AH HA...food for thought!

Meat Raises Lung Cancer Risk
Study Finds That People Who Eat Lots of Processed Meats Have Several Cancer Risks
By MAGGIE FOX, Reuters
Posted: 2007-12-11 10:39:32
Filed Under: Health, Healthy Living, Diet & Fitness
WASHINGTON - People who eat a lot of red meat and processed meats have a higher risk of several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, U.S. researchers reported.

The work is the first big study to show a link between meat and lung cancer. It also shows that people who eat a lot of meat have a higher risk of liver and esophageal cancer and that men raise their risk of pancreatic cancer by eating red meat.

"A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites," Dr. Amanda Cross and colleagues at the U.S. National Cancer Institute wrote in their report, published in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine.

The researchers studied 500,000 people aged 50 to 71 who took part in a diet and health study done in conjunction with the AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons.

After eight years, 53,396 cases of cancer were diagnosed.

"Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake," the researchers wrote.

The people in the top 20 percent of eating processed meat had a 20 percent higher risk of colorectal cancer -- mostly rectal cancer -- and a 16 percent higher risk for lung cancer.

"Furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver," the researchers wrote.

These differences held even when smoking was accounted for.

"Red meat intake was not associated with gastric or bladder cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, or melanoma," added the researchers, whose study is freely available on the Internet at medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325.

Red meat was defined as all types of beef, pork and lamb. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats, cold cuts, ham and most types of hot dogs including turkey dogs.

Meats can cause cancer by several routes, the researchers noted. "For example, they are both sources of saturated fat and iron, which have independently been associated with carcinogenesis," the researchers wrote.

Meat is also a source of several chemicals known to cause DNA mutations, including N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Jeanine Genkinger of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and Anita Koushik of the University of Montreal said the findings fit in with other research.

"Meat consumption in relation to cancer risk has been reported in over a hundred epidemiological studies from many countries with diverse diets," they wrote in a commentary.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Julie Steenhuysen and Eric Beech)


Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-12-04 09:50:48
Must Read?80 % 20 % 261 VOTESSHARE IM THIS Article to a Friend EMAIL THIS Article to a Friend

Glad I don't eat red meat!! :yes:

Of course, they took smoking into account, but I'm sure there are other things that people who eat red meat may be more likely to do that may increase their chances for cancer....

I do eat turkey sausages, though. I wonder what they are processing that stuff with that even the turkey is getting ruined?? I wonder would ALL processed turkey be included? I usually eat turkey ham, turkey bacon and turkey sausages instead of the pig or cow version. I'm sure they are processed to mimick the red meat versions. :(

More proof....

Not a good idea to eat the flesh of dead animals!!

But hadn't people been eating meat for years without cancer being prevalent?

But hadn't people been eating meat for years without cancer being prevalent?


I think part of the problem with this question is that there is no way to compare the effects of eating a free range animal as the primary source of food by physically active people, such as the American Buffalo and Native Americans or farmers that raised and slaughtered their own meat, with the liefestyle we have today and the stuff they're putting into the meat we eat. It could be that eating the meat we eat - especially the processed meats - with a minimal amount of physical work and a maximum amount of toxins from multiple sources may be more than our bodies can process.

I think part of the problem with this question is that there is no way to compare the effects of eating a free range animal as the primary source of food by physically active people, such as the American Buffalo and Native Americans or farmers that raised and slaughtered their own meat, with the liefestyle we have today and the stuff they're putting into the meat we eat. It could be that eating the meat we eat - especially the processed meats - with a minimal amount of physical work and a maximum amount of toxins from multiple sources may be more than our bodies can process.

Which suggests that it's not "eating meat" that is the problem, and that there are other things that should be considered, right?

You know.....EVERYTHING causes cancer!!!! Articles are everywhere about things that we eat that cause this and cause that...Like eggs, at first it was bad, now research shows that eggs are good...Same with milk.

Cancer is caused by not getting certain nutrients for a long time. People abuse their bodies, don't eat right, and expect McDonald's to satisfy every nutrient the body needs.

Which suggests that it's not "eating meat" that is the problem, and that there are other things that should be considered, right?


Yep. Actually, I am NOT a big fan of these "studies" that review other studies or statistics and draw conclusions. I know they are very popular, but I think they are incomplete, don't allow for ennumberable variables, and are mostly done to satisfy the beliefs that people already hold.

I.E., I was thrilled when the incidence of breast cancer in women dropped so dramatically after they stopped pumping women full of hormones and that the drop was attributed to the reduction in hormone therapy, because it reinforced what I believe, but I just read that the rate of cancer in children also dropped dramatically for the same period. *shrug*

Cancer is caused by not getting certain nutrients for a long time. People abuse their bodies, don't eat right, and expect McDonald's to satisfy every nutrient the body needs.

