As National Vegetarian Week begins, a new study shows links between eating processed and red meat and an increased risk of bowel cancer. Will you still be bringing home the bacon? This article titled “The red card for red meat?” was written by Jay Rayner, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 23rd May 2011 11.30 UTCIn my fridge right now is: one pack streaky bacon, one pack pre-sliced chorizo, one pack mini chorizo sausages (half eaten), one pack Wiltshire cure ham. Hanging up near the fridge is a length of Iberico chorizo (the really good stuff) picked up on a recent trip to Spain. Naturally my freezer is also well-stocked: sausages, steaks, pork belly, beef mince, lamb fillet and so on. The question is, in light of today’s report on the relationship between the consumption of red and processed meat and bowel cancer, should I be chucking it all out?Let’s be clear: getting me to part with bits of salted, preserved, paprika-spiked piggy is a little like asking a toddler to give up a favourite soft toy. Then again, the statistics are pretty sobering. A number of comments on the original news report complain about a lack of hard figures so here they are, taken from the press release on the World Cancer Research Fund website: the consumption of an extra 100g of cooked red meat a day above the recommended 500g of cooked red meat a week leads to a 17% increase in the risk of bowel cancer, that’s roughly from five in 100 to six. An extra 100g of processed meat a day results in a rise in the risk of bowel cancers of 36%; roughly five in 100 to seven.There are a bunch of things to be said about this, not least that this extra 100g a day amounts to more than a doubling of the recommended amount of 70g. If I’ve got my sums right it means 170g of cooked red meat a day, which is 1190g or over 2.5lbs of red meat a week. Even I think that’s an awful lot. Add in a similar amount of processed meats – bacon, sausages, salamis and hams – and it’s a dead animal fiesta. It’s the kind of thing I muse on at night to help me get to sleep; a fantasy I would never (or almost never) try to realise in real life.But using that as a reason to dismiss the stats would be a false comfort. There is clearly a correlation between meat consumption and bowel cancer. So, putting aside the other serious issues – the environmental impact of meat production, the unreliability of animal welfare – is it time we (by which I mean I) changed my diet?Let’s be clear. It’s always time I changed my diet. And I know full well that the western dietary imperative that places meat protein at the centre of meals deserves to be challenged. We should eat more vegetables. But I do scratch my head when it comes to the health implications, not because I don’t get the argument, but because the very business of living is terminal.As a younger man I smoked, quite a lot actually. I was rather good at it. I still smoke three or four fags a month. Although I packed it in early, I did my fair share of recreational narcotics. I tell my doctor I drink 27 units of alcohol a week. Some weeks this is true. Some weeks it isn’t. I am overweight, albeit not quite as overweight as I once was. Given my job my diet is substantial. There’s so much of my diet that as well as all the dead cow, it also includes a lot of fibre, green vegetables and so on. And, for what it’s worth, I have a bit of gym habit. I get there four to six times a week. Somebody described me recently on twitter as looking like “a waxed Wookie on the cross-trainer, giving it stacks.” I wear a headband. I’m not proud.And so I am left bewildered. Which bits of this lifestyle of mine will kill me and which bits of it will save my life? Surely no single piece of dietary advice can be taken in isolation? Because if you listened to each and every bit of advice on healthy living you would quickly assume we were eating our way to an early grave. And yet that’s not true. For here is another statistic, one which rarely referred to. Our life expectancy is going up, not down.According to the Office for National Statistics the age at which we will die has risen from around 71 for men and 76 for women in 1980, to nearly 78 for men and 82 for women now. Of course that may mean we end up living with illness and infirmity for longer but the bald fact is this: modern life isn’t killing us. It’s helping us to live on.So does that mean I can keep frying up the bacon? I’m really not sure. It is very very hard to take these issues seriously when you are well. If you have developed bowel cancer, or have lost a loved one to it – 36,000 Britons develop the disease every year and over 16,000 die from it – then making a decision is probably much easier. For the rest of us it’s not so cut and dried.I will, of course, try to be a better person. I will try to eat a more balanced diet. Then again I am always trying to do this, and that’s not the same as succeeding. So what are you going to do? Cut out the pig or carry on as usual? guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogThe red card for red meat?Related posts:Cut red meat intake and don’t eat ham, say cancer researchersAngela Hartnett’s roasted pollack with crushed new potatoes and chorizo recipeTurkey Ham?
-
I posted to distributedresearch.net
The red card for red meat?
http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/05/25/the-red-card-for-red-meat
- Tags:
- food and drink
- health
- Food & drink
- Life and style
- Article
- Blogposts
- Word of Mouth blog
- cancer
- Jay Rayner
May 25 2011, 1:42pm | Comments »
-
I posted to distributedresearch.net
Cut red meat intake and don’t eat ham, say cancer researchers
World Cancer Research Fund advises people to limit consumption of beef, pork and lamb and avoid processed meatThis article titled “Cut red meat intake and don’t eat ham, say cancer researchers” was written by Denis Campbell, health correspondent, for The Guardian on Sunday 22nd May 2011 23.06 UTCCancer experts have issued a fresh warning about eating red and processed meat after “the most authoritative report” on the subject blamed them for causing the disease.The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) is advising people to limit their intake of red meats such as beef, pork and lamb, and to avoid processed meat such as ham and salami altogether. “Convincing evidence” that both types of meat increase the risk of bowel cancer means people should think seriously about reducing how much they eat, it recommends.The charity kickstarted a global debate in 2007 when it published a study which identified meat as a risk factor for a number of different forms of cancer.WCRF-funded scientists at Imperial College London led by Dr Teresa Norat studied 263 research papers that have come out since then looking at the role of diet, weight and physical activity in bowel cancer. An independent panel of leading cancer experts then reviewed their conclusions. “For red and processed meat, findings of 10 new studies were added to the 14 analysed as part of the 2007 report. The panel confirmed that there is convincing evidence that both red and processed meat increase bowel cancer risk,” said the report .“WCRF recommends that people limit consumption to 500g (cooked weight) of red meat a week – roughly the equivalent of five or six medium portions of roast beef, lamb or pork – and avoid processed meat,” it added. About 36,000 Britons a develop bowel cancer every year, and some 16,500 die from it. It is the UK’s second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer.About 17,000 cases a year (43%) could be prevented if people ate less meat and more fibre, drank less, maintained a healthy weight and kept active, the WCRF says.Its 850-page report, releasedon Monday, is “the most authoritative ever report of bowel cancer risk”, cancer prevention experts claim.Professor Alan Jackson of Southampton University, the chair of the WCRF’s continuous update project expert panel, said: “On meat, the clear message that comes out of our report is that red and processed meat increase risk of bowel cancer and that people who want to reduce their risk should consider cutting down the amount they eat.”Growing concern about red and processed meat prompted the government in February to advise consumers for the first time to consider cutting down. That came after the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), experts who advise the government, examined the evidence on the subject. It decided that those meats probably increase the risk of bowel cancer.People who eat 90g or more a day should cut down to the UK average of 70g, SACN recommended. It advised having smaller portions or eating those meats less often. A 70g serving could be three slices of ham, a lamb chop or two standard beef burgers.WCRF’s review has also firmed up from “probable” to “convincing” its view of the protection against bowel cancer afforded by eating foods containing fibre, such as wholegrains, pulses, fruit and vegetables.Milk, garlic and dietary supplements containing calcium also “probably” reduce the risk, the expert panel concluded.But farmers’ leaders denounced the WCRF’s new report and accused it of deliberately choosing the first day of National Vegetarian Week to publish it in order to maximise publicity for conclusions which the charity first reached years ago.Chris Lamb, a spokesman for BPEX and EBLEX, which represents England’s pig, beef and lamb farmers, said: “Average consumption has been in or around 500g a week for a few years. The vast majority of consumers aren’t exceeding this and don’t have to worry about [this]“, he said.The risks identified by the WCRF were unchanged, he stressed.Lamb argued it was unfair for the WCRF to highlight meat as a contributory cause of bowel cancer when the main risk was to people who are generally unhealthy, for example by consuming too much food, alcohol or fizzy drink.“They aren’t assisting consumers. Consumers eat and enjoy meat as part of a balanced diet, and meat plays a valuable part in that balanced diet”, said Lamb. “If you eat or drink anything in excess it’s a danger. Therefore, if you can pick on meat in order to get headlines, then you aren’t actually helping consumers.”Professor Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer for England, said red meat can form part of a healthy, balanced diet. “It is a good source of protein and vitamins and minerals, such as iron, selenium, zinc and B vitamins,” she said, “but people who eat a lot of red and processed meat should consider cutting down. The occasional steak or extra few slices of lamb is fine but regularly eating a lot could increase your risk of bowel cancer.”Bowel Cancer UK chief executive Deborah Alsina said: “The report significantly adds to the available evidence into the increased risk of bowel cancer from eating too much red and processed meat; and strengthens the evidence of how eating food with fibre in it protects people against the disease.Hazel Nunn, a senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “With barbeque season just round the corner, this is a timely reminder that how much alcohol you drink, how active you are, your weight, and how much red and processed meat and fibre you eat can all have a bearing on your risk of bowel cancer.”• Growing numbers of lung cancer patients are having life-saving operations thanks to advances in surgical techniques. The proportion of patients with the disease who undergo surgery has risen from one in 11 in 2005 to one in seven last year, according to a study by the NHS Information Centre. Lung cancer kills more people than any other form of cancer. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogCut red meat intake and don’t eat ham, say cancer researchersRelated posts:Alcohol to blame for 13,000 cancer cases a year in UKTurkey Ham?World Development Report: Why no mention of Paris?
- Tags:
- General
- fruit
- tea
- pig
- Ham
- vegetable
- warning
- health
- review
- Government
- port
- The Guardian
- UK news
- News
- Food & drink
- Life and style
- Article
- Main section
- research
- Society
- World news
- proportion
- Britons
- researcher
- cancer
- equivalent
- bowel cancer
- cancer research fund
- Chris Lamb
- consuming
- convincing evidence
- Denis Campbell
- disease
- Dr Teresa Norat
- fibre
- imperial college london
- lung
- meat intake
- protein
- red meat
- salami
- Scientific
- vegetarian
May 23 2011, 4:36am | Comments »
-
I posted to distributedresearch.net
Alcohol to blame for 13,000 cancer cases a year in UK
http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/04/08/alcohol-to-blame-for-13000-cancer-cases-a-year-in-uk
Here it is, the research results that could well launch the beginning of drinking being regarded in much the same way as smoking. Are you going to stop drinking or greatly cut back now, or will you carry on enjoying alcohol in whatever passes for moderation and blissful denial?
This article titled “Alcohol to blame for 13,000 cancer cases a year in UK” was written by Sarah Boseley, health editor, for The Guardian on Thursday 7th April 2011 23.01 UTC At least 13,000 cancers in the UK every year are the result of people’s drinking habits, according to one of the largest studies ever carried out into diet and cancer. The research, carried out across eight European countries including the UK, has found that thousands of cancers could be prevented if men had the equivalent of no more than two drinks a day and women had no more than one. Nearly half of the alcohol-related cancers in the UK – nearly 6,000 – were related to the mouth and throat. Alcohol is a key cause of cancer of the mouth, oesophagus, voicebox and pharynx. But alcohol also causes more than 3,000 colorectal cancers and about 2,500 breast cancers every year, according to Cancer Research UK, which cofunded the study. The full extent of the damage is revealed by the Epic study (European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition), which is monitoring the links between diet and cancer in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Germany and Denmark. It finds that 10% of men’s cancers and 3% of women’s cancers in western Europe are caused by drinking. Doctors and health groups are already concerned about the rise in liver disease. The British Liver Trust said the study should trigger a Europe-wide effort at preventing alcohol-related harm. “Once again we are seeing the impact alcohol can have in all areas of health,” said the trust’s campaigns manager, Sarah Matthews. “While alcohol damage is often linked to the liver, this study highlights the impact alcohol has on the rest of the organs in the body. “The results are not a surprise as we feel we haven’t touched the tip of the iceberg in preventing alcohol health harms in the UK. Substantive measures, such as setting a minimum pricing at an effective level, have been ignored and we continue to employ a half-hearted attempt in protecting the health of society. This study should form the basis of EU action to tackle the four Ps of alcohol marketing – price, promotion, placement and product. Only then will we see a change in how alcohol is viewed and consumed.” The study looked at the past and present drinking habits of nearly 364,000 men and women, mostly aged between 35 and 70 at the time of recruitment in the mid-1990s. They completed a detailed questionnaire on diet and lifestyle when they joined the study. Alcohol consumption was measured by specific questions on the amount, frequency and type of drink. The study, published by the British Medical Journal, found that thousands of cancers could have been avoided if people had consumed no more than one drink a day for women or two for men. In 2008, current and former alcohol consumption by men was responsible for about 57,600 cases of cancer of the upper digestive tract, colorectum and liver in Denmark, Greece, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Britain. More than half of these cases (33,000) were caused by drinking more than two alcoholic drinks per day. There were about 21,500 cases of cancer of the upper digestive tract, liver, colorectum and breast in women in the eight countries in 2008, the study found. Most – 17,400 cases, or 80% – were due to consumption of more than one drink of beer, wine or spirits a day, the researchers say. Madlen Schütze, first author of the study and epidemiologist at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Potsdam-Rehbrücke, said: “Many cancer cases could have been avoided if alcohol consumption is limited to two drinks per day in men and one drink per day in women, which are the recommendations of many health organisations. And even more cancer cases would be prevented if people reduced their alcohol intake to below recommended guidelines or stopped drinking alcohol at all.” Naomi Allen, a Cancer Research UK-funded epidemiologist based at Oxford University, who was involved with the Epic study, said: “This research supports existing evidence that alcohol causes cancer and that the risk increases even with drinking moderate amounts.” She added that alcohol was probably causing even more cancers than the research suggests. “The results from this study reflect the impact of people’s drinking habits about 10 years ago,” she said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogAlcohol to blame for 13,000 cancer cases a year in UK
Related posts:New drink code shunned by six key health bodies When is a leap year not a leap year? Pub of the year award goes to a London local for first time
- Tags:
- food and drink
- UK
- greece
- wine
- spain
- Drinking
- france
- health
- The Guardian
- UK news
- News
- Article
- Main section
- consumption
- Society
- World news
- Britain
- Alcohol
- british liver trust
- Sarah Boseley
- Germany
- cancer
- alcohol damage
- alcohol related cancers
- breast cancers
- cancer and nutrition
- cancer of the mouth
- cancer research uk
- cause of cancer
- colorectal
- colorectal cancers
- colorectum
- Denmark
- health groups
- liver disease
- Medical
- moderation
- Naomi Allen
- pharynx
- questionnaire
- Sarah Matthews
- smoking
- the Netherlands
- throat
- voicebox
- western Europe
April 8 2011, 7:32am | Comments »
-
I posted to distributedresearch.net
Nuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril
Pundits who downplay the risks of nuclear radiation are ignoring the casualties of the past such as Chernobyl. Fukushima‘s core meltdown may be worse due to the plutonium in the mixed oxide fuel rods.
This article titled “Nuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril” was written by John Vidal, for The Guardian on Friday 1st April 2011 19.00 UTC Every day there are more setbacks to solving the Japanese nuclear crisis and it’s pretty clear that the industry and governments are telling us little; have no idea how long it will take to control; or what the real risk of cumulative contamination may be. The authorities reassure us by saying there is no immediate danger and a few absolutist environmentalists obsessed with nuclear power because of the urgency to limit emissions repeat the industry mantra that only a few people died at Chernobyl – the worst nuclear accident in history. Those who disagree are smeared and put in the same camp as climate change deniers. I prefer the words of Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl: “When you hear ‘no immediate danger’ [from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can.” Five years ago I visited the still highly contaminated areas of Ukraine and the Belarus border where much of the radioactive plume from Chernobyl descended on 26 April 1986. I challenge chief scientist John Beddington and environmentalists like George Monbiot or any of the pundits now downplaying the risks of radiation to talk to the doctors, the scientists, the mothers, children and villagers who have been left with the consequences of a major nuclear accident. It was grim. We went from hospital to hospital and from one contaminated village to another. We found deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards; pitifully sick children in the homes; adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers and villagers who told us every member of their family was sick. This was 20 years after the accident but we heard of many unusual clusters of people with rare bone cancers. One doctor, in tears, told us that one in three pregnancies in some places was malformed and that she was overwhelmed by people with immune and endocrine system disorders. Others said they still saw caesium and strontium in the breast milk of mothers living far from the areas thought to be most affected, and significant radiation still in the food chain. Villages testified that “the Chernobyl necklace” – thyroid cancer – was so common as to be unremarkable; many showed signs of accelerated ageing. The doctors and scientists who have dealt directly with the catastrophe said that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s “official” toll, through its Chernobyl Forum, of 50 dead and perhaps 4,000 eventual fatalities was insulting and grossly simplistic. The Ukrainian Scientific Centre for Radiation, which estimated that infant mortality increased 20 to 30% after the accident, said their data had not been accepted by the UN because it had not been published in a major scientific journal. Konstantin Tatuyan, one of the “liquidators” who had helped clean up the plant, told us that nearly all his colleagues had died or had cancers of one sort or another, but that no one had ever asked him for evidence. There was burning resentment at the way the UN, the industry and ill-informed pundits had played down the catastrophe. While there have been thousands of east European studies into the health effects of radiation from Chernobyl, only a very few have been accepted by the UN, and there have been just a handful of international studies trying to gauge an overall figure. They range from the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation study (57 direct deaths and 4,000 cancers expected) to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), who estimated that more than 10,000 people had been affected by thyroid cancer alone and a further 50,000 cases could be expected. Moving up the scale, a 2006 report for Green MEPs suggested up to 60,000 possible deaths; Greenpeace took the evidence of 52 scientists and estimated the deaths and illnesses to be 93,000 terminal cancers already and perhaps 140,000 more in time. Using other data, the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences declared in 2006 that 212,000 people had died as a direct consequence of Chernobyl. At the end of 2006, Yablokov and two colleagues, factoring in the worldwide drop in births and increase in cancers seen after the accident, estimated in a study published in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that 985,000 people had so far died and the environment had been devastated. Their findings were met with almost complete silence by the World Health Organisation and the industry. So who can we trust when the estimates swing so wildly? Should we believe the empirical evidence of the doctors; or governments and industrialists backed by their PR companies? So politicised has nuclear energy become, that you can now pick and choose your data, rubbish your opponents, and ignore anything you do not like. The fact is we may never know the truth about Chernobyl because the records are lost, thousands of people from 24 countries who cleaned up the site have dispersed across the vast former Soviet Union, and many people have died. Fukushima is not Chernobyl, but it is potentially worse. It is a multiple reactor catastrophe happening within 150 miles of a metropolis of 30 million people. If it happened at Sellafield, there would be panic in every major city in Britain. We still don’t know the final outcome but to hear experts claiming that nuclear radiation is not that serious, or that this accident proves the need for nuclear power, is nothing short of disgraceful.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogNuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril
Related posts:Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor Q&A: Plutonium detected at Fukushima
- Tags:
- ukraine
- world health organisation
- Hospital
- food
- Green
- Japan
- japanese
- earth
- climate change
- waste
- Europe
- health
- Government
- Comment
- Comment & debate
- George Monbiot
- The Guardian
- Energy
- Environment
- John Vidal
- Article
- Main section
- Russia
- World news
- International
- Comment is free
- climate
- Environmental
- industry
- caesium
- Nuclear power
- reactor
- Chernobyl
- Fukushima
- core meltdown
- nuclear accident
- New York
- nuclear crisis
- fuel rods
- contaminate
- Radiation
- thyroid
- atomic energy agency
- international atomic energy
- Japan disaster
- Nuclear
- control
- danger
- accident
- mixed oxide fuel
- plutonium
- Euro
- Nuclear waste
- Atomic
- japanese nuclear workers
- nuclear radiation
- absolutist
- Belarus
- breast milk
- cancer
- catastrophe
- Consequences
- east European
- environmentalists
- groundwater
- John Beddington
- mortality
- nuclear energy
- president gorbachev
- Prevention
- russian academy of sciences
- sick children
- strontium
- stunted growth
- Tatuyan
- threat
- urgency
- Yablokov
April 2 2011, 8:30am | Comments »
1
