance, but most media don't even talk about.
Seriously, there should be penalty for media and researchers who look for ways to gain attention by scaremongering without proper explanation and real life implication. Look at what happened to this country after needlessly scaring people of fat for decades.
Food is not about bad and good. It's about moderating and incorporating varieties. But obviously, such info won't increase pageview.
The media, researchers, and the WHO should explicitly declare that there was CORRELATION NOT CAUSATION. Second, just because it's 1A carcinogen like cigarette, it doesn't mean it's as carcinogenic as cigarette. The classification is based on the strength of the evidence, not the probability of carcinogenic. Third, the research declares eating 50g of processed meat every day increases 18% of colon cancer. If someone is eating 50g of processed meat every day, there's more thing to worry about than colon cancer. The diet is simply wrong. Second, 18% increase means nothing unless you tell me what was the base rate. If the colon cancer rate in average population is 1%, then 18% increase only makes it to 1.18%. There is no real life implication between 1% and 1.18%. Obviously, if the base cancer rate was higher, then it gains more significance, but most media don't even talk about.
Seriously, there should be penalty for media and researchers who look for ways to gain attention by scaremongering without proper explanation and real life implication. Look at what happened to this country after needlessly scaring people of fat for decades.
Food is not about bad and good. It's about moderating and incorporating varieties. But obviously, such info won't increase pageview.
4
This study is nonsense. I'm not a big meat eater myself, but know more than a few in their 90s (!) that eat meat daily. What they tend to avoid is sugar, a worthy effort.
This 'study' and it's conclusions were covered on CNN just yesterday. However, CNN took a different tact. They stated that colon cancer increases 50-70% if you eat processed meats. They didn't say that they were talking about going from 0.1% risk to 0.17% risk (yes, a 70% increase, but over a percentage that was barely measurable). At one point they did admit that the researchers had a number of reservations and that it's okay to eat processed meats once in a while, and that they didn't see correlations from red meats that were not 'processed.'
Basically, the study was convened by WHO to find causation, but they couldn't; even though they tried their best. So, my confidence in WHO is just about gone. They are not anything more than a political group. The same group that tells us we have the worst healthcare in the world because we don't have a single payer system (yup, out of 100 points, WHO took 25 away from the US right off the bat).
When science is politicized, it is poisoned. And poisoned science should never be funded. Ever.
This 'study' and it's conclusions were covered on CNN just yesterday. However, CNN took a different tact. They stated that colon cancer increases 50-70% if you eat processed meats. They didn't say that they were talking about going from 0.1% risk to 0.17% risk (yes, a 70% increase, but over a percentage that was barely measurable). At one point they did admit that the researchers had a number of reservations and that it's okay to eat processed meats once in a while, and that they didn't see correlations from red meats that were not 'processed.'
Basically, the study was convened by WHO to find causation, but they couldn't; even though they tried their best. So, my confidence in WHO is just about gone. They are not anything more than a political group. The same group that tells us we have the worst healthcare in the world because we don't have a single payer system (yup, out of 100 points, WHO took 25 away from the US right off the bat).
When science is politicized, it is poisoned. And poisoned science should never be funded. Ever.
5
I believe in all things in moderation. I eat a variety of foods, mostly plants, not a lot of sugar. It's not just because we get conflicting medical reports all the time for the general population, but because I get conflicting medical advice from my own doctors.
I had a kidney stone at a time in my life when I was likely dehydrated (had just started training for a race), was finishing my PhD (ridiculous stress), and wasn't taking very good care of myself (see PhD). It didn't pass on its own, and my urologist didn't get around to pulverizing it with a laser for 4 months. 4 months of surprise agony. Advice for me? Less red meat (which meant pretty much cutting it out for me, since I didn't eat much to begin with), avoid certain vegetables (spinach, rhubarb, kale, etc) and increase citric acid intake (a glass of water with some lemon juice in it).
Cut to the next year, when I have an ulcer (PhD defense prep) and I get this: cut down on the citric acid, along with dairy and spicy food. Ok.
Cut to now, and standard blood tests show me with low iron. Advice? More red meat. The alternative is an iron supplement, which cases chronic constipation, which leads to (ironic drumroll...) increased risk of colorectal cancer!!!
So, I just come back to everything in moderation. And avoiding PhD dissertations if you can.
I had a kidney stone at a time in my life when I was likely dehydrated (had just started training for a race), was finishing my PhD (ridiculous stress), and wasn't taking very good care of myself (see PhD). It didn't pass on its own, and my urologist didn't get around to pulverizing it with a laser for 4 months. 4 months of surprise agony. Advice for me? Less red meat (which meant pretty much cutting it out for me, since I didn't eat much to begin with), avoid certain vegetables (spinach, rhubarb, kale, etc) and increase citric acid intake (a glass of water with some lemon juice in it).
Cut to the next year, when I have an ulcer (PhD defense prep) and I get this: cut down on the citric acid, along with dairy and spicy food. Ok.
Cut to now, and standard blood tests show me with low iron. Advice? More red meat. The alternative is an iron supplement, which cases chronic constipation, which leads to (ironic drumroll...) increased risk of colorectal cancer!!!
So, I just come back to everything in moderation. And avoiding PhD dissertations if you can.
4
First, the study is a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. This means only correlation can be drawn. Despite this the WHO strongly infers a causal role in their presser and many media outlets ran with it.
Because of the nature of this type of analysis, there and a myriad of confounding variables - things that could also explain increased risks. For instance, isn't it logical to assume processed meats are eaten with bread? Are we to assume that it was the MEAT that was the problem?
Last is the biggie. This study came up with a very low risk....0.5-1% increased risk of ONE type of cancer per 50g consumed DAILY. This doesn't sound like much so they did what many others in the past have done to inflate the numbers. They post the RELATIVE risk of 18%. This is a common practice.
For instance in the cholesterol lowering world of statins...it was found that 10% of heart attack patients will suffer a second without statins. With statins the actual risk is 8%. So in order to sell drugs, Lipitor claims a 20% reduction in risk. A bit disingenuous?
The rate is even lower for red meat. Add to that the confounding variables and correlation...I could probably come up with a study showing the health benefits of processed meat.
Because of the nature of this type of analysis, there and a myriad of confounding variables - things that could also explain increased risks. For instance, isn't it logical to assume processed meats are eaten with bread? Are we to assume that it was the MEAT that was the problem?
Last is the biggie. This study came up with a very low risk....0.5-1% increased risk of ONE type of cancer per 50g consumed DAILY. This doesn't sound like much so they did what many others in the past have done to inflate the numbers. They post the RELATIVE risk of 18%. This is a common practice.
For instance in the cholesterol lowering world of statins...it was found that 10% of heart attack patients will suffer a second without statins. With statins the actual risk is 8%. So in order to sell drugs, Lipitor claims a 20% reduction in risk. A bit disingenuous?
The rate is even lower for red meat. Add to that the confounding variables and correlation...I could probably come up with a study showing the health benefits of processed meat.
4
I try my best to eat as little meat as possible and when I do I ONLY buy free range, from grass fed and humanely processed animals. The hormones most stockyard animals are fed, the corn and other unnatural feeds and the antibiotics the feed is laced with all contribute to the unhealthiness of the typical mat most people purchase. Not to mention the treatment of the animals which further troubles my conscience. It makes sense to eat more vegetables, unprocessed foods and a little meat from the right sources. It matters--to the cows and to us.
1
First ridiculously low blood pressure guidelines, now this. The first based on a study with those at high risk and this one on processed meats stating that the risk is 'slight', and 'most' people should not be 'overly' worried about it. clear what these qualifiers --slight, most, overly--mean in numbers. Fact is that anything done in extremes and not taking care of yourself will cause harm. No need to alarm folks anymore. Enough is enough! Unless the plan is to provide reports of studies that lead to alarming the public and having everyone on a drug for something or the other.
Oh brother here we go again. Lets see, as I remember it first it was fights over the fluoridation of water. it was good, it was bad, it was both. Then there were fights over coffee AAGGGGh do not drink it, bad bad bad. Oh sorry a cup or two a day will be just fine. Alcohol is totally bad, oh wait a glass of wine with diner will help digestion, and will be fine. P>S> how is it that the rest of the world, which does NOT drink milk like we do, manages to survive as well as it does? This new information that bacon and beef will raise your risk of cancer by 18% means ONLY that our Grandparents were right. Eat anything you want just do not overeat. AND, in America that means not triple double four cheese half pound of bacon cheeseburgers, no more 72 ounce steaks, or in simple words eat right not large.
2
The only news here is WHO's recent backing of what cancer MD's have said for some time.
1
Human beings are the victims of their own DNA genetic biological evolutionary chronologically ecologically naturally fit selection success. Destined by divine and natural nurture to crave fat, salt, sex, sugar, water, habitat and kin when our life expectancy was less than 40 years old and the things that we craved were rare without lengthy activity. While disease and wild animals were mortal threats.
1
@blackmamba:
Meat and fat were plentiful in early human diets. The average life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was low due to childhood mortality and infectious disease, but the possible lifespan was similar to modern humans, and they lived that lifespan relatively free of chronic disease.
Meat and fat were plentiful in early human diets. The average life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was low due to childhood mortality and infectious disease, but the possible lifespan was similar to modern humans, and they lived that lifespan relatively free of chronic disease.
1
Before reading this report, I had the understanding that nitrates were the most problematic factor in processed meats. I stopped eating hot dogs a long time ago because of this, and with bacon (a favorite food), I have switched to eating mostly nitrate-free varieties. This story suggests that processing such as smoking may also be a problem. More work needs to be done to pin-point which specific treatments are the cause for greatest concern and what level the level of risk is.
2
Bacon and other meats belong in the same category as cigarettes. Both can cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other health issues. But vegan foods contain phytochemicals, which can knock out carcinogens and fight inflammation. Anyone who is concerned about cancer or other health problems—and cruelty to animals and environmental destruction—should eat tasty vegan foods and enjoy life.
1
With respect to the processed meats, such as bacon and sausage, the culprit appears to be the nitrates and nitrites used to maintain the products' desired pink color, a topic covered in detail in the NYT as early as the 1980's. I guess as with so many things in life, "everything old is new again"
2
Red color makes meat and sausages look more appetizing. That's why in some butcher shops the light has a reddish tint. It is also the reason for adding nitrites, a carninogen, in the processing of these products. Without nitrites meat will turn gray on exposure to air. Most cooks have found that fresh hamburger meat looks nice and pink on the outside but a day or so later it has turned brownish gray.
1
If nitrites are a carcinogen, better stop eating most vegetables.
4
If eating red meat causes cancer, how come every Lion in Africa doesn't suffer from Bowel Cancer?(-: They eat some really dodgy stuff, Or, is that why their numbers are going down, nothing to do with the Big White Hunter, it's the red meat.
The big problem is that too many Americans feel that they have to have meat every single day, which is compounded with too much sodium in canned items and preserved goods. It is the processing of the meats that most concerns me. We have a tradition of preserving foods through sugar, salt, smoking, curing, etc., but modern methods of preservation have added unsavory chemicals and other bad things.
If you have a balanced diet, with plenty of fresh leafy greens and raw fruits and vegetables, the occasional grilled steak or side of bacon isn't going to be harmful. We just need to teach people, as a society, that a variety of foods and exercise is the best way to avoid health problems.
If you have a balanced diet, with plenty of fresh leafy greens and raw fruits and vegetables, the occasional grilled steak or side of bacon isn't going to be harmful. We just need to teach people, as a society, that a variety of foods and exercise is the best way to avoid health problems.
13
Humans should eat meat every day, as it is and has been the staple of our diet for millions of years. And sodium, really?
2
This paper is interesting because we learned that the 22 experts from 10 countries were not in keeping! 15 voted the long summary which appeared in Lancet oncology.
We haven't yet the long paper which is coming soon as a report of IACR.
My question is: as the consultant of the bovine industry is apparently an insider of the meeting does he know if they ate at least once an ounce of meat?
It is of paramount importance because science is no longer involved in this study and emotion is key as showed by the deluge of commentaries and paper all over the world. If they did eat it a very opaque light will be shed at once on the report and we will continue to study quietly the complex effects of meat consumption and meat preparation.
We haven't yet the long paper which is coming soon as a report of IACR.
My question is: as the consultant of the bovine industry is apparently an insider of the meeting does he know if they ate at least once an ounce of meat?
It is of paramount importance because science is no longer involved in this study and emotion is key as showed by the deluge of commentaries and paper all over the world. If they did eat it a very opaque light will be shed at once on the report and we will continue to study quietly the complex effects of meat consumption and meat preparation.
1
How absurd that the western world is so obsessed with miniscule unproven risks of eating "this" or benefits of eating "that" while half the world goes hungry.
5
The meat industry, like the fossil fuel industry and the issue of climate change, is of course going to try to make it seem like there is more doubt in the scientific world about the link between meat consumption and cancer than there really is, so it's important to keep in mind that the meat and cattle industries are huge special interests that will be concerned with falling profits as a result of more public awareness about the harmfulness of meat. Anybody concerned about their health and longevity, and the health of the environment, should be paying attention to all of the recent reports about the impact that meat consumption has on our bodies and the environment and transition to more plant-based diets.
5
@Andrea:
Wheat, corn, soy, and processed foods are all also large industrial special interests. The evidence against processed corn and wheat products is much stronger than the evidence against meat.
Wheat, corn, soy, and processed foods are all also large industrial special interests. The evidence against processed corn and wheat products is much stronger than the evidence against meat.
2
I don't think this study is a cause for alarm or for meat-eaters to vehemently push back.
Like all things in life, moderation is called for, including our eating habits and our emotional responses.
Lord knows, we ingest a lot of chemicals in our daily life - from the water we drink and the plastic bottles they come in, to the air we breathe, processed foods (look at the list of ingredients on the average box of packaged food), food packaging (e.g., C8), preservatives and pesticides.
Our body manages to survive this daily onslaught of chemicals - but nothing wrong in cutting down on them when we can and feeding our bodies fresh, minimally processed, nutritional food. And eating a balanced diet with more vegetables than meats - heck, there is so much more variety and tastes and different kinds of molecules in vegetables, fruits and grains compared to meat.
Let's eat fresh, eat a variety of foods and cut down a bit on processed foods and meats. Our bodies and brains will thank us.
Like all things in life, moderation is called for, including our eating habits and our emotional responses.
Lord knows, we ingest a lot of chemicals in our daily life - from the water we drink and the plastic bottles they come in, to the air we breathe, processed foods (look at the list of ingredients on the average box of packaged food), food packaging (e.g., C8), preservatives and pesticides.
Our body manages to survive this daily onslaught of chemicals - but nothing wrong in cutting down on them when we can and feeding our bodies fresh, minimally processed, nutritional food. And eating a balanced diet with more vegetables than meats - heck, there is so much more variety and tastes and different kinds of molecules in vegetables, fruits and grains compared to meat.
Let's eat fresh, eat a variety of foods and cut down a bit on processed foods and meats. Our bodies and brains will thank us.
10
The correct title is: "Eating high levels of processed meats linked to slightly elevated cancer risk, but red meat less so".
The key words are "high level". Let's put this in perspective:
- one can die quickly from a too high level of water - hyponatremia - which is more deadly and harder to reverse than dehydration;
- breathing pure oxygen destroys your lungs (oxidizes them) while breathing regular air usually does not.
The article suggests moderation, but barely. I'd say the sheer quantity of poor quality food that people ingest is much much more of a problem in this country; I'd also wonder whether organic grass fed beef has less of the mild cancer risk that red meat has in general, or whether different "red" meats - beef, lamb, pork, game - carry different cancer risks? Ditto for processed meats regarding type of meat and type of treatment.
The key words are "high level". Let's put this in perspective:
- one can die quickly from a too high level of water - hyponatremia - which is more deadly and harder to reverse than dehydration;
- breathing pure oxygen destroys your lungs (oxidizes them) while breathing regular air usually does not.
The article suggests moderation, but barely. I'd say the sheer quantity of poor quality food that people ingest is much much more of a problem in this country; I'd also wonder whether organic grass fed beef has less of the mild cancer risk that red meat has in general, or whether different "red" meats - beef, lamb, pork, game - carry different cancer risks? Ditto for processed meats regarding type of meat and type of treatment.
2
If anything, this article is not hyperbolic enough and readers' outraged reactions are symptomatic of how little we as a nation understand the implications of the Standard American Diet.
There is ample evidence that meat and animal products are bad for your health - it leads to increased risk of obesity, cancer and heart disease. This is not new information.
In addition to affecting our health, our bloated consumption of animal products is the leading factor in creating water scarcity, contamination of the oceans, destruction of the rainforest, release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (yes, that's right! it's not cars or planes or coal - the number one producer of greenhouse gasses is animal agriculture, i.e. cows) and "world hunger" (we actually produce enough food to feed every person on the planet, the problem is that we use so much of what we produce to feed the animals we are going to eat, resulting in a scarcity of food).
The truth is the number one thing you can do for your health, for the environment and your fellow human beings is to stop eating animal products.
There is ample evidence that meat and animal products are bad for your health - it leads to increased risk of obesity, cancer and heart disease. This is not new information.
In addition to affecting our health, our bloated consumption of animal products is the leading factor in creating water scarcity, contamination of the oceans, destruction of the rainforest, release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (yes, that's right! it's not cars or planes or coal - the number one producer of greenhouse gasses is animal agriculture, i.e. cows) and "world hunger" (we actually produce enough food to feed every person on the planet, the problem is that we use so much of what we produce to feed the animals we are going to eat, resulting in a scarcity of food).
