Mike
Well-known member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11950018/Bacon-ham-and-sausages-as-big-a-cancer-threat-as-smoking-WHO-to-warn.html
Meat As Cancerous As Cigarettes - WHO
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Very few things anymore that don't fall under "the sky is falling" category. People generally are so ignorant of current events, do they even pay attention to this WHO garbage? Or maybe this can be considered as a victory for cigarettes.
The 'story' was pretty typical scare tactics. A person has to wonder why meats usually are the focus of such attacks, rather than foods we all know should be eaten in small amounts, if at all. Strangely enough, beef, and maybe all meats are the one food generally eaten 'in moderation' by most people. I believe it is just 2 or 3 ounces per day in the USA. That 'study' lists 500 grams, which I believe is nearly 20 ounces, per week as the upper limit for beef pork, lamb, etc. They listed 2.5 ounces per day for women, and 3.5 ounces for men as the current level in the UK. Sounds like this 'study' along with a typically outrageous headline, is building a mountain of fear mongering out of a mole hill of dubious evidence.
It was interesting that the majority of comments were from mildly to wildly skeptical of the study, believing it is more a pitch for more funding than a serious warning.
mrj
It was interesting that the majority of comments were from mildly to wildly skeptical of the study, believing it is more a pitch for more funding than a serious warning.
mrj
Mike
Well-known member
So...............where are the Orgs that represent the meat farmers?
Faster horses
Well-known member
Mike said:
Asleep at the wheel.
Mike
Well-known member
Somehow I detect a tone of "no confidence". This is no way to treat your own well paid Lobbyists......... 
You know without a doubt they will run an ad in Beef Magazine and ever so carefully attempt to debunk the WHO position while continuing to preach to the choir. :lol:
You know without a doubt they will run an ad in Beef Magazine and ever so carefully attempt to debunk the WHO position while continuing to preach to the choir. :lol:
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Calgary, AB – The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) has reviewed the monograph, Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat, as published today in The Lancet, which summarizes the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Review of Red Meat and Processed Meats. The Working Group charged with the review classified consumption of red meat in Group 2A, or "probably carcinogenic to humans," which refers to a degree of certainty of causation. It is important to note that IARC conducts hazard assessments, not risk assessments. That means they consider whether meat at some level, under some circumstance could pose a risk. IARC has found hazards in about half of the agents it has reviewed.
In reaching the 2A classification, the Working Group's review of 800 existing epidemiological studies from around the world "concluded that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat," and that "…no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude."
The IARC monograph reported that colorectal cancer was their principle focus relative to red meat and that "a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat." The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has estimated that "a person with an average risk of colorectal cancer has about a 5% chance of developing colorectal cancer overall." By this estimate consuming 100 gram per day of red meat would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by just under 1% in absolute terms. The meat industry has previously estimated that on average Canadians consume approximately 50 grams of fresh red meat or half this amount. Accordingly, if there is an increase in the potential risk of colorectal cancer from red meat consumption, by these estimates it is small and must be considered relative to the very significant nutritional benefits that red meat provides.
While meat's very significant nutritional benefits are not considered directly in the IARC evaluation, they did note that "Red meat contains high biological value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc." The World Health Organization has previously stated that 2 billion people – over 30% of the world's population – have anemia, many due to iron deficiency. Beef is among the best food sources of well absorbed iron. Meat has long provided an important source of nutrients for Canadians and the industry takes pride in providing high quality beef products to consumers.
There are many theories why red and processed meat may be linked to cancer however it's important to note that no scientific consensus has been reached.
Canadians hear a great deal about what foods we should eat and the perspective from the scientific community can change over time. Certainly cancer is a complex disease with many contributing factors including age, genetics, and lifestyle. As with so many aspects of daily life achieving the right balance for your individual circumstance is key and we continue to recommend to Canadian's that they follow the Government of Canada's Food Guide.
For further information, contact:
Gina Teel
Communications Manager
Canadian Cattlemen's Association
403-275-8558 x 306 [email protected]
www.cattle.ca
In reaching the 2A classification, the Working Group's review of 800 existing epidemiological studies from around the world "concluded that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat," and that "…no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude."
