It’s good, it’s bad, it’s good and now, high consumption of red meat is correlated with increased risk of cancer. [Reuters]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Rando says:

    They never once defined ‘high comsumption’. They said they put them on a diet, which I’m assuming is nothing but meat… for 8 years. Sounds to me like nothing but a scare story. Nothing is good in large quantities and we all know that. I’ll continue eating how I do.

  2. HRHKingFriday says:

    I like how its an all or nothing issue: either high consumption or no consumption. Nevermind that describes about .001% of the population….

  3. savvy999 says:

    “Red meat was defined as all types of beef, pork and lamb. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats, cold cuts, ham and most types of hot dogs including turkey dogs.”

    I’m hungry now.

  4. DallasDMD says:

    <3 fish

  5. DashTheHand says:

    As an omnivore, I refuse to let cancer stop me from doing what nature has deemed me worthy of, and thats eating anything in the food chain that can be killed by man.

  6. Half Beast says:

    The FDA should regulate Baconator distribution.

  7. AceKicker says:

    I’m going to get a grant and perform my own study. My hypothesis is the real cause of cancer in the world is cancer studies.

    Next they’ll say that too much water consumption gives you cancer.

  8. mopar_man says:

    This is like the lead toy thing: it would be just easier to tell us what DOESN’T give us cancer (if anything) instead of making a list of what will.

  9. Half Beast says:

    @AceKicker: Funny thing is, IIRC, they pulled Saccharine off the carcinogen list because the type of mice they tested it with in the 70s were shown to *spontaneously develop cancer* There was even a control group of the mice that developed cancer after being injected with pure water.

  10. medic78 says:

    Simple statistics lesson-

    Correlation DOES NOT equal Causation.

    Stories like this are made for media panic. All this means is that high consumption of red meat and cancer risk are seen together, NOT that cancer is caused by the meat. It could be that a person eating lots of red meat also tends to ingest ANOTHER product which increases cancer risk. You just don’t know anything from these studies.

  11. scatyb says:

    Maybe I’ll just throw this out there:

    The Gout – The curse nobles must bear

  12. Indecision says:

    @half-beast: “There was even a control group of the mice that developed cancer after being injected with pure water.”

    This goes right along with what I’ve been saying for years — laboratories cause cancer in lab rats. I swear the strain of rats they’re using is just very cancer-prone. The slightest stress in their environment, and they just start sprouting tumors the way fields in Holland start sprouting tulips.

  13. ppiddyp says:

    “The work is the first big study to show a link between meat and lung cancer. It also shows that people who eat a lot of meat have a higher risk of liver and esophageal cancer and that men raise their risk of pancreatic cancer by eating red meat.”

    Huh, so people who eat a lot of burgers also drink a lot of booze and smoke cigarettes. Go figure. Thank you Captain Obvious.

  14. HrPingui says:

    How long till the vegans start posting?

  15. Pinget says:

    Maybe it wouldn’t cause cancer if they’d stop shooting food animals up with hormones and anitbiotics and let them eat grass again. Just maybe.

  16. DrGirlfriend says:

    @scatyb: That actually made me l.o.l., not just in webspeak.

    I’m with @medic78. These links belong more on a Jump to Conclusions mat than in a study. There are so many variables and potential monkeywrenches that can be thrown into this conclusion that it seems almost meaningless. In the meantime, the local news can make sure it makes you tune in after the commercials to see if red meat really does give you cancer (“We won’t say, but we will imply that it does. Tune in tomorrow night to see what else might kill you.”)

  17. floydianslip6 says:

    @DrGirlfriend: You see, it would be this mat. With lots of different “conclusions” on it, that you could, JUMP to.

  18. theblackdog says:

    I think I’ll stick with kosher meats.

  19. ancientsociety says:

    What bulls**t!

    The rise in cancer is more than likely correlated to all the excess crap big business dumps in our food, in the products we use, and in the environment – chemicals, preservatives, pollutants, etc.

    But we hardly ever see scientific studies trying to measure this. I wonder why that is? Guess it’s not good to bite the hand that feeds.

    Pretty soon, “scientific studies” like this will be the rallying cry of animal-rights and other wacko food extremists to limit consumption. Hey, they did it with “second-hand smoke” in “public places”…even though industrial pollutants affect more people on a daily basis than all the social smoking in the country.

  20. Bye says:

    @HrPingui: Not all vegans or vegetarians are holier-than-thou looking to smugly tout their seemingly healthier life choices. Indeed there are some insecure bad apples just like there are omnivores who love to make Homer Simpson noises at vegans whenever somebody just says the word “bacon”.

    You should make your own choices based on the information you have about yourself and not concern yourself with justifying your decisions by reflexively looking to dismiss the people on the “opposite” side.

  21. shanaynay says:

    This vegan mutters something about Darwin @DashtheHand. :)

  22. jeff303 says:

    @Pinget: YES! Thank you for saying what desperately needed to be said.

  23. Rusted says:

    @ancientsociety: Not only are “they” going after red meat, now it’s soda pop, including root beer. I love root beer, especially if it’s made right.

  24. pyloff says:

    Trouble for me, having just ate a large number of burgers and a prime rib in the last few days.

    Maybe if I die I won’t have to listen to this shit anymore.