On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Susan Carmack wrote:

> >It is this one-sided use of scientific evidence that I find so
> >puzzling.  Neanderthin cites epidemiological evidence that links
> >corn to cancer but ignores epidemiological evidence that links
> >red meat to cancer.
>
> Any evidence that red meat causes cancer has been conjured up by the
> 'powers that be' -food conglomerates.

I don't buy this.  The best studies have been academic studies,
such as those of Willett at Harvard.  It is altogether too facile
to dismiss evidence that one doesn't like by speculating about
the motives of those who produce the evidence.

There is no study that shows that red meat causes cancer, but
there are a number of studies that show that it increases one's
risk of colon cancer, even when consumed in small quantities.
This connection has been found by different researchers, in
different countries.  Only one study, in Italy, has failed to
find it.

Does this mean that you shouldn't eat red meat?  Not necessarily.
The point of my comment above was not to persuade anybody not to
eat red meat.  I eat the stuff myself.  It was to complain about
the way scientific evidence is often dealt with on this list.  In
short, there is a tendency to announce triumphantly the results
of a study that appear to support our biases, and to ignore or
dismiss studies that contradict them.

The best evidence at this time suggests that red meat is a risk
factor for colon cancer.  This does not make it likely that you
will get colon cancer if you eat read meat, but it does make it
*more* likely that you will get colon cancer if you eat red meat
than if you don't.  At this point in time no one has any theory
as to *why* this is so.  I'm betting that it's the buildup of w-6
fats in the beef, as a result of being corn-fed, by I don't have
even a shred of evidence for that conjecture.

((Modern, grainfed red meat is
> mediocre at best, however.)

But the point is, it might be considerably worse than mediocre.

> Vegetarianism has been promoted as alternative
> way of eating in lieu of meat eating to sell bean/rice/tofu/grain products.

But please don't forget that there is a powerful meat industry
too, that bombards us with "Beef--it's what's for dinner"
commercials.  And don't forget that the people who grow corn sell
about 80% of it as cattle feed.

I personally do not promote vegetarianism, although it's clear
that some people do pretty well with it.

> Ever notice that food is not just sold for taste or quality and more; it is
> sold as a 'cure' for something, ie: soy has natural estrogens, oatbran
> prevents cancer. In order to sell all this less than nutritious food, meat
> must be slandered as well.

I'm not sure that it's a bad thing to publicize the healing
properties of foods, if they have them.  And in case you didn't
notice, Neanderthin engages in exactly the same tactics: the
for obesity, diabetes, etc.; "slandering" of other foods (if
foods can actually be slandered; I'm not sure about that one).

Soy apparently does have some interesting properties, and I don't
understand why you would want to ignore them.  In Asia, breast
cancer is inversely related to soy intake.  Soy protein really
does lower LDL cholesterol, as well or better than many of the
prescription drugs.  Why shouldn't people be interested in these
facts?

> All this advertising (lying) has worked too. Look at how confused we all are!

Maybe the truth is more complicated than we like to think.

continued...