The truth is the number one thing you can do for your health, for the environment and your fellow human beings is to stop eating animal products.
5
@Amy:
Most people lose weight and improve health when they cut refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty foods, including animal foods.
The "standard American diet" is also rich in added sugars, white flour, refined seed oils, and until just recently artificial trans fats. It's disingenuous to blame the ill effects on meat while ignoring these other factors.
Most people lose weight and improve health when they cut refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty foods, including animal foods.
The "standard American diet" is also rich in added sugars, white flour, refined seed oils, and until just recently artificial trans fats. It's disingenuous to blame the ill effects on meat while ignoring these other factors.
1
First, it was Obama, Then, it was Rahm. Recently, it was the Cubs, again. And now, its red meat -- and processed red meats at that.
Just how much more does Chicago have to endure???
Just how much more does Chicago have to endure???
1
Was any effort made to distinguish confounding effects of Nitrites and Metabisulfites and other meat preservatives? Being a scientist I have learned over the years to approach any study inference with healthy skepticism. Also the whole idea of putting red meat up there with Tobacco is seriously out of joint, but that is in the fine print if you care to parse the data. But its a headline grabber thats for sure.
1
This is kind of a non-story.
Yes nitrites cause cancer. End of story.
You know what else causes cancer? Eating food because metabolic activities produce free radicals.
Yes nitrites cause cancer. End of story.
You know what else causes cancer? Eating food because metabolic activities produce free radicals.
3
No surprise here.
Our food and the way it is prepared and cooked leaves people with the thought that they have eaten real food. Not so in too many cases. The food is deficient as vital parts are destroyed in the whole food line from agri-farm to the table.
But red meat has been identified for many years as a food which causes cancer. This little secret was told to me by more than one doctor in the mid 1970's.
We are what we eat. We eat bad things and the body is challenged to survive.
It could be said that what we eat feeds the medical-drug complex.
Again, no surpise except for those in denial, deluded or just insane.
Our food and the way it is prepared and cooked leaves people with the thought that they have eaten real food. Not so in too many cases. The food is deficient as vital parts are destroyed in the whole food line from agri-farm to the table.
But red meat has been identified for many years as a food which causes cancer. This little secret was told to me by more than one doctor in the mid 1970's.
We are what we eat. We eat bad things and the body is challenged to survive.
It could be said that what we eat feeds the medical-drug complex.
Again, no surpise except for those in denial, deluded or just insane.
3
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know, intuitively, that bacon and other greasy fried meats cannot be good for you. It's amazing how many people are in denial about this report. It's like 1964 all over again. Back then, the Surgeon General issued a report that smoking is dangerous to your health. At that time, Surgeon General Luther Terry said the news "hit the country like a bombshell. It was front page news and a lead story on every radio and television station in the United States and many abroad." Yet, 50 years later, people are still smoking. Bacon and processed meats are not good for you! Once you survive through a bout with cancer, this fact becomes abundantly clear. Then you are forced to change your diet -- for your own health and hopeful survival. If you really want to know about the deleterious effects of bacon and other processed foods, read "After Cancer Care" by Drs. Gerald Lemole, Pallav Mehta, and Dwight McKee. You'll find a scientific treatise on why processed foods are bad for you. And if you've survived cancer, you must change your diet and never touch the stuff again! Bacon, hot dogs, sausage -- yech!
3
I wonder if it is muscle meat in general or industrial meat production. It would be more useful to see a study of grass fed animals compared with grain fed animals who are fed large amounts of antibiotics and subjected to intense stress which contaminates the meat with adrenaline. There is a distinct difference in flavor and texture.
1
This report will, I hope, reform some meat eaters. I don't hold out a lot of hope that it will impact the vast majority of meat eaters. When it comes to meat consumption, Americans are just stupidly set in their ways. Like die hard smokers who resist warnings about smoking, it will take researchers and organizations such as the AMA (who I feel are in bed with the tobacco and meat production industries) to reveal the truly alarming statistics about how many people have gotten sick - cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure - from consuming meat before most Americans will take a step back from eating red and processed meat. Like smokers though, some people won't stop no matter what you tell them.
5
How does a statistically insignificant and likely bogus 0.5%-1% increased actual risk "reform meat eaters"? If it does anything, it gives the green light to chow down. You're insistence that meat is the bane of existence gives credence to your cult-like ideology.
1
@OGI:
People get heart disease, high blood pressure, and other chronic diseases from consuming added sugars, flours, refined seed oils, and artificial trans fats. Ditching these foods and eating more quality animal foods would be part of the solution.
People get heart disease, high blood pressure, and other chronic diseases from consuming added sugars, flours, refined seed oils, and artificial trans fats. Ditching these foods and eating more quality animal foods would be part of the solution.
1
If this study were about candy or kale, everyone in the US would be avoiding the cancer-causing food. However, in this protein-obsessed society, if scientific research indicts meat or dairy as a carcinogen, most people dismiss the research because it points out an inconvenient truth.
1
@The Voice of Reason:
We have to eat protein, and animal foods provide the most abundant, easily digested dose of protein with the correct proportions of essential amino acids. Plus a bunch of other nutrients. Kale provides some nutrition, but not as much as meat/fish/eggs/shellfish.
We don't have to eat candy.
We have to eat protein, and animal foods provide the most abundant, easily digested dose of protein with the correct proportions of essential amino acids. Plus a bunch of other nutrients. Kale provides some nutrition, but not as much as meat/fish/eggs/shellfish.
We don't have to eat candy.
First, the study is a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. This means only correlation can be drawn. Despite this the WHO strongly infers a causal role in their presser and many media outlets ran with it.
Because of the nature of this type of analysis, there and a myriad of confounding variables - things that could also explain increased risks. For instance, isn't it logical to assume processed meats are eaten with bread? Are we to assume that it was the MEAT that was the problem?
Last is the biggie. This study came up with a very low risk....0.5-1% increased risk of ONE type of cancer per 50g consumed DAILY. This doesn't sound like much so they did what many others in the past have done to inflate the numbers. They post the RELATIVE risk of 18%. This is a common practice.
For instance in the cholesterol lowering world of statins...it was found that 10% of heart attack patients will suffer a second without statins. With statins the actual risk is 8%. So in order to sell drugs, Lipitor claims a 20% reduction in risk. A bit disingenuous?
The rate is even lower for red meat. Add to that the confounding variables and correlation...I could probably come up with a study showing the health benefits of processed meat.
Because of the nature of this type of analysis, there and a myriad of confounding variables - things that could also explain increased risks. For instance, isn't it logical to assume processed meats are eaten with bread? Are we to assume that it was the MEAT that was the problem?
Last is the biggie. This study came up with a very low risk....0.5-1% increased risk of ONE type of cancer per 50g consumed DAILY. This doesn't sound like much so they did what many others in the past have done to inflate the numbers. They post the RELATIVE risk of 18%. This is a common practice.
For instance in the cholesterol lowering world of statins...it was found that 10% of heart attack patients will suffer a second without statins. With statins the actual risk is 8%. So in order to sell drugs, Lipitor claims a 20% reduction in risk. A bit disingenuous?
The rate is even lower for red meat. Add to that the confounding variables and correlation...I could probably come up with a study showing the health benefits of processed meat.
2
Pllt, I would rather have cancer and take my chance of dying in my 70s, than to avoid every risk - sunlight, for one - to scrabble after every incremental minute of life, and then take ten or fifteen years to die of frailty and dementia.
2
Why this hasn't received front page coverage ? WHO used over 800 studies to come to this critical recommendation..so why so poor coverage at the NYTimes ?
Hey, NY Times, please raise your standards of health reporting. Articles like this cause a huge buzz by misinforming people and by reinforcing poor thinking habits.
I wish you'd consider the following policies:
1) never refer to a study without citing the text (or at least the abstract) of the study itself.
2) never talk about the risk of something increasing by X percent without a discussion of what the original risks were, and what the big picture consequences are. In this article (buried way down in the text) you mention a factor of 1.1 or 1.2 increase in risk based on servings per day. This is a bit hard to parse, but beyond that, it doesn't mention what the increase is from. A 10% increase in 0.001% initial risk is not so alarming.
3) Don't be simple. Any study like this has to look at a very limited range of test conditions, and extrapolate any broader conclusions. The article acknowledges this point, but not until the 13th paragraph. I doubt that many readers make it this far. You need to be upfront about the limitations of a study, otherwise you're firmly in clickbait territory.
I wish you'd consider the following policies:
1) never refer to a study without citing the text (or at least the abstract) of the study itself.
2) never talk about the risk of something increasing by X percent without a discussion of what the original risks were, and what the big picture consequences are. In this article (buried way down in the text) you mention a factor of 1.1 or 1.2 increase in risk based on servings per day. This is a bit hard to parse, but beyond that, it doesn't mention what the increase is from. A 10% increase in 0.001% initial risk is not so alarming.
3) Don't be simple. Any study like this has to look at a very limited range of test conditions, and extrapolate any broader conclusions. The article acknowledges this point, but not until the 13th paragraph. I doubt that many readers make it this far. You need to be upfront about the limitations of a study, otherwise you're firmly in clickbait territory.
2
What's new? Very little as far as I can tell. What continues to remain? Moderation.
It doesn't matter if the study showed a 50% increase in cancer by consuming processed meats and other red meats. DO you see any decline in the purchase of such food items? Do you see steakhouses going out of business? Of course not - there's billions to be made selling this so-called harmless food to the American public. And the reaction of consumers is typical: "I've been eating this all my life - those scientists are always coming out with new studies blaming this and that for causing cancer."
Look at tomorrows restaurant review in the Times - there will be pork belly, beef, or some kind of 'slider' mentioned as highlights.
Look at tomorrows restaurant review in the Times - there will be pork belly, beef, or some kind of 'slider' mentioned as highlights.
1
Life is correlated with developing cancer, so enjoy the bacon and brats regardless.
Fifty years from now, I wonder what kinds of disease will kill us. After reading about all the foods you can't eat, what's left? Different times, different diseases.
How sad that the last part of this article gives hope to meat eaters- that the dangers are slight. That's like saying- smoking less cigarettes is okay. For me- the biggest concern will never be my health. It is the unnecessary cruelty of raising and killing animals for food when the vegan/vegetarian options are so good. The day I made the realization in 1976 that I don't need to partake of animal flesh anymore because of the inherent cruelty connected with it was a defining moment for me and I have never looked back. Thanks Peaches, my dear first puppy, wherever you are - you were the catalyst for this compassionate resolution.
3
This study, and the conclusion that these foods may be bad for you, is so silly as to better belong as a skit on Saturday Night Live. With any food, there are benefits as well as drawbacks. Beef and other animal products are unmatched in their ability to provide high quality protein, minerals, calories and many vitamins, not to mention flavor. These benefits of animal-based foods are clearly shown evolutionarily. First, we are designed to efficiently digest meats. Second, look at our ability to digest milk. Prior to the domestication of cattle, virtually all humans were lactose intolerant as adults. However, once cattle were domesticated at least 3 different mutations arose and were evolutionarily selected for (i.e., they were a superior trait) that allowed humans to digest milk as adults due to the nutritional superiority of milk over just plants, vegetables and whatever meat was available.
Or, consider oxygen - it is clearly a carcinogen. It is extremely chemically reactive and gives rise to other species in our cells (peroxides, superoxide and hydroxyl radical) that damage proteins and DNA (i.e., causes mutations). For this reason your body tries to keep oxygen levels relatively low. However, I don't think any of us want to eliminate oxygen from our bodies so we don't get cancer.
Or, consider oxygen - it is clearly a carcinogen. It is extremely chemically reactive and gives rise to other species in our cells (peroxides, superoxide and hydroxyl radical) that damage proteins and DNA (i.e., causes mutations). For this reason your body tries to keep oxygen levels relatively low. However, I don't think any of us want to eliminate oxygen from our bodies so we don't get cancer.
3
I always thought the danger to processed meats derived from the nitrates and other ingredients added, not the meat itself. Now I am really puzzled. I try to keep informed, and have some basic scientific literacy, but I am increasingly confused by all the contradictory advice out there.
Case in point: Just about all health experts agree that the Mediterranean Diet is good for you. It is one of the only things anyone seems to be able to agree on. Yet as someone who is pretty familiar with the way Italians and Greeks eat, I can't help but notice that their traditional diet contravenes just about every specific piece of food advice we get. They don't eat much breakfast; white bread and pasta, wine, full fat cheeses, cured meats, and red meats (especially pork and lamb) are staples. What they don't eat is a lot of sugar, or at least not as much as we do, or a lot of fast food and junk food. They tend not to snack, and they eat much smaller portions. They also are far more likely to eat as a family, sitting down together. And they eat vegetables and beans. (Some of the descriptions of the Mediterranean Diet I've seen suggest that Greeks eat little but bean-and-greens or lentil soup with a tiny bit of wine. Not true.)
If cured meats were a major cause of cancer, you'd think the salumi-loving Italians would be suffering the results? Are they? And how about the wurst-consuming Germans? I don't tend to think of Itlay and Germany as high cancer nations. Are they?
Case in point: Just about all health experts agree that the Mediterranean Diet is good for you. It is one of the only things anyone seems to be able to agree on. Yet as someone who is pretty familiar with the way Italians and Greeks eat, I can't help but notice that their traditional diet contravenes just about every specific piece of food advice we get. They don't eat much breakfast; white bread and pasta, wine, full fat cheeses, cured meats, and red meats (especially pork and lamb) are staples. What they don't eat is a lot of sugar, or at least not as much as we do, or a lot of fast food and junk food. They tend not to snack, and they eat much smaller portions. They also are far more likely to eat as a family, sitting down together. And they eat vegetables and beans. (Some of the descriptions of the Mediterranean Diet I've seen suggest that Greeks eat little but bean-and-greens or lentil soup with a tiny bit of wine. Not true.)
If cured meats were a major cause of cancer, you'd think the salumi-loving Italians would be suffering the results? Are they? And how about the wurst-consuming Germans? I don't tend to think of Itlay and Germany as high cancer nations. Are they?
1
This article states cooking meat at a high temperature creates chemicals that cause cancer. Cooking mest at slow temperature lessens chemicals that cause cancer.
The bottom line up front; eliminate chemicals in the feeding and production of meat and cook at low temperatures and you reduce the risk of getting colon cancer from meat products.
In the interest of full disclosure I cure and smoke my own bacon, ham, chicken, and turkey at home on a ceramic smoker. By doing the curing myself I know the source and cut of meat, I limit the amount of curing salts and sugars and I use the low and slow method of smoking meat at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
I don't see any breaking news in this report. The only new information is publication of the W.H.O. report. This report is the result of reviewing approximately 800 previously published studies.
At age 65 nothing I read in the report is compelling enough to change my dietary behaviors. In fact, for me, the report provides few if any answers and raises more questions. What chemicals contained in animal feed and meat processing specifically contribute to increased risk of colon cancer? Will reducing the amount of those chemicals reduce the health risk? And what exactly is the temperature that these beneficial chemicals become carcinogenic?
When we have answers to those questions we will have information meriting the public's attention.
In the interest of full disclosure I cure and smoke my own bacon, ham, chicken, and turkey at home on a ceramic smoker. By doing the curing myself I know the source and cut of meat, I limit the amount of curing salts and sugars and I use the low and slow method of smoking meat at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
I don't see any breaking news in this report. The only new information is publication of the W.H.O. report. This report is the result of reviewing approximately 800 previously published studies.
At age 65 nothing I read in the report is compelling enough to change my dietary behaviors. In fact, for me, the report provides few if any answers and raises more questions. What chemicals contained in animal feed and meat processing specifically contribute to increased risk of colon cancer? Will reducing the amount of those chemicals reduce the health risk? And what exactly is the temperature that these beneficial chemicals become carcinogenic?
When we have answers to those questions we will have information meriting the public's attention.
1
Who in their right minds eats red meat processed in any way in U.S. slaughterhouses? The sanitary controls are inadequate. Downers are in the mix. I stopped eating red meat five years ago because the chance is not worth it. Most of the people I know are recent vegetarians for this and other reasons. Those friends contain numerous in the medical professions. Would I eat red meat in Europe? Yes, if local to the country not imported for price from say China.
1
First and foremost, this is not news. It has been known for decades, and received extensive media coverage and public discussion in the 1970s. Nitrosamines have been known since then to be produced in the body through the digestion of nitrites, and known to be carcinogenic.
Second, it used to be a joke that everything causes cancer. It may even be true that any extreme eating habit (say, drinking 2 gallons of orange juice per day) will lead to health problems. Moderation is the key! And remember the 1970s bumper sticker: Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Second, it used to be a joke that everything causes cancer. It may even be true that any extreme eating habit (say, drinking 2 gallons of orange juice per day) will lead to health problems. Moderation is the key! And remember the 1970s bumper sticker: Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Bacon defenders, meet climate change deniers.
4
How the heck did peoples like the Inuit and Northern Plains Indians just not keep dying from cancer? Oh, don't tell me they didn't get old enough, the records of early explorers and priests tell us otherwise. After infant mortality, trauma was the great killer in hunter-gatherer societies until the inevitability of aging killed.
