Sunday, November 01, 2015

This Blogger Still Eats Red Meat — Do You Know What Hypocrisy Means, Boys & Girls?

The mention of antibiotics and livestock brought back memories for this blogger. In an earlier time, the blogger was befriended by a rancher in the Texas Panhandle with extensive cattle holdings. It was not uncommon for the rancher — driving by one of his many pastures — to see a calf that was looking unwell. Whomp! The rancher would wheel off the road and into the pasture. Nearing the sickly animal, the rancher would stop and go to the trunk. Out would come a full syringe and the rancher would walk up to the calf and plunge the needle into the animal's shoulder. The empty syringe would be tossed back into the trunk and we were back on the road again. Whamp! This procedure would be repeated many, many times. Later in the friendship, the rancher asked the blogger to go to a strip mall in Amarillo and "retrieve some merchandise." A woman answered the bell at the door of the blank storefront and brought a smaller drink cooler to the blogger's vehicle. When delivering the cooler to the rancher, the blogger asked about the woman. The reply was that she was a partner pharmacist with her husband and while he handled customers at their actual pharmacy, she (also a pharmacist) operated a formulary for under-the-counter antibiotics in the strip mall location. Evidently, the expression on the blogger's face made that the only time the rancher asked him to "pick up some merchandise." End of exposé. If this is a (fair & balanced) revelation about antibiotic-abuse in the livestock industry, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
So Will Processed Meat Give You Cancer?
By Anahad O’Connor

Tag Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at

For the first 18 years of my life, I was raised as a vegetarian. My father was convinced of the perils of red meat after my paternal grandmother died on the operating table from late-stage colon cancer. While my father would no doubt be pleased by the news last week that a panel convened by the World Health Organization declared processed meats a cause of colorectal cancer — and red meat a probable one — I’m not convinced.

By no means am I a staunch defender of red meat. It has a greater impact on the environment than any other food in our diet: An estimated 20 percent of all greenhouse gases are attributable to raising animals for food. A vast majority of the meat we consume comes from factory farms, where animals are fattened with hormones and antibiotics and routinely subjected to inhumane conditions that breed disease. These are all compelling reasons to cut back on meat consumption — and part of the reason, even though I’m no longer a strict vegetarian, I rarely eat red meat.

But does bacon cause cancer, as the World Health Organization seemed to assert this week? That’s not a risk I worry about.

The main problem with the public health messages put out by the WHO is that the agency did a poor job of explaining what its risk-ranking system really means. By most accounts, it’s arcane and even confuses some scientists. That’s because it’s based only on the strength of the overall research, not on the actual danger of a specific product.

A result is that the agency has created a hodgepodge of probable and possible carcinogens that borders on the ridiculous: pickled vegetables, coffee, cellphones, frying, working as a barber (think hair dye) and now red meat. As for bacon? The agency listed it alongside cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, plutonium and salted fish. Of the more than 900 potential carcinogens the W.H.O. has evaluated since 1971, it has determined that only one — a nylon-manufacturing chemical found in drinking-water supplies — is “probably not” carcinogenic.

Even the most strident anti-meat crusader knows that eating bacon is not as risky as smoking or asbestos exposure. Smoking raises a person’s lifetime risk of developing lung cancer by a staggering 2,500 percent. Meanwhile, two daily strips of bacon, based on the associations identified by the WHO, would translate to about a 6 percent lifetime risk for colon cancer, up from the 5 percent risk for people who don’t enjoy bacon or other processed meats.

But that’s not the message that came across.

“Processed Meats Rank Alongside Smoking as Cancer Causes — WHO” read a headline in The Guardian.

“Bacon, Hot Dogs as Bad as Cigarettes” read another.

We do know that eating a lot of processed meat or red meat is associated with higher cancer risk; the WHO report cited 800 studies documenting the association. But that’s a long way from cause and effect. It may simply be the so-called healthy user bias, the idea that people who eat lots of bacon are more likely to engage in risky behaviors (like smoking or a sedentary lifestyle) that lead to cancer; and that non-meateaters exhibit other healthful virtues (like exercise or eating vegetables) that protect them.

Untangling the effect of red meat from all these other risk factors is extremely difficult. And relying too heavily on relatively small associations to draw conclusions can lead health authorities down the wrong path.

It was a lesson learned after years of recommending that women take menopause hormones to protect their hearts, a finding based on observational studies that showed women who took hormones had fewer heart attacks. But when a large government study actually compared hormone use to a placebo, the result was the precise opposite of what the observational data had suggested. Women who took hormones had a higher risk of heart attack.

Other examples abound. Observational studies have suggested that a high intake of beta-carotene and vitamins B, C and E could protect against death from heart disease. Clinical trials showed they did not. Fiber and folic acid seemed to protect against colorectal cancer in observational studies; clinical trials indicated they did not.

John Ioannidis, the chairman of disease prevention at Stanford University, published a paper in 2012 titled “Is Everything We Eat Associated With Cancer?” He and a co-author scoured the medical literature and found many foods — among them eggs, coffee and even carrots and tomatoes — that had been linked to both an increased and a decreased risk of cancer in various studies.

Dr. Ioannidis said his normal inclination would be to dismiss the meat and cancer link “as one of these 500 foods that have studies all over the place.” But in this case the link, while relatively tiny, he said, is consistent across many studies.

“We could be wrong,” he added. “But my best interpretation is that there’s probably something there.”

His co-author, Jonathan Schoenfeld, an assistant professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School, offered the analogy of driving a car in the rain, which makes you significantly more likely to get into a car accident.

“That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t drive when it’s raining,” he said. “It means it might not make sense to speed in the rain — or to be one of the highest consumers of processed meat.”

Perhaps the single most important measure you can take to protect yourself from colorectal cancer, experts say, is to get a screening between the ages of 50 and 75. But only 58 percent of people in that age range do so.

“There’s nothing wrong with the concept of reducing your intake of red and processed meat,” said Amy Elmaleh, director of Colon Cancer Canada, an advocacy group. “But there’s a better conversation to have about screening, which is a huge opportunity to prevent colon cancer.”

If the number of adults who underwent screening rose to 80 percent by 2018, then 280,000 cases of colorectal cancer and 203,000 deaths from the disease could be averted, said Stacey Fedewa, the director of screening and risk factor surveillance for the American Cancer Society.

Because of my family history, I plan to have a colorectal cancer screening sooner than people of average risk. I have an older brother who is almost 40. I haven’t asked him about his intake of bacon. But last week I sent him a text message reminding him to get screened.

“I’ll make sure I get checked out,” he responded. “Thank you.” Ω

[Anahad O’Connor is a reporter for The New York Times, covering health, fitness, nutrition and epidemiology. He has written five books: Don't Go To Work On Mondays (2007), Never Shower in a Thunderstorm (2007), Always Follow the Elephants (2009), The 10 Things You Need to Eat (with Dave Lieberman, 2009), and Lose It!: The Personalized Weight Loss Revolution (with Charles Teague and Gretchen Rubin, 2010). O'Connor received a BA (psychology) from Yale University.]

Copyright © 2015 The New York Times Company

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2015 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

No comments:

Post a Comment

☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!

Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.