© Reuters/Alexander Demianchuk
These types of definitive statements, however, have not been limited to sensationalist media headlines, with even the World Health Organization itself making such claims on social media:
Sufficient evidence in humans shows that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal #cancer https://t.co/Cg72nm9elq— WHO (@WHO) October 26, 2015The WHO claims that this new study provides us with "sufficient evidence" to show that the consumption of processed meat is the cause of colorectal cancer and is therefore classified as "carcinogenic to humans". Just for the record, "processed meat" refers to any meat that has been salted, cured, smoked, fermented, canned, or has been through any other process to improve the flavour or preservation. WHO goes on to explain that there is also "substantial epidemiological data" to show that unprocessed red meat is also "probably carcinogenic to humans".
These are pretty bold claims to make given the dominance of meat in the human diet. WHO is generally considered a trustworthy and reliable source of information. Does this mean that we should simply accept what we have been told, throw out our refrigerated meat and turn vegetarian, or would it be wise to dig a little deeper?
Let's take a look at some of the supposed "sufficient" and "substantial" evidence. According to the WHO, a body of research scientists assessed "more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets".
Notice that the assessment was investigating the association and not causation, which we will deal with further on. The WHO goes on to say: "For the evaluation, the greatest weight was given to prospective cohort studies done in the general population. High quality population-based case-control studies provided additional evidence."
So the WHO's evidence is based on two types of study design: 1) prospective cohort studies, and 2) population-based case-control studies. If you're unfamiliar with those terms, don't worry because I will explain what they mean and how they prove that the report's conclusions are deeply flawed.
First of all, a 'prospective cohort study' is the study of a group of similar individuals (cohorts) that is conducted over (usually long) periods of time. At the beginning of the study the investigators collect the same basic set of data from each of the study participants in order to obtain an accurate set of information regarding their lifestyle, diet, and health choices, before any of the participants develop disease. Participants are then followed over a period of time 'longitudinally' to determine if and when they become diseased and whether other lifestyle/nutritional factors have changed. This type of study is called an observational study and can only be used to identify correlation or an association between two factors, not causation. Chris Kresser gives an example: "the difference between correlation and causation is that elevated white blood cell count is correlated with infections. But that doesn't mean elevated white blood cell counts cause infections!" There is a correlation between both factors, but that alone does not, and cannot, prove causation.
Secondly, 'population-based case-control studies' investigate a group of individuals with a specific disease or condition and compare them with a control group who are similar in a variety of ways, such as gender, age, geographical location, etc. Researchers obtain a wide array of historical data from each participant and then compare the healthy control group with the diseased group to identify the potential factors that may have caused the disease. Again, this is an observational study that can only be used to identify statistical correlation, not causation. Observational studies serve a purpose: to provide a foundation of data from which hypotheses can be drawn, not conclusions.
These are basic scientific principles and are relatively simple to understand, yet they are not being applied to this most recent set of data published by the WHO. Just because a correlation between red/processed meat and cancer has been identified, it certainly does not mean that meat is the causative factor. For anyone to make this blatant assumption, they must be either scientifically untrained, or, which I suspect is more likely, deliberately promulgating false conclusions in order to benefit their personal, or otherwise invested, agendas. Either way, this is methodologically unsound and, to put it simply, bad science.
Furthermore, something known as the 'healthy user bias' must also be taken into consideration when assessing observational studies. In today's society, people are bombarded with similarly inaccurate conclusions (read: lies) on a daily basis about the dangers of red meats, saturated fats and tobacco (primary scapegoats for the cancer pandemic). These lies are systemically entrenched in almost every aspect of the international healthcare systems in which we live. From an early age, we are indoctrinated by the education system in what is or is not considered healthy, and then later on we are influenced by the same lies and propaganda in most other areas of our lives.
But we see that time and time again, mainstream science is not interested in presenting facts, and neither is the mainstream media for that matter. What's more important is the preservation and perpetuation of the failed nutritional guidelines based on fraudulent science that only serve to increase profits and markets for the industry giants like Big Agra, Biotech, Food and Pharma industries.