Natural meat doesn't kill. Something "elses" are going on. Perhaps eating just muscle meats is part of the problem. Certainly, processing them can't be good - except don't forget that some of the basic processes gave longer lives to meat for storage.
But the fact is that despite all of the data, the fact that so many members of the committee - educated scientists - were not willing to condemn meat, or processed meat is indicative of the reality: Who knows beyond data just outside margin of error? Very iffy. They are thinking 30,000 cancer deaths a year from something so universal and evolutionarily historical as meat eating? We lose that many to gun deaths just in the USA.
Not worried.
Natural meat doesn't kill. Something "elses" are going on. Perhaps eating just muscle meats is part of the problem. Certainly, processing them can't be good - except don't forget that some of the basic processes gave longer lives to meat for storage.
But the fact is that despite all of the data, the fact that so many members of the committee - educated scientists - were not willing to condemn meat, or processed meat is indicative of the reality: Who knows beyond data just outside margin of error? Very iffy. They are thinking 30,000 cancer deaths a year from something so universal and evolutionarily historical as meat eating? We lose that many to gun deaths just in the USA.
Not worried.
2
Hyperbolic headline. It is quite difficult to directly link (show causation) between one specific food and the development of a lifestyle/chronic disease in humans. The sheer number of control variables (dietary, genetic and lifestyle factors) are mind boggling and need to be followed over the course of many years. Yes - the epidemiological evidence is strong for making the case that diets high in processed meats are linked to cancer (specifically colorectal cancer). However, much of the research presented by WHO is from self-reported data -which is commonly flawed. Observational studies can give researchers the ammunition for their hypothesis but fall way short of beyond a reasonable doubt. These studies never even get to the “experiment” stage in the scientific method! Not great science.
"...to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent." -The Scientist
But I admit, most American's health (and our environment) could likely benefit greatly from eating less meat and more whole vegetables.
"...to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent." -The Scientist
But I admit, most American's health (and our environment) could likely benefit greatly from eating less meat and more whole vegetables.
2
My good cholesterol is now 131. I've been eating a lot of meat fried in olive oil together with vegetables. I eat a lot of fish and chicken too but the pork and beef is more filling.
3
I don't think this study deserves the large, over hyped headline that the NYTimes put on it. The average person really shouldn't make any huge diet changes based on this. Here is why:
1) In my statistics class, I learned that a "Statistically Significant Difference" and a "Practically Significant Difference" ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!
Statistical significance basically just means that math is telling you that any differences you are seeing in your experiment are probably real, and not just due to random chance. However, this difference could also be very small. This headline is making a big hype about the statistical significance.
Practical Significance is the answer to the questions "Do we care about this difference? Does it actually mean anything?"
For example (this is hypothetical with made up numbers, just to illustrate the concept): Maybe you run a study that detects a 0.1% IQ difference between drivers of American Cars and Japanese Cars. It's statistically significant, because the math tells you that there is only a very small chance that the difference is just due to randomness. However, nobody should actually care that drivers of Japanese cars are 0.1% smarter than drivers of American cars. The result has no meaningful impact on society.
2) Also, how does eating red and processed meat affect diseases besides cancer? I'm not an expert on nutrition, so I'd like to know if eating red meat actually lowers your risk of other diseases (such as bone loss, etc).
1) In my statistics class, I learned that a "Statistically Significant Difference" and a "Practically Significant Difference" ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!
Statistical significance basically just means that math is telling you that any differences you are seeing in your experiment are probably real, and not just due to random chance. However, this difference could also be very small. This headline is making a big hype about the statistical significance.
Practical Significance is the answer to the questions "Do we care about this difference? Does it actually mean anything?"
For example (this is hypothetical with made up numbers, just to illustrate the concept): Maybe you run a study that detects a 0.1% IQ difference between drivers of American Cars and Japanese Cars. It's statistically significant, because the math tells you that there is only a very small chance that the difference is just due to randomness. However, nobody should actually care that drivers of Japanese cars are 0.1% smarter than drivers of American cars. The result has no meaningful impact on society.
2) Also, how does eating red and processed meat affect diseases besides cancer? I'm not an expert on nutrition, so I'd like to know if eating red meat actually lowers your risk of other diseases (such as bone loss, etc).
5
So we are advised to "moderate our intake of processed meats," and not to be "terrorized" into eating no meat at all.
The average North American eats 25-30 other animals each year--and even a "moderate" intake takes its toll on innocent animals. And anyone who has seen videos of what happens inside a factory farm or slaughterhouse will know that it's not the scientists advising us against meat eating who are doing the terrorizing.
Alone among animals, humans possess both the biological capacity to live full and healthy lives without consuming the flesh or milk or eggs of other animals,* and the mental capacity to make an ethical choice not to eat those animals or what they have made.
If, in the face of these facts, we choose to kill our fellow creatures and eat them anyway—routinely, for no better reason than that we like the taste of eating the flesh of the animals we have killed, or the taste of their milk and their eggs, or that it has become a habit we cannot bother to break—we are surely, as a species, the worst of all creatures.
* As www.nutritionfacts.org and other authorities keep reporting, humans who choose not to eat other animals are typically far, far healthier on a day-to-day basis than are humans who eat other animals’ flesh and eggs and drink other animals’ milk. They're also far more resistant to a long list of diseases.
The average North American eats 25-30 other animals each year--and even a "moderate" intake takes its toll on innocent animals. And anyone who has seen videos of what happens inside a factory farm or slaughterhouse will know that it's not the scientists advising us against meat eating who are doing the terrorizing.
Alone among animals, humans possess both the biological capacity to live full and healthy lives without consuming the flesh or milk or eggs of other animals,* and the mental capacity to make an ethical choice not to eat those animals or what they have made.
If, in the face of these facts, we choose to kill our fellow creatures and eat them anyway—routinely, for no better reason than that we like the taste of eating the flesh of the animals we have killed, or the taste of their milk and their eggs, or that it has become a habit we cannot bother to break—we are surely, as a species, the worst of all creatures.
* As www.nutritionfacts.org and other authorities keep reporting, humans who choose not to eat other animals are typically far, far healthier on a day-to-day basis than are humans who eat other animals’ flesh and eggs and drink other animals’ milk. They're also far more resistant to a long list of diseases.
5
@Don LePan:
We're omnivores, and have been since before we were even human. A strictly vegan diet is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species, and is unlikely to produce health in most people.
Eating a diet of varied animal and plant foods is not a "habit," it's a biological adaptation.
We're omnivores, and have been since before we were even human. A strictly vegan diet is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species, and is unlikely to produce health in most people.
Eating a diet of varied animal and plant foods is not a "habit," it's a biological adaptation.
Worrying is undoubtedly a risk factor for many diseases, including fatal ones, and headlines such as this one will likely cause much greater risk than an occasional Jr. Whopper.
As to those who want labeling: it's largely useless. For decades industry fought the labeling of carcinogens in California (eventually mandated by Prop.65) and adverse drug effects throughout the U.S. Consumer groups won the battles but lost the wars. Labeling of hazards has become so extensive and so detailed, that no one pays attention anymore. What good does it do to have a sign on a gas pump saying the gas is a carcinogen, when all gas pumps say it? What good are the zillion side effects listed on drugs, when all drugs have a zillion side effects, and the probability of each occurring is never mentioned?
A detail: the article says, "The panel defined processed meat as those 'transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.'” How about jerky? It's not listed, but it is most definitely a form of preservation. If nothing is added -- except salt, pepper, sugar, vinegar, and chile in some varieties -- it is hard to see a route to carcinogenicity.
As to those who want labeling: it's largely useless. For decades industry fought the labeling of carcinogens in California (eventually mandated by Prop.65) and adverse drug effects throughout the U.S. Consumer groups won the battles but lost the wars. Labeling of hazards has become so extensive and so detailed, that no one pays attention anymore. What good does it do to have a sign on a gas pump saying the gas is a carcinogen, when all gas pumps say it? What good are the zillion side effects listed on drugs, when all drugs have a zillion side effects, and the probability of each occurring is never mentioned?
A detail: the article says, "The panel defined processed meat as those 'transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.'” How about jerky? It's not listed, but it is most definitely a form of preservation. If nothing is added -- except salt, pepper, sugar, vinegar, and chile in some varieties -- it is hard to see a route to carcinogenicity.
1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the {latter times} some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and {commanding to abstain from meats}, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving "
The main cause of cancer is anti-metabolites, Anti-metabolites are anything that interfere with the processing of energy within a living organism such as cell. Pesticides and herbecides ("cide" meaning, kill) that are sprayed on crops that are fed to animals that humans later eat, are the main causeof cancer in humans, not the meat itself. And the fattier the meat, the more ant-imetabolites will be in the meat because pesticides, for example attach easily to fat molecules. Non-fat milk from cows fed Anti-metabolite-filled grains will have less poisons than whole milk; butter from such cows hold the most poisons. Bacon, etc, from organically grown pigs do not have the cancer-causing effect that "normal" bacon does. After WW Two, when pesticides and herbicides began to be heavily used in the USA, the cancer rate in children went up accordingly. Young bodies just beginning to be made, absorbed more poisons and this had a heavier effect on them than it did adults whose bodies had already developed. This was taught in biology 101 courses in the 60's, but few today seem to understand that pesticides. herbicides, and other anti-metabolites (also in plastics! traffic pollution, hair sprays and all aerosols in general ) are the real cause of most cancers. The billions spent on cancer research should have included constant public warning about anti-metabolites,not food. This is a good reason for stop using pesticides! Eat organic. Either that, or stop whining about cancer.
3
Thank you William for bringing the focus where it belongs!
The headline is appallingly misleading and the article totally ignores the real culprit.
All we need is to create another anxiety about food to divert attention from what is really killing us. NYT could have done much better.
The headline is appallingly misleading and the article totally ignores the real culprit.
All we need is to create another anxiety about food to divert attention from what is really killing us. NYT could have done much better.
I don't need science to tell me that the cruelty involved in raising and slaughtering animals is just that -- cruelty. So, even though I'm not completely rigid about it, I virtually never eat meat from mammals, i.e. cows, pigs, sheep, lambs. If you love your dog or cat, ask yourself how different these other mammals are from your beloved pet, and consider the conditions in which they are raised and then slaughtered.
9
Please take the time to consider that natural death is most often neither swift nor painless, and that meat animals raised humanely have a safer life and better food security than those in the wild. Ethical people who wish to continue eating meat have accomplished tremendous good, in improving the conditions of animal husbandry.
Everything dies, including us. Most of us cannot expect a death as quick and merciful as those of chickens, calves, lambs and kids raised by ethical farmers.
Everything dies, including us. Most of us cannot expect a death as quick and merciful as those of chickens, calves, lambs and kids raised by ethical farmers.
Species bigot. :-) Seriously, I don't see the "mammal" argument; there are many non-mammalian pets, e.g., parrot family, that are intelligent, affectionate, interact.
Just like everything else, It is all about moderation. Eating these meats (bacon, sausage, ham) once or twice a week is probably not going to hurt; eating them twice a day, might.
1
Sadly, it isn't "processing" per-se, which is the problem; because our food industry could EASILY create 'processed' food that was healthy, but the public would largely reject it.
The biggest problem is that consumers in general won't purchase food that isn't perceived as being 'tasty'.
And that tastiness comes largely from fat & salt, which are cheap. Also the public is largely indifferent to having their foods loaded with preservatives, which again, plays into the economics of the current model of processed foods.
The "Food Industry" would be only too happy to create healthy processed foods, if that is what the public demanded. But what the public actually will buy on a predictable consistent basis is cheap food that is 'tasty'.
Go through any Supermarket and read the nutrition labels on all the "Healthy-Choice" type foods, and you will find that they are all loaded to the max with fat & salt.
I recently had a checkout person argue with me about how good my frozen vegetables were, it only I got the packages where they were seasoned with SEA-Salt
The biggest problem is that consumers in general won't purchase food that isn't perceived as being 'tasty'.
And that tastiness comes largely from fat & salt, which are cheap. Also the public is largely indifferent to having their foods loaded with preservatives, which again, plays into the economics of the current model of processed foods.
The "Food Industry" would be only too happy to create healthy processed foods, if that is what the public demanded. But what the public actually will buy on a predictable consistent basis is cheap food that is 'tasty'.
Go through any Supermarket and read the nutrition labels on all the "Healthy-Choice" type foods, and you will find that they are all loaded to the max with fat & salt.
I recently had a checkout person argue with me about how good my frozen vegetables were, it only I got the packages where they were seasoned with SEA-Salt
1
Or, it could be the other way around - it has been shown that certain mixes of fat, salt, sugar are very addictive beyond nutritive needs, something the food industry is well aware of, and that means a lot of sales of processed food, more bucks for the food industry. Food in many other countries has a lot less junk in it yet people buy it, just less of it - it tends to be more expensive on the one hand, but the lack of junk in it makes it less addictive on the other hand.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS . . .
...sure there is probably a correlation as stated in the WHO mega study. But, the magnitude of risk is far more important. Then do a risk/benefit ratio. Cigarettes cause about one-fifth of smokers to get lung cancer. Driving kills about 40K each year in the U. S. alone.
Do people realize that there is a perfect cause and effect perfect correlation between being born and death?
All this study demonstrates how quickly the news media selects stories which seem to be startling and interesting and of no importance.
Where are the media when it comes to problems which could end all human life on this planet ... global warming and nuclear proliferation. Or, do the vested interests via D. C. lobbyists end the network nightly news broadcasts with a benign story about a kitten being raised by a dog?
...sure there is probably a correlation as stated in the WHO mega study. But, the magnitude of risk is far more important. Then do a risk/benefit ratio. Cigarettes cause about one-fifth of smokers to get lung cancer. Driving kills about 40K each year in the U. S. alone.
Do people realize that there is a perfect cause and effect perfect correlation between being born and death?
All this study demonstrates how quickly the news media selects stories which seem to be startling and interesting and of no importance.
Where are the media when it comes to problems which could end all human life on this planet ... global warming and nuclear proliferation. Or, do the vested interests via D. C. lobbyists end the network nightly news broadcasts with a benign story about a kitten being raised by a dog?
7
My urologist, the eminent William Catalona, MD of Northwestern in Chicago, explained to me that my overindulgence in animal fats, particularly in red meat, was a main contributing factor in my diagnosis of prostate cancer at the age of 48 and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The inordinate amount of meat one consumes in the Anglo world cannot be healthy from an oncological nor from a cardiological perspective. High time we gave red meat the heave-ho. I did and remain cancer-free after many years since my surgery.
7
To put this in perspective, the WHO says that worldwide, 34,000 extra deaths can be attributed to eating meat. Meanwhile, every year about more than 200,000 people are struck by lightning. As a health economist who read this report carefully, I find myself more likely to eat red meat now. (Processed meats hold prostate cancer risk -- still a no-no.) I've been denying myself red meat, thinking the risk was much greater than it is. So today I'm eating a burger. In the immortal words of the great philosopher Sammy Davis Jr., I've got a lot of living to do.
7
You need to get out more. People are cooking wonderful meatless dishes these days. Why deprive yourself? You should open up your mind a bit and you might just discover a big, large world beyond cheeseburgers and fries.
Many years ago (I think I was sixteen) I read a study that showed a large discrepancy between Americans and Japanese. Americans had the highest incidence of colorectal cancer in the world while Japanese had the lowest. The main difference between their diets was the consumption of red meat. Japanese ate very little while Americans were big beef and pork eaters. Around that time my father (who loved bacon and pot roasts) had his first heart attack, and his doctor counseled him to lay off the red meat, especially the fatty portions. Since that time I have consciously limited my consumption of red meat. I do eat soups with beef or pork in them and occasionally have Chinese food with beef or pork, but I never sit down and eat a steak or a slab of ribs or even a hamburger (although I loved them as a child and young adult). I'm nearing 70 and I have no heart disease or cancer problems. I had a thorough checkup with blood work and all last year; my doctor said, "Get out of here. We won't be seeing you for long time."
5
So, would this apply also to plant-based meat substitutes? In other words, what part of this is the meat itself, and what part is the smoked flavoring?
As for hot dogs, this isn't really news. When I lived in the Upper Midwest several years ago, some of the main highways featured billboards bearing somewhat tasteless, but doubtless effective ads of the backside of the stereotypical plumber, in saggy pants, with the caption, "Hot Dogs Cause Butt Cancer." Can't really be more direct than that!
As for hot dogs, this isn't really news. When I lived in the Upper Midwest several years ago, some of the main highways featured billboards bearing somewhat tasteless, but doubtless effective ads of the backside of the stereotypical plumber, in saggy pants, with the caption, "Hot Dogs Cause Butt Cancer." Can't really be more direct than that!
2
High heat in cooking protein rich food seems to be the problem. Roasting almonds can produce carcinogens for example.
1
It does not. The cancer-causing compound (hererocyclic amine, or HCA) is not formed when grilling plant-based foods. Creatine, a component of muscle tissue is necessary for its formation.
Here's a theory about why consuming meat is hazardous: animals are fed tainted food, antibiotics, grains (rather than grass), growth enhancers, and are raised in unhealthy conditions and environments. Moreover, the level of chemicals used and released in America are largely unregulated. If these aren't enough reasons, nature sequesters contaminants in fat, so shouldn't it make sense not to consume fat-laden meat and dairy?