The IARC monograph reported that colorectal cancer was their principle focus relative to red meat and that "a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat." The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has estimated that "a person with an average risk of colorectal cancer has about a 5% chance of developing colorectal cancer overall." By this estimate consuming 100 gram per day of red meat would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by just under 1% in absolute terms. The meat industry has previously estimated that on average Canadians consume approximately 50 grams of fresh red meat or half this amount. Accordingly, if there is an increase in the potential risk of colorectal cancer from red meat consumption, by these estimates it is small and must be considered relative to the very significant nutritional benefits that red meat provides.
While meat's very significant nutritional benefits are not considered directly in the IARC evaluation, they did note that "Red meat contains high biological value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc." The World Health Organization has previously stated that 2 billion people – over 30% of the world's population – have anemia, many due to iron deficiency. Beef is among the best food sources of well absorbed iron. Meat has long provided an important source of nutrients for Canadians and the industry takes pride in providing high quality beef products to consumers.
There are many theories why red and processed meat may be linked to cancer however it's important to note that no scientific consensus has been reached.
Canadians hear a great deal about what foods we should eat and the perspective from the scientific community can change over time. Certainly cancer is a complex disease with many contributing factors including age, genetics, and lifestyle. As with so many aspects of daily life achieving the right balance for your individual circumstance is key and we continue to recommend to Canadian's that they follow the Government of Canada's Food Guide.
For further information, contact:
Gina Teel
Communications Manager
Canadian Cattlemen's Association
403-275-8558 x 306 [email protected]
www.cattle.ca
Mike, you haven't been completely honest with people, have you? You would have everyone believe that you're a Charolais breeder, when it's quite obvious that you're actually some sort of detective. :lol2:Mike said:
I see that the N(W)CBA - the National (Wealthy) Cattlemen's Beef Association - has finally awakened and started trying to rebut this. But, only after it led the news for three days with nothing but crickets from them.
Too little, too late, IMO. The consumer has been barraged with that crap all weekend, even on the local news. Our Checkoff dollars at work?
---------------------
http://tscra.org/news_blog/2015/10/26/ellis-the-science-doesnt-support-iarc-decision/
Ellis: The Science Doesn't Support IARC Decision
October 26, 2015
by Philip Ellis, NCBA president
We learned this week that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has voted to tell the world that they believe processed meats are a human carcinogen. Similarly, they have decided red meat is a "probable carcinogen." Let me be clear, this group did not conduct new research during their meeting, they simply reviewed existing evidence, including six studies submitted by the beef checkoff. That evidence had already been reviewed and weighed by the medical and scientific community. The science reviewed by IARC simply does not support their decision.
We know that there isn't clear evidence to support IARC's decision because the beef checkoff has commissioned independent studies on the topic for a decade. In fact, countless studies have been conducted by cancer and medical experts and they have all determined the same thing: No one food can cause or cure cancer. But that hasn't prevented IARC from deciding otherwise.
Since IARC began meeting in 1979, these experts have reviewed more than 900 compounds, products and factors for possible correlation with cancer. To date, only one product (caprolactam, which is a chemical primarily used to create synthetic fibers like nylon) has been granted a rating of 4, which indicates it is "probably not carcinogenic to humans." Most other factors or products that have been examined by the body, including glyphosate, aloe vera, nightshift work and sunlight have fallen into three categories: 2B "possibly carcinogenic to humans," 2A "probably carcinogenic to humans," or 1 "carcinogenic to humans."
It seemed likely from the beginning that we'd find ourselves here. We knew the deck was stacked against us, so the beef industry and others have long been working on providing credible research that would support what many others outside our industry have already verified: A full, fair and unbiased examination of the entire body of research does not support a finding that red or processed meats cause cancer. This conclusion isn't mine alone and you can evaluate the information for yourself. We've posted the studies reviewed by IARC on the website: factsaboutbeef.com. At NCBA, our team of experts has also been working with our state partners and other industry organizations to mount a full-scale defense of beef.
As just one example of the work we've done, we commissioned a study with the same body of research reviewed by IARC. Our study engaged a panel of 22 epidemiologists from the United States and abroad who were recruited by a third-party research group. Participants in the study averaged 22 years of experience and the full panel had a combined total of 475 years of experience. They were provided with a meta-analysis graph which showed data for a specific exposure and a specific human disease outcome, but the specific human disease outcome and exposure were not revealed. In other words, they plotted the results of the study findings on a graph, without telling the participants what product the studies examined. Of the 22 participants in the study, 21 (or 95 percent) said their assessment of the magnitude of the association was weak. Of the 22 epidemiologists, only 10 (or 45 percent) said there was even a possible association. Perhaps most importantly, the epidemiologists agreed that, given the evidence provided, there is not sufficient evidence to make public health recommendations.
