Red Meat Eaters More Likely to Die from Cancer or Heart Disease

NaturalNews.com

by Louis Lazaris

A controlled study conducted in the U.S by researchers at the National Cancer Institute indicates that men and women whose diets are high in red or processed meats are more likely to die from cancer or heart disease. The study included data collected over a 10-year period between 1995 and 2005, and involved half a million males and females between the ages of 50 and 71.

According to the results of the study, published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine, those who ate 4 ounces of red meat per day - or a serving equal to a small steak - had a more than 30 percent increased mortality rate compared to those who ate the smallest amount of red meat.

Last week the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian Cancer Society, in response to the study, is planning to change its recommended limit on red and processed meats. Heather Chappell, the Canadian Cancer Society's senior manager of cancer control policy says, "This takes it that next step and actually looks at the impact that has on cancer deaths. This really is a significant addition to our body of knowledge in this area."

322,263 men and 223,390 women from eight U.S. states filled out questionnaires detailing their usual food and drink consumption. The red meat included beef, cold cuts, hamburger, liver, pork, sausage, as well as meats in prepared meals such as pizza and lasagna. White meat included chicken, turkey, fish, cold cuts, tuna, and sausages made from poultry.

The heaviest meat eaters ate about 8 1/2 servings of meat per week and had a 31 percent increase in mortality rates in comparison to the lightest meat eaters, who consumed about one serving of meat per week.

Jennifer Macey of Australia's AM radio broadcast interviewed one of the authors of the study, Dr. Rashmi Sinha, to inquire about methods used to ensure that results were due to red and processed meat consumption and not due to other factors.

Sinha explains, "We were controlled for many different factors such as body mass index, family history of cancer, alcohol intake, education, smoking, other dietary factors, so we tried to control to the best of our ability with the information that we had."

The researchers reported that if the lowest level of intake of meats was consumed by all participants, 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could have been prevented.

Cancer deaths increased by 22 percent, and cardiovascular-related deaths increased by 27 percent among the heavy meat eaters that were male. For females, the increases in death rates among the heavy meat eaters were 20 percent for cancer and 50 percent for heart disease.

This study was much broader in scope than past studies that have compared death rates in different types of meat eaters. Prior studies have been conducted involving vegetarian populations in the U.S. and Europe, as well as on Seventh-Day Adventists, who promote a vegetarian diet.

Sinha explained, "They combined their results, so it was a bit more ambiguous. This is a big study. That's what's interesting."

These results come on the heels of a similar study conducted in the U.K. that analyzed data from 52,700 men and women. In that U.K. study, those that did not eat meat had a significantly lower risk of cancer than those that did eat meat.


Sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/20...
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...

Important Petition - Department of Agriculture Appointee

In spite of 20,000 e-mails from organic farmers and consumers, in apparent contradiction to his announcement that he wants an organic garden at the White House, President-Elect Obama has chosen Tom Vilsack, a strong bio-tech proponent supporting genetically engineered crops, cloned animals, etc., to run the Department of Agriculture.

As you will see below, Vilsack is truly Monsanto's poster boy. He pre-empted the local votes of towns and counties who had voted to disallow genetically engineered seeds!

It is still possible to block Vilsack's confirmation with a massive support of the petition drafted by the Organic Consumer Association. It's easy to sign on at this link to stop the appointment of Tom Vilsack:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/t/8516/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1783


Thank you for taking the time to help organic farmers and consumers to stop the appointment of Tom Vilsack, a proponent of genetically engineered food or Frankinsteinian food.

Dr. Robert O. Young

Cloned Beef Has Already Entered U.S. Food Supply, Even Before FDA Nod

NaturalNews.com

by David Gutierrez

The major cattle cloning companies in the United States have admitted that they have not bothered to try and keep meat from the offspring of clones out of the U.S. food supply, in spite of a request by the FDA several years ago.

"This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain," said Donald Coover, who owns a specialty cattle semen business. "Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're not being honest."

Coover admitted that for several years, he has been openly selling semen from cloned bulls. He is sure, he added, that others are doing the same.

The revelation came as the FDA approved cloned beef as safe for human consumption but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked farmers to keep it out of the food supply anyway.

The USDA's primary concern is that if cloned beef enters the U.S. food supply, other countries might refuse to purchase beef from the United States. Similar problems have emerged in the past with genetically modified U.S. crops being rejected, particularly in Europe but also in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Insiders from agencies such as the USDA and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that a product that no other country wants to buy might do the United States more harm than good.

The USDA's request for a moratorium on cloned beef is meant to give time for "an acceptance process" that will be needed "given the emotional nature of this issue."

A survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation found that 22 percent of U.S. residents surveyed had a favorable impression of cloned meat in 2007, as opposed to 16 percent in 2006. Approximately 50 percent had a negative impression of such food.

The FDA has rejected calls to require the labeling of food produced from cloned animals.