Skip to comments.Red meat fuels bowel cancer risk
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 ...
"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!!
You better read that again, because that isn't what it says. It looks like you're confusing incidence with likelihood.
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.
Depends on the type of milk.
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.
You should be careful when interpreting press reports. I don't think it says what you believe it does.
When will the FOOD NKVD Leave us alone?
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.
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.
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.
Get with the program, here.
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.
But she did own a dairy farm - It was the milk, I tell you! BAN IT!
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.
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.
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 !
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.
Oh goody. The food police again. Or still.
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.
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.