I wrote:

> >  I have read that people eating a lot of meat or fish have increased
> >  risks of getting cancer, but the factor is close to 50%, and no one
> >  knows why meat has such an effect.

Steve Mathison replied:

> This is most certainly based on "cooked" meat, as there as so few
> people who eat raw meats as to make a statistical study meaningless.

Note that a section of the raw vs. cooked article discusses
carcinogenicity of cooked meat:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1e.shtml

It was found that heterocyclic amine [some of the main potential
carcinogens in meat] intake is not significantly correlated with
occurrence of cancer.

> Also, how much is "a lot"?

In the same article as the one which is discussed on the Web page
above, a similar table shows relative risks of cancer by quintile of
total meat and fish intake, adjusted for age, sex and energy (and
smoking status for bladder and kidney cancer).

Cancer site|    Relative risk (95% confidence interval)
----------------------------------------------------------------
           | Quintile 2   Quintile 3   Quintile 4   Quintile 5
           |
colon      | 1.4(0.9-2.2) 1.4(0.9-2.1) 1.7(1.1-2.6) 0.9(0.5-1.4)
rectum     | 1.4(0.9-2.3) 1.4(0.8-2.3) 1.4(0.9-2.4) 1.0(0.6-1.6)
bladder    | 1.6(1.0-2.8) 1.7(1.0-2.9) 1.9(1.1-3.2) 0.8(0.5-1.5)
kidney     | 0.9(0.5-1.7) 1.3(0.7-2.4) 1.4(0.7-2.5) 1.0(0.5-1.9)

[Unfortunately, I don't know the average meat intake in each of the
quintiles.]

Interestingly, those with the highest meat intake (Quintile 5) don't
have elevated risks of cancer.

-------------
Note: another section of the article that may be of interest re:
cancer and diet in hunter-gatherer populations can be found at

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3e.shtml

--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>