Soul Answer

Your Health!

About Soul Answer
Free TeleTalk with Baba Siri Chand
Baba Siri Chand Healing by Phone, via Siri-Gian
Housing & Transport in Espanola, NM
Siri-Gian's Healing in Espanola, NM
Traveling to New Mexico
INTUITION TRAINING: The Art of Soul Listening!
The Adventure of Soul Listening!
40 Day Tratakam Meditation on Yogi Bhajan with Amandeep
The Mystic Aspects of Gurmukhi with Amandeep Singh
Ancient Secrets of Japji Sahib with Amandeep Singh
The Art and Science of Kirtan Kriya, Recorded Webinar
Twitter with Siri-Gian
SOUL HEALING!!
What is Soul?
How to Tune Into Your Soul!
Heart Breath!
Kriyas & Meditations
Mother Planet
Wisdom Marketplace
ANCIENT SECRETS with Amandeep Singh
Articles by Yogi Bhajan
FRENCH SOUL ANSWER
Very Useful Links
Great Reads!
National Anthem for the Aquarian Age: 24th Pauri of Japji Sahib
Refer Your Friends
About Siri-Gian
Contact Siri-Gian
Donations, Bank Transfers, Checks
More Testimonials
Countries with Local Tele-Course Phone Numbers

Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats increase risk of cancer, scientists say

Published by the LA Times, October 26, 2015

By Melissa Healy Contact Reporter

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-meat-dangers-20151027-story.html

The World Health Organization has confirmed some dietary advice that's unlikely to go down easy with most Americans: Bacon, hot dogs and other processed meats can increase your risk of cancer. Not only that, fresh cuts of red meat probably cause cancer too.

Doctors have long warned that steak and sausages can be hazardous to your health. But the new assessment from the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classifies processed meats as "carcinogenic to humans," putting them in the same category as asbestos, tobacco smoke and formaldehyde.

A group of 22 scientists came to that conclusion after evaluating more than 800 studies from countries — and cuisines — around the world. The results of their investigation were published Monday in the journal Lancet Oncology.

The experts defined processed meats as those that have been salted, cured, smoked or otherwise transformed to enhance their flavor or keep them from going bad. Although most processed meats are derived from beef and pork, they can also be made from other kinds of red meat, poultry or organ meats like liver or sweetbreads.

The scientific panel also classified red meat as "probably carcinogenic." That puts it in the same category as lead compounds and the insecticide malathion.

In addition to pork and beef, red meats include veal, lamb, mutton, horse and goat, the report says.

Clues that people who consume large amounts of processed and red meats were more likely to develop certain types of cancers began emerging in the 1990s. Evidence supporting the link between meat and cancer has mounted steadily ever since.

By 2013, the WHO's cancer experts had made the study of meat a high priority. They evaluated the risk of 16 types of cancer and found the strongest link for colorectal cancer, the third most common type of cancer among American adults.

Here's what meat-eaters need to know:

Are the experts convinced that processed meats cause cancer?

Yes. The scientists said the strongest evidence supported a causal link between consumption of these meats and the risk of cancer. This link is unlikely to be the result of chance, bias or other confounding factors, they said.

Does that mean eating beef jerky is as dangerous as smoking?

No. In labeling processed meat a "Group 1" carcinogen, the WHO researchers did not say that both vices are equally bad — only that the evidence showing that they increased one's risk of cancer was equally strong.

The American Institute for Cancer Research noted that compared to people who don't eat meat, those who do are roughly twice as likely to get cancer. For the sake of comparison, smokers are about 20 times more likely than nonsmokers to be diagnosed with cancer.

What about red meat?

The causal link between cooked red meat and cancer is slightly less strong, the panel said. That's why they designated it a "probable carcinogen."

Of 15 rigorous studies looking at red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, seven found a positive association between the two. That leaves room for the possibility that future studies could either strengthen or weaken the link.

Why are they so sure?

With both red meat and processed meat, the panel saw a "dose-response" relationship: the more one eats, the greater the risk of cancer increases.

For each 50 grams of processed meat eaten per day, the risk of colorectal cancer grew by 18%. In addition, for each 100 grams of red meat eaten per day, the risk of colorectal cancer rose by 17%, according to the Lancet Oncology report.

Still, there will be ongoing debate over the wisdom of making such sweeping conclusions on the basis of epidemiological studies alone. But these same kinds of studies led experts to conclude that smoking causes lung cancer and that trans-fats cause cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Jorge E. Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard University's Chan School of Public Health.

Are all kinds of red meat equally bad?

It's hard to say. The scientists did not make any distinctions among various types of red meats. Tracking exactly what people eat is a notoriously tricky undertaking, so the WHO team used an expansive definition.

That said, most of the evidence in the scientific review came from the industrialized world — the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan — where beef, pork and lamb represent the largest share of meat consumed.

Will this report actually convince people to give up their bacon-wrapped hot dogs and filet mignon?

Over time, perhaps, but public health authorities certainly have their work cut out for them. Anyone who watches television can see that the bacon cheeseburger has become a powerful symbol of Americans' right to eat what we want, when we want it, regardless of the consequences.

When we're hungry, few of us are capable of exercising the kind of "cognitive control" that would enable us to follow the WHO's advice, said David Just, a behavioral economist at Cornell University who studies how people decide what to eat. There's also the fact that processed and cooked red meats can be far cheaper than more healthful choices, such as fish.

"We end up being a lot less willing to respond to this kind of information if it's a food we're attached to, like red or processed meats," Just said.

Are there ways to offset the effects of being a carnivore?

The main advice from experts is to eat less red meat and to minimize consumption of processed meats as much as possible. The American Institute for Cancer Research, for instance, has long advised people to eat no more than 18 ounces of red meat per week and to stop eating processed meat altogether.

Doing so would reduce one's exposure to the N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, that result from the processing of meats. It would also cut out the heterocyclic aromatic amines and PAHs that form when red meat is cooked at high temperatures. To varying degrees, these chemicals have been shown to prompt cancer-causing genetic mutations in the colon. And three studies have shown that consumption of red or processed meats raises levels of oxidative stress, a contributor to genetic instability.

Can I reduce my cancer risk by eating meat that's raised organically?

No. The panel left no reason to conclude that food raised without added hormones or antibiotics would change its biochemistry to make it safer.

What should I eat instead?

Having less meat on your plate might make extra room for vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes — all of which reduce saturated fat, increase fiber and deliver antioxidant vitamins.

"Fiber makes any food with toxins transit the digestive system faster, and also gets in some micronutrients," said Dr. Marleen Meyers, an oncologist at New York University's Perlmutter Cancer Center. That may help undo some of the damage wrought by eating too much meat, she said.

melissa.healy@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATMelissaHealy

 

Print

All Red Meat is Risky, Study Finds

 By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

 March 12, 2012, 4:28 p.m.

 

Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

 "Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

"If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health."

A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.

Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.

"There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important — that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better."

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.

 

eryn.brown@latimes.com

Print

 

QUESTIONS?  E-Mail Siri-Gian

Join our Soul Answer Newsletter mailing list

and get !

Your E-Mail Address:

If you have a pop-up blocker on, please disable it just until you finish signing up for our Newsletter.  Thanks!

NEWSLETTERS:  Archived Newsletters!   Mother Planet Passages!

TIP:  To get a much more gorgeous appearing Newsletter, please choose the HTML version. 

SoulAnswer.com  Soul Answer Trademark and Copyright of all materials 2004 through 2017, Siri-Gian Kaur Khalsa
All Rights Reserved, sirigian@SoulAnswer.com