Cancer is a complex subject and no one understands fully what causes it or how it can be prevented. Despite billions of dollars spent on research, we only know that no one food can cause or prevent cancer. We also know, thanks in part to decades of producer-funded work on the subject, that when people lead overall healthy lifestyles and maintain a healthy weight, they reduce their risks for chronic diseases, such as cancer, and our team and our state partners are hard at work on this topic to be certain that consumers and their influencers know and understand that beef should remain in their diets, regardless of what IARC might say.
Read more at http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=5418
Mike
Well-known member
Appears as though the NCBA has taken a lesson from the Obama Admin. and is "Leading From Behind". They knew the IARC report was coming and should have been out front.........................
Thank you Randy for that illustrious rebuttal. :wink:
Thank you Randy for that illustrious rebuttal. :wink:
Why would you boys criticize NCBA or more properly: NW(Wiser)CBA for rather than creating inflammatory remarks, they published properly researched, peer reviewed FACTUAL information. I believe similar information has been published and made available on the various websites for a long time, often in reply to similar scare stories which do not necessarily advertise in advance of their press releases.
NCBA lobbyists are separate, with different duties than the state Beef Councils and the Federation of State Beef Councils. I have been hearing comments in SD almost simultaneously with the smear stories, with factual information.
For the record: the law creating the Beef Check Off requires a specific small percentage of the income be spent to tell the producers who do not participate in meetings, etc. what they are doing. That is why you see some news stories in Ag publications. Ask your own state Beef Council how much they spend, where, how, and why, if you care so much. Better yet, get involved in your beef council and be part of the solution.
Maybe some of you have missed some of the factual stories originating with Beef Check Off sources. I talked to someone in the Omaha area who has been hearing them, both in news media and from others who also heard or read about it. Plus people in other areas have mentioned that the scare stories just didn't make sense, considering what they had previously heard about nutrients and health benefits of including reasonable amounts of beef in the diet.
Sure, it makes us angry to hear such nonsense spouted by quasi-governmental outfits, but really, that is such old garbage, it seems reasonable that most people will discount it.
And, if more people raising cattle would pull together instead of fighting one another, what a powerhouse of honest beef promotion for consumers we could have!
mrj
NCBA lobbyists are separate, with different duties than the state Beef Councils and the Federation of State Beef Councils. I have been hearing comments in SD almost simultaneously with the smear stories, with factual information.
For the record: the law creating the Beef Check Off requires a specific small percentage of the income be spent to tell the producers who do not participate in meetings, etc. what they are doing. That is why you see some news stories in Ag publications. Ask your own state Beef Council how much they spend, where, how, and why, if you care so much. Better yet, get involved in your beef council and be part of the solution.
Maybe some of you have missed some of the factual stories originating with Beef Check Off sources. I talked to someone in the Omaha area who has been hearing them, both in news media and from others who also heard or read about it. Plus people in other areas have mentioned that the scare stories just didn't make sense, considering what they had previously heard about nutrients and health benefits of including reasonable amounts of beef in the diet.
Sure, it makes us angry to hear such nonsense spouted by quasi-governmental outfits, but really, that is such old garbage, it seems reasonable that most people will discount it.
And, if more people raising cattle would pull together instead of fighting one another, what a powerhouse of honest beef promotion for consumers we could have!
mrj
Faster horses
Well-known member
And, if more people raising cattle would pull together instead of fighting one another, what a powerhouse of honest beef promotion for consumers we could have!
:clap: :agree:
:clap: :agree:
Looking back at the timeline on this story: the 'leak' that it was coming was the Oct. 23. The 'story' was dated Oct. 26. The comments by Phillip Ellis was also dated Oct. 26. Not checking the actual date of release, I heard some statements from SD Beef Council and other ag groups on or about last Friday, Oct. 24. That seems quite reasonable to me..... but I have no axe to grind. As in knocking NCBA and or Farm Bureau, the two which generally are the most supportive of the cattle producer and the Beef Check Off.
Having visited with several people who are not involved in raising beef or other meats, and noting their antagonism toward such scare stories, it would be interesting to know just how many consumers read the 'report' and how many give it ANY credibility.
