Don't eat meat? HA! Stuff it!

[RebelSS]

This foolishness came out today...if people cut way back, just means more for me.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-cancer-red-meat-probably-does-group-says-n451396

 

[ThunderLund78]

I'd like to say I enjoy everything in moderation, but when it comes to meat, I'm never one to let the last few pieces of bacon sit lonely on the plate.  

I take these studies with a grain of salt.  I'm only 37 - too young to be bitter - but all this comes through the same do-good talking bobbleheads that told me I could keep my doctor and that my health insurance premiums wouldn't go up; the same "science" experts that said in the 70s that we'd be in a human-induced ice age today, but now say that we're warming catastrophically. Perhaps more-closely related - the same people that said in the 80's to stop eating eggs, only to now say they're a super-food.

Not trying to get political, but just saying that trying to figure out the truth will only drive you mad.  I'm sure there's some basis for their findings - who knows what preservatives they throw in your meat these days. This is why I've dedicated my past year to trying to buy local meat and learning how to process it myself.  If I drop dead at an early age - I'll have no one to blame but myself.  

At least I'll leave a GOOD LOOKIN' CORPSE!

[ThunderLund78]

Another thing I find funny - albeit anecdotal; the following is a paragraph from the article I read on this:

"The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, put processed meat like hot dogs and ham in its group 1 list, which already includes tobacco, asbestos and diesel fumes, for which there is "sufficient evidence" of cancer links"

My dad is nearly 76 - a BIG fan of processed/red meat, worked on diesel turbines in the Navy, then was a career pipefitter starting in the late 60s up until his retirement in 2000 where he worked EXTENSIVELY with Asbestos before they knew it was bad.  He was never a smoker - Lucky for him, I guess.  He's behind in the count, according to the study.  But still healthy, strong as an ox and happily active.

moral of the story - live your life without worry - you'll be fine.

[Neighbor_guy]

In the end it's the one thing we all truly have in common. We are all going to die. 

 

If if I die because I ate too much red meat... Well... Ok... There's worse things. 

I like red meat. I am often distracted by a chunk of dead cow, deer, goat, lamb, duck, elk, buffalo, you name it, I have eaten it. I will take mine very rare please. 

[Mike89]

In the end it's the one thing we all truly have in common. We are all going to die. 

 

If if I die because I ate too much red meat... Well... Ok... There's worse things. 

I like red meat. I am often distracted by a chunk of dead cow, deer, goat, lamb, duck, elk, buffalo, you name it, I have eaten it. I will take mine very rare please. 

I'll 2nd this

[bobberineyes]

I can't wait to see and hear what's next, that's going to make me tip.

Edited October 26, 2015 by bobberineyes

[delcecchi]

 

moral of the story - live your life without worry - you'll be fine.  

Real moral of the story, is some people get lucky in the genetic lottery.   Could have said the same about my dad at 76.   Dead at 77.

[Boar]

Preservitive, chemicals to make shelf life longer, meat inhancers, to make things look pretty under the glass, bring it home and its brown on the inside. istah! freah meat, off the hoof, none better. best protein on the planet.

[jmd1]

If they are so bad how come most of the obits from the area i grew up in central nebraska have most of the folks passing in their late 80's to 100?  The WHO and the other group are the same non peered groups that say round up is bad.  Let see so i bleach, gasoline, lysol and many thousand other products that if used improperly will cause harm.  So i say eat until you can't eat any more and enjoy it all.  

[ThunderLund78]

Real moral of the story, is some people get lucky in the genetic lottery.   Could have said the same about my dad at 76.   Dead at 77.

I agree with you on the genetic thing, I think that's probably most of it.  Eat kale and live to 77, or eat bacon and live to 76.  I tell ya which one I would chose.

[eyeguy 54]

all those health nuts will feel weird dying of nothing some day   ;)

[reinhard1]

That stuff has been around for years about red meat.  Nothing new, just same old stuff.  Bring on the red meat. good luck.

[delcecchi]

I'm good to go.  Just got my 10 year checkup and no problem with the reputed area that red meat is bad for.  So, bring it.

[reinhard1]

Glad to hear Del!!!  I heard a little more of that report this morning and Processed foods were more the target.  This is why I make my own sausage.  i know what I put in there and i use my ratio of fat to lean and what I like in seasonings.  I don't need to buy lunchmeat and I haven't for as long as I have made summer sausage or salami for example.  I' ve been in the butcher business for a long time.  I have seen the ingredients in processed lunchmeat and hot dogs for example and those ingredients for the most part I do not know what they are or can even pronounce.  Most are high in salt also.  However I think that if even these products are eaten in moderation they would be fine.   Daily consumption of these high sodium products can be harmful and I agree with that.  But red meat, pork and chicken I believe are here for a reason and that's to eat it.  We can't have wild game on hand all the time but we can have a great burger anytime.  Keep in mind that I believe that this "study" equated equal harm that bacon and cigarette smoking does.  It's just plain nuts to compare eating bacon to smoking cigarettes as this study does, so I take the whole thing as more of a agenda driven study than reality.  good luck.

