On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Mary wrote:

> >I am personally more or less persuaded that the colon cancer
> >connection is indeed the hetercyclic amines generated by broiling
> >meats at high temperatures.  The clues seem to point in that
> >direction, and there is a fair biochemical basis for the theory.
>
> Couldn't it also be caused by gluten, dairy, other foreign proteins?

That wouldn't explain the correlation between red meat and colon
cancer, though.  As others have pointed out, correlation does not
entail causation, but it does offer a clue.  According to
Willett, who is certainly a reputable epidemiologist (one of the
few with the insight and gumption to challenge the low-fat
paradigm), even moderate intake of red meat is correlated with a
fairly sharp increase in colon cancer risk.  Still, it's
important to recognize that "increased risk" is a relative term,
and it doesn't imply that frequent eaters of red meat are, in
absolute terms, *likely* to get colon cancer.  It just means that
they are, for reasons not yet understood, *more* likely to do so
than people who don't eat red meat.  And as I recall (I have the
paper around here somewhere), the risk is indeed correlated with
the actual meat protein, not the fat.

Note that Bruce Ames, the scientist cited by Ray Audette on
aflatoxin and other carcinogens, also seems to think that there
is a causal link between the meat and colon cancer.

Heterocyclic amines are known carcinogens.  The question is
whether we consume enough of them from cooked meat to account for
the correlation.  I don't think we have enough data to answer
that yet, but it's my hunch that this is how it will turn out.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]