What people need to understand is that the health of the general public is not profitable for big business. Like any business, supply and demand is how things work. It is important for these guys to make sure that their 'produce' is always in demand, and the agricultural industry is the most successful at doing this. Grains are phenomenally cheap to cultivate, they grow in abundance and sell for large profits. Never mind that they are not fit for human consumption and have been linked to the majority of modern human illnesses. If you're in this line of work, it also helps to have a few scientists and government officials in your back pocket so that you can covertly exert your influence on public opinion and convince the average person that your produce is a healthy option that should make up the main part of their diet. This also helps your buddies over at Big Pharma by maintaining a perpetual state of illness to ensure that the people continually depend upon the pharmaceutical industry for a steady supply of medicines. It's a closely-knit system, and it works extremely well for those pathological types right up there at the top of the control structure.
These are the kinds of people who are trying to dictate what you should eat and how you should live your life and, for what it's worth, they couldn't care less about the state of your health. The truth is that it's up to you to take control of your health, because you simply cannot trust the established authorities. We live in an environment that has been so utterly polluted - be it the water that we drink, the chemical-laden air that we breathe, or the constant exposure to EMF radiation to which we are subjected - that one of the few things that we do actually have some control over is the food that we put in our mouths. So make it count...
Fry-up for breakfast; the healthiest way to start the day
Fat-Soluble Vitamins: For many of us who live in the northern hemisphere, adequate sunlight exposure can be difficult to get in the winter months. Fortunately, red meat contains a significant amount of vitamin D and its consumption enables the body to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D even when sunlight exposure is low. Oily fish also contains vitamin D, however it lacks the metabolite 25-hydroxycholecalciferol that is found mainly in red meat and which allows the vitamin D to become assimilated much faster and more easily by the body. This study even found a positive correlation between red meat consumption and the prevention of rickets, a degenerative disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin A in the form of Retinols found in animal products is easily absorbed when compared with Caretenoids, its vegetable counterpart found in carrots. Red meat also contains valuable amounts of Vitamin K and Vitamin E.
Iron: There are different forms of nutritional iron, and some are more bio-available than others. It is often said that certain vegetables such as spinach provide the body with adequate amounts of iron, yet this is actually a common misconception. Vegetable-sourced iron is called non-heme iron, and contrary to popular belief, this is very difficult for the body to absorb. On the other hand, the heme iron contained within red meat is absorbed more efficiently and can be readily utilized by the body.
B Vitamins: Red meat contains significant amounts of vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency has been linked to a multitude of different health conditions ranging from Alzheimer's to Multiple Sclerosis to Autism. Note that vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods, therefore the best way to ensure you have adequate levels is to eat plenty of red meat. Red meat also contains a spectrum of other B vitamins including riboflavin, thiamin, B6 and niacin. Deficiency in B vitamins has also been linked to vascular and cognitive impairment.
Other minerals: Red meat also contains a vast array of minerals that are vital for the body to function properly. These include zinc, copper, phosphorous, chromium, nickel, selenium, magnesium, cobalt, choline, and Coenzyme Q10. CoQ10 plays a vital role in the production of energy and prevents oxidative stress. The best sources of CoQ10 are pork and beef heart, compared with vegetable sources which are negligible.
In addition, any gastroenterologist will tell you that meat is the "lowest residue" food you can eat, i.e. meat does the least damage, leaves the least residue and causes the least irritation to the intestines. That such a food would be identified by the WHO as the cause of colorectal cancer defies all logic.
Reading through the long list of nutrients that can be found in red meat, is it any wonder vegetarians are less healthy, have smaller brains and why 84% of them eventually revert back to eating meat (myself included)? The very fact that meat's nutritional benefits are even being questioned seems completely insane, since the primary cause of our evolution into modern human beings was by eating a primarily meat-based diet, and that the human body actually functions very well on a meat-based diet.
Sometimes I wonder... can popular opinion divert any further from the truth? Then occasionally it comes back around full circle and I realize the mainstream media actually tell the truth without knowing it:
"Red Meat Is Just As Likely To Give You Cancer As A Cigarette, The World Health Organization Says"Fortunately for a meat-eating smoker like myself, neither meat nor smoking tobacco cause cancer, so let's all light up and eat some bacon!
Reader Comments
It doesn't seem this article has addressed the distinction between the protein-red portions of meat, and the fat portions. From what I understand, health issues are related with heavy consumption of the red portions.