[delcecchi]

Here is the abridged version of the WSJ article on the report.  Note that this was based on looking at studies that had already been done. 

Red and processed meats have the potential to cause cancer in humans, according to a report by a World Health Organization agency that is drawing ire from meat industry groups that argue the science is inadequate.

The determination, published by a panel of researchers for the International Agency for Research on Cancer in a medical journal Monday, classifies processed meat products like salami and bacon carcinogenic to humans, the strongest level of risk for cancer, and a category shared with tobacco smoke and diesel engine exhaust.

Fresh meats like steaks and roasts are considered probably cancer-causing, a level of risk shared with the widely used herbicide glyphosate.

The IARC, considered an authority in evaluating evidence on cancer causation cited studies that conclude there is strong evidence to support a link between eating too much meat and the onset of colorectal cancer, the third-most common type world-wide.

“On the basis of the large amount of data and the consistent associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat across studies in different populations, which make chance, bias, and confounding unlikely as explanations, a majority of the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of processed meat,” according to the report, which appears in the Lancet Oncology.

The processed meat classification was based on evidence linking consumption with colorectal and stomach cancer, while the red meat classification took into account the positive associations with colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancer, said the authors in the report.

The committee assessed more than 800 studies in its review and weighed most heavily research that studied the general population and followed people over time. It cited studies suggesting that even small amounts on a daily basis are associated with an increased risk of certain types of cancer. For instance, in one analysis of a group of 10 studies, there was a 17% increase in the risk of colorectal cancer for every 100 grams per day of red meat consumed and an 18% increase for every 50 grams daily of processed meat.

However, the data in general weren’t as clear-cut for red meat as for processed meat, according to the committee. “No clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies” and it was difficult to separate diet from other lifestyle factors that might also be linked to cancer, like smoking or exercise, the authors wrote, leading to the committee’s conclusion that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat.

The IARC report confirms the previous recommendations of expert committees. The World Cancer Research Fund in 2011 concluded that there is strong evidence that both red and processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, advising that humans eat no more than 500 grams, or about 1.1 pounds, a week of meats like beef, pork and lamb. That is the equivalent of three or four small meat patties. The research fund also advises that people limit consumption of processed products like ham and salami as much as possible.

“The link to cancer is supported by increasingly compelling research,” wrote Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who wasn’t involved in the IARC report, in an email. “There seem to be many reasons to eat less beef, climate change among them, but cancer is a more personal worry.”

The results by the 22-person panel, which consisted of scientists from 10 nations, already have drawn criticism from meat and food industry groups that have braced for such decisions for years, in part by funding research on the benefits of eating meat.

(stuff from meat industry groups disputing the validity of the study deleted)

The meat industry has battled international and U.S. health authorities on the place of meat in a balanced diet for decades,...

 

Shalene McNeill, director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, served as an observer at the researchers’ meeting in Lyon, France in October.

“(she says hey maybe it's smoking or something....)

 

Dr. McNeill also said there could be “unintended consequences” of people cutting meat out of their diet.

“When people cut back on a food they don’t necessarily replace it with broccoli,” she said.

.......(statements from advocacy groups)

Just posting the article for your edification, not taking a position.  I loves me a good steak.  

Edited October 27, 2015 by delcecchi

[RebelSS]

   

 

 

My doctor told me try to eat all things in moderation. I picked up 5 lbs of ribs on sale, and followed his advice. I only grilled and ate 3 lbs. 

[RebelSS]

A little side note......does Kellogg's know bacon is bad for ya??   Like they care..

 

Photo: Kellogg

 

ST. MICHAEL, Minn. (KTTC) -

(NBC) - Kellogg is about to roll out five new flavors of Pop Tarts.

Coming to a store near you: maple bacon, chocolate-caramel, watermelon, spring strawberry, and pink lemonade-flavored breakfast pastries.

The new flavors will go on sale in December, and will be available until spring 2016.
While Kellogg expects the new flavors to be a hit, company executives don't expect them to overtake the top two flavors: frosted brown sugar cinnamon and frosted strawberry.

 

 

When we bombed the bjesus out of Iraq when we took out Hussein, we dropped tens of thousands of MRE's which contained, of all things, Pop-Tarts.  The people who were eating the MRE's were asking the soldiers what the Pop-tarts were.  When told that you were supposed to eat them, they were incredulous.

[RebelSS]

Mmmm....bacon...

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by RebelSS

[Boar]

miss that guy, funny stuff!

[RebelSS]

Now, chicken is bad, too. Wonder if I can safely eat those C'monks tearing around my yard? 