14
When did I first hear of Colon cancer...an older friend in the mid-90s casually mentioned he had suffered a bout of it two years earlier when he was over for dinner one night. It was to come back. He did not smoke or drink. When it comes to his diet, I would describe him as a 'meat and potato' man, a humanitarian, passionate about the welfare of children, he once had a fit because a cat he was looking after, ate one of his chocolate doughnuts.
Do you remember 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair about immigrants working the stockyards of Chicago? Well-researched, documented, it caused the public to roar, and was to change the practices of the meat industry in America.
Some of us here have grown-up on processed meats, continue to eat these and other red meat with a balance of vegetables and fruit, non-organic and tinned. 'Frozen' by the way is supposed to be healthier.
This latest finding by the W.H.O. is not to instill fear in us, but a cautionary note to eat processed food, particularly meat produce, in moderation.
Do not be surprised if when shopping, canned sardines and 'albacore' tuna, the price will be on the rise.
Most of us need a little fat in our diet. Walnuts are expensive. I noticed a man in his 80s stare when I placed some butter on a piece of bread. Never mind if I look 'frail', if one has a hot dog at times, or shares some fries with a friend, we will live.
I am more concerned that our food supply may be dwindling. All in moderation.
Do you remember 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair about immigrants working the stockyards of Chicago? Well-researched, documented, it caused the public to roar, and was to change the practices of the meat industry in America.
Some of us here have grown-up on processed meats, continue to eat these and other red meat with a balance of vegetables and fruit, non-organic and tinned. 'Frozen' by the way is supposed to be healthier.
This latest finding by the W.H.O. is not to instill fear in us, but a cautionary note to eat processed food, particularly meat produce, in moderation.
Do not be surprised if when shopping, canned sardines and 'albacore' tuna, the price will be on the rise.
Most of us need a little fat in our diet. Walnuts are expensive. I noticed a man in his 80s stare when I placed some butter on a piece of bread. Never mind if I look 'frail', if one has a hot dog at times, or shares some fries with a friend, we will live.
I am more concerned that our food supply may be dwindling. All in moderation.
1
Not to mention the chemicals used along the food production lines to clean them. As someone sensitive to fungicides, I am the canary here. I know after I react. Somewhere between migraine and throwing up (wine, one sip). Since you cannot determine what chemicals by exposure in processing, it is hard for me to do more than guess.
No, what would make sense is to stop filling our meat and dairy with hormones, antibiotics, and unnatural feeds.
Imported meat also or is meat produced in America only?
1
Just imported meat. American meat is still good for you.
I'm speaking as a physician: the only reason why a plant-based diet isn't pushed harder by the medical industrial complex is because there is not a financial incentive to do so. There is a financial incentive to have sick patients and treat them with:
- stents in clogged arteries,
- bypass surgeries for multiple clogged arteries,
- statin medications to lower their cholesterol
Do you think people who eat a plant-based diet have to go to the doctor as much? Where would my income come from without sick patients?
- stents in clogged arteries,
- bypass surgeries for multiple clogged arteries,
- statin medications to lower their cholesterol
Do you think people who eat a plant-based diet have to go to the doctor as much? Where would my income come from without sick patients?
69
A plant based diet (without ships bringing, year round, vegetables and fruits from warmer lands) in cold climates would spell death for humans living there. Since the 1950's it has been known that It is the man-made carcinogens (pesticides and herbicides) in meat that cause the most problems. That and human-created air pollution, plus tobacco and other poisons that too many humans ingest daily. Hair spray! Then we have the office life which is hardly conducive to burning up fats that clog arteries. And do remember that vitamin B-12 is only produced in Nature in animal. If one simply must be a vegan, please do eat organically: and buy those factory-made Vit -12 pills. And live in a warm climate!
3
I have seen plant based diet eating folks getting cancer as much as meat eaters, if not more.
3
As a physician, I strongly disagree with your cynical criticism of doctors. The overwhelming majority of doctors (thousands) with whom I interacted want patients/people at large to be healthy.
And please tell us how many physicians you calculate to be a part of a "medical industrial complex."
And please tell us how many physicians you calculate to be a part of a "medical industrial complex."
3
I'm a low-carber who pretty much by necessity eats red meat. Often a burger or a steak is the only thing I can eat that isn't smothered in some kind of breading, sweeteners and/or dairy. I was vindicated when they started publishing calories in chain restaurants. The steak is almost always the lowest calorie entree on the menu - much lower than such fare as salad with chicken, dried cranberries, croutons and cheese.
6
Hard to know what to take away from any food study these days given the contradictory findings and flip flopping about "bad" foods. I might eat a bit less of these foods but probably not cut them out completely. My intuition is fake sugar and low/non-fat foods are more damaging.
20
Thank you, George S, for some horse sense. There is a suggestion among food experts to eat in moderation 'whole' foods, as opposed to 'fake' sweeteners and artificial ingredients. The diet soda industry has been condemned. When two children were over the other evening, the younger, a boy of 9 carrying a little puppy fat, they only drink Coca-Cola and orange juice on occasion, and I did not ask about their sugar intake, which is probably higher than mine if possible at their age, but they look just fine.
At their age, they can probably eat a Knickerbocker Glory on a Sunday as a treat and enjoy it. As a child, it used to annoy this food hound at the time, when a parent smiled at my tackling a dessert that had enough real sugar to keep us happy for a winter supply. The parent lived until past 90, on a steady if measured amount of real sugar and chocolate. There was a role turn-around of: 'don't leave the box of chocolates unsupervised, or they will be gone and my parent will get ill'.
Some of us are living to eat now, and try calling someone if there is an emergency during lunch. Their reaction may give one a chill at their inability to place down their fork in time to digest the news. I once had to call an undertaker in Europe, forgot the time difference, and he regretfully explained that he was at lunch. Death can wait apparently.
Wishing you a hale, hearty, healthy appetite and whatever you like best.
At their age, they can probably eat a Knickerbocker Glory on a Sunday as a treat and enjoy it. As a child, it used to annoy this food hound at the time, when a parent smiled at my tackling a dessert that had enough real sugar to keep us happy for a winter supply. The parent lived until past 90, on a steady if measured amount of real sugar and chocolate. There was a role turn-around of: 'don't leave the box of chocolates unsupervised, or they will be gone and my parent will get ill'.
Some of us are living to eat now, and try calling someone if there is an emergency during lunch. Their reaction may give one a chill at their inability to place down their fork in time to digest the news. I once had to call an undertaker in Europe, forgot the time difference, and he regretfully explained that he was at lunch. Death can wait apparently.
Wishing you a hale, hearty, healthy appetite and whatever you like best.
1
The WHO states that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and people start foaming at the mouth ready to burn down Monsatan. The WHO states that processed (i.e. cooked) red meats is carcinogenic and people rush to the defense of the meat industry. It's funny how people will stick to whatever supports their narrative.*
Even if meat didn't cause cancer, there is still some suspicious data on heart disease and obesity. The environmental degradation is a given and so is the decrease in animal welfare. It simply doesn't compare to a plant-based diet.
*Vegans/vegetarians actually avoid both GMOs and meat since most GMOs are consumed by animals and not humans directly.
-Vegetarian, PhD student - Plant biotechnology
Even if meat didn't cause cancer, there is still some suspicious data on heart disease and obesity. The environmental degradation is a given and so is the decrease in animal welfare. It simply doesn't compare to a plant-based diet.
*Vegans/vegetarians actually avoid both GMOs and meat since most GMOs are consumed by animals and not humans directly.
-Vegetarian, PhD student - Plant biotechnology
16
I do hope you are not saying that Inuit and other north land folk (where plants just cannot sustain life for long, and where edible plants are scarce!) should give up meat? Not to mention it is the cancer-causing pesticides and pesticides in modern meat that causes cancer, not the meat. The pesticides used on tobacco are a main source of lung cancer, not just the tobacco plant, which, pre-pesticides, was used for centuries without that cancer problem. And while I am sharing biology 101 info that should be known to a PhD in, I suppose, plant biology, I should also point out that vegetarians have a hard time getting essential vitamin-12, which is only found in nature in animals. Ban anti-metabolite-filled food for animals, not meat. Otherwise people in cold climates will have to move to the already over-populated sub-tropical and tropical regions. The only vegetarians that can live in cold climates (pre pollution-causing ships bringing, year-round, veg and fruits from warm lands) walk on four legs.
4
@Calvin:
Most people lose weight and improve their heart disease risk when they eat more naturally fatty foods, including animal foods. An omnivorous diet provides more nutrition than a strictly vegan diet.
Most people lose weight and improve their heart disease risk when they eat more naturally fatty foods, including animal foods. An omnivorous diet provides more nutrition than a strictly vegan diet.
2
I grew up on fried bologna sandwiches, bacon wrapped meat loaf and corned beef and cabbage. As a teenager I helped my dad by spraying pesticides on our family farm. I was diagnosed with appendix cancer at age 39. I am now 40 and a vegetarian (pretty close to vegan). I feel healthier not eating meat, but if it was the culprit in my case, the damage has been done. Who knows if it was? Cancer, like sausage, remains such a mystery.
47
It was the pesticides. Farmers started getting higher rates of cancer after WW Two, when pesticides began being used extensively on crops fed to animals. But it affected young. growing bodies the most, whether ingested in food, or absorbed by the skin or lungs. American families used bug "bombs" in the house! And outside during picnics. But when it comes to pesticide-filled animal products, pesticides have a tendency to attach to fat molecules, so fatty cuts like bacon (or butter for that matter) have more poisons concentrated in them. Another killer, thanks to pesticides, is new cars! Early plastics (using a type of protein) in cars were not a problem, but microbes eating this protein could weaken, even crumble, say, a steering wheel made of it, so pesticide poisons like benzine were added, and, viola!, steering wheels and dashboards that lasted, and lasted, and lasted. No microbe with any sense of survival came anywhere near that plastic! The plastic dashboards let off cancer-causing gases (benzene), especially on hot days! The result, leukemia. Wealthy people bought new cars with AC, thus keeping the gases inside where their infants and children breathed in the gases. People buying used cars had less of a problem because the gases had dissipated. Aint science fun?! You can find tons of web sites explaining about benzine, and a ton that -paid by car makers- deny the problem. But benzene factories make their workers wear special masks! Like I said: Aint science fun!?
3
Caurie Putnam in Brockport: So sorry about your health. I grew up nearby. Western NY has had its share of other pollutants. A Time article years ago flagged Batavia as having a major issue. I could never find what. Who dumped what there? It was ranked with Love Canal on the Time map. What did Kodak in Rochester do with its organic chemicals? No idea. Remember the spraying over Western NY by the Federal gov? How much or what? There is a book in there for someone.
Thumbs up on that last line: "Cancer, like sausage, remains such a mystery."
Wow, the beef representative says these findings are bogus. What a surprise. Always consider the source.
19
Reminiscent of the tobacco moguls testifying in Congress a few years back, all claiming that cigarettes were not a risk to the public health. All those s.o.b.'s should be in jail, along with those Wall Street bandits who destroyed the American economy and thousands of lives around the country.
14
Thank you, WHO, for giving bubble-headed morning TV anchors and radio talk show hosts something to tut-tut about for a few days until the next "report" is issued. How did I ever survive all these years eating bacon or bologna sandwiches for lunch in school? Pass the cheeseburgers, please.
12
You'll discover that as you pass into old age all your old habits catch up with you. I guess I would say you can run but you can't hide from your past.
I speak from my own experience.
I speak from my own experience.
2
I hope you have good health insurance!
Gone hot dogs? Don't tell the children about this. They are quite susceptible at times and might be alarmed at the next outdoor barbecue. In the meantime, it is surprising that the W.H.O. has been a bit slow in sharing with the public this report, knowing that it would cause an uproar.
While we are living to a much greater age these two generations last, we are also subject to more ailments and illnesses. The medical drug industry is booming and if Americans were taking vitamins in the 50s, they are taking far more today.
Living in our big polluted cities can be difficult because the air is toxic. Chemicals abound in household products and there is a reason that the dry-cleaners has a sign reading 'organic'. Plastic wrap and food containers might be suspect. What about our kitchenware? What are pots and pans made of today? Would it be safer to cook a hot dog over a campfire on a stick than in a frying pan?
While The fight against cancer continues, are we closer to finding a vaccine shot? Tremendous work and scientific breakthroughs are taking place, and taking this opportunity to thank medical scientists on a global-basis for their ongoing work.
While we are living to a much greater age these two generations last, we are also subject to more ailments and illnesses. The medical drug industry is booming and if Americans were taking vitamins in the 50s, they are taking far more today.
Living in our big polluted cities can be difficult because the air is toxic. Chemicals abound in household products and there is a reason that the dry-cleaners has a sign reading 'organic'. Plastic wrap and food containers might be suspect. What about our kitchenware? What are pots and pans made of today? Would it be safer to cook a hot dog over a campfire on a stick than in a frying pan?
While The fight against cancer continues, are we closer to finding a vaccine shot? Tremendous work and scientific breakthroughs are taking place, and taking this opportunity to thank medical scientists on a global-basis for their ongoing work.
1
I'm approaching 70 years old. No W.H.O. or any other special interest group is going to keep me from eating medium rare prime rib or any other tasty beef product. Life is far too short to deny such a pleasurable activity.
17
In his latest book, "The Meaning of Human Existence," renowned biologist E.O. Wilson writes that we, as a species, are "innately dysfunctional." Here's another example.
9
Fine and good riddance.
1
Bravo JR!
The risk is quite small. Life is inherently risky business and it is reasonable to choose quality over quantity. And yet there is more debate over this than firearms.
22
I agree that firearms need more debate, but the number one killer in America is cardiovascular disease! And cardiovascular high killing rates only happens in affluent countries where the high consumption of animals byproducts exist. So, let's debate it!!
15
In part, risk is measured by likelihood of exposure. Food trumps guns by a mile. But, if you want to focus purely on numbers, firearms are around 10th on the list of things which kill us. Do try and stay informed, please.
1
Agree this is debatable, and past 60, I will admit to a case of virulent measles at 14 where I lost some weight on a boiled potato for dinner. The high consumption of 'anything' can make the grass grow green over one's grave. Chronic stress and being subjected to continuous noise disruption can up the ante for cardiovascular diseases.
Let us set down our weapons and continue to enjoy a balanced diet in our nation of extremists.
Let us set down our weapons and continue to enjoy a balanced diet in our nation of extremists.
1
This is the first media report on this announcement that actually put the warning into context. Others leave people to believe that if they eat a ham sandwich once a day it's as dangerous as a pack a day cigarette habit. The average American is going to become hysterical that they're going to drop dead from prosciutto poisoning. I'm dreading the next two decades of erroneous sanctimoniousness from vegetarians.
16
Erroneous sanctimoniousness, though annoying, doesn't kill, isn't a cancer risk.
6
Did you know that the number one killer in America is cardiovascular disease? And cardiovascular high killing rates only happens in affluent countries where the high consumption of animals byproducts exist. So, let's debate it!!
4
The thought of being subjected to erroneous sanctimoniousness, possibly contagious, is enough to drive one to the fridge in search of a roast chicken drumstick for breakfast. Talking about cancer all the time cannot be good for one's health.
1
The primary reason to stop eating factory-farmed meat is because it causes great misery to the animals every bit as sentient, intelligent and capable to feel pain as our dogs and cats, and even human toddlers. And any modest legislations that would relieve animal suffering, like restriction on immobilizing pig crates were callously crushed by the industry and its subservient politicians.
The secondary reason to stop eating the factory-farmed meat is because it's ecologically unsustainable, especially as more and more people from developing countries will start eating meat in large quantities.
As important it is, personal health is only the tertiary reason why conscionable people should give up eating factory-farmed meat. I hope though, that those indifferent to the animal suffering and the Planet, aren't also indifferent about their personal health.
The secondary reason to stop eating the factory-farmed meat is because it's ecologically unsustainable, especially as more and more people from developing countries will start eating meat in large quantities.
As important it is, personal health is only the tertiary reason why conscionable people should give up eating factory-farmed meat. I hope though, that those indifferent to the animal suffering and the Planet, aren't also indifferent about their personal health.
46
Extremely well said. bravo.
3
A friend, a staunch vegetarian, whose parent was a butcher and lived into his 90s, has just told me of some care-free farms where domestic animals are being rescued in America, and is planning to send the web to save 'Wilbur'. For the time being, while enjoying here a slice of duck on occasion, pennies are being saved for the Wildlife Fund, many of these rescue members are ferocious carnivores, and refuse to eat corn.
no mention made about the quality of the meat? the source? how the animals were raised etc...without quality comparisons, this information is pretty much not useful to the consumer. Anyone who shops, cooks and eats will tell you that food quality DOES matter. Not all "processes" are equal either- bacon sourced from a free range, well raised, anti-biotic and hormone free animal cannot be compared to factory farmed Hormel bacon. Just NOT the same. So, to me this "news" is a big "whatever"...
5
Unfortunately, the components in meat that are affected by how the animal was raised are not the culprit when it comes to cancer. All meat, regardless of how it is produced, contains substances that are classified as carcinogens: http://tinyurl.com/oxyhx2t. How the animal is raised does matter... to the animal. But it doesn't matter very much to the body of the human eating that animal. Factory-farmed or grass-fed, organic or conventional, if you eat cooked flesh, you eat carcinogenic compounds - heme iron, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heterocyclic amines, and nitrates/nitrites (for processed meat).
9
It would take a few years for the general public to catch on to the drawbacks of meat consumption and the benefits for personal health and for the planet, of eating a plant-based diet. Over the decades, many Americans have quietly coming out of the closet about being a vegetarian or vegan. Eating less or no beef, fowl, pork, veal etc. certainly is good for the animals whose lives are being spared!
Hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals that are fed to the animals get concentrated in the muscles of the animals. People that buy nice looking meats in plastic wrapper have no knowledge of what the animal was fed and for what purpose.
Hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals that are fed to the animals get concentrated in the muscles of the animals. People that buy nice looking meats in plastic wrapper have no knowledge of what the animal was fed and for what purpose.
40
"Eating less or no beef, fowl, pork, veal etc. certainly is good for the animals whose lives are being spared!"
Not all all. If everyone quit eating meat today, do you imagine those animals will live forever in some sunny pasture? And will you pay the farmers to feed them when they cannot sell the meat? No. And natural death is often painful, prolonged and without mercy.
By declaring you do not eat meat, you are removing whatever incentive meat producers may have to treat their animals well.
Not all all. If everyone quit eating meat today, do you imagine those animals will live forever in some sunny pasture? And will you pay the farmers to feed them when they cannot sell the meat? No. And natural death is often painful, prolonged and without mercy.
By declaring you do not eat meat, you are removing whatever incentive meat producers may have to treat their animals well.
There are many nutritional problems with plant-based diets. Luckily these clinical data are available to all on PubMed so there is no hiding from them. Humans require meat to thrive and continue onward.
1
But, they knew this already. SMH! I hate when the government hides these things from people while getting rich off a BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY = CANCER! You're right Michael Jackson, they DON'T care about us!!!!!
1
The Goverment is getting rich off cancer?!! Where in the world did you get this idea?
I'm going to die. So are you. Some of us will die of cancer. I refuse to live a long life that seems even longer by avoiding a pleasurable life. You do as you wish.
20
Does this mean that the food section will carry warning labels every time a recipe includes processed meats?
1
UK researchers found that vegetarians had a lower overall cancer rate than meat eaters, but contrary to suggestions from other studies, they found a higher rate of colorectal cancer among the vegetarians than among the meat eaters.
The study was the work of researchers working on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) and the findings were published in the online issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on 11 March.
The study was the work of researchers working on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) and the findings were published in the online issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on 11 March.
12
That's interesting. I wonder if a confounding factor is that many people give up meat after they are diagnosed with colorectal cancer.
Europeans always first put potatoes and veggies on their plate; if there is room left they add meat. Here in the US it is the other way around; meat always is the prima donna. Should be simple statistics then to figure out who is more likely to get meat-eating-cancer: either east or west of the Atlantic. But only look at non-smokers though (Europeans don't believe in lung-cancer from cigarettes until its too late); that variant would mess up the meat-eating-cancer data. Also what they haven't studied (yet) is the level of addiction of meat - although the expression "Stopping Cold Turkey" suggests that cutting back on meat consumption is always on everybody's mind and very painful. Perhaps AA could set up a sub-division BB (Bacon Baloney); weekly meetings with a scale of 10 to 1 confessions would be a good start.
3
Let us look to our plate first, before looking aside to another. The Europeans, I know, there are quite a few, all eat meat and vegetables. In moderation. Although I am beginning to hear complaints about a 'widening girth', which I blame on some of our American food practices and consumption. 'We now have to eat 6 amounts of vegetables and fruit apparently a day', exclaimed an elderly friend in France the other day, which I told her to bin. No bagels in Paris yet, except for a few solitary chocolates ones at an expensive food store in the heart of the city.
Perhaps all sausages may not be as dangerous as assumed depending on how they are seasoned:
A study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that common spices - including coriander - can inhibit heterocyclic amine (HCA) formation in meats during cooking. HCAs, defined by the National Cancer Institute, are chemicals formed when meat is cooked at high temperatures.2 A high consumption of foods containing HCAs is associated with higher risk of cancer.
A study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that common spices - including coriander - can inhibit heterocyclic amine (HCA) formation in meats during cooking. HCAs, defined by the National Cancer Institute, are chemicals formed when meat is cooked at high temperatures.2 A high consumption of foods containing HCAs is associated with higher risk of cancer.
3
Also, plant-based sausages, many of which taste quite like the real thing, do not develop HCAs at all.
Well, it looks like we're down to eating rocks covered with grass now.
11
Or...
Just these
Artichoke
Arugula
Asparagus
Green, Purple, White
Avocado
Bamboo Shoots
Bean Sprouts
Beans- see Bean List
Beet
Belgian Endive
Bell Pepper
Bitter Melon/Bitter Gourd
Bok Choy/Bok Choi/Pak Choy
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Burdock Root/Gobo
Cabbage
Green, Red, Savoy
Calabash
Capers
Carrot
Cassava/Yuca
Cauliflower
Celery
Celery Root/Celeriac
Celtuce
Chayote
Chinese Broccoli/Kai-lan
Corn/Maize
Baby Corn/Candle Corn
Cucumber
English Cucumber
Gherkin
Pickling Cucumbers
Daikon Radish
Edamame
Eggplant/Aubergine
Elephant Garlic
Endive
Curly/Frisee
Escarole
Fennel
Fiddlehead
Galangal
Garlic
Ginger
Grape Leaves
Green Beans/String Beans/Snap Beans
Wax Beans
Greens
Amaranth Leaves/Chinese Spinach
Beet Greens
Collard Greens
Dandelion Greens
Kale
Kohlrabi Greens
Mustard Greens
Rapini
Spinach
Swiss Chard
Turnip Greens
Hearts of Palm
Horseradish
Jerusalem Artichoke/Sunchokes
Jícama
Kale
Curly
Lacinato
Ornamental
Kohlrabi
Leeks
Lemongrass
Lettuce
Butterhead- Bibb, Boston
Iceberg
Leaf- Green Leaf, Red Leaf
Romaine
Lotus Root
Lotus Seed
Mushrooms- see Mushroom List
Napa Cabbage
Nopales
Okra
Olive
Onion
Green Onions/Scallions
Parsley
Parsley Root
Parsnip
Peas
green peas
snow peas
sugar snap peas
Peppers- see Peppers List
Plantain
Potato
Pumpkin
Purslane
Radicchio
Radish
Rutabaga
Sea Vegetables- see Sea Vegetable List
Shallots
Spinach
Squash- see Squash List
Sweet Potato
Swiss Chard
Taro
Tomatillo
Tomato
Turnip
Water Chestnut
Water Spinach
Watercress
Winter Melon
Yams
Zucchini
Just these
Artichoke
Arugula
Asparagus
Green, Purple, White
Avocado
Bamboo Shoots
Bean Sprouts
Beans- see Bean List
Beet
Belgian Endive
Bell Pepper
Bitter Melon/Bitter Gourd
Bok Choy/Bok Choi/Pak Choy
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Burdock Root/Gobo
Cabbage
Green, Red, Savoy
Calabash
Capers
Carrot
Cassava/Yuca
Cauliflower
Celery
Celery Root/Celeriac
Celtuce
Chayote
Chinese Broccoli/Kai-lan
Corn/Maize
Baby Corn/Candle Corn
Cucumber
English Cucumber
Gherkin
Pickling Cucumbers
Daikon Radish
Edamame
Eggplant/Aubergine
Elephant Garlic
Endive
Curly/Frisee
Escarole
Fennel
Fiddlehead
Galangal
Garlic
Ginger
Grape Leaves
Green Beans/String Beans/Snap Beans
Wax Beans
Greens
Amaranth Leaves/Chinese Spinach
Beet Greens
Collard Greens
Dandelion Greens
Kale
Kohlrabi Greens
Mustard Greens
Rapini
Spinach
Swiss Chard
Turnip Greens
Hearts of Palm
Horseradish
Jerusalem Artichoke/Sunchokes
Jícama
Kale
Curly
Lacinato
Ornamental
Kohlrabi
Leeks
Lemongrass
Lettuce
Butterhead- Bibb, Boston
Iceberg
Leaf- Green Leaf, Red Leaf
Romaine
Lotus Root
Lotus Seed
Mushrooms- see Mushroom List
Napa Cabbage
Nopales
Okra
Olive
Onion
Green Onions/Scallions
Parsley
Parsley Root
Parsnip
Peas
green peas
snow peas
sugar snap peas
Peppers- see Peppers List
Plantain
Potato
Pumpkin
Purslane
Radicchio
Radish
Rutabaga
Sea Vegetables- see Sea Vegetable List
Shallots
Spinach
Squash- see Squash List
Sweet Potato
Swiss Chard
Taro
Tomatillo
Tomato
Turnip
Water Chestnut
Water Spinach
Watercress
Winter Melon
Yams
Zucchini
44
Yummy!
7
I had garlic hummus, salad, soup, quiche, organic popcorn today. Loved it all! Enjoy your rocks.
4
I heard years ago the sodium nitrate was a powerful carcinogen. Why is this news? Most health conscious people would never eat process meat like this.
12
Right - but, now they are saying that "processed" includes pan frying meats, not just foods like deli meats or sausages. So now we can't even cook a freshly butchered chicken over heat in a stovetop pan. Might as well become pescetarian. Too bad I don't care for fish.
1
No, CB, they're not redefining "processed" meats. They're saying that pan fried red meats (not chicken) may also be carcinogenic.
An MD (UCLA Med Center) told me to minimize consumption of processed meats because they contained nitrates and nitrites. This was in 1972.
I believe everything in moderation. Want a dog at the World Series? Go ahead, have a brewski with it. But don't make it a habit.
I believe everything in moderation. Want a dog at the World Series? Go ahead, have a brewski with it. But don't make it a habit.
1
The national cattle men's beef association is but one of many powerful interest groups that has fought for decades to keep this information from the consuming public.
That the world health organization is even mentioning this is a step in the right direction.
That the world health organization is even mentioning this is a step in the right direction.
16
Strange ? Heart disease from the same products is equal or even more deadly ,
Yet No Mention ?
Yet No Mention ?
1
You should define the meaning of the words "risk" and "hazard"
1
" Woody Allen " said it most profoundly
" there's nothing wrong with dying , I just don't want to be there when it happens"
" there's nothing wrong with dying , I just don't want to be there when it happens"
1
The problems with this sort of research are that it never establishes causality nor does it effectively control variables. This is why it is so common for the conclusions for these retrospective studies to be reversed frequently. How often do we hear conflicting research about chocolate, alcohol, various fats and oils? The sad thing is that this is the sort of science that we are going to be scoffing at in twenty years. The monicker, or euphemism if you will, that this sort of medical science goes by is "evidence based medicine". It has been around for about twenty years and is responsible for very little good in medicine. The truth is that it is hardly science at all, it relies on surface level observation and smoke-and-mirrors statistics to "control" variables and it NEVER establishes causality. Establishing causality is hard and expensive but in reality it is the only true form of evidence based medicine. So take this recommendation from the W.H.O with a grain of salt (if you dare!) since it will likely be reversed by an equally gymnastic statistical analysis in a year or two.
And in the mean time, if you want to know how to live healthier, the word is moderation. No one wants to hear that. We yearn for that special thing to eat or not to eat. That panacea does not exist. Moderation. Exercise. Sleep. Not very sexy, but there you go.
And in the mean time, if you want to know how to live healthier, the word is moderation. No one wants to hear that. We yearn for that special thing to eat or not to eat. That panacea does not exist. Moderation. Exercise. Sleep. Not very sexy, but there you go.
10
I haven't consumed red meat in over 20 years and my health has been great. However, many of the male carnivores that I know who are 40 and over have suffered from prostate problems including cancer. I've always suspected that the cause was do to the consumption of red meat. Now I think so even more.
3
Observational studies with an n=4 or 5 is worthless. You may well have been in great health still while eating meat.
Mr. Slater - Here's another anecdote for you! I have two cousins who are siblings - both had surgery for colorectal cancer (surviving nicely!) One is probably 95% vegetarian, the other moderate meat eater! Go figure!
If anyone comes near my lox, I'll beat them with a turkey leg.
7
The thing about all of these scientists and researchers is that they get paid for publishing these studies. It's their profession, and they have to keep coming up with new things to say to justify their salary (which pays the mortgage and kids in private schools) and the grants they and their institutions receive to develop new studies designed to tweak the results of their previous studies. All of these groups are competing with each other for government and industry money. While there may be a grain of truth in this report, that grain is not worth the financial cost or, ultimately, our attention and stress. It's common sense not to overload on beef and processed meats, especially the baloney served up by the IARC.
4
I notice from the comments that threatening to take a person's meat away has a similar reaction to threatening to take a person's guns away.
20
Great comment AlennaM! Made me laugh out loud!
Here go the animal and environmental lobbies at it again, trying to lump all red meat in with the kinds of meats (processed) that have been known to cause cancer since the 1960's. I guess that they don't like the current trend where people are getting smart and are substituting meat products for unhealthy grains, oils and carbohydrates. They needed to bang the drum loudly so they decided to employ some more scare tactics once again! They must have almost had a heart attack when the report that saturated fats aren't that bad for you came out. YES, processed meats are terribly unhealthy. Yes, animals fed unnatural diets such as corn and soy produce cancer causing oils such as Omega 6 and others. But so do vegetable oils which are heavily processed as well as increased insulin resistance which is caused by eating things like grains, potatoes and soy products. Red meat and dairy that comes from naturally fed (usually grass) animals is healthier than any of the other alternatives.
3
Can you tell us where we can find the data from the studies proving your claim about the red meat and dairy diet?
Every time I eat certain processed food, my feet swell up and can't get my shoes back on. So I bought some crocs. I refuse to eat turduckin for every holiday.
If you live long enough, you will probably get cancer. As the immune system declines, it no longer recognizes and destroys cancerous cells before they start to spread. As more people live to be 90 or 100, and other diseases are controlled, we will see more and more cancers.
Nature doesn't care. If you live long enough to reproduce and raise your children to adulthood, your job is done. That's why every cell in your body has a timer that gradually counts down.
Nature doesn't care. If you live long enough to reproduce and raise your children to adulthood, your job is done. That's why every cell in your body has a timer that gradually counts down.
6
"Pigment that makes steak red is to blame, scientists say"
Ever seen a dead animal? The meat ain't red. Gray really.
Ever seen a dead animal? The meat ain't red. Gray really.
1
So there saying I won't live forever? You know, I suspected it all along.
11
No, "there" not saying you won't live forever, "They're" saying you won't live forever.
I will continue to enjoy my BLTs, made with multi-grain bread, baby bok choy instead of lettuce, and nice ripe tomatoes. Balance in all things...
6
The nitrite used to preserve meats has long been known to cause cancer.
But I don't care since:
a) I seldom eat such products, and
b) if more people die younger, the better it will be for the planet.
On the other hand, the main problem with beef is that beef production is highly destructive to the environment and highly subsidized by the government at a huge cost to taxpayers.
But I don't care since:
a) I seldom eat such products, and
b) if more people die younger, the better it will be for the planet.
On the other hand, the main problem with beef is that beef production is highly destructive to the environment and highly subsidized by the government at a huge cost to taxpayers.
9
Just eat whatever you like but be aware that it may shorten you life expectancy.
I'm ok with dying a few years earlier than I'm supposed to if it means that I can still eat foods that I enjoy.
I'm ok with dying a few years earlier than I'm supposed to if it means that I can still eat foods that I enjoy.
7
"The Cancer Society’s most recent nutrition and physical activity guidelines emphasize choosing fish, poultry or beans as alternatives to processed and red meat,..."
Even smoked fish? Smoked turkey and other poultry?
Anyone interested in learning what's really going on here needs to read this extremely lucid article from The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-healt...
Even smoked fish? Smoked turkey and other poultry?
Anyone interested in learning what's really going on here needs to read this extremely lucid article from The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-healt...
8
World's oldest woman, 116, eats bacon daily
Not many people will say that eating bacon every day is the key to a long life, but the world’s oldest woman swears by it.
Susannah Mushatt Jones, 116, keeps a steady diet of bacon, eggs and grits for breakfast. A sign in her kitchen reads: “Bacon makes everything better.”
Not many people will say that eating bacon every day is the key to a long life, but the world’s oldest woman swears by it.
Susannah Mushatt Jones, 116, keeps a steady diet of bacon, eggs and grits for breakfast. A sign in her kitchen reads: “Bacon makes everything better.”
28
The plural of anecdote is not data.
18
Most “processed meat” is also referred to as “sandwich meat.” That is, folks who eat a lot of processed meat are eating mostly bread.
Glucose, for example from bread, is the prime fuel of glucose-greedy cancer cells.
I pointed this out to the authors of the study that conflated red meat and processed meat and asked for their comment. They did not reply.
Glucose, for example from bread, is the prime fuel of glucose-greedy cancer cells.
I pointed this out to the authors of the study that conflated red meat and processed meat and asked for their comment. They did not reply.
9
I looked at one meta-analysis of processed meat studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661797/) and this is how they define "processed meat": "usually including sausages, meats burgers, ham, bacon, salami, nitrite-treated meat and meat products". So this category definitely includes more than sandwiches.
Of course, since processed meat is part of the Western diet, people who eat a lot of processed meat generally eat a lot of refined carbohydrates as well. However, a nutritional epidemiology study would generally adjust for these potential confounders.
Of course, since processed meat is part of the Western diet, people who eat a lot of processed meat generally eat a lot of refined carbohydrates as well. However, a nutritional epidemiology study would generally adjust for these potential confounders.
Don't worry republicans, scientists never know what they're talking about so keep eating your hotdogs!