BTW, Texan, I know, and know of, quite a few small cattle producers who are staunch members of NCBA who probably would resent the addition of the term "Wealthy" to the name.......especially coming from a TEXAN. After all, 'everyone' knows all of them are WEALTHY! And, no, I do not believe that, but some people do.
With apologies to any friends in TX who may have read this! People who resent and make mean remarks about those they BELIEVE have more money than themselves are too small minded to enjoy.
mrj
Having visited with several people who are not involved in raising beef or other meats, and noting their antagonism toward such scare stories, it would be interesting to know just how many consumers read the 'report' and how many give it ANY credibility.
BTW, Texan, I know, and know of, quite a few small cattle producers who are staunch members of NCBA who probably would resent the addition of the term "Wealthy" to the name.......especially coming from a TEXAN. After all, 'everyone' knows all of them are WEALTHY! And, no, I do not believe that, but some people do.
With apologies to any friends in TX who may have read this! People who resent and make mean remarks about those they BELIEVE have more money than themselves are too small minded to enjoy.
mrj
Mike
Well-known member
Ranching is used as a 'Tax Write Off' investment by many, many people, corporations, & organizations. In fact, in my area I don't know of one ranch where the net income produced is necessary for the day to day livelihood of the owner(s).
Welcome to 2015.....
Welcome to 2015.....
Or print their rebuttal on the back of a buyers card.Mike said:Somehow I detect a tone of "no confidence". This is no way to treat your own well paid Lobbyists.........
You know without a doubt they will run an ad in Beef Magazine and ever so carefully attempt to debunk the WHO position while continuing to preach to the choir. :lol:
,Mike said:
Whether one or more of the ranch family works off the ranch and earns more or less than the ranch brings in, or if they make more than you or I do, or which of us works full time on the ranch, is beside the point. Fact still remains that more than 98% of US ranches ARE family owned.
Isn't the fact that there are many ways to run a ranch, giving more people the opportunity to participate, whether they work for someone on a ranch, own it, or lease it, or operate however then can because they love the job good for people involved? I sure prefer it this way than to limit who is or isn't allowed to participate in raising cattle, or any other 'crop'.
mrj
redrobin said:Or print their rebuttal on the back of a buyers card.Mike said:Somehow I detect a tone of "no confidence". This is no way to treat your own well paid Lobbyists.........
You know without a doubt they will run an ad in Beef Magazine and ever so carefully attempt to debunk the WHO position while continuing to preach to the choir. :lol:
I realize I've not been getting enough sleep lately, but just don't understand the comment: "or print their rebuttal on the back of a buyers card." I don't go to many cattle sales, and don't know exactly what must be on the card, but assume it has to do with buying cattle, not politics of the business. What am I missing?
mrj
Mike
Well-known member
52% of all farms and ranches in the U.S. are owned by those with other primary sources of income. 75% have less than $50,000.00 in gross income. Source; 2014 Ag Census................
Mike, I don't see your comments changing mine that 98% of US farms and ranches are family owned, do you? Whether one or both 'ranchers' or 'farmers' in a family have outside jobs has many reasons. I believe insurance is probably #1. Interest of the individual rates pretty high, too. Quite a few people have held jobs while their kids were in school in some rural communities, due to driving distances and lack of school buses in some rural areas. Still, most rural communities, at least in SD, businesses in towns of ALL sizes are begging for employees. Makes it kind of hard, especially for women, not to have a job outside the home in some places, with friends begging for workers.
Are there any upper, or lower limits on what constitutes a 'farm' in the eyes of government? Isn't USDA promoting, and supporting, start up farms of all kinds right now, both to bring in younger people, and former military people, both men and women? Does it matter whether the 'farmer/rancher' has only their own name, or also has the lenders name on the business, if there is a plan being followed to pay off the loan? I'd say it doesn't, until the final decision is made as to whether or not it WILL be paid off.
mrj
Are there any upper, or lower limits on what constitutes a 'farm' in the eyes of government? Isn't USDA promoting, and supporting, start up farms of all kinds right now, both to bring in younger people, and former military people, both men and women? Does it matter whether the 'farmer/rancher' has only their own name, or also has the lenders name on the business, if there is a plan being followed to pay off the loan? I'd say it doesn't, until the final decision is made as to whether or not it WILL be paid off.
mrj