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/university-texas-study-links-meat-kidney-cancer-n45981

[ThunderLund78]

Well, I did make a promise to myself to eat more squirrel. This year is no different than any other year in the deer stand - I give myself whiplash thinking a big buck is sneaking up behind me, only to find two rodents chasing themselves through the leaves.  Well, that tears it!  This year, after deer season I'm gonna thin the herd.

Maybe that will be a good supplement to all the bad stuff, at least until the squirrel study comes out.

[smurfy]

Well, I did make a promise to myself to eat more squirrel. This year is no different than any other year in the deer stand - I give myself whiplash thinking a big buck is sneaking up behind me, only to find two rodents chasing themselves through the leaves.  Well, that tears it!  This year, after deer season I'm gonna thin the herd.

Maybe that will be a good supplement to all the bad stuff, at least until the squirrel study comes out.

hey. tree rats good eatin. brown it bake it adding onion and bay leaves till tender!

[ThunderLund78]

Thanks Smurf!

I'm going to start a squirrel thread soon.  I hunted and ate them when i was younger, however, I remember thinking it was not the greatest.  not gonna kill something unless I plan to eat it, so I guess it's time to find some good recipes!

[delcecchi]

And for the rest of the story, as someone used to say on the radio.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-agenda-behind-the-bacon-scare-1447115536

The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare

The widely publicized warning about meat isn’t about health. It’s about fighting global warming.

 

ENLARGE

Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto

By

Julie Kelly And

Jeff Stier

Nov. 9, 2015 7:32 p.m. ET

Headlines blaring that processed and red meat causes cancer have made this steak-and-bacon-loving nation collectively reach for the Rolaids. Vegans are in full party mode, and the media is in a feeding frenzy. But there is more to this story than meets the (rib)eye.

With United Nations climate talks beginning in a few weeks in Paris, the cancer warning seems particularly well timed. Environmental activists have long sought to tie food to the fight against global warming. Now the doomsayers who want to take on modern agriculture, a considerable source of greenhouse-gas emissions, can employ an additional scare tactic: Meat production sickens the planet; meat consumption sickens people.

Late last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—part of the World Health Organization, an arm of the U.N.—concluded that red meat, like beef and pork, is “probably carcinogenic” to humans, and that processed meat is an even greater cancer threat. The IARC placed foods like bacon, sausage and hot dogs in the same carcinogen category as cigarettes and plutonium.

The working group assessed “more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries.” But support for the IARC’s sweeping conclusion is flimsy at best.

First, the report largely addresses only one cancer—colorectal—while making passing mention of other cancers, like stomach and prostate. Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that “positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies”—hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning.

The working group even admits in the same paper that “there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat” and “no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.” Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest carcinogen category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.

The case against processed meat is dubious, too. According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate—say, 2.4% over 30 years—for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.

A doctor with the IARC acknowledged in a news release announcing the findings that “for an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small.” But that statement—widely overlooked in most media coverage—didn’t stop the agency from putting processed meat in its highest category of carcinogens, alongside mustard gas and formaldehyde.

Sensationalist reporting makes processed meat sound more dangerous than even the IARC report claims. A headline at NBC News reads: “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Another by the national desk at Cox Media Group runs: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.” This is a case where many journalists and policy makers fail to give proper scrutiny to claims that advance the prevailing political narrative. When a report advises eating less meat, few bother to check the facts, because the conclusion is already popular among them and assumed true.

Now we get to the connection between climate alarmism and the meat-is-bad movement. In advance of the Paris climate talks, the World Health Organization released a lengthy report about climate pollutants and global health risks. The section on agriculture discusses the need to direct consumers away from foods whose production emits high levels of greenhouse gases: “A key action with large potential climate and health benefits is to facilitate a shift away from high-GHG foods—many of which are of animal origin—and towards healthy, low-GHG (often plant-based) alternatives.”

The report specifically mentions red and processed meat: “In affluent populations, shifting towards diets based on careful adherence to public health recommendations—including reduced consumption of red and processed meat and/or other animal-sourced foods in favor of healthier plant-based alternatives—has the potential to both reduce GHG emissions and improve population health.”

How would this shift in consumers’ tastes be produced? “Experimental and modeling studies demonstrate that food pricing interventions have the ability to influence food choice,” the report states, before favorably citing a study in the United Kingdom of “taxing all food and drinks with above-average GHG emissions.”

Much of this is aimed at the U.S., which is the world’s top producer of beef and its third-largest producer of pork. Americans, along with Australians and Argentines, are among the world’s biggest per capita meat-eaters. Now climate busybodies can shout that meat causes cancer and is as bad for the person eating it as it is for the planet.

In other words, meat is a double threat that governments should contain. Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.

Ms. Kelly, a cooking instructor and food writer, lives in Orland Park, Ill. Mr. Stier leads the risk analysis division at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

[RebelSS]

Just follow Keith Richard's example, he's gotta be about 120....