:eek: You mean McDonalds isn't good for you? :p

I think you're right, cancer is a relatively new phenomenon, or at least it is being as widespread as it is now. If all these things were bad for you, then people would have been getting cancer a long time ago, and they weren't!

Yep. Actually, I am NOT a big fan of these "studies" that review other studies or statistics and draw conclusions, because I think they're incomplete, don't allow for ennumberable variables, and are mostly done to satisfy the beliefs that people already hold.

I.E., I was thrilled when the incidence of breast cancer in women dropped so dramatically after they stopped pumping women full of hormones and that the drop was attributed to the reduction in hormone therapy, because it reinforced what I believe, but I just read that the rate of cancer in children also dropped dramatically for the same period. *shrug*

I know, from doing my dissertation and reading into how to conduct research, that for the results to be relevant you have to try and eliminate as many other variables that can come into it. It seems (from what I read) that they took away the smoking variable, but didn't really think about anything else.

As you said, when people want to prove something, they tend not to do that.

You shouldn't really take these studies at face value.

You know.....EVERYTHING causes cancer!!!! Articles are everywhere about things that we eat that cause this and cause that...Like eggs, at first it was bad, now research shows that eggs are good...Same with milk.

Cancer is caused by not getting certain nutrients for a long time. People abuse their bodies, don't eat right, and expect McDonald's to satisfy every nutrient the body needs.

True. I also think that we are going to find, in addition to all of the above AND all of the other toxins we breath and ingest and come in contact with, that there is an influence from what we think - not as simplistic as thinking ourselves well and certainly not as simplistic as blaming the person for making themselves sick - but I think we are learning that if people can't let go of pain/loss/hurt/stress/etc. in their minds, it stresses the body, and that stress may make it more difficult for the body to function properly and eliminate the cancerous cells before the overgrowth occurs.

People WERE getting cancer, Rob. But they didn't know what it was. Back in 400 B.C. Hippocrates (the father of medicine) described tumors as "carcinoma" and that is how we got the word cancer.

They found signs of cancer in Egyptian mummies.

I think we have more problems from meat than we used to because meat used to be much more rare in our diet. Now that it's easy to come by, we eat too much of it.

I know, from doing my dissertation and reading into how to conduct research, that for the results to be relevant you have to try and eliminate as many other variables that can come into it. It seems (from what I read) that they took away the smoking variable, but didn't really think about anything else.

As you said, when people want to prove something, they tend not to do that.

You shouldn't really take these studies at face value.

Yep, that was klind of my point about what else the people who eat red meat were doing that could expose them to more cancer-causing things.

Like, people who eat processed meats and red meat in general are more likely to live in poorer, more urban areas - where they are exposed to all sorts of pollution.

I wonder how many red-meat-eating, non-smoking cowboys out in the country get cancer - away from the pollution?

So now take the fact they eat red or processed meat and break down economic level and location and what they eat along with the red meat.

If you are eating fast food burgers, you're more likely to be eating them with fried foods and very little produce and living a more stressful life in a polluted urban area than if you eat red meat from your farm in the clean air country along with lots of fresh produce.

People WERE getting cancer, Rob. But they didn't know what it was. Back in 400 B.C. Hippocrates (the father of medicine) described tumors as "carcinoma" and that is how we got the word cancer.

They found signs of cancer in Egyptian mummies.

I think we have more problems from meat than we used to because meat used to be much more rare in our diet. Now that it's easy to come by, we eat too much of it.

I think that's true of some people, Kristin, or it may have been true of prehistoric man because they're hunting skills and tools were not as well-honed - but that could be speculation, too ... any group that can bring down a mastodon with a handful of men with pieces of rock tied to a stick shouldn't be underestimated - but people like the Native Americans had a very steady diet of buffalo meat and millions of farmers ate meat three times a day for a few thousand years, at least. I'm sure there were people who ate very little meat, but I'm not sure it was all people.

We started out as hunter/gatherers and we at a lot more gathered food than meat. A steady diet of meat is a relatively recent thing.

But like I mentioned - it depends on what we are eating WITh that meat.

And I'm sure what the "meat" was eating makes a difference, too.

We started out as hunter/gatherers and we at a lot more gathered food than meat. A steady diet of meat is a relatively recent thing.

I was taught the same thing, Kristin. I'm just not sure that I believe it: as I said, killing a mastodon was no small feat and I don't know what the proof is that prehistoric humans ate more gathered fruits and berries than meat.