Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Red meat fuels bowel cancer risk
CNN.com/Journal of the National Cancer Institute ^ | Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Posted on 06/20/2005 9:35:28 PM PDT by SupplySider

LONDON, England -- People who eat too much red and processed meat increase their risk of bowel cancer by up to a third, according to a new study. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) concluded the risk of developing the disease for people who regularly ate more than two portions of red and processed meat a day was a third (35 percent) higher than for those who ate less than one portion a week. The latest research, published Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, used data from a study of the diets of more than half a million people across Europe. The study also found the risk of developing bowel cancer increased for those people who had a diet low in fiber. Poultry was not found to influence the risk, but the researchers did find that people who ate more fish faced less chance of developing the disease. The risk of bowel cancer dropped by nearly a third (30 percent) for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day -- compared to those who ate fish less than once a week. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Obesity risks Professor Sheila Bingham, a principal investigator of the study from the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge, eastern England, told the Press Association: "People have suspected for some time that high levels of red and processed meat increase risk of bowel cancer, but this is one of the largest studies worldwide and the first from Europe of this type to show a strong relationship. "The overall picture is very consistent for red and processed meat and fiber across all the European populations studied."

(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cancer; health; meat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2005 9:35:29 PM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Sob!
2 posted on 06/20/2005 9:36:01 PM PDT by Petronski (Be alert! The world needs more lerts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

So what they're saying is that if you eat equal amounts of red meat and fish, you will break even.


3 posted on 06/20/2005 9:37:52 PM PDT by kx9088
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

4 posted on 06/20/2005 9:40:11 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Pass the mustard guys. I'm going to Whataburger. Cover me.


5 posted on 06/20/2005 9:42:01 PM PDT by righttackle44 (The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kx9088

Or break wind.


6 posted on 06/20/2005 9:42:59 PM PDT by xrp (Fox News Channel should rename itself the Missing Persons Network)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

My girlfriend has been pushing me to eat more fishfood. I certainly don't want ass cancer.


7 posted on 06/20/2005 9:43:23 PM PDT by xrp (Fox News Channel should rename itself the Missing Persons Network)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Sean Hannity promptly fainted upon hearing the news.

8 posted on 06/20/2005 9:45:46 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
I'm going to Whataburger. Cover me.

LOL

9 posted on 06/20/2005 9:46:19 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Notice how red meat, which is as close to nature as you can get, is lumped in with processed meat, which has all kinds of crap in it. What would happen if they had just surveyed red meat alone?


10 posted on 06/20/2005 9:46:57 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Beans, beans, good for your .....heart


11 posted on 06/20/2005 9:47:02 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

I would love to see where the funding for this study came from - a 35% increase of risk is not a statistically significant amount.

This means absolutely bumpkiss, except to the food police who will use it to further pound on the "obesity epidemic" or whatever it is they are calling it this week.


12 posted on 06/20/2005 9:50:44 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I would love to see where the funding for this study came from...

"The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK and the International Agency for Research on Cancer."

I'm not familiar with these. Perhaps a British freeper can comment. It's an important point. Many of these food studies do seem to be funded by interested parties on one side or the other.

13 posted on 06/20/2005 9:58:24 PM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xrp

If you eat too much fish, you increase the likelihood of heavy metal contamination (especially mercury). Let's face it... you can't win. might as well eat what you like in sensible portions and enjoy life while you can.


14 posted on 06/20/2005 10:03:14 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

"a 35% increase of risk is not a statistically significant amount. "

Huh?!!


15 posted on 06/20/2005 10:06:47 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

And pray tell me, how large are their "portions"? Indeed it is high time to discard the idea of "portion" or "serving" and shift to the approximate weight. Say, 1 serving of fruit is 4 (or would it be 6?) ounces.


16 posted on 06/20/2005 10:07:55 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Between a smoked pork chop for breakfast, and red meat for the other two meals, I am so dead.

The only time I crave vegetables at all is in the summertime, but my theory is who wants to eat vegetables, when they just take up room in your stomach that could be filled with a rare juicy steak.

Obviously the author of this study has never had a beef brisket breakfast taco from Bill Miller's on Sunday mornings...mmmm, slow cooked brisket.


