News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 Red meat a mortality risk 

Red meat a mortality risk

25 Mar, 2009 11:12 AM
Another major study claims to have identified strong links between eating red and processed meat and an increased risk of early death.

The study has been widely cited across the internet, accompanied by commentary that calls for a clamping down on red meat production and consumption.

In an editorial accompanying the study’s publication in the Archives of Internal Medicine this week, Barry M. Popkin of the University of North Carolina argued that greater deliberation needed to be given to the place of red meat in diets globally.

"There is a global tsunami brewing, namely, we are seeing the confluence of growing constraints on water, energy and food supplies combined with the rapid shift toward greater consumption of all animal source foods," Dr Popkin wrote.

He acknowledged that there are health benefits in eating some red and white meats (but not in processed meats), and so the answer did not lie in shifting to vegan or vegetarian diets.

"Rather, the need is for a major reduction in total meat intake, an even larger reduction in processed meat and other highly processed and salted animal source food products and a reduction in total saturated fat."

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute in the United States tracked 500,000 people aged 50-71 over 10 years, categorising them into five groups ranked on meat consumption.

The study found that the one-fifth of people who ate the most red meat (on average, 62.5 grams per 1000 calories per day) had a modestly increased chance of dying, and an increased chance of contracting heart disease or cancer, than the one-fifth who ate the least amount of meat (an average of 9.8 grams per 1000 calories per day).

The same conclusion was returned for those who ate large amounts of processed meat compared to those who didn't.

"For overall mortality, 11pc of deaths in men and 16pc of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption to the level of intake in the first quintile [one-fifth]," the researchers wrote.

"The impact on cardiovascular disease mortality was an 11pc decrease in men and a 21pc decrease in women if the red meat consumption was decreased to the amount consumed by individuals in the first quintile.

"For women eating processed meat at the first quintile level, the decrease in cardiovascular disease mortality was approximately 20pc."

Consumption of white meat was found to have a slightly positive impact on mortality.

Other recent studies have found correlations between consumption of red and processed meats and lung, bowel and breast cancer—although another research project found no connection between red meat and colon cancer.

Researchers are uncertain about why red meat consumption appears linked to increased risk of cancer, but a primary cause appears to be cooking meat at high temperatures, such as barbecuing.

The National Cancer Institute researchers also noted that high levels of saturated fat in some red meat have been linked to breast and colorectal cancer.

A factor not mentioned in the study is grain feeding’s apparently adverse impact on Omega 3 and Omega 6 ratios in red meat. Almost all beef in the US is lot fed.

However, Dr David Topping, a senior research scientist with CSIRO Food Futures and Preventative Health Flagships, questioned whether the result should also be considered in light of reduced fibre intake by big meat eaters.

"Previous studies have shown a dose-dependent lowering of colo-rectal cancer risk for dietary fibre and a number of studies have shown protective effects of fibre against a number of conditions," Dr Topping said.

He said that the fibre intakes of those in the study with the highest meat consumption were low—18.6 and 14.8 grams per day, men and women respectively—compared to 25 and 21 g/d for the men and women with the lowest meat consumption.

(Australians on average have a higher fibre consumption than their US counterparts, Dr Topping noted, at 27 g/d. However, the nation still has high levels of colorectal cancer. CSIRO believes this is to do with the type of fibre that Australians eat.)

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If you really want to eat super-healthy food, the best way is not to cook it! Eating raw 100% vegan food has not only helped me to lose pounds it has also given me more energy and not to mention has lowered my cholesterol significantly too. Check out this website, http://kevkev227.kristenraw.hop.clickbank.net/ A friend recommended I give it a try and I can't tell you what a difference it has meant for me. I learned all about the best raw food recipes and I can truly say that the food is delicious and it feels so much better to be healthy!
Posted by juliemrosen, 25/03/2009 4:14:40 PM
I want people to invest more in children's education in addition to the research on food, which would lead to healthy living for all, from my perspective.
Posted by hsr0601, 25/03/2009 7:55:23 PM
The research is based on US statistics = fast foods such as hamburgers, grainfed beef full of fat, herbecides, grown on synthetic fertilisers. No need to waste the research money to come to that increased mortality conclusion.

How about lean venison, goat meat and roo? And grown organically? And research based on European or Middle Asian studies where people eat normal food, not fast food?

Posted by Andrew, 26/03/2009 8:05:22 AM
What a load of rubbish. The human species are omnivorous, we are designed to eat and digest meat of different types, as well as vegetables, grains, fruits and nuts.

Eating too much of anything will be deleterious to your health. Eating foods grown on depleted soils, or where the minerals have been tied up by chemical fertilisers, will also be a risk to health.

Preserved or processed meats should not be eaten in large quantities, anymore than any other type of preserved foods should be eaten in large quantities. Everything in moderation.

I would for once, like to see a research study that takes into account the differences in diet and environment between country living and city living, between groups of people who are living a satisfying life and those who are stressed by the self-perceived pressures of 'keeping up with the Jones' and trying to acquire every stupid, useless gadget that comes onto the market.

Then maybe, we'd see some real indications of what is going wrong with health in this society.

Posted by TM, 26/03/2009 8:29:28 AM
Did the the doyen's of common sense allow for other food that the yanks consume - the article is rather pointless.
Posted by foster, 26/03/2009 8:47:35 AM
Firstly, to eat only raw food is to negate several thousand years of human culture - and possibly the process that made us human – cooking: man is the only animal that cooks.

Secondly, we're eating what we are designed to, and what our ancestors have eaten for some time, as the first hominids appear on earth around 4-5 million BC. We can safely assume from the animal bones and skeletons found near their own bones, that they killed and ate other animals.

How about some studies on the way the animals are farmed – grain-fed, growth hormone stuffed - rather than the meat itself.

Yes, by all means let's eat less meat but let's follow the formula of eating half as much and paying twice as much for well-raised animals.

Posted by john newton, 26/03/2009 8:58:28 AM
For God's sake, give us a break. This is just more animal libber-inspired rubbish.
Posted by Bob, 26/03/2009 8:58:51 AM
As this is research, some of the comment re 'slight chance' and 'appears to' questions the validity of the statements.

Researchers use statistical analyses to test the 'significance' of trials and the results are either significant (yes, the hypotheses is true) or not significant (not true). Sounds like poor science to me.

Posted by dr po, 26/03/2009 10:06:37 AM
What a load of left-wing-university-funded, PETA-inspired drivel. Another "major study" .. with "claims", incomplete studies, based on agendas, rather than good investigative methods .. once again hits the headlines, due to the "researchers" ability to reach journos in the left wing American press.

It's all about political agendas and selling newspapers, rather than any definitive, accurate studies.


Posted by Ron N, 26/03/2009 11:37:18 AM
All people eating red meat will die.
Posted by be afraid, 26/03/2009 12:19:28 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

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
MULTIMEDIA
22 March, 2009
24 March, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe rural property prices will continue to rise despite the economic downturn?

Yes
(38.6%)

No
(54.9%)

Undecided
(6.5%)

Total Votes: 603
Poll Date: 22 March, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



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...