46
The cult of science. Might as well have faith in something. Because scientists are never, ever, wrong. Right?
I am a dem and can tell you, fellow dem: Just as with climate change, nutrition science is way too important a problem to politicize.
2
Ron Swanson says keep your science out of my foods.
5
I truly believe these foods can cause cancer.The question is how much of these foods?I'm skeptical of most studies in the medical field especially from the drug companies.The drug companies would have each of us taking multiple drugs every day to correct issues that don't need fixing.
19
If you want to take my bacon, you will have to pry it from my greasy cold hand.
22
Aw, come on. This was clearly not ready for prime time.
'The panel defined processed meat as those “transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.” It said there was sufficient evidence based on human research — mainly large observational studies — that processed meat could be added to its Category 1 classification, along with a broad range of substances such as mineral oils, estrogen, ionizing radiation and diesel engine exhaust.'
Are they saying that an old fashioned, authentically cured Virginia ham is as hazardous as diesel engine exhaust? So what is it, exactly, that's rendered it so dangerous, the salting or the smoking? Both? Does the type of salt matter, the duration of the hang, the wood used for smoking? How much does one have to eat across a lifetime to incur this risk? And please do give us the hazard equivalency of cubic feet of inhaled diesel exhaust to ounces of ham consumed. Inquiring minds, etc.
Whatever this flimsy work product is, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Pardon me now, I have to take the bratwurst off the grill.
'The panel defined processed meat as those “transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.” It said there was sufficient evidence based on human research — mainly large observational studies — that processed meat could be added to its Category 1 classification, along with a broad range of substances such as mineral oils, estrogen, ionizing radiation and diesel engine exhaust.'
Are they saying that an old fashioned, authentically cured Virginia ham is as hazardous as diesel engine exhaust? So what is it, exactly, that's rendered it so dangerous, the salting or the smoking? Both? Does the type of salt matter, the duration of the hang, the wood used for smoking? How much does one have to eat across a lifetime to incur this risk? And please do give us the hazard equivalency of cubic feet of inhaled diesel exhaust to ounces of ham consumed. Inquiring minds, etc.
Whatever this flimsy work product is, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Pardon me now, I have to take the bratwurst off the grill.
13
You can take away my prosciutto and filet mignon when you can pry them from my cold, dead, cancer-free hands.
6
The taste of meat is addicting like a cigarettes or drugs. I doubt anyone will stop eating meat unless they actually get cancer, and then it will probably be too late.
@New Truth:
Humans have a universal craving for meat and fat because these provided the largest doses of the most essential nutrients in one food. Do we consider ourselves addicted to amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids?
Humans have a universal craving for meat and fat because these provided the largest doses of the most essential nutrients in one food. Do we consider ourselves addicted to amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids?
3
How could the food source, meat, that we evolved eating cooked, to give us our large brains be "addictive?" Just as a bird knows it should eat those seeds, our brains (did I say large because of cooked meat) knows we should eat meat.
1
Oh Please!!!
At least I shall go to my grave with a SMILE on my face!
Bacon and Eggs every-other Sunday morning, with toast. Seville Orange Marmalade and Salted Irish Butter!
Yummie!
At least I shall go to my grave with a SMILE on my face!
Bacon and Eggs every-other Sunday morning, with toast. Seville Orange Marmalade and Salted Irish Butter!
Yummie!
11
No thought for the poor animals you torture every day?
I just love statistics.Sounds like we all need to become vegans.The problem is the way our media presents health data."The absolute risk of colon cancer over one's life is 5%." The absolute risk is increased by 18% if one is a carnivore eating processed meat! 5x.18= .9 . Therefore we can gorge on meat our whole life and ONLY increase our colon cancer risk by . 9%! Eat up.
9
Recently came across this article saying there's a sugar molecule in red meat that "might" create mutations resulting in cancer:
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2014-12-29-sugar-molecule-in-...
This article specifies cooking method, which is key, but perhaps the W.H.O could also check this research out and see if there's any there there.
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2014-12-29-sugar-molecule-in-...
This article specifies cooking method, which is key, but perhaps the W.H.O could also check this research out and see if there's any there there.
1
Let's see...
"...eating processed meat...and consuming other red meats 'probably' raises [the risk of colon cancer]...but...so slight...that most...should not..overly worry..."
Yep, that says much about nothing. Seems one could conclude that breathing the air in most any urban city in the USA "probably" will "raise" the "risk" of some sort of sickness, but only "so slight" that "most should not" be "overly" worried.
Just helpful indeed.
"...eating processed meat...and consuming other red meats 'probably' raises [the risk of colon cancer]...but...so slight...that most...should not..overly worry..."
Yep, that says much about nothing. Seems one could conclude that breathing the air in most any urban city in the USA "probably" will "raise" the "risk" of some sort of sickness, but only "so slight" that "most should not" be "overly" worried.
Just helpful indeed.
14
How about: 'After careful deliberation at an international closed scientific forum, it has been found after in-depth research beginning in the early 90s that consumption of processed and other red meat leads to a higher risk for colon cancer'?...
I'm glad we smokers are not the only ones in denial.
9
Is liverwurst addicting?
Don't eat fake food. This includes processed meats(bacon, hotdogs, ham), bread, any so-called whole wheat product (which is really fake food), chips, fries, most juices, diet soda, regular soda, Splenda, etc. Next, get rid of breakfast. With our sedentary lifestyle, we don't need as many calories. Break - fast at noon. If you go paleo, vegan, or some of the other diets that have a lot of real food, you'll be in the right ballpark. But your results will be better once you get rid of all fake food.
Finally, if you have any copies of the USDA food pyramid, shred it. If you have a doctor that shows you the pyramid, change doctors. That document is dangerous to your health.
Finally, if you have any copies of the USDA food pyramid, shred it. If you have a doctor that shows you the pyramid, change doctors. That document is dangerous to your health.
51
Can we also ask for a new MD if he or she insists on applying the BMI chart to us? That also has been debunked recently ...
2
@frank M
I agree with except for one part- many people are better off eating several small meals spread throughout the day, starting with breakfast.
http://www.diabetesforecast.org/2011/sep/the-importance-of-breakfast.html
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/f...
I agree with except for one part- many people are better off eating several small meals spread throughout the day, starting with breakfast.
http://www.diabetesforecast.org/2011/sep/the-importance-of-breakfast.html
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/f...
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. If not, what you've just suggested is some of the exact opposite that doctors recommend. You should never "skip" breakfast as it kickstarts your energy supply for the day. On average, those who eat breakfast are much healthier (and thinner) than those who do not. The key is portion control, not skipping meals. If you only need 1600 calories/day, eat three meals, but make them small. Or better yet, don't be sedentary and work out. I'm on a strict running/bodybuilding regimen and consume as many as 4000 cal per day to maintain proper health.
Whole wheat is not necessarily fake, neither is ham. If you shop at places like Whole Foods you automatically weed out a lot of the garbage you'd find elsewhere. People need to get their nutritional advice from their doctors, not from your misinformation.
Whole wheat is not necessarily fake, neither is ham. If you shop at places like Whole Foods you automatically weed out a lot of the garbage you'd find elsewhere. People need to get their nutritional advice from their doctors, not from your misinformation.
A lot of these comments are spoken by true vegans, I must say....but have you people ever thought about how many combustion engines are running in this country alone? Have you given any thought to just WHAT these engines emit into the air that we so freely breathe? Jut what do you think this does to our lungs and for that matter, the rest of our bodies? THIS is the simple truth.....we're breathing the air that's killing us slowly but surely! Now that's the simple truth! And you people are worried about hot dogs, red meat and bacon.....for Christ's sake people, wake up.....we're all on a one way train ride. It's just that we all have different stations where our ride ends...and THAT'S really the simple truth.
4
Dear Mike H.,
Most of us drive combustion engines. We can attempt to reduce driving and the number of cars: we can buy hybrids to reduce gas consumption, if we can afford them. But you're right: the toxins from driving are impossible to eliminate completely.
Because we can't do away with cars, should we just give up on other attempts to reduce our carbon footprint and achieve health? Shouldn't we engage in risk reduction that is completely within our control, requires no big investment or fancy technology, and can be achieved literally overnight? Go vegan and your risk of chronic disease (cardiac, diabetes, cancer) will decrease dramatically. You will benefit the environment and spare countless innocent animals that are tortured on factory farms. Forget about your "humane meat": it's ill defined, unenforceable, and a marketing ploy to make you feel okay about taking a sentient creature's life. And guys, your risk of prostate cancer will plummet on a vegan diet (google Dr. Dean Ornish and prostate cancer). That alone ought to do it.
Most of us drive combustion engines. We can attempt to reduce driving and the number of cars: we can buy hybrids to reduce gas consumption, if we can afford them. But you're right: the toxins from driving are impossible to eliminate completely.
Because we can't do away with cars, should we just give up on other attempts to reduce our carbon footprint and achieve health? Shouldn't we engage in risk reduction that is completely within our control, requires no big investment or fancy technology, and can be achieved literally overnight? Go vegan and your risk of chronic disease (cardiac, diabetes, cancer) will decrease dramatically. You will benefit the environment and spare countless innocent animals that are tortured on factory farms. Forget about your "humane meat": it's ill defined, unenforceable, and a marketing ploy to make you feel okay about taking a sentient creature's life. And guys, your risk of prostate cancer will plummet on a vegan diet (google Dr. Dean Ornish and prostate cancer). That alone ought to do it.
@drveggie:
Ditching sugars, flours, and refined seed oils on a whole-foods omnivorous diet achieves the same or better health results without nutritional deficiency or need for supplementation.
Ditching sugars, flours, and refined seed oils on a whole-foods omnivorous diet achieves the same or better health results without nutritional deficiency or need for supplementation.
Every single American should have to kill and butcher at least one animal in their life. I am a meat eater and it will always be a regret in my life. At least I have cut way back on my consumption.
5
I'm not sure exactly what 'processed' meat means, but I'd be curious to know if they tested meat from various sources (i.e.,, traditional factory-farmed meats versus those from farms that do not allow for antibiotics and that ensure all animals are either grass-fed or otherwise have an organic diet).
2
Studies like this one do not "test" meat for carcinogenicity. Rather, the WHO report found a correlation between consumption of meats "transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation," and an increased risk of cancer. The report found that these "risks arise from chemicals produced by processing the meats and from cooking," --i.e., not from the meat. The good character of the animals was not considered and neither was the naturalistic fantasy that conventional meat is, health-wise, inferior to magical, organic meat.
We know the risk of colon cancer from red meat is very low. The reason is simple -- almost everyone eats red meat, and only a tiny percentage of them get colon cancer.
Red meat is much, much more likely to cause heart disease than to cause cancer. We've known about that risk for decades. We eat red meat anyway for many compelling reasons: It is high in protein and nutrients and, with the right cut, very low in fat and carbohydrates. Some nutrients are hard to get without eating meat, especially red meat. Red meat tastes good. Humans have eaten red meat since before they were humans; we evolved to eat red meat.
There are countless ways that modern people harm their health far, far more than by eating red meat -- for example, by drinking alcohol and soda, eating too much, sitting in desks all day, failing to exercise, taking unneeded prescription drugs and herbal remedies, etc.
So why is there a renewed effort, every generation, to attack meat-eating, when there are so many other more serious threats to human health? Simple -- some ideologically motivated people oppose killing animals for food. They look for any excuse to stop meat-eating. This is just more of the same, with some added support from environmentalists who think eating meat is less environmentally efficient than eating plants.
Red meat is much, much more likely to cause heart disease than to cause cancer. We've known about that risk for decades. We eat red meat anyway for many compelling reasons: It is high in protein and nutrients and, with the right cut, very low in fat and carbohydrates. Some nutrients are hard to get without eating meat, especially red meat. Red meat tastes good. Humans have eaten red meat since before they were humans; we evolved to eat red meat.
There are countless ways that modern people harm their health far, far more than by eating red meat -- for example, by drinking alcohol and soda, eating too much, sitting in desks all day, failing to exercise, taking unneeded prescription drugs and herbal remedies, etc.
So why is there a renewed effort, every generation, to attack meat-eating, when there are so many other more serious threats to human health? Simple -- some ideologically motivated people oppose killing animals for food. They look for any excuse to stop meat-eating. This is just more of the same, with some added support from environmentalists who think eating meat is less environmentally efficient than eating plants.
12
Eh! one in a quarter million are cited here. I already ignore red meat. I might have eaten two dozen dinners year with red meat if you include turkey burgers.
I never eat Beef except corned beef once a year, and never hot dogs or bologna. I do occasionally smoke barbecue but very rare (pun).
I eat Chickens, they don't mind, they're pretty dumb.
I eat a lot of fish. Salmon got too expensive now. I like Tilapia and seafood surprise they call imitation crab legs. I won't ask what's in it.
My neighbor barbecues almost every night.............I won't miss him.
Seriously folks, One cancer out of every quarter million people is an acceptable risk.
Eat salads!
I never eat Beef except corned beef once a year, and never hot dogs or bologna. I do occasionally smoke barbecue but very rare (pun).
I eat Chickens, they don't mind, they're pretty dumb.
I eat a lot of fish. Salmon got too expensive now. I like Tilapia and seafood surprise they call imitation crab legs. I won't ask what's in it.
My neighbor barbecues almost every night.............I won't miss him.
Seriously folks, One cancer out of every quarter million people is an acceptable risk.
Eat salads!
3
Very clever, blaming the radiation cancer increase on foods man has eaten for thousands of years without mass extinctions, but quite transparent, UN. While, quietly, NRC is being lobbied to raise the radiation limit on civilians to 500% of its nuclear worker levels:
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/07/nrc-being-asked-to-raise-civilian...
And, of course, everyone is supposed to forget Fukushima nuclear disaster's effects on the dying Pacific Ocean:
http://enenews.com
A poster over on enenews reports:
"The group includes processed meat that has been salted, cured, fermented or smoked to preserve it or to add flavor. It gives specific examples — hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef, canned meat and some sauces.
It defines red meat as any muscle that comes from a mammal, including beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat…
Hmmm in 1900 we preserved meat by salting, curing, fermenting, or smoking…..and only 6% of us got cancer, so now its 66%.
Is it really those processes?"
Well? Are we being lied to and lead astray from the real problem, again?
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/07/nrc-being-asked-to-raise-civilian...
And, of course, everyone is supposed to forget Fukushima nuclear disaster's effects on the dying Pacific Ocean:
http://enenews.com
A poster over on enenews reports:
"The group includes processed meat that has been salted, cured, fermented or smoked to preserve it or to add flavor. It gives specific examples — hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef, canned meat and some sauces.
It defines red meat as any muscle that comes from a mammal, including beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat…
Hmmm in 1900 we preserved meat by salting, curing, fermenting, or smoking…..and only 6% of us got cancer, so now its 66%.
Is it really those processes?"
Well? Are we being lied to and lead astray from the real problem, again?
4
This is a correlation NOT a causation.
The causation of getting cancer is being ALIVE! And the weird part is we are living longer eating more meat! Go figure!
I LOVE vegetarians: more meat for me.
The causation of getting cancer is being ALIVE! And the weird part is we are living longer eating more meat! Go figure!
I LOVE vegetarians: more meat for me.
9
I love apologists who try to figure out ways to justify continuing to believe what they want to be true even if evidence suggests something to the contrary.
5
I apology for nothing! I just pity the weak lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carne-vegetarians.
All evidence is not gospel. It is to be evaluated and judged and as far as food goes, we seem to revise/refute most evidence every 10 years or so (salt, fat, carbs). Thats because media tends to pounce on correlation without asking for causation.
1
Five years ago, my otherwise healthy father was diagnosed with colon cancer, and had half his colon removed. After he found out that processed meats were a dietary culprit for colon cancer, he stopped eating smoked turkey cold cuts for lunch, 'cold turkey'. So this isn't news, exactly.
I still eat bacon, but as a once-in-a-while treat. Same goes for red meat. Hot dogs, only rarely, on my occasional visits to Fenway Park. Don't eat this stuff every day, that's all. And don't routinely feed it to your kids.
I still eat bacon, but as a once-in-a-while treat. Same goes for red meat. Hot dogs, only rarely, on my occasional visits to Fenway Park. Don't eat this stuff every day, that's all. And don't routinely feed it to your kids.
4
"Could increase risk by 17%"
Note, this does not say it puts you at a 17% risk, but says it increases it by. In NY state, CDC claims .035% risk (35 per 100,000) for colon cancer. So this means 100 grams per day eaten could increase the risk up toward .04% (about 40 per 100,000)? This is notable if accurate, but is it significant?
Note, this does not say it puts you at a 17% risk, but says it increases it by. In NY state, CDC claims .035% risk (35 per 100,000) for colon cancer. So this means 100 grams per day eaten could increase the risk up toward .04% (about 40 per 100,000)? This is notable if accurate, but is it significant?
11
I can't live if living is without... bacon.
4
This is really great news for the overloaded federal entitlement programs. I suggest the fed outlaw statins and only provide beacon to all food assistance programs. The federal debt will be wiped out in a short time -- for the few of us left to enjoy it. Good luck.