17 posted on 06/20/2005 10:08:02 PM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

If your risk for colon cancer is 1 in 300,000 (about a 3.3 in a million chance) a 35% increase amounts to a 4.5 in 1,000,000 chance. Hardly statistically significant...


18 posted on 06/20/2005 10:13:03 PM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

Drinking milk increases your cancer risk by about 35% - second hand smoke by 17%.


19 posted on 06/20/2005 10:13:19 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

When it comes to statistical risk increases for "whatever" it must cross a certain threshold to become a significant risk increase.

In epidemiology, the risk increase needs to cross a minimum of 2 (200%) or preferably 3 (300%) for it to be statistically significant for a certain risk fact to cause a certain disease.

I couldn't find the numbers used in this particular study and so I am going by the press report that is generally just a rewrite of a press release.........35% increase makes for a great headline, but it means nothing without seeing all of the numbers - something most reporters don't bother with.

My skepticism of the numbers was expressed in my comment about where the funding for this study originated.


20 posted on 06/20/2005 10:14:39 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey

LOL!

"The only time I crave vegetables at all is in the summertime, but my theory is who wants to eat vegetables, when they just take up room in your stomach that could be filled with a rare juicy steak."

I knew someone would post something great on this thread. So far, your's wins!!


21 posted on 06/20/2005 10:16:08 PM PDT by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

You better read that again, because that isn't what it says. It looks like you're confusing incidence with likelihood.


22 posted on 06/20/2005 10:16:18 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider
I'm not familiar with these. Perhaps a British freeper can comment. It's an important point. Many of these food studies do seem to be funded by interested parties on one side or the other.

IARC, I believe, is an arm of WHO which is an arm of the UN, the others I have never heard of either.

I have had serious problems with studies funded by IARC in the past - particularly in the manner they word their press releases.

23 posted on 06/20/2005 10:17:15 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: patton

Depends on the type of milk.


24 posted on 06/20/2005 10:17:29 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Let's face it. Everything causes cancer. Keep the red wine flowing, you still may get cancer but you'll have a better time handling it.


25 posted on 06/20/2005 10:17:46 PM PDT by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

You should be careful when interpreting press reports. I don't think it says what you believe it does.


26 posted on 06/20/2005 10:19:46 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

When will the FOOD NKVD Leave us alone?


27 posted on 06/20/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
Drinking milk increases your cancer risk by about 35% - second hand smoke by 17%.

You are learning well, grasshopper!!!!!

Interestingly enough drinking whole milk as a risk for lung cancer (the number is actually 65%) has not been declared a health hazard because it is not a statistically significant increase - yet the 17% for second hand smoke is on the EPA's class A list........go figger.

28 posted on 06/20/2005 10:22:00 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ikka

Right, I was thinking the same thing. It would be interesting. The processed meats have been crappy for a few decades, at least - preservatives, colorings, artificial flavorings, even corn syrup and partially hydrogenated fats - how could they be good (wholesome) to consume? I guess it would be too costly to cure them more like proscuitto di Parma, for example, but a comparison between cured meats in a natural state and, say, bologna or cold cuts would also be interesting.


29 posted on 06/20/2005 10:22:23 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood; Gabz; SheLion
Obviously, cows that smoke produce milk with a greater risk of cancer.

But in all cases, milk poses a greater risk of cancer, than second-hand smoke. That is why milk is being banned from every bar and bowling alley in the US.

Clearly.

Get with the program, here.

30 posted on 06/20/2005 10:24:07 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider
Stick to the Bill O'Reilly Diet...


31 posted on 06/20/2005 10:26:33 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

I know exactly what this says. It is a statistically insignificant risk increase using proper epidemiological standards - there is an agenda behind the headline which is taken from the press release of the outfit with the agenda.

I've got more than 20 years experience with this stuff - starting from when I was a reporter myself and later writing press releases and later debunking a lot of this kind of bogus scaremongering by the lifestyle police.


32 posted on 06/20/2005 10:29:17 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: patton

You're good!!!!!!!


