Poll: Meat causes cancer :O | What will you do? | Human Evolution vs. Contemporary Science?

[dyre]

There sadly is no science less scientific then food study, well apart from religious science.
I tried reading through that study but it's countless layers of wishy washy bullshit, or to be more direct they don't actually have a study it is all statistic correlation from countless sources. No one has proven any of the claims in a laboratory under controlled conditions, they are just guessing that it's meat that gave people cancer and somehow not the thousands of other substances they ingested every day.

This information butchering is exactly why you can't take a single damn sentence seriously, but the prefect way to sell headlines and new diets.

That's my issue with it as well, and why a lot of the reporting on it annoys me. It's a broad overview of a lot of different (often unrelated) studies that tries to point out a broad correlation between their results. The issue with that is, if you're trying to find a correlation, it's often very easy to do so. To try and deal with that, you need to know the views and motivations of the people doing the study. Humans tend to see what they want to see, even highly intelligent and very knowledgeable humans. That's why peer-reviewed science is the only really accepted science.

That being said, there probably *is* a correlation between a high intake of processed/red meat and higher instances of cancer (I believe they specifically referred to colon cancer in this study). I'd totally believe that.

However, it's a quantum leap to go from "eating too much of these meats can slightly increase your chances of cancer" to "Meat gives you cancer just like cigarettes and asbestos." We're not in the same ballpark, we aren't even playing the same sport. We've had processed meats in the US for, what, a hundred years now (I'm talking spam, bologna, the real bad lunch meats), and I don't see a significant portion of the population dying of it.

Colon cancer is the third-leading killer among cancers (which are the 2nd leading cause of death in the US). Somewhere around 50,000 people die of colon cancer a year... out of around 2.5 million US death's a year. That's 2% of all US deaths a year. Hell, colon cancer only makes up about 8.6% of *all* cancer deaths in the US. You could link meat consumption to heart disease (the #1 killer in the US) of course, but you can link a *lot* of things to heart disease, and that wasn't what this study was about.

And trying to link anything to cancer is difficult because so many things can cause it. It's impossible to know how many of those colon cancer cases are from diet, or from genetics, or environmental factors.

So yeah, will eating an excess amount of processed/red meat potentially raise your risk of cancer very slightly? Sure, a lot of things we do everyday will potentially raise your risk of cancer very slightly. I'd believe that. But that doesn't make it a carcinogen on par with smoking or asbestos, lol. What *would* be interesting science, would be to really go over common processed meats and see if we can find some common link between them and an increased risk of cancer. Then we could potentially use that to alter the manufacturing process in a way that improves things. Even cutting cancer deaths by a fraction of a fraction of a percent is potentially 100's or 1000's of lives saved yearly.

What's disappointing to me was that I always thought crappy food science was relegated to people trying to sell you protein drinks, not the WHO.

This news bothered me at first because my family has a history of colon cancer, but on second examination it's not even a study...it's some weird cobbled together mass of existing studies. I'm not sure how valuable a statistical correlation is when you use so many data sets. I've only taken the equivalent of Stat 101 and 102, but it would seem to me that using a correlation based on the results of numerous other experiments with differing methodologies, etc. is problematic.

And of course no story would be complete without a nice, sensationalist headline from CNN :\

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Now, why don't we review the final thoughts of some folks here who found out that their food from an industry which pollutes, contributes to global warming, obesity, and kills billions of animals may also contribute to them getting cancer.

Snipity Do dah

I'm around again and now the comments are starting to give me a headache due to their content (not talking about you btw).Time to finally get around to your response.

"Pollutes?


Well that must be the US industry then, which means I can't do anything about that, for the simple reason that US food isn't imported to Denmark, so even if I wanted to boycott, I couldn't."

Denmark doesn't have to pollute up to the same level as the USA to be criticized on the existence of unnecessary institutions that exist and pollute in that country.


"Is it the bovine flatulence? Or just the emissions caused by transport and other farming equipment.

In case of the former, there's little we can do about that without causing mass starvation."