1
This documents what people in the vegan movement have been saying for decades. Our warnings have fallen on deaf ears because we live in a carnist society, where the baseline assumption is that people should eat meat. 70 billion animals are tortured and slain yearly around the world for absolutely no good reason. Meat is a leading cause of climate change. It contributes to cancer, heart disease and, considering fast food is meat/dairy laden, obesity. Yet, the "powers that be" studious look the other way and mock those who confront them with the truth. Now, with these alarming warnings in the New York Times, perhaps they will be forced into facing the obvious. Humans should not eat animals. It's really that simple.
66
There's nothing alarming about this, as they couldn't even say that unprocessed meat causes harm and the risk from processed meat was very low.
So, sorry, this article actually made me more likely to eat processed meat, since the risk is so low.
So, sorry, this article actually made me more likely to eat processed meat, since the risk is so low.
4
This is a correlation NOT a causation.
The causation of getting cancer is being ALIVE! And the weird part is we are living longer eating more meat! Go figure!
I LOVE vegetarians: more meat for me.
The causation of getting cancer is being ALIVE! And the weird part is we are living longer eating more meat! Go figure!
I LOVE vegetarians: more meat for me.
4
@Jane Velez-Mitchell:
Our baseline diet is omnivorous, because, well, we're omnivores. We've been omnivores since before we were even human.
BTW, fast food is also laden with added sugars, white flour, and refined seed oils. Until recently it was laden with artificial trans fats.
Our baseline diet is omnivorous, because, well, we're omnivores. We've been omnivores since before we were even human.
BTW, fast food is also laden with added sugars, white flour, and refined seed oils. Until recently it was laden with artificial trans fats.
3
I'd rather drop dead at 65 having eaten bacon than never touch it again and survive to 100.
15
When you're 64 you may feel differently, but it'll be too late then.
8
What a sad joyless life you have, that you would not want to live without bacon.
6
You may feel different when you are 65! Bacon isn't that great.
4
If I see one more study telling me what I should or should not eat, I am sure I will have an 18% higher risk of dying of brain cancer. I will continue to eat the foods I enjoy and at least dye with a grin rather than a frown.
14
Well, at least you'll die with dyed innards.
3
"Dye" as in red dye #2?
Thank you for an *Excellent* article - seems more reason to think humans are not natural meat eaters - after all, humans can't eat raw meat like cats and dogs (real meat eaters) - humans need to cook such food first - a relatively recent development in human history - seems early humans, instead of chasing after rabbits or digging up carrots, may have been more opportunistic - and may have gone from one berry patch to another - much like many other primates - in any case - Enjoy! :)
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
9
@Dr. Dennis and Joanne Bogdan:
Humans have been omnivores since before we were even human. We are well-adapted to eat meat. Raw meat is digestible, we just usually cook it first to kill pathogens. Homo habilis was eating meat/fish/shellfish well before the invention of cooking. Cooking is not recent, either, it's 100,000s of years old. (BTW, most other primates are also omnivores.)
Humans have been omnivores since before we were even human. We are well-adapted to eat meat. Raw meat is digestible, we just usually cook it first to kill pathogens. Homo habilis was eating meat/fish/shellfish well before the invention of cooking. Cooking is not recent, either, it's 100,000s of years old. (BTW, most other primates are also omnivores.)
18
Steak tartare, anyone? Of course humans can eat raw meat. Cooking it reduces that calories needed to digest it, and the discovery of cooking thus enabled us to net more calories per pound of meat eaten. These extra calories in turn allowed us to develop and fuel the hungry human brain.
8
Simply untrue. Nearly every culture feature 'raw meat', from Japanese sushi, to steak tartare, to haggis and nearly all salted, smoked or cured meats, which are 'raw.' Although certainly early humans were opportunistic eaters and hunters. There is loads of archeological evidence of early hunting, and cooking meat was simply not always available, or even preferred. Whether a small bird or a mighty mammoth, cooking food is indeed a recent development.
6
Too bad Americans are being sold on bacon in everything these days.
9
Not all of us, I think I ate bacon once like 20 years ago. I don't get the appeal and it's trayf, funny that, people knew 2500 yrs ago it was bad for you.
This is just silly.
The question that should be asked, but isn't answered here, is 'does eating processed and red meat shorten life expectancy?'
You die from a myriad of causes, not just cancer. At a population level is eminently possible for meat to both increase the risk of cancer while at the same time increasing general life expectancy.
The question that should be asked, but isn't answered here, is 'does eating processed and red meat shorten life expectancy?'
You die from a myriad of causes, not just cancer. At a population level is eminently possible for meat to both increase the risk of cancer while at the same time increasing general life expectancy.
26
A Harvard School of Public Health study published in 2012 in Archives of Internal Medicine found that, yes, eating red meat shortens life expectancy, and that substituting other protein sources, particularly plant-based ones, is associated with a lower risk of mortality. Other studies have shown similar results for processed meat.
11
I was thinking along the same lines David. There is such a wide variation between individuals, in so many variables affecting health and longevity, that reaching valid conclusions from RCT's which can be applied to the population as a whole, is almost an exercise in futility due to the incredible complexity of said variables and their interactions within each individual. Thus, life expectancy may indeed increase in the general population while the incidence of cancer increases at the same time, and in fact those trends have been observed for decades.
3
Americans, especially, should focus on the big picture when talking about abdominal cancers. The biggest risk factors, by FAR, are tobacco and obesity. Losing the extra 30 pounds around your middle will have a bigger impact on gut cancer risk probably by a factor of 10 than any particular food you can add or subtract from your diet -- even if we knew what those magic bullet foods were, which of course we don't.
I don't think anybody has to listen to the WHO here, but people will -- and I hope they do. More bacon for me. :)
I don't think anybody has to listen to the WHO here, but people will -- and I hope they do. More bacon for me. :)
16
There is a huge chemical difference in meats according to how the animals are raised. Red meat from CAFO-raised, grain feed cattle is totally different from pastured, organic meat. The latter does not have the antibiotics, hormones, or Round-Up residues of the former. In the processed meat, is a distinction made between nitrate-free processing and nitrates? These are significant distinctions that have to be considered.
49
"The latter does not have the antibiotics, hormones, or Round-Up residues of the former."....What evidence do you have that any of these are present in conventionally raised meat? What evidence do you have that hormones do not occur naturally in organically raised animals? What evidence do you have that antibiotics can cause cancer or are otherwise harmful, and more especially in the miniscule amounts that could possible exist in the meat? What evidence do you have that Roundup can cause cancer or is otherwise harmful? These are significant questions that have to be addressed before distinctions between how animals are raised should be considered.
1
Respectfully, W. A. Spitzer:
The evidence is out there, and not hard to find. Start with "Our Daily Poison" by Marie-Moniique and follow her references--they are of independent peer-reviewed studies, not industry grey literature.
Then go to Cornucopia’s “Protecting Children’s Health” at : http://www.cornucopia.org/protecting-childrens-health-choosing-organic-f... and follow the references. Independent, read non-industry captured, research has a lot to say about this—read up and follow the references.
Then go to http://www.americangrassfed.org/ to read up on healthy meat. It’s out there if you look with eyes wide open…
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
The evidence is out there, and not hard to find. Start with "Our Daily Poison" by Marie-Moniique and follow her references--they are of independent peer-reviewed studies, not industry grey literature.
Then go to Cornucopia’s “Protecting Children’s Health” at : http://www.cornucopia.org/protecting-childrens-health-choosing-organic-f... and follow the references. Independent, read non-industry captured, research has a lot to say about this—read up and follow the references.
Then go to http://www.americangrassfed.org/ to read up on healthy meat. It’s out there if you look with eyes wide open…
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
9
Those issues are no longer subject to debate, and have not been for years. That is why nearly all national food safety agencies are reducing the permissible levels for these substances, or eliminating their use altogether. OTOH, the quality of the meat has a major influence on its composition. Whether the studies reviewed (remember, this is not a study; it is a study of studies) relied on a particular kind of meat is not known or knowable at our level. In fact, we don't even know whether the chemicals identified in barbeque or cold cuts have any causal linkage; it is supposition at this point. And they don't even mention the sodium in cold cuts!!! Buy the best, consume in moderation as a special treat, and enjoy the stuffing in your Thanksgiving turkey or that steak on the Fourth!
2
Nothing new here. It has long been known that processed meet contains preservatives that can become nitrites. Nitrosamines are produced when nitrites and amines combine in acidic places like the human stomach. High temperatures and frying can increase the formation of these nitrosamines. Significant levels can be found in beer, fish, non-fat dry milk and cured meats (primarily bacon and hot dogs) and cheese preserved with nitrite pickling salt. These nitrosamines are linked with digestive cancers. Also, red cooked meat is probably harmful to you if it is consumed daily - you can clog an artery if you eat a lot of it. However, like everything else in life, moderation is the key when it comes to processed meat and red meat - I wouldn't eat it everyday. And remember, no matter what we eat and drink, we are not getting off this planet alive, so Enjoy!
59
@Tallydonn:
Red meat has never been demonstrated to "clog arteries." Our arteries are not simple pipes that directly receive bits of food.
Red meat has never been demonstrated to "clog arteries." Our arteries are not simple pipes that directly receive bits of food.
1
There isn't even very good evidence that red meat clogs your arteries. Refined carbs seem to be worse for cardiovascular health, though given the sorry state of nutrition research, little is known for sure.
3
By microwaving bacon, the high temperatures necessary to form nitrosamines from nitrates are not there. I eat bacon once a week and am not about to stop!
This is essentially a political document. From the WHO's perspective, discouraging meat consumption makes a lot of sense.
But the science isn't there. Even in the observational data the correlations between meat and cancer are extremely weak. And observational data shouldn't be trusted anyway -- it is the hamburger paradox. Say people who eat more hamburgers get more cancer -- how would you know if it's the beef patty, or the cheese, or the bun, or the fries, or the soda, or the fact that regular hamburger eaters care less about health than hamburger abstainers.
Observational studies only pose questions, they don't answer them, and they should never be the basis of advice. That's why our diet advice was such bad advice for so long -- that's how we got to 35% adult obesity in America.
The only way to settle the meat question scientifically is double-blind studies -- but of course they are extremely difficult to design -- and nobody wants to pay for them.
But the science isn't there. Even in the observational data the correlations between meat and cancer are extremely weak. And observational data shouldn't be trusted anyway -- it is the hamburger paradox. Say people who eat more hamburgers get more cancer -- how would you know if it's the beef patty, or the cheese, or the bun, or the fries, or the soda, or the fact that regular hamburger eaters care less about health than hamburger abstainers.
Observational studies only pose questions, they don't answer them, and they should never be the basis of advice. That's why our diet advice was such bad advice for so long -- that's how we got to 35% adult obesity in America.
The only way to settle the meat question scientifically is double-blind studies -- but of course they are extremely difficult to design -- and nobody wants to pay for them.
62
"That's why our diet advice was such bad advice for so long -- that's how we got to 35% adult obesity in America. "
You're blaming Americas obesity problem on the bad diet advice from the past? Did that same advice tell Americans to eat fast food 3 meals a day and to drink your weight in soda?
You're blaming Americas obesity problem on the bad diet advice from the past? Did that same advice tell Americans to eat fast food 3 meals a day and to drink your weight in soda?
3
@Ben Hogan:
Past and current official dietary advice tells people to eat more bread, pasta, cereal, and soybean oil, while minimizing nutrient dense animal foods. That's a recipe for obesity. Dietary advice was weirdly silent on sugar until quite recently.
Past and current official dietary advice tells people to eat more bread, pasta, cereal, and soybean oil, while minimizing nutrient dense animal foods. That's a recipe for obesity. Dietary advice was weirdly silent on sugar until quite recently.
So fine, enjoy your meat. Hope you're right. (You might want to pick up a copy of The China Study by Colin Campbell, though. It convinced Bill Clinton to go vegan, and he's no dummy, and he has access to excellent medical care.)
But who knows? Maybe you're right.
But who knows? Maybe you're right.
''The risks arise from chemicals produced by processing and cooking." It would be helpful to know what chemicals are produced. For example, I eat Canadian bacon that doesn't contain nitrites, which I buy from the local natural market. Would this choice be less harmful than meats containing nitrites/nitrates?
We need a follow-up article about buying and preparation choices.
We need a follow-up article about buying and preparation choices.
8
Everybody is still talking about nitrates/nitrites based on studies from 25 years ago that have been thoroughly discredited. Nitrates are probably, on balance, GOOD for you. And even if we were supposed to be afraid of nitrates -- which we're not -- what's by FAR the biggest source of nitrates in our diet? It's VEGETABLES. Eggplant, cabbage, broccoli, string beans etc. If nitrates in string beans are good for you, why are we supposed to be afraid of the very same ingredient when it's added to hot dogs to prevent botulism?
11
Nitrates are in our own saliva. Should we get rid of that, too?
1
Vegetables have protective compounds in them that could reduce harm from nitrates. And there are other factors in meat, like saturated fat and protein fermentation that together may have a carcinogenic effect in combination with nitrates. Since I don't think you know that much about this, I don't think you should be announcing that any research is thoroughly discredited.
1
So much wishful thinking in the comments here. It's amazing, the lengths to which some people will go to justify the unspeakable cruelty of their actions. In this day and age, with all the information that is available about what really goes on at factory farms (which is where 99% of animal-based products come from) and about the healthfulness of a plant-based diet, there is absolutely zero justification for supporting an industry that thrives on torturing defenseless animals. If you have a heart, you are either already on a plant-based diet or will switch to one soon. If you instead choose to attack those who have switched to a plant-based diet, well, some of us know very well what that says about your heart.
82
Oh yeah, you really came off as neutral and unbiased in your position there. -_-
But seriously, these "findings" call for extremely large-scale changes. It's important to be confident in the validity of the findings before over-prioritize changing something that could be significantly less impactful than something more specific and easily-addressed.
But seriously, these "findings" call for extremely large-scale changes. It's important to be confident in the validity of the findings before over-prioritize changing something that could be significantly less impactful than something more specific and easily-addressed.
3
The comment you responded to was about the cruelty of supporting an industry that profits from torturing sentient beings. What validation do you require to decide that you don't wish to support cruelty and don't wish to profit from cruelty yourself?
1
These are conflated issues. The point of this article is that the WHO is correlating meat consumption with cancer risk. I'm simply illustrating that the above comment is likely seeking evidence to suit an already-developed point, rather than following evidence to arrive at a well-reasoned one.
It's also a stretch to say that people who eat meat condone inhumane acts and animal cruelty. Nobody's pro animal cruelty. It's just that deciding not to eat meat is not an impactful way to change how we farm and butcher our meat.
It's also a stretch to say that people who eat meat condone inhumane acts and animal cruelty. Nobody's pro animal cruelty. It's just that deciding not to eat meat is not an impactful way to change how we farm and butcher our meat.
2
Am from the small silent generation raised by Parents of the greatest generation. Both parents were raised on farms. Diet when compared to todays guidelines was far from ideal. With that said my understanding is no meat. fowl. or surely fresh fish were raised on feed incorporating antibotics or other added ingredients. Common sense tells one catle and fowl are fed chemicals before they reach the super market. Our beef came from local farms as did a diet high in pork again raised on old fashion hog food. What dad called barnyard chickens and ducks were what he chose. All vegtables came out of our own garden . Today much is inpoted all is sprayed with chemicals. Little is known of the soil it is grown in.
9
Quiet guys. You can continue to eat your products sausages, ham, bacon, salami and what you like, without fear.
How did your grandfathers and your fathers and please stay away from these strange suggestions of 'World Health Organization.
It's not what you eat, which causes damage to humans. There are too many components that influence our health. But please, from the top of my 80 years I can tell you stay calm and ... Bon appetit.
How did your grandfathers and your fathers and please stay away from these strange suggestions of 'World Health Organization.
It's not what you eat, which causes damage to humans. There are too many components that influence our health. But please, from the top of my 80 years I can tell you stay calm and ... Bon appetit.
19
This article is woefully short on info - what is meant by "processed?" If I make my own sausage, is that different? 50 grams of processed meat increases the risk of colon cancer by 18%…but increases it from what?! How did they separate red meat eaters from those that ate bacon, sausage and hotdogs - aren't they one and the same?
10
Unlike "processed food," the term "processed meat" is very well defined. Processed meat is any meat that has been preserved by smoking, curing, salting, or with a specific chemical additive. Bacon, sausage, and hot dogs are all processed meat; hamburger and steaks are not.
5
Hi Pat: The problem is with the nitrates added to the meat in processing. My gastro doc calls hot dogs "cancer sticks." He has no problem with unprocessed red meat. The average person's risk of getting colon cancer is about 4.5 to 5 percent.
Betty White is 92, relatively healthy, and claims to eat hot dogs pretty much daily. People aren't all the same, which is why these types of findings can't be acted upon on their own. Risks and benefits of all behaviors should be considered regardless what WHO says. This is just more information to help you make an informed decision.
2
Sounds to me like what the WHO found is correlation, not causation. This is an important distinction the media should raise. I wish the media would put some basic analysis on top of what it reports.
26
These studies were retrospective, not controlled. Moreover, the correlation is not pure--people who eat red or processed meats daily probably also usually engage in other behaviors inconsistent with an ideally “healthy lifestyle:” daily (or even more frequent) alcohol consumption, eating refined carbohydrates, starchy vegetables (including GMO corn & its products) and pesticide-drenched conventionally-grown produce, infrequent exercise, and perhaps smoking. The breast cancer discussion boards are full of trim, teetotaling, breast-feeding/early-and-multiple-pregnancy, athletic red-meat-avoiding (even vegan) women without family history who still got breast cancer. The only proven direct causational correlation between known carcinogens and cancer remains--to this day--tobacco (smoking or chewing) use and cancers of, respectively, the lung and oro-pharynx. Smoke or “chaw” long and often enough and you WILL get cancer. (And perhaps prolonged high levels of estrogen stoking estrogen-sensitive tumors--although the majority of HRT recipients never get them). Every other correlation is a statistical one, showing these suspected carcinogens “increase” one’s chances of developing cancer. The baseline “population risk” is flawed: what factors into it?
