DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine

by Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, it is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org





[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[27] See memos at http://www.biointegrity.org/
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

Twelve Creative Ways to Use Coconut Oil

NaturalNews.com

by Elizabeth Walling, citizen journalist

In the past several years, (Raw, Organic) coconut oil has become a sort of rising star in the world of health food. More and more homes have a jar of organic extra virgin coconut oil on their pantry shelf. But coconut oil is more than a healthy cooking alternative. There are endless ways to use coconut oil that extend far beyond the occasional cookie or stir-fry. Here are twelve creative uses for a classic health food:

Colds and Sore Throats - Coconut oil has antimicrobial properties that can help you recover from a cold. Mix it with warm tea and honey for a very soothing throat remedy.

Cuts and Scrapes - Coconut oil can be used as a topical cream for common cuts and scrapes, protecting against infection while conditioning the skin to heal faster. It may also prevent scarring.

Dandruff - Several times per week, coat your fingertips with coconut oil and massage it into your scalp for an easy dandruff cure. This is an effective yet gentle method, suitable for young children or babies with cradle cap, too.

Deodorant - You can use coconut oil by itself as a deodorant that leaves underarms feeling silky soft, or you can add baking soda and cornstarch for advanced odor protection.

Detoxification - There are many methods for detoxifying the body, but coconut oil is unique because it can provide energy while cleansing the body. One popular method is to take 1-2 tablespoon of coconut oil seven times per day for one to seven days to cleanse the body from toxins, impurities and candida.

Fungal Infections - Coconut oil contains strong antifungal agents, and can be used to treat fungal infections like athlete's foot, ringworm, thrush and vaginal yeast infections. You can use it internally and topically for these conditions.

Hair Conditioner - Apply a thin layer of coconut oil to your scalp and hair. Allow it to soak for several minutes and then wash as usual. There is no need to use other conditioners with this method, even after washing with shampoo.

Lip Balm - Lip moisturizers are filled with chemicals, and natural products are often pricey. If you need a moisturizer for your lips, try coconut oil in a commercial lip balm container.

Make-up Remover - Coconut oil is a very effective make-up remover, so you can toss out all the chemical-laden products from the drug store. It's also a natural moisturizer, so it won't cause dryness or irritation.

Skin Conditions - Since coconut oil is moisturizing, antimicrobial, antifungal and anti-inflammatory, it's a great natural remedy for all kinds of skin problems ranging from eczema to acne to diaper rash.

Sun screen - Coconut oil provides effective and natural sun protection without exposing your body to the toxic chemicals and metals in conventional sun block. Coconut oil protects against free radicals, which provides added protection against skin cancer.

Toothpaste - Mix an equal amount of coconut oil and baking soda for an all-natural, fluoride-free toothpaste. Add spearmint or peppermint oil with stevia for a fresh, sweet flavor.

As you can see, there is more to coconut oil that what meets the eye - or the frying pan!


For More Information:

http://www.passionatehomemaking.com/2009/03/all-the-wonderful-uses-of-coconut-oil.html
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/6-healthy-uses-for-coconut-oil.html
http://www.tebyan.net/social/nutrition/2008/11/12/78585.html

Breastfeeding Shown to Decrease the Risk of SIDS

NaturalNews.com

by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist

SIDS is the sudden unexplained death of an infant and is the number one cause of death in U.S babies less than one year old. Fortunately the SIDS rate has dropped over 50% since 1983, but it is still responsible for 2500 deaths each year according to the American SIDS Institute. There are many hypotheses for why SIDS happens but there is no known cause. Factors such as stomach sleeping, a smoker in the house, and blankets in a baby's bed increases the risk. Research has shown that a baby who is breastfed has a much lower risk of dying of SIDS than a formula fed baby.

The benefits of breastfeeding in general are very well known. Breastfed babies are less likely to get infections because of the maternal antibodies in breast milk. Illnesses that they are less likely to get include ear infections, stomach viruses, diarrhea, and respiratory infections. In addition, breastfed babies have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, Type I and II diabetes, and childhood leukemia.

In fact, breastfeeding is known to be so beneficial that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has included breastfeeding as part of its Healthy People 2010 Objectives. The goals stated in these objectives are to have the percentage of breastfed newborns at 75%, infants still breastfeeding at 6 months old at 50%, and babies breastfeeding at one year old at 25%. Data collected by the CDC in 2004 reported these figures at about 73%, 42%, and 21%, respectively.

In addition to reducing the risk of disease, breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from SIDS. Breastfeeding is beneficial for this for a number of reasons.

*Breathing: Breastmilk is non-irritating to airways like a foreign material such as formula could be. In addition, if aspirated breastmilk is less likely to cause apnea.

*Swallowing: Learning to coordinate swallowing and breathing is important in reducing SIDS risk. Research has shown that breastfed babies learn to coordinate more quickly than bottlefed babies because they are usually fed more often (so they get more practice) and also because breastfed babies tend to have better alignment of the jaw and muscles which helps to keep airways open.

*Reflux: Breastfed babies are less likely to have gastric reflux which can increase risk of SIDS.

*Mother/child connection: Breastfed mothers have hormonal cues that keep them more in tune with their baby during the night. As a result they may be more likely to read changes during their baby's breathing or sleep rhythm.

Breastfeeding is so beneficial to babies in countless ways. Decreasing the risk of SIDS is a huge incentive to encourage mothers to breastfeed their babies.


Sources:

American SIDS Institute, (www.sids.org)

Ask Dr. Sears, (http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T...)

Benefits of Breastfeeding, (http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastf...)

Breastfeeding Among U.S. Children Born 1999-2005, CDC National Immunization Survey, (http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/da...)

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...