It's an industry that takes up resources to feed cows that wouldn't be taking them to begin with if we weren't mass-producing these animals to be slaughtered in the first place. I can't imagine the drought in California would be as particularly severe either. I'm not quite sure what you mean by mass starvation.

"No, the industry isn't what causes obesity. What causes obesity is breathtaking lack of selfcontrol.

It's not a farmers fault that some bell end can't stop shoving greasy baking into said bell ends cake socket."

And what facilitates that lack of self-control is a society that has fast-food places and their bill-boards at every single corner. Junk food is subsidized because everyone eats junkfood . . . because junkfood is promoted and sold at every corner.



"Welcome to the circle of life. Herbivores eat plants, omnivores and carnivores eat herbivores, and plants live off the residue carcasses of herbivores, piscivores, omnivores and carnivores.

It's actually incredibly insulting you'd use "the circle of life" to describe a spiral of death. Animals aren't dying nobly for the existence of another, they're dying for decadence. It's become less that we do it because we need to and more that we do it because we can.


"For something beautiful to live, something else had to die."

Except that's clearly not the case when anyone living in a city can literally choose what they eat. No one living in a privileged society ever has to actually worry about having to kill something for their own well being and this point is simply being intellectually dishonest. No one eating at mcdonalds or buying meat is doing it because a cow had to die.

 

[MHR]

I'm a vegetarian, so it doesn't really affect me. Even if I wasn't, I wouldn't really care. Used to smoke a pack a day of cigarettes, and I only quit to get a better lung capacity for the line of work I'm pursuing, not out of caring much about my long-term health.

Fun fact: cigarettes are vegan!

 

[Lightknight]

Again, has anyone postulated whether or not meat is merely competing with high antioxidant options on the plate and ergo increasing the risk of cancer by reducing the consumption of things that would otherwise assist in reducing the risk of cancer?

Additionally, would the people who regularly eat highly processed meats (the meats at the center of this study rather than red meat) be the sort of people who also take less care of their dietary intake?

There are significant other explanations that would drastically change the interpretation of the data. It is disturbing to see a correlation presented as though it were causative.

The problem with that is that you're attempting to apply "logic" to a study that clearly had a goal of demonizing meat.

Oh, I see, silly me .

Again, has anyone postulated whether or not meat is merely competing with high antioxidant options on the plate and ergo increasing the risk of cancer by reducing the consumption of things that would otherwise assist in reducing the risk of cancer?

Additionally, would the people who regularly eat highly processed meats (the meats at the center of this study rather than red meat) be the sort of people who also take less care of their dietary intake?

There are significant other explanations that would drastically change the interpretation of the data. It is disturbing to see a correlation presented as though it were causative.

Interestingly enough, apparently anti-oxidants are BAD for you if you already HAVE Cancer. They accelerate it.

This is actually when taking vitamin supplements that are known as anti-oxidants as opposed to naturally occurring anti-oxidants found in food. It has actually been shown that many vitamin supplements significantly increase the risk of cancer. Like the news that Vitamin E supplements significantly increases the chances of prostrate cancer whereas vitamin E rich diets seem to have reduced the risk of prostrate cancer. So it's an interesting area of study but I don't think saying that "anti-oxidants" increase cancer growth is necessarily true across the board so much as in those specific areas and usually just with the supplements (or highly processed vitamins just like it's processed meats that supposedly cause this cancer risk increase).

 

[busterkeatonrules]

All right - what DOESN'T cause cancer these days according to modern scientists?

My new plan of action: Die from meat-induced cancer! Yeah. I'll always love meat and I'm bound to die of something anyway, so why worry?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

This is actually when taking vitamin supplements that are known as anti-oxidants as opposed to naturally occurring anti-oxidants found in food. It has actually been shown that many vitamin supplements significantly increase the risk of cancer. Like the news that Vitamin E supplements significantly increases the chances of prostrate cancer whereas vitamin E rich diets seem to have reduced the risk of prostrate cancer. So it's an interesting area of study but I don't think saying that "anti-oxidants" increase cancer growth is necessarily true across the board so much as in those specific areas and usually just with the supplements (or highly processed vitamins just like it's processed meats that supposedly cause this cancer risk increase).