Face it: everything is a potential carcinogen, and (except for inhaling the tars from smoke) we don’t know for certain how they combine and what actually triggers the switch that causes cells to continually divide instead of dying.
Face it: everything is a potential carcinogen, and (except for inhaling the tars from smoke) we don’t know for certain how they combine and what actually triggers the switch that causes cells to continually divide instead of dying.
6
It would be helpful if the article said what the overall risk of these specific cancers were for the average man and woman. Then one could make a more educated guess about the risk - i.e. if the chance of a 50-year old man of getting colorectal cancer in the next 10 years is 0.68%, a 17% increase in that risk from daily consumption of 100 grams of red-meat would increase the chance to 0.8%.
12
The risk is actually much lower than that overall, but you are absolutely right. We are talking about a 17% increase of a statistic that is something like .04%. Of course that is for incidence of developing Colorectal cancer, death rates are far lower, something like .016%. It varies by region and of course by age, but regional incidence rates suggest that you can probably eat those few extra pieces of meat without sweating it too much. In the end there is bound to be other lifestyle changes most could make which would have a much more profound decrease in cancer incidence.
Regional Colorectal Cancer Rate 2012: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/state.htm
Regional Colorectal Cancer Rate 2012: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/state.htm
1
...meat is linked to cancer - while vegetables, fruit, legumes and nuts are associated with cancer prevention (along with general physical and mental health). Very strong conclusions for adopting a plant-based or less-meat lifestyle. The world populations with lowest incidences of cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis are the ones that eat an abundance of whole, real, clean foods and do not partake in the consumption of animal flesh, blood and bones. Killing animals, it turns out, kills us.
69
Whenever this type of news come out without much detail, vegans are excited to proclaim how their diet is right. Large number of vegans that can't afford buying organic foods are exposed to the danger of pesticides used on fruits and vegetables.
Secondly, humans require adequate intake of protein in order to keep up with our daily necessities for the tissue regeneration of our body including bone, secondly for the usage of certain protein as energy sources for muscles, liver and small intestine. These serious requirements can't be implemented by token protein intake from vegetables or tofu.
Secondly, humans require adequate intake of protein in order to keep up with our daily necessities for the tissue regeneration of our body including bone, secondly for the usage of certain protein as energy sources for muscles, liver and small intestine. These serious requirements can't be implemented by token protein intake from vegetables or tofu.
11
@Ar Shah:
In actual experimental trials (as opposed to observational studies based on food-recall surveys) people who eat more naturally-fatty foods (including meat and eggs) lose weight and improve health. There are numerous populations who have eaten diets rich in meat and fat and enjoyed excellent health, including very low (or zero) rates of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancers.
Animal foods are both nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite, providing some nutrients that are impossible to get from plant foods, and humans have been eating animal foods since before we were even human.
In actual experimental trials (as opposed to observational studies based on food-recall surveys) people who eat more naturally-fatty foods (including meat and eggs) lose weight and improve health. There are numerous populations who have eaten diets rich in meat and fat and enjoyed excellent health, including very low (or zero) rates of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancers.
Animal foods are both nutrient dense and satiating to the appetite, providing some nutrients that are impossible to get from plant foods, and humans have been eating animal foods since before we were even human.
7
It's easy and cheap to get adequate protein from plants. Beans, lentils, whole grains, nuts and seeds are all excellent sources. Even dark leafy greens and potatoes provide protein. If that weren't the case, then many of the world's top endurance athletes (as well as plenty of healthy "regular folks") wouldn't be long-term vegans.
3
The accompanying photo appears to be one of a Mexican Chorizo, which is made with uncooked pork and most likely contains no nitrites or nitrates. The Spanish Chorizo is typically the cured meat version and may have nitrites or nitrates.
4
I doubt they'll be a run on tofu any time soon. This is America, after all.
I just ate a Tofu Reuben sandwich with avocado, sauerkraut, and Russian dressing make with vegan mayonnaise (Vegenaise, Just Mayo, Nayonaise), ketchup, Vidalia onion, capers, and lemon juice.
The article inspired me, so I guess you could say there was a run on tofu in my case.
The article inspired me, so I guess you could say there was a run on tofu in my case.
1
Was the tofu made from GM soybeans? If so, which is likely, there is deadly round up residue, now believed to be a carcinogen and certainly already identified with many health problems, including spontaneous abortions.
3
Tofu's great, I love tofu, but I have to laugh that people think it is some kind of pristine natural product. It is as highly processed as any food out there and soybeans are genetically modified and grown with tons of pesticides. I don't worry about eating tofu, but I wouldn't buy any argument that tofu is better for you than, say, chicken or beef.
20
This may sound questionable, but one of my three ocnoclogists suggested that serving up more tomatoes and sex will help prevent prostate cancer.
I guess I never ate enough tomatoes.
Also, i am not sure prayer actually helps. When i was diagnosed with prostate cancer my wife prayed and prayed. I'm still here.
For all you men who are afraid of getting a check for colon cancer: don't be whips - just ask them to knock you out first. Colon cancer is the stupidest thing not to be checked for...or at least one of them. The prostate test (other than physical exam (probe) and or biopsy) is a simple blood test to determine a PSA level (possible marker indicating cancer).
I guess I never ate enough tomatoes.
Also, i am not sure prayer actually helps. When i was diagnosed with prostate cancer my wife prayed and prayed. I'm still here.
For all you men who are afraid of getting a check for colon cancer: don't be whips - just ask them to knock you out first. Colon cancer is the stupidest thing not to be checked for...or at least one of them. The prostate test (other than physical exam (probe) and or biopsy) is a simple blood test to determine a PSA level (possible marker indicating cancer).
1
Mark said: "Also, i am not sure prayer actually helps. When i was diagnosed with prostate cancer my wife prayed and prayed. I'm still here. “
(rim shot) He’ll be here all week. Try the veal. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.
(rim shot) He’ll be here all week. Try the veal. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.
2
Prostate surgery is not trivial and the complications can be severe so we need to be careful not to over diagnose.
An annual digital examination for prostate cancer, by all means. But the PSA screening test is pretty much discredited - not least because it doesn't reduce the death rate!
An annual digital examination for prostate cancer, by all means. But the PSA screening test is pretty much discredited - not least because it doesn't reduce the death rate!
Sandy
Your suggestion to "try the veal" disturbed me more than the article. I am hoping it was a joke, in poor taste.
Your suggestion to "try the veal" disturbed me more than the article. I am hoping it was a joke, in poor taste.
All things to moderation.
4
Telling us that a risk is increased by 18% would be a lot more informative if you also told us the overall risk. Without that baseline number, the incremental risk is nearly meaningless.
To be fair, you aren't alone in presenting incomplete data this way: It's quite hard to find the overall risk of colon cancer. The Mayo Clinic's website, for example, tells us in great detail what factor can change the risk, but never posts the baseline percentage. The National Cancer Institute does tell us: 42.4 new cases per 100,000 people per year, and a 4.5% lifetime risk. So an 18% change means about 7 cases per 100,000 people per year, and a difference of about 0.8% lifetime risk.
By comparison, tobacco use is considered a contributing factor for 90% of lung cancers (cdc.gov), which comes to 53 cases per 100,000 people per year (seer.cancer.gov), and more than a 5% lifetime increased risk.
To be fair, you aren't alone in presenting incomplete data this way: It's quite hard to find the overall risk of colon cancer. The Mayo Clinic's website, for example, tells us in great detail what factor can change the risk, but never posts the baseline percentage. The National Cancer Institute does tell us: 42.4 new cases per 100,000 people per year, and a 4.5% lifetime risk. So an 18% change means about 7 cases per 100,000 people per year, and a difference of about 0.8% lifetime risk.
By comparison, tobacco use is considered a contributing factor for 90% of lung cancers (cdc.gov), which comes to 53 cases per 100,000 people per year (seer.cancer.gov), and more than a 5% lifetime increased risk.
134
Thank you. And aside from quitting smoking, the most effective way to minimize your risk of abdominal cancer -- by far -- is to not be fat.
Obesity causes cancer. So if someone loses weight having eggs and bacon for breakfast instead of cereal and fruit juice, and a pork chop for dinner instead of pasta and a soda, they are probably reducing their risk, not increasing it.
Obesity causes cancer. So if someone loses weight having eggs and bacon for breakfast instead of cereal and fruit juice, and a pork chop for dinner instead of pasta and a soda, they are probably reducing their risk, not increasing it.
5
Association does not equal causation. Association links are good for generating a hypothesis. Further research is needed to establish causation. Association links between food and health should not be used to provide dietary guidelines. Our past experience with cholesterol and saturated fat has shown that premature guidelines can be detrimental to public health.
34
My concern with reports like this is that they distract people from more important health issues. like smoking, driving drunk, being obese, etc. Some policies for a long life are: Don’t get overweight, Don’t drive with a drunk driver (and don’t be that drunk driver), Don’t smoke, Don’t have uncontrolled high blood pressure, Don’t store your firearms at home but keep them at your shooting club or range, and take one low potency multivitamin a day since it is not feasible for those of us with a sedentary urban life to get all the recommended daily allowance of every essential vitamin from our diet without getting obese.
57
So the media should stop covering important public health events because the coverage is distracting from other important health issues.
4
@MMR
Agree, but also wear seat belts, don't text and drive, and don't own a swimming pool.
Agree, but also wear seat belts, don't text and drive, and don't own a swimming pool.
Sorry MMR, but almost every study ever done on multi-vitamins has concluded they are worthless for the vast majority of people.
1
It will be interesting to find our colon cancer ratios in Argentina where red meat is eaten quite ofter (at least 3 times a week maybe ???). So okay, this year red meat is out and coffe is in...........!!!
6
It's important for people to understand that the term "red meat" refers to any of the meats commonly eaten by humans that are derived from mammals, including: beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, goat, venison, bison, rabbit, etc.
(Yes, pork. For many years the American pork industry ran a disinformation campaign claiming that pork was a "white meat.")
Importantly, "red meat" does not refer to a meat's degree of doneness once it has been cooked, such as a rare steak, burger or chop. So whether a red meat is cooked rare or well-done, it remains a red meat.
Additionally, the term red meat does not refer to other red- or pink-colored animal proteins that are NOT derived from mammals, such as: salmon, red snapper; cooked lobster, shrimp or crab; surimi, etc.
(Yes, pork. For many years the American pork industry ran a disinformation campaign claiming that pork was a "white meat.")
Importantly, "red meat" does not refer to a meat's degree of doneness once it has been cooked, such as a rare steak, burger or chop. So whether a red meat is cooked rare or well-done, it remains a red meat.
Additionally, the term red meat does not refer to other red- or pink-colored animal proteins that are NOT derived from mammals, such as: salmon, red snapper; cooked lobster, shrimp or crab; surimi, etc.
12
That's the way I've always understood it--basically, red meat is the flesh of mammals and white meat is everything else (despite what the pork industry campaign said, which I also detested).
1
Everyone knows processed meats especially with all of the fats, and "junk" inside of it are not good for one's health. Not surprised about the carcinogens and people will still eat it and not worry about cancer or cholesterol, weight gain, etc.
6
My (former) cardiologist suggested that there was no correlation between high cholesterol and heart problems when i was having my tests done. He said his was over 300 and he did not worry. I called a month later (not hearing from him about the results). Seems he dropped dead of a heart attack on the ski slopes. Wonder if there is a correlation between skiing and heart attacks.
80
anecdotal, as you, of course, already know. but each of us will be killed anecdotally, regardless.
9
Mark, both very low and very high cholesterol are unhealthy. But there are much better predictors of heart attack risk now.
It is my understanding that the processed meat problem is connected to the nitrates used to process meat. It seems like more and more nitrate free processed meats are becoming available. These could be a good alternative. I have a close relative that died of colon cancer and so I try to limit my intake of processed meat (with nitrates) to once a month.
8
That is not necessarily correct. Most of those allegedly "Nitrate-Free" are "no added nitrates other than those that occur naturally" in celery, beets, sage and such. Nitrate/Nitrites have been used for almost 2 millennium (saltpeter). What has changed considerably (in the US) over the past century is the sedentary lifestyle, obesity and adulterated commodity meats (hormones, antibiotics, pesticide based feed raised in CAFO's). France has high quality meat, eats plenty of charcuterie but has lower rates of colorectal/pancreatic cancer than the rest of the developed world and Europe.
If you are eating 3-4oz of both commodity meats and processed meats, there are sure to be some undesirable consequences; though eating better food for the pleasure (rather than treating food as medicine) of it seems to work in some parts of the world.
If you are eating 3-4oz of both commodity meats and processed meats, there are sure to be some undesirable consequences; though eating better food for the pleasure (rather than treating food as medicine) of it seems to work in some parts of the world.
7
A plant based diet can be delicious, exciting,and easy after an initial learning curve. With so many great books and films supporting us, now is a great time to watch Forks Over Knives and choose health supporting foods from the plant kingdom.
75
Agreed for the most part but leave out the soy. Too many vegetarians overuse soy and soy based products, which are highly processed. Plus, endless miles of soybean fields do a huge amount of environmental damage. I will take a mostly plant based diet combined with fish (fished myself) or hunted game or meat from animals raised on a small local farm.
4
Dear Paul,
The "endless miles of soybean fields" are cultivated to feed animals. Take that wasteful (and unhealthful) factor out of the equation, and plant-based eaters can have as much or as little soy as they want, without environmental concerns. And many soy products--including tofu, tempeh, miso and soy milk--are lightly processed, traditional foods that Asian populations have been eating for centuries with good health.
The "endless miles of soybean fields" are cultivated to feed animals. Take that wasteful (and unhealthful) factor out of the equation, and plant-based eaters can have as much or as little soy as they want, without environmental concerns. And many soy products--including tofu, tempeh, miso and soy milk--are lightly processed, traditional foods that Asian populations have been eating for centuries with good health.
7
Also watch Vegucated and Cowspiracy.
1
I'll take my chances.
83
I hope you keep current with your colonoscopies!
1
I won't. And I haven't for many many years.
1
This looks like a study that finds correlation but not causation. Call me when you have causation. I am tired to flinching every time some new correlative study comes along. I am old enough to remember the recommendations to reduce fat and increase carbs. How has that worked out?
159
That worked out to increased rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. How is the new study different than the old nitrites scare? Seems like all these warnings follow fashion, wait 10 years or so and they come back with a new spin.
4
You're completely correct about fat and carbs, but if you're holding out for a higher standard of proven causation than this then you may be waiting for a long time. Eating red meat can't necessarily be shown to "cause" individual cases of colon cancer any more than smoking can be shown to "cause" individual cases of lung cancer; it's all a question of odds. (Taking a sufficiently large dose of poison, on the other hand, can be reliably shown to "cause" death.) As always, some people will indulge and never develop cancer; personally I'm not willing to take the chance that it's all just a misunderstanding.
6
The article explains the difference, albeit simply, between Group 1 (processed meats cause cancer) and Group 2A ("limited evidence" that red meat causes cancer).
1
Observational studies have never successfully separated eating red meat from other diet and lifestyle factors. Those who eat more red meat tend to eat more processed meat, more refined carbs, more processed foods in general, less vegetables, less fiber, are less likely to exercise or go to the doctor, are more likely to smoke, etc. Those who eat less red meat are the opposite of all those behaviors, on average.
There are numerous populations who have eaten traditional diets rich in meat and fat, and yet they had very low rates of cancer and most other chronic diseases. This is also observational, but at least it tells us that the diet was not causing cancer. (And yes, they lived long enough for these diseases to show up if they were going to occur.)
There are numerous populations who have eaten traditional diets rich in meat and fat, and yet they had very low rates of cancer and most other chronic diseases. This is also observational, but at least it tells us that the diet was not causing cancer. (And yes, they lived long enough for these diseases to show up if they were going to occur.)
125
I suggest you read the study.
4
France is a notable example. Considerable consumption of meat, fats, alcohol and charcuterie but lower rates of colorectal cancer than European countries. They also have stricter rules regulating the quality of food.
33
That example likely applies to western Europe in general. Those populations consume much more olive oil and wine per capita too, which is sited in the Mediterranean diet literature. For those with their faces buried in a Subway smoked turkey sandwich, the Mediterranean diet is not a weight loss diet, but rather a more healthy way of eating.
Interestingly enough, though France may have a lower incidence of colorectal cancer, it's not because they eat grainy bread. The French baguette is not only void of fiber, but it's a short cut to constipation, the untold very popular condition among the French.
Interestingly enough, though France may have a lower incidence of colorectal cancer, it's not because they eat grainy bread. The French baguette is not only void of fiber, but it's a short cut to constipation, the untold very popular condition among the French.
1
Gerson in 40's stated (and reason I am here, mother in medicine I went "holistic" at age 18 - age of consent)...
Cancer will work it's way backwards, until babies are "born" with it.
"Our soils are our external metabolism" an elegant statement.
Our soils are void of any nutrient value, and so is our food.