Todd,

I have to take issue with the assumption that eating meat causes cancer
based on studies done on modern peoples eating modern diets.  Does a
non-meat eating person who starts eating meat raise his/her cancer risk
"substantially", or do people studied who already were eating meat have a
higher risk than those who were not?  What other variables were involved?
 What did their diets look like overall?  Were there other risk factors
that might have separated the two groups?

I will have to see proof, i.e. a truly independent study done not on
average Americans who can't stuff enough garbage and carcinogens into their
mouths at the behest of their, but on hunter/gatherer peoples.  Compare
meat-eating H/Gs with non-meat-eating H/Gs (if there are any) and tell me
the cancer differences.  Otherwise, I am not simply going to take it as
fact that eating meat causes cancer.  It sounds like an assumption.  How
much stock can we put in any study of the health effects of a particular
 food on the human physiology when the subjects of the study are eating
artificial foods which are filled with chemicals and carcinogens and which
are refined to the point that many are stripped of any intrinsic
nutritional value?

John Pavao

----------
Yes, but the data don't support the hypothesis that people are
not getting enough carotenoids because they are eating too much
meat, since even the occasional consumption of meat increases the
cancer risk substantially.