As with everything these days though, clauses exist everywhere things being very complicated.
At 84 he reroofed half of his house with no help.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but its pretty obvious humans are omnivores - we can subsist on nearly any nutrient containing food stuff we come across due to our ability to process it with heat prior to ingesting. Genetically distinct homo sapiens arose after widespread use of fire by our predecessors, so difficult to declare what exactly we are "naturally" predisposed to eat from an evolutionary standpoint.
There are plenty of extremely fit and well muscled humans who are entirely vegan. Meat is convenient for health but not essential, a well balanced diet can be made of 10% plant based food or 100% animal based food (if you eat the entire animal). From previous studies, it is the preparation of meat that makes it carcenogenic and this has been known for years that burning meat leads to adverse gut reactions that can become precancerous compared to undercooked meat or plant based foods. The latest from WHO doesn't go into detailed specifics, at least not in this article. It doesn't sound like they controlled for factory farmed vs bush meat etc, nor any detail into how the meat was prepared.
I presume as a vegetarian, you still consumed dairy? Please google dairy products link with cancer, there's even one about thyroid in particular: [Link]
[Link]
I had issues on a vegetarian diet. It wasn't until I started eating more saturated fat and meat that I have regained my energy. I work a physical job and on a vegetarian diet I was always hungry, eating a lot!
Now I have my bacon with sweetpotatos/turnips for breakfast and I am good until I get home!!
Just like Lierrie Keith says in her book The Vegetarian Myth: humans don’t have a ruminant’s digestive system. Literally from our teeth to our rectums we are designed for meat. We have no mechanism to digest cellulose.
And as for experience you may want to know how people's health's improved on Paleo diet including myself.
but for bacon I could manage a vegetarian diet. They say the sense of smell is the most closely linked to memory and I have very old memories of the smell of bacon wafting up to my bedroom in our old farmhouse! Could I personally process a hog to scratch that itch? Maybe...the smell of bacon induces a primal reaction.
Now, that is a serious finding, if it is true. Yeeccchhh!
As for meats, and any other foods, the presence or absence of GMO, dangerous chemicals, antibiotics, etc. are of concern. And that would mean the problems with diet are not restricted to red meats, or any other meat.
Global Corporations, once again, have doctored and tinkered with our foods for the sake of Profits. There may be other agendas they have or have been put up to, but it mainly boils down to Money, thier one and only Love.
My first brush with vegetarianism came in 1979. As I was building houses at the time, it quickly became obvious that I needed to eat meat. While working to maintain a health conscious diet, by 2006 I was ripe for the harvest weighing in at 330lbs. Going from 175lbs in 1979.
Today I weigh 175lbs, am 63 years old and the medical reports show normal readings across the board. I have to thank bacon for the changes. I do prefer bacon over all the pills that I had to take in 2006. My quality of life has greatly improved thanks to the evils of bacon and a high fat low carb diet.
If red meat is a cause of cancer, how does the WHO explain that:
- cancer was virtually unexistant before the 50's while people were eating red meat for centuries
- cancer is virtually inexistant in subpopulation (Masai, Inuit) that predominantly eat meat
- red meat consumption in the US since 2007 while cancer rate keeps increasing
I was expecting some outrage over the Human DNA found in the Hot Dogs.
How much Human DNA? As ghastly as it sounds, somebody must know if this is trace amounts from handling, or we got a Soylent Red problem.
due eating between meals + junk food.
1, FAT: We should have 1/3 of calories from fat. Fat is the target of much scorn, yet it serves up health benefits you can't live without.
Fat supplies essential fatty acids (EFAs). Your body is incapable of producing the EFAs, known as linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid, so it must derive them from food. Fat is also necessary for maintaining healthy skin, and it plays a central role in promoting proper eyesight and brain development in babies and children.
Yet, it's a mistake to equate dietary fat with body fat. You can get fat eating carbs and protein, even if you eat little dietary fat.
Excess calories from any source is what's responsible for weight gain, not fat per se.
2, L Carnitine connected to heart disease up to heart attack. L Carnitine is killer I have very bad experience by taking dietary suplement. And red meat 's got bunch of it.
[Link]
this is reason I am not red meat fan. And I do not eat grain at all = almost zero. No bread, no tortillas.
[Link]