Keeping in mind I am not a doctor, just passing along the article I saw.

http://www.cshl.edu/news-a-features/scientists-propose-how-antioxidants-can-accelerate-cancers-and-why-they-dont-protect-against-them.html

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

1) Pollutant.

I am 98% sure that Denmark is about as non-polluting as one can be and still have sustainable (as in provides enough food both for the citizens of the country and for export) farming. Whatever other countries do, we can't be held responsible for. And if there are places to be improved, you can be damned sure someone is working on getting said improvements implemented.

It's not only about the numerical value, but the per capita, and the types of pollutant. And Denmark has the US (not to mention multiple EU countries) beat.

2) Mass starvation.

Well in this case, there'd be a noticeable deficit in the food on the market for the planet. If all countries were to eliminate all farming cattle, and swine we wouldn't be making enough food for everybody on the planet, let alone for someone to stuff themselves.

3) "Ooh people can't control themselves because junkfood is being offered everywhere.

Sorry but if people are this spineless, I will not be held accountable for their actions (especially considering that this seem to be another US issue that is portrayed to be a global one).

4) Circle of life.

No one said their death was noble. Only that it was natural.

5) No one has to kill

So what you're proposing is "kill and eat" restaurants? Where you get to see, and then kill, and then prepare your own food? Personally I think that'd be a great idea. People would then know what made the food taste so well.

But as you say, it's a choice. And I choose to eat refined versions of what my ancestors ate. Meat and two veg (Or in the case of this evening it was mulligatawny soup. Gotta love some good chicken).

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Except that's clearly not the case when anyone living in a city can literally choose what they eat. No one living in a privileged society ever has to actually worry about having to kill something for their own well being

I was going to pretty much stay out of this thread, but then I saw this.
What about the Native Americans, or other indigenous tribes back in older times who had to hunt and forage for their own food?

Since they can be considered a "privileged society" simply because, for a time, they were the only society. They still had to hunt animals to feed their people, they even raised cattle for slaughter, for their food and for leather. Hunters used as much of the animals they killed as they could, the fur for clothes, bones for decoration or ceremonies, and the meat for food. Had these people decided to not eat meat, these people would have made the decision to not be able to feed or clothe their people. Now, of course, they didn't have all the fancy shmancy options we have today, however, they needed to eat meat to survive, especially during the harsh winters, where farming wasn't possible.

A vegetarian or vegan diet isn't practical for everyone, everyone has differing tastes, and in order to meet the same nutritional values of an omnivorous diet, you'd probably get stuck with eating something you don't like, or making up the deficiencies with supplements. I have my own rather limited tastes, I don't like most fruit, either for taste or texture reasons, I only like a small handful of veggies, I can't stomach any seafood, and there are other weird conditionals that restrict what I can eat. A vegetarian, and especially vegan, diet is impossible for me, because I don't like a majority of their foods, and I refuse to resort to taking pills to gain what nutrients I'm missing, when a properly prepared meat can adequately satisfy my dietary needs. In fact, you could say that I eat meat because if I don't, I won't be able to properly supply my system with the nutrients it needs, and I'd die of malnutrition.

The best lesson the raptor can teach you is to be grateful for the prey that sustains you. The worst lesson it can teach you is a practical demonstration of that point.

 

[09philj]

Horizon already told us this several months back, and our household cut out processed meat pretty much entirely. It's actually easier than it sounds. Who cares if you can't have bacon or sausage? Red meat and poultry are still firmly on the menu.

 

[Silvanus]

No one said their death was noble. Only that it was natural.

True, but that it is natural is irrelevant to the morality of it.

[...]on second examination it's not even a study...it's some weird cobbled together mass of existing studies. I'm not sure how valuable a statistical correlation is when you use so many data sets. I've only taken the equivalent of Stat 101 and 102, but it would seem to me that using a correlation based on the results of numerous other experiments with differing methodologies, etc. is problematic.

You mean a metastudy? They've been a staple of analysis for a good long while. It's a perfectly acceptable approach, so long as the analyst allows for methodological differences.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Came here just to click the "I'm a vegetarian so HA!" button
*high-fives other person who chose that option*

Hi-Five, bro!

*Smack*

*Smack*
*both of our weak, vegetarian wrists immediately shatter*

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Eh, its human nature to want to do things that are bad for you. Hopefully this helps people get off their high horses over people who drink or smoke.

Also how come everyonese just saying meat when its processed meat? That just means all that deli shit and burgers that we already knew was bad for you. Lean cuts of red meat are still a lot less bad though a bit of suspicion is levelled at them and burnt stuff is always carcinogenic meat or otherwise.

Also chicken is still great! Fish is good but you need to go easy on because of the mercury, doctors recommend once a week I think but chicken is the chosen one of healthy proteinz.

Though it seems like most food has good and bad. Fish has mercury in it but at the same time gives you essential fats for example. Red meat may have cholesterol but it also has iron. Give and take, anything is toxic it just depends on the dosage.

 

[Flames66]

You know what? This makes me less worried. Now that there's no way for me to avoid getting cancer from everything, I don't have to bother trying anymore.

That's becoming my view as well. It feels like every day something else gives you cancer, has toxic components, fucks you up. I've given up keeping track and eat the things I enjoy. To quote Ron Swanson "I live the way I live, I eat the things I eat and I'll die the way I'll die".

At this rate I'm going to get cancer because I usually start walking by putting my left foot down first. I honestly cannot care at this point.

Really? I usually start with my right leg. Looks like cancer for me.

I will replace my red meat intake with bourbon.

Noooooooo, don't do that. Apparently alcohol causes cancer!

 

[freaper]

At least I'll die having eaten red meat.

Captcha: Burger King

That's right.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I remember a few weeks ago a study was reported on stating that being taller increases cancer risk. This further news disappoints me as my bonus defence against cancer for being slightly below average height has been cancelled out by my love of bacon.

Came here just to click the "I'm a vegetarian so HA!"
button
*high-fives other person who chose that option*

Don't worry friend. Now that science has pinned cancer on cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones, sunlight and now meat. It won't be long before they look into the carcinogenic properties of vegetables in order to continue its ultimate goal. Ruin everything the thing we love by telling us it's going to kill us.

 

[Rornicus]

SNIP SNIP SNIP

This guy...amiright? Super far off topic here. It's cool though.

I am really curious for you to expand on these points though (quoted below - my emphasis added).

We're talking about a form of exploitation where the majority of the misery they're selling is factory farmed and processed.

...from an industry which pollutes, contributes to global warming, obesity, and kills billions of animals ...

Exploitation of who exactly? And how does it cause excess pollution? I have a feeling I will disagree or not care about the points, but I like hearing differing thoughts/opinions. You never know when you are going to hear a really good argument that sways your thinking.

I don't care about your last three points from that second quote there. The global warming one is essentially a duplicate of the pollution one; for the obesity one I don't care because people are allowed to make bad choices for themselves (and neither you or I have a right to force them not to) and animals dying so I can eat them is not something that gives me pause (I've slaughtered and then eaten livestock on my uncle's farm - come at me). Plants die when I eat them too. I'm not crying in my broccoli tonight over it.

You know what this whole derailed part of this thread makes me want to do though? Listen to Pink Floyd. Go listen to the Animals album by Pink Floyd right now. It'll probably be the best 45 minutes you spend today. Or if you're pressed for time, just the song Dogs.

Edit: changed song recommend because prior to post I edited something else out that made my last recommend less relevant.

 

[sky pies]

Well, either we stop eating meat or we start curing cancer.

Should we really cure cancer? It strikes me that the world has enough people already without suddenly curing one of the key ways in which nature is trying to defend itself against an over-populated world.

I say let the cancer continue on. If I die from it I'll do my best to leave a positive mark beforehand, but I'd rather millions of people die and a few tigers still exist when all of humanity has shuffled off this mortal coil than have people the world over suddenly get a license to eat as much junk and smoke as many cigarettes as they want.

 

[MeatMachine]

THIS JUST IN, intimate sex with a wedlocked partner in the missionary position for procreation reasons causes cancer!