Baloney Science On The Perils Of Meat

More bad news for red and processed meat. Linked to cancer again! Call in the Department of Homeland security and the nation’s top scientists.

Meat has a terrible reputation already, so why not pile on?

But the recent study in the American Journal of Epidemiology Nov 1, which found “associated risks” for prostate cancer with red and processed meat, is stretching for a headline rather than for some truth we can sink our teeth into.

Challenge Medical Research

To debunk the study, I turned to Dr. David H. Newman, author of “Hippocrates’ Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine.” Dr. Newman breaks down complex medical concepts, treatments and research into simple terms that any of us can understand.  His book is a page-turner that challenges much of the medical research that is so hyped by the media and medical profession.

Dr. Newman writes about this "terrifying" study:

“Like the ‘moderate alcohol intake and cancer in women’ study, the researchers use huge numbers of subjects to find statistically apparent ‘associations’ that are, in fact, miniscule. Truly, laughably small: A relative risk of 1.12 for meat-eaters developing prostate cancer and 1.31 for advanced prostate cancer when compared to non-meat eaters.

This means that the chance of advanced prostate cancer in non-meat eaters in this study was 1 in 159, and the chance in meat eaters jumps all the way up to… 1.3 in 159. The reference risk for non-meat eaters would be 1.0, so this is a 12% and a 31% increased risk, respectively — which sounds much more impressive when said this way.”

For those of you who like charts:

Dr. Newman continues:

“Much more importantly, note that these are associations, and they do not even hint at causation. Causal relationships typically exhibit  risks that are 10 to 20 times the baseline risk or higher. These risks are 1.1 and 1.3 times the baseline risk.”

I had to check my dictionary. “Causal” means the cause of something. You know like fundamental. Like smoking causes lung cancer. Not as in “is associated with” but “causes” cancer.

“1.12 and 1.3 are such small associations,” Newman goes on to say, “that they virtually prove that there can be no important or causal relationship between meat and prostate cancer. I find this study reassuring in that regard.”

“I realize that they try to make it sound important and scary, the opposite of reassuring. But if meat causes any important problems related to cancer (which is always possible), this study didn’t find them.”

Dr. Newman focused on the numbers. I find humor, too, in how researchers stack the deck.

The lightest meat eaters were also least likely to smoke, most likely to work out 5x per week, and had the lowest rate of diabetes. The heaviest meat eaters were also the least educated, had the highest body mass index, and the lowest rate of PSA testing in the past three years.

But even with all that going against the red meat eaters (who may be tucking into Jimmy Dean Flapsticks sausage and pancakes on a stick as you read this post) they had only marginally higher chance of developing prostate cancer.

I find this reassuring because the grass-fed beef farmers I have met and respect through Friend of the Farmer may find their livelihoods on the line if even a small percentage of their customers move away from their beef to, say, tilapia.

There is no perfect diet for humans. People can live on everything from the Inuit’s high-protein, high-fat diet to low-protein, high-carb diets in Southern Africa. As we’re learning, what you eat probably matters less than how much processing it’s been through or, in the case of meat, how the animal has been fed.

Grass-fed Animals Produce Healthier Beef

Animals, except in the harshest conditions, do best outside on pasture rather than in confinement.  In fact, nutritionist Jonny Brody writing on Forbes.com called meat a health food if or ideally when it is raised as it has been for thousands of years—on grass, free of antibiotics and hormones.

I could quote research from nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists cited by Consumer Reports in March 2008 that found grass-fed steak has:

1. Higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which may help reduce heart-disease risk.
2. More conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which might improve the immune system and help fight cancer, atherosclerosis, and type 2 diabetes.

But I would prefer to appeal to your common sense, your taste buds and a quick review of how we have raised animals for the last few thousands years.  Then decide what’s right for you and your family.

For a complete list of grass-fed beef by state.

Sustainable farms and beef farmers I like:

Herondale Farm, Ancramdale, NY

Leahy Farm, Lee, MA

Moon on the Pond, Sheffield, MA

Whippoorwill Farm, Lakeville, Ct

Related recipes:

Top round beef

Lemongrass burgers

 

 

Follow David Becker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/friendthefarmer

Comments

[MJinCanada]

Thanks for the common sense.

So many of these so-called studies take one factor out of 10 or 20 possible factors and run with the association.

A few months ago it was a lame association between marijuana use and one of the rarer testicular cancers, simply because both had increased over 50 years. It ignored food additives, tight jeans, cell phones in front pockets and every other potential factor.

[ottabox]

Well, I'm seeing reports of meat increasing the risk of prostate cancer 40% It's unclear who to believe.

[odyssey58]

Thanks for the common sense. Grass fed animals require very little fossil fuel to produce, especially when compared to grains and legumes. It's good for your body and for the environment.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Have all the steroids, anti-biotics, trans-fat, and HFCS you please.
None for me, thanks.

[harveyparadox]

No steroids, anti-biotics, trans-fat, OR HFCS in grass fed animals. Non-issue.

[ottabox]

I'm seeing research that the risk factor at 40%. Clearly more needs to explored on this subject.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025547.html