News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 Errors found in red meat cancer report 

Errors found in red meat cancer report

29 Jul, 2009 09:41 AM
The epidemiological study that came out two years ago and declared that there was "convincing" evidence to link consuming red meat with cancer, specifically colorectal cancer, was flawed, and now, the author of the report has admitted it and has promised to write a letter to the US Department of Agriculture saying so.

The study, an intense literature review of previous studies - a study of studies - was conducted by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and American Institute of Cancer Research (AICR) and recommended that the consumption of red meat (beef, pork, lamb) and processed meats should be limited to 18 ounces (500 grams) per week due to the cancer link.

In response, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) commissioned Exponent Health Sciences to conduct its own review, which found "no conclusive evidence" of such a link.

However, USDA's Center of Nutritional Policy & Promotion, which houses the advisory committee that will write USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines, indicated in April that it would defer to WCRF/AICR's work on a number of diet and cancer questions, NCBA executive director for human nutrition research Shalene McNeill told Feedstuffs.

Accordingly, NCBA commissioned Exponent to conduct a review of WCRF/AICR's study, specifically as it pertained to colorectal cancer, she said.

The review was led by Exponent senior managing scientist Dr Dominik D. Alexander.

Dr Alexander, in a letter to the co-executive secretary of USDA's advisory committee, noted that the "totality" of available epidemiological evidence does not support "a causal association" between consumption of red meat and cancer, including colorectal cancer.

He said findings from cohort studies, i.e., other studies like WCRF/AICR's, have shown "weak" associations that are not statistically significant, that vary by anatomic sites within the colorectum and by gender and that are subject to diverse definitions of categories of meat and measures of intake.

McNeill said Alexander and NCBA met with WCRF/AICR not in a confrontational way but to determine if the two groups would acknowledge their report's errors, and they (1) did so, (2) said they would address the errors in continuous updates and (3) said they would write to the USDA advisory committee to inform it of the errors and omissions.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
What is it about red meat that so enrages the nutters?
Posted by Qlander, 29/07/2009 2:26:12 PM
The reason is Qlander, is the price we nutters are forced to pay for it, that's why!
Posted by tigerdicky, 29/07/2009 3:23:23 PM
Brace yourself, mate, China is developing a taste for it. It's about to get a whole lot dearer.
Posted by Qlander, 29/07/2009 8:11:50 PM
Expensive? Geez, try buying a steak in the UK. Try buying a piece of Rocky Road at $38/kg.

If you think steak is dear, try a slow cooked meal using the cheaper cuts - fantastic this time of the year. We just did with some $8kg of rump, diced and slow cooked unions and a bit of bacon - then the veg...beeeeatiful.

Posted by g, 30/07/2009 4:02:41 PM
Yeah - My wife bought some ham for $50 a kilo the other day. When I asked why she was paying $50 a kilo fo ham, she said what do you mean it was only five dollars... Five dollars for 100g packet. It's all in the perception really isn't it.
Posted by Qlander, 30/07/2009 6:15:34 PM
You want to get cheap red meat? Buy a chest freezer, go to your local butcher and ask him/her for a price/kg on a side or whole carcass of beef. Make sure your butcher is known for their quality beef.

You should get away with it for around $6/kg for everything - Rump, rib fillet, sirloin/T-bones etc.

The initial outlay might seem expensive, but believe me it saves you a heap at the supermarket. I cringe to think that there are pieces of rump out there that people slow cook. Utter blasphemy in my book! But this goes to show the quality that goes to market.

You do the sums and see how long it will take you to pay off the freezer and meat. Well worth it!

Posted by JL, 31/07/2009 8:25:21 AM
Listening to ABC radio this week on the supermarket rip offs again and visiting the NSW Farmers Federation's new website on farm gate to supermarket price hikes, I was not surprised to hear the speaker say that he had been around the Sydney suburbs and saw common rack of lamb between $35-50 a kilo and his price amounted to $5 a kilo on the hook.

I wish I could go to a farmer and buy my meat direct from him and get rid of the rogue element in all of this!

Posted by she's my ute, 31/07/2009 9:20:21 AM
In this week's Country Life is a story about a young couple near Longreach selling lamb on the internet. You can buy a full or half carcass. Boxed and delivered to your door.

I worked for their parents when I was at college back in the late 70s, and it's great to see the next generation powering on.

Posted by Qlander, 31/07/2009 10:16:23 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
28 July, 2009
MULTIMEDIA
27 July, 2009
28 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the Federal Government got the balance right between water buybacks and investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure in the Murray Darling?

Yes
(3.8%)

No - there should be more investment in infrastructure
(73.8%)

No - there should be more emphasis on water buybacks
(13.7%)

Undecided
(8.7%)

Total Votes: 416
Poll Date: 26 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...