33 posted on 06/20/2005 10:30:26 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
My grandma - Westerlow, NY - died of lung cancer. Never smoked a day in her life.

But she did own a dairy farm - It was the milk, I tell you! BAN IT!

34 posted on 06/20/2005 10:30:28 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: patton

Keep your hands off my milk :)

All kidding aside, these types of articles drive me insane. If people would take just a few minutes to look at what the numbers actually are and actually mean, these type of headlines would not exist.


35 posted on 06/20/2005 10:35:41 PM PDT by Gabz (My give-a-damn is busted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Gabz. I don't think that they understand the numbers. That is th part that drives me nuts.

What are the odds that a smoker will get cancer, as opposed to a non-smoker?

What will a smoker with cancer cost society (Medicaid, medicare), as opposed to a non-smoker?

The GAO said that smokers contribute something like 1.42/$ when you figure it all in.

Ok, I am off to bed. Done ranting now.

36 posted on 06/20/2005 10:44:49 PM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ikka

Humans ate mostly red meat for hundreds of years and Cancer and Heart Attacks were very rare until the 1900's when processed food hit the market !


37 posted on 06/20/2005 10:45:14 PM PDT by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Just wait until tomorrow and another report will be out saying that eating red meat lessens the risk of some other disease. This rates a 1 on the Barfomatic Machine.


38 posted on 06/20/2005 10:48:16 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Oh goody. The food police again. Or still.


39 posted on 06/20/2005 10:50:12 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
''What will a smoker cost society''?

I've no answer to that Q, but I will ask you one in turn, General:

''Which one, a smoker or a socialist, in the long term, will cost society more?

I would say, w/o any fear of contradiction historically, that the socialist will be far more costly, likely 6, 7, even 10 orders of magnitude, if successful in his/her/its endeavours.

''Don't you even think about watching your flank; you advance, you attack, you push the battle into the Krauts' lines. Let those bastards worry about **their** flank. Some idiot a long time ago started worrying about his flanks, and we've been stuck with that notion ever since.'' -- General George S. Patton Jr.

40 posted on 06/20/2005 11:20:17 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
People who eat too much red and processed meat increase their risk of bowel cancer by up to a third

You're wrong. That is exactly what this is saying (I've seen too many press releases just like it). An increase in risk of 33% means that your risk is 1.33 times normal. If your normal risk is 3 in 10 (30%), it becomes 4 in ten (40%). If it was originally 3 in 10,000 (.03%), it becomes 4 in 10,000 (.04%). That's how risk factors work.

41 posted on 06/20/2005 11:22:33 PM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: america-rules

Give me a break. What was the average life expectancy before 1900, like 45?

The reason cancer and heart disease rates have risen is because we conquered infection through sanitation, antibiotics, vaccination, and pasteurization and now people are dying at an older age from different causes. People have to die from something.


42 posted on 06/20/2005 11:25:12 PM PDT by staterightsfirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

So God gave us canines so we would get cancer. Please.


43 posted on 06/21/2005 12:59:52 AM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Oh well there's fish and chicken :-)


44 posted on 06/21/2005 5:06:32 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC

God didn't give you canines. They are an adaptation of meat eating. If human beings never sinned, we'd be vegetarian according to the Bible.


45 posted on 06/21/2005 5:07:53 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

We are omnivores, and that's the way God intends us to eat until Jesus comes back. BTW, Jesus and the apostles ate red meat. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me :o)


46 posted on 06/21/2005 8:14:26 AM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider

Didja ever hear of a lion or tiger with stomach cancer?


47 posted on 06/21/2005 8:21:09 AM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC

Highly unlikely they ate processed McDonald's beef. The typical ME diet back then was lots of fish and vegetables. I don't think God intended the Chinese Buffet though. that's just pure gluttony.


48 posted on 06/21/2005 8:56:51 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sandydipper

A lion is eating fresh,raw meat. Not fried to death beef with god knows what added in.


49 posted on 06/21/2005 8:58:50 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC; sandydipper

I'll add that the death rate is still 100%. We'll all die someday. I'm off to enjoy this beautiful day.


50 posted on 06/21/2005 9:00:27 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson