BBC: Red meat link to breast cancers

[NashVegas]

Eating large amounts of red meat may double young women's breast cancer risk, a study suggests.

US researchers writing in Archives of Internal Medicine looked at over 90,000 pre-menopausal women.

Having one-and-a-half servings of red meat per day almost doubled the risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer compared to three or fewer per week.

...

A second potential link is the growth hormones which are given to cattle in the US, although not in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6143408.stm

This is why I went vegetarian from 1990-1996 or so, and when I went back to meat, only bought hormone-free.

It is disgusting that hormone-related issues that the alternative weeklies were reporting on as far back as the 1980s - and were dismissed and laughed at - are only now being given consideration by mainstream media.

Better late than never, I guess. But if organics/naturals hadn't become such a huge market, we might still not be hearing about it.

[mainegreen]

1. here we go!!

:popcorn:

[zanne]

3. Yup. What isn't linked to breast cancer? nt

[apnu]

7. belly button lint (eom)

[NashVegas]

4. Huh?

You think there are lurking Monsanto / Cargill types about?

[Fierce]

2. I'm guessing it's more the hormones than the meat

-- although I understand that how the meat is cooked has something to do with it, as well.

I'd like to see a lot more research done into pollutants, hormones and other environmental factors as causes of breast cancer. But of course, finding a cause and reducing the causes doesn't make as much money as all those drugs and those pretty, pretty pink products.

[Igel]

17. Possible.

There are a few other possibilities, of course. But remember also that the red meat (as defined in the study) comes from mammals. So it may be the added hormones, or it might even be natural hormones. (That's a simple study to do, however: repeat this one's protocols in Europe.)

[Kali]

21. it is most likely the types of fats produce by cattle fed on grains.

High grain diets are not natural for cattle - they get liver disease and other digestive-related illnesses from these diets.

Environmental pollutants would be another strong contender in my opinion.

[wordpix]

43. no doubt a combination of all factors

[warrens]

46. Hormones are probably the main culprit

The cooking part is kinda deceptive. Cooking meat on a hot grill over direct heat is not a great idea. Get an indoor grill where the fat drips into a cold pan or heat indirectly in a standard grill. It's the fat being charred in the charcoal or in a pan that creates the noxious chemicals.

The U.S. is going to become hormone free sooner rather than later. Tyson et al are fighting it hard, but their big customers don't want hormones anymore. The freakin animals grow fast enough naturally if they get a good, healthy diet.

[hadrons]

5. watch the RWers blown this off while claiming abortions cause cancers

[Donnachaidh]

6. might it have something to do with the HORMONES and other crap

that is either fed to or injected into the cattle on the farms? Are they still grinding up dead animals to feed to the cattle (see Fast Food Nation)?

[depakid]

8. "...and other crap"

Bottom line is that red meat is risky- for a lot of reasons. Then again, so is smoking. Not that much difference between the two.

[Kali]

15. Um excuse me

but there is a HELL of a lot of difference. Smoking MAYBE provides a minor emotional/mood altering benefit to the user. Meat- specifially beef, is an excellent source of naturally produced nutrition (if raised right) that utilizes the sun and plant material that is not digestible by humans.

For a bit of enlightenment: http://www.eatwild.com/

[MattSh]

25. I'll take a risk with meat anyday.....

Why? Something called evolution. I'm always amazed at people advocating eliminating from one's diet food that has sustained humankind for a million years. It's that hunter/gatherer thing. Yeah, it's not raised the same way now that it used to be. But substitute it for some johnny come lately like soy? :wtf:

Maybe what really causes problems is stuff like sugar and refined supermarket crap, recent additions to the human diet.

Just saying.....

[The Stranger]

27. Um, we're not hunters and gatherers any more; we can choose what we eat for benefit of all.

Not only is it healthier not to eat red meat, it is better for the environment, ecology and the planet because it takes deforestation and the destruction of wild life habitats to support those eating habits.

[MrPrax]

31. Thanks!

You did, so I didn't have to...

I have problems with the 'we be caveman' rap also.

I suspect if Hunter-Gatherers had access to Red Bull and Coffee, they probably wouldn't forage the wilds of the employee fridge until noon anyway.

[Kali]

34. No it does not.

Or at least it does not have to. Cattle eat grass. They don't have to eat corn or soy. They can be and are raised in a totally sustainable way - hell they can be RESTORATIVE if managed properly.

A few "wealthy" westerners going meatless isn't the solution. Although it's probably a lot easer than giving up cars or electricity or roomy housing.

[NashVegas]

68. Some Surprising Findings About Hunter-Gatherers

http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake

[depakid]

28. Be my guest- but don't cite "evolution" to me

Raising cattle is by far THE most destructive and unsustainable agricultural practice on the planet. And has been since the Code Hammurabi.

[Kali]

41. where do you place growing grain then?

What exactly do you mean by raising catle anyway? That is like saying a hammer is the most dangerous, destructive implement you can hold in your hand. I call bullshit on that generalization.

[depakid]

45. Well think about it

How much water does it take to feed cattle- including water that gets fouled? How much grain does it take- that might be otherwise used more efficiently? how much petroleum? How much energy do you get back- and what costs do you have to pay?

Externalities and overgrazing? Check. The Tragedy of the Commons? Wasting natural capital- like ecosystem services?

Desertification and rain forest destruction? Check, Check- Check.

Stream and fishery degradation- come out west to some BLM land, and I can show you what once were beautiful trout streams- "free" services provided by a natural system.

Like diversity? or do like filth & flies.

A few examples from the scientific literature (summarized in Fleischner (1994), Conservation Biology, 8(3):629–644) illustrate the kinds of detrimental impacts that livestock produce:

* In a sagebrush desert of Idaho, a grazed site had one-third of the plant species richness of an ungrazed site (Reynolds and Trost (1980), Journal of Range Management, 33:122–125.)

* In a riparian area of Oregon, plant species richness increased from seventeen to forty-five species nine years after removal of livestock (Winegar (1977), Rangeman's Journal, 4:10–12)

* Among songbirds, raptors and small mammals there was a 350% increase in use and diversity after eight years rest from grazing in Rich County, Utah (Duff (1979), pages 91–92 in O. B. Cope, editor. Proceedings of the Forum—Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Denver)

* In southeastern Oregon, abundance of the Yellow Warbler (Dentroica petechia) increased by eight times when grazing intensity was reduced by 75% (Taylor and Littlefield (1986), American Birds, 40:1169–1173).

The list goes on and on -on every continent. Think it's bad here in the American West? Check out the Sahel or the Amazon- or Australia.

(of course, raising "pork" has problems too- as do sheep and goats, but not nearly on the same scale globally as "beef."

[Kali]

57. I realize you don't really want the answers to your questions but others might.

A grown lactating cow can drink as much as 25 gallons per day in hot weather - the norm is 10 to 15.

No need to "foul" the water in any way with good management. (and how does one prevent the fouling of natural waters from wildlife? Or are wildlife some how magically different than domestic animals?)

Petroleum? Well I do drive, but don't use much in production, although in the summer we do pump water so there is some energy used for that electricity. Depending on your viewpoint, it could be considered a positive or a negative that we happen to be electrified where I am. Otherwise we would use solar for pumping. I do buy around 10 to 15 tons of hay per year. I buy locally grown and usually haul it myself. It isn't really used for production, more for horses or when a cow needs to be kept in the corral for some reason, they are range animals, not feedlot animals. That hay is grown using natural gas for the pumps and most years I try to get oat hay that is at least partially grown from rainfall but admit around here that isn't the norm. Still 15 ton is not much hay for the numbers of cattle I run or the meat produced.

I "use" sunlight and rainfall to grow plants. My cattle harvest some of that production. You can buy or trade me goods or services for that excellent high quality naturally produced protein. That is pretty low tech, low input, and low impact.

I can tell your position by the term "overgrazing". I have found that once someone adds that term to their vocabulary, unless they are involved in grazing for a living, they never go back to plain old "grazing". Overgrazing is a specific action that can occur to individual plants. Most people who like to throw that term around do not have a clue what it means. They tend to have a huge problem with domestic cows eating grass, but have very little issue with any other organism doing it, or fire, or even realize that grass evolved in the presence of grazing. Grazing - even severe grazing - is not the same thing as overgrazing.

The real Tragedy of the Commons where I am, is urban sprawl. There is no free commons anywhere that I know of. Numbers of animals in the west are now regulated and the only place you can conceivably legally overstock is private land. Most agree private land is usually the best land and in the best condition. (for more reasons than the tendency to overstock "free "common" land, but still...)

Desertification is a complex human influenced phenomenon by no means fully understood. Not much evidence to show that eliminating livestock is a solution. Rainforest destruction: in my small way I may be preventing some of that by producing meat for consumers locally.

I am out west, but south. I can show you streams and springs that have come back with good livestock/land management, and I know there are similar people in Oregon that can as well, so we can play "show me" and list studies supporting either side until we are both blue in the face. (the difference may be that I know your studies and I am perfectly willing to show you bad areas as well, are you as willing to see cases of positive management?) The real question is can I do what I do in a way that sustains (or enhances)the ecosystem, maintains open space, produces high quality food and meets my economic needs? The answer is clearly Yes. The hard part is getting you and others that are locked into the "cows are evil" mindset to articulate how you want things in terms of how the ecosystem should look and function rather than always in terms of "no cows".

[WindRavenX]

50. actually, evolution is great evidence that we are eating *FAR*t too much meat

See my post downthread for elaboration-- cattle farming is beyond damaging to the enviroment is is primarily because developed countries are eating far too much meat.

[Finder]

30. Our ancestors did not eat meat daily...

I do agree the refined and processed "foods" most are accustomed to eating are the biggest culprit.

The food pyramid and recommended requirements so often touted are what has led to obesity and bad health.

[EVDebs]

47. Eric Schlosser piece in Sierra Magazine may change your mind...

""Meanwhile, for the past two decades, a number of the same steroids abused by athletes have been given to U.S. cattle on a massive scale. Without much publicity or government concern, growth hormones like testosterone are routinely administered to about 80 percent of the nation's feedlot cattle, accelerating their weight gain and making them profitable to slaughter at a younger age. The practice is legal in the United States but banned throughout the European Union, due to concerns about its effect on human health. A recent study by Danish scientists suggested that hormone residues in U.S. beef may be linked to high rates of breast and prostate cancer, as well as to early-onset puberty in girls. Hormone residues excreted in manure also wind up in rivers and streams. A 2003 study of male minnows downstream from one Nebraska feedlot found that many of them had unusually small testes. When female minnows in a laboratory were exposed to trenbolone--a synthetic hormone widely administered to cattle--they developed male sex organs.""

from Cheap Food Nation
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200611/cheapfood.asp

[WindRavenX]

48. The key to remember is that we didn't eat diets based on meat

One of the reason we as a species are so successful is because our diets were based on plant and grain matter with supplements of meat-- the ability to have a diet with meat has tremendous benefits including the sustainability of large brain mass which requires quite a nutritious diet.

However, I don't think it's debatable that:

1)Americans, and the developed worlds in general, eat far too much meat
2)Eating too much animal protein has serious health risks
3)Mass rearing of livestock is both damaging to the environment and filled with hormones, anti-biotics, which all have negative impacts on human health.

That said, eating meat is not bad-- we are, and have evolved as, omnivores. But our diets have never consisted on meat as a staple--it has always been a supplement.

[TheLeftyMom]

32. No meat-based feed isn't used in the US and CA

It is linked to Mad Cow disease.

[LeftyMom]

55. Yes, it is used. The rule is that feed with cattle byproducts in it can't be fed to cattle.

One the other hand, it can be fed to chickens, and then the spilled feed, hay and chicken shit are swept up and and fed right back to cows, so it still happens legally via that loophole, in addition to the many people who feed inappropriate feed illegally.

[Kali]

58. Not range cattle.

It is true that cattle can be fed almost anything. That's why people should consider grass fed locally produced beef or bison. http://www.eatwild.com/

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

9. it's not the meat, it's the nitrites used to perserve the meat.

so said a NIH MD at a party i was at some time ago.

[Kali]

22. Nitrites are only used in PRESERVED meat -

such as ham, bacon, hot dogs, some kinds of jerky, hard sausages and such - not fresh or frozen cuts of "meat" like a steak or roast, or even hamburger.

The "danger" is that in the stomach they convert to nitrosamines which can cause cancer in high doses. Jury is still out on the doses.

Nitrates are used to preserve color and prevent botulism, so the risk of cancer if you like those kinds of products may be worth it - it takes pretty high doses to get the cancer risk. Also used in wine.

[kestrel91316]

24. Nope. SULFITES used in wine.

[Kali]

40. you are right - my goof

here are some that naturally contain nitrates: vegetables-particularly greens, spinach, lettuce, broccoli, cabbage, celery, radishes, beets, carrots, cauliflower, French beans, parsnips, peas, potatoes and turnips


and looking around I found some other interesting sources for the "dangerous" compound fromed from those nitrates: "Latex. Nitrosamines can be found in tobacco smoke and latex products. A test of party balloons and condoms indicated that many of them release small amounts of nitrosamines.<1> However, nitrosamines from condoms are not expected to be of toxicological significance.<2>" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrosamine

more: Nitrosamines are found in many foodstuffs especially beer, fish, fish byproducts, and in meat and cheese products preserved with nitrite pickling salt. They are formed when the food protein reacts with nitrite salts in the stomach. They can also be formed by frying or smoking. Nitrosamine content tends to be lower if the food has been processed less, fewer preservatives used, and natural production techniques used.


BEER! oh no!

[kestrel91316]

49. I remember from chemistry class that cheese dogs are the worst

for nitrosamines............no more pigs in blankets.....8-(

[Kali]

59. I suspect a life with no pleasure is less healthy than the occasional

cheesedog.

[kestrel91316]

66. I don't "do" hot dogs anymore, more out of knowledge of the unsanitary,

unesthetic manufacture than any desire to avoid nitrates, lol.

Hebrew Nationals are great, though (and cleaner).

[Coventina]

10. Finally, a risk factor that is easily eliminated!

Haven't eaten cow parts for over 15 years now. Been about 10 years since I've eaten pig parts.

Don't miss it at all.

[Arugula Latte]

13. I haven't eaten either since I was a teenager.

I'm 40 now.

[Beaverhausen]

33. Me either. No meat for me!

[Auggie]

52. I'm off red meat too.

[Finder]

11. Eating that much red meat would lead to all sorts of problems...

I would imagine.

[onehandle]

12. Heart Disease.

Red meat is a Big factor in the American diet.

[rinsd]

19. "Red meat is a Big factor in the American diet."

True but 1 1/2 servings a day is quite a bit especially for a woman.

[demo dutch]

14. How can you trust that "hormone-free" meat is actually "hormone free". There's

zero oversight and it's a real problem. Unfortunately,there is no certifiying organization behind the "homone free" claim other than the company manufacturing or marketing the product. The producer or manufacturer decides whether to use the claim and is obviously not free from its own self-interest.

http://www.eco-labels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=114&searchType=Label%20Index&searchValue=&refpage=labelIndex&refqstr=

More info on labeling here:
http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/meat_and_dairy_labels.html

http://www.ams.usda.gov/
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html

[CountAllVotes]

16. I don't believe them

and I do not eat red meat anymore - not since Mad cow emerged.

I also do not feel like paying $12.00 a lb. for a steak, especially when I don't like steak (I never have really cared much for red meat).

I like lamb once in awhile but it is not cheap either. Probably the same story with lamb too - loaded with hormones, etc. regardless of the claims being made by these "natural" producers of "organic meat".

:dem:

[NashVegas]

18. Sometimes, You Have to Take a Risk and Trust

That people aren't lying.

Either that, or live in a cave.

[Kali]

20. Two points.

First animals produce hormones naturally - they are living creatures with hormonal systems just like us. The issue is additional hormones used by industry to increase growth and production. In my (pretty well informed - I am a rancher) opinion these products are generally safe for this use. HOWEVER: I sure as hell don't use them, they are certainly not necessary, and the bottom line is very few "customers" want them so WHY THE HELL do "we" insist on doing it? Profit and cheap food combine to drive this stupid policy.

The oversight you want would be hard to do since you can't detect these products anyway - they are the same as the animals produce. Buy local, get to know who produces your food then YOU can provide the oversight by trusting the guy you buy your meat from. And it works in reverse, too - he/she has more incentive to do a good job for a customer they know personally.

http://www.eatwild.com/

On a related issue, there are hundreds or thousands of natural compounds that exist in all kinds of food, but because they occurs naturally in, say an apple or a carrot, nobody is running around warning of the danger of excess compound X, but the fact is if you live on some excessive amount of ANY single food item you are likely to develop some kind of problem. The smartest, safest way to eat is to enjoy (yes that is part of health) a varied diet of as "intact" food as possible - by intact I mean in general the less processing the better. High in vegetable and whole grain with small amounts of well produced animal protein is an ideal healthy diet.

[demo dutch]

29. Thanks. I do buy local. Still USDA oversees and past some

legislation regarding labeling on other food, but will not do anything sofar with the meat industry. Of course the Beef/meat industry etc. has a strong lobby. The food industry in Europe is stricter and more regulated, although there have been some scandals. They now have a Code of Conduct for Organic Food Processing etc. and at the EU Gov level there is co-ordination of Europeam Transnational Research in Organic Foods. They seem light years ahead of us. In the US companies police themselves, and we all know that works.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm

[NVMojo]

23. Thanks for posting this. I eat red meat ...

[SOS]

26. More info:

Cancer Facts - Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

"The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries.

When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.

In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat."

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

[Gelliebeans]

35. My grandmother died of breast cancer

in Aug of this year, she was a vegatarian. :shrug:

[Generator]

37. Was she old?

That could be the problem. The number one risk factor in cancer is age. Which is also the number risk factor in death, though I have known some riciculously young people that died as well. Just not of cancer. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Gelliebeans]

39. 74

but she developed breast cancer ten years earlier and it came back.

I'm not doubting medical science one bit but I do know there are plenty of us that fall through the cracks of who science deems likely and unlikely to develop cancer or disease.

A long time ago I was told that I had a type-A personality and that is why I developed Crohns disease which now is rightly identified as autoimmune disease. The evolution of science. The first doctor I saw about diagnosis actually thought I needed a psychologist. Turns out the only thing that frustrated me were the doctors that lacked a correct diagnosis. Go figure. :)

It would be great to think that those in risk categories could do away with unnecessary detriment by avoiding certain lifestyles or diets but I do think there is a bit more than that in the final conclusion. Heredity and environment play an instrumental part that sometimes is overlooked in our search for cures or in the pursuit of health.

This is a positive article and I am not disputing that but so many things are involved here with the development of cancers including age as you so correctly stated.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. This is why I stopped eating heterocyclic amines and iron.

God damn chemists.

[Kali]

42. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[WindRavenX]

51. shifty little creatures, aren't they?

These scientists and their religion of atheism! ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. The nerve of them.

Pushing their heterosexual amines on our children.

[Generator]

38. Turkey time!

<Eat me.

[lebkuchen]

44. not butterball, though

try free-range.

[Ilsa]

54. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy was one reason why I

gave up meat and became a vegetarian. I also limit my egg (veg fed only) and dairy (mostly prganic) and any other animal products in my diet. Chicken, without the breading or grilling, etc, tastes like styrofoam. Going veg has given me alot more energy, and my bloodwork has never been better. This reinforces my decision.

[LeftyMom]

56. Meat consumption generally is cancer promoting, as is dairy.

Really, I'm glad you're all hearing about this, but it's hardly LBN that another study backed up something that's been established science for two decades at least.

[Kali]

60. Yep the interesting work will be seeing if the vegan lifestyle is

sustainable over multiple generations and what sort of interesting effects may turn up if it can be in any serious numbers.

[LeftyMom]

61. Goodness, there's already plenty of data on that.

After all, while the term vegan only dates to the 1940s and the creation of the Vegan Society in the UK (the man who invented the term died a year ago, he'd been vegan for 60 years and a vegetarian for 2 years before that) many of the Natural Hygiene and SDA people were eating pure vegetarian diets from the 1880's or so and of course Jains and some Buddhist monks have eaten animal free diets for longer than I care to think about. We also have a lot of studies of the effect on human health of a plant based diet.

As for the ecological impact, there's plenty of data out there about that too. I have links all over my journal relating vegan lifestyles to improved ecological outcomes.

[Kali]

67. Plant based and vegetarian -

not much work done on multigenerational VEGAN populations. (Because they don't really exist in significant numbers, and that is a significant fact in and of itself)

[flvegan]

69. What doesn't exist is data on multigenerational CAFO populations.

Though the more positive data that comes out on vegan diets over the last 20 years sure as hell beats the shit out of the data coming from the results of eating a meat-based diet founded upon the intensive confinement of animals.

There's your significant fact.

[Kali]

70. True that. And next is the the moderate middle of the road

"diet" that includes all foods raised in a more healthy "natural" way. The meat studies so far already show real differences.

[FernBell]

62. k&r

[KT2000]

63. Estrogen - Estrogen - Estrogen

The research states that the hormones fed to the cattle to promote growth are the culprits. The hormones that mimic estrogen promote breast cancer.
Estrogen mimicing chemicals are also in lawn/yard products and many other places.

These chemicals are stored in the fat tissue - they do not flush out. When you eat the fat of the animals, those hormones are then stored in YOUR fat tissue.

Many toxic chemicals we are exposed to are stored in human fat tissue.

It is imperative that people learn about this. Manufacturers are fighting rules that would require them to account for this fact. Meanwhile we are storing all kinds of toxic chemicals and pregnant women can pass them to their fetuses.
Recent research is finding that the worst health effects of this process are found in subsequent generations.

[leesa]

64. Hormones are powerful substances. It's the hormones in chicken breasts that

make me wonder about breast ca. It's so funny to me that people find hormones as a culprit hard to believe. It's been shown over and over again in so many instances. Just do the meat without the hormones and other junk we feed animals. I don't eat meat now but I grew up on it. I know it tastes REAL funky now compared to when it's natural. Even just the act of wrapping it in plastic with the plasticizers degrading the cellular integrity makes the taste funny. It's why the old-style butchers still use butcher paper.

[Gloria]

65. About chickens...no hormones......

Hormones & Antibiotics
No hormones are used in the raising of chickens.

Antibiotics may be given to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered before the bird can be slaughtered. This ensures that no residues are present in the bird's system. FSIS randomly samples poultry at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this monitoring program have shown a very low percentage of residue violations.

Additives
Additives are not allowed on fresh chicken. If chicken is processed, however, additives such as MSG, salt, or sodium erythorbate may be added but must be listed on the label.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Chicken_Food_Safety_Focus/index.asp

[sendero]

71. Funny..

.... my ex quit eating red meat in the mid 80s. She contracted breast cancer in 2003, and it came dangerously close to killing her.

Sure, you can help mother nature by living a "healthy" lifestyle, but the FACT is that genetics hold the trump card every time.