Study: "Breast cancer risk higher among meat eaters"

[Dillpicklechip]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/04042007/...-uk-study.html

This story is the main headline on Yahoo Canada tonight. The findings are politically correct, but stupid:

Among nearly 8,890 vegetarian women, 149 (1.7 per cent), got breast cancer. The figure rose to 185 cases among the 8,281 women (2.2 per cent) who reported eating the most meat - more than 103 grams of beef, pork or lamb a day.

So the difference in the number of women who got breast cancer in both groups was 0.5%. Then in the next paragraph, because both numbers are so small, they are able to say that the meat eaters had a 56% higher chance of getting breast cancer--because the chance was 2.2% instead of 1.7%!

Also, farther down the page:

The report noted that women who ate a lot of meat were more likely to be smokers, had the highest total energy intake, the highest body mass index (a measure to assess if a person is overweight or obese), were more likely to have left school by age 14 and were the least likely to have professional or managerial jobs.

They also didn't mention, but probably across the general population vegetarian women are more likely to exercise.

So potentially, if all the other variables are taken into consideration (including the women who ate a lot of processed meat taken out, I don't think balogna should count as "red meat"), the women who ate meat might have lessened their chances of cancer. After all, it said many of the meat-eating women were smokers...and their increase in cancer was quite small.

It really angers me that studies can say anything the researchers want them to say. It isn't science at all--the outcome of the research all depends on who pays for it.

They never tell you in the article who payed for it though.

[pampered_mom]

Originally Posted by Dillpicklechip

So the difference in the number of women who got breast cancer in both groups was 0.5%. Then in the next paragraph, because both numbers are so small, they are able to say that the meat eaters had a 56% higher chance of getting breast cancer--because the chance was 2.2% instead of 1.7%!

You gotta love it when researchers reference relative risk. It makes barely statistically significant numbers look much more significant than they are. Of course, when investigating the side effects of drugs they always steer clear of couching them in terms of relative risk.

As usual there is an assumption that all meat eaters are exactly the same and eat the exact same kinds of meat. Because there is absolutely no difference in the way things are raised/grown, right?

There really are far too many factors to be considered here before they can make these kinds of blanket statements. Sheesh!

[Rachel J.]

Yeah, that's bad science IMHO. They're making conclusions without taking confounding variables into account. And as it was drilled into me in my research methods courses, correlation does not equal causation. So in other words, really careful scientists would not give the impression that this kind of comparative research shows that large amounts of meat cause breast cancer. But then it wouldn't make the news and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

[AJP]

Originally Posted by Dillpicklechip

It really angers me that studies can say anything the researchers want them to say. It isn't science at all--the outcome of the research all depends on who pays for it.

That's the sorry state of "science" today.

[ChristaN]

The actual study, as published, can be found here: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v9.../6603689a.html

They did adjust for confounding factors such as BMI, activity level, age, smoking, etc., so these should not be the reason that meat eaters had higher levels of breast cancer. However, as noted by pampered mom,

As usual there is an assumption that all meat eaters are exactly the same and eat the exact same kinds of meat. Because there is absolutely no difference in the way things are raised/grown, right?

Vegetarians and consumers of soy products are, of course, treated exactly the same in scientific studies, as well, though -- we are all junk food veggies.

[AJP]

Originally Posted by ChristaN

Vegetarians and consumers of soy products are, of course, treated exactly the same in scientific studies, as well, though -- we are all junk food veggies.

You're right, and this is one of the big reasons that I pretty much ignore most of what passes for science when it comes to nutrition, whether it supports my current practices or not. History and instinct are more valuable guides to food, IMO, than the profit- and agenda-driven science of today.

[kallyn]

Originally Posted by pampered_mom

You gotta love it when researchers reference relative risk. It makes barely statistically significant numbers look much more significant than they are.

Here is a great explanation of relative risk: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=639

[melissa17s]

Originally Posted by Dillpicklechip

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/04042007/...-uk-study.html

This story is the main headline on Yahoo Canada tonight. The findings are politically correct, but stupid:



So the difference in the number of women who got breast cancer in both groups was 0.5%. Then in the next paragraph, because both numbers are so small, they are able to say that the meat eaters had a 56% higher chance of getting breast cancer--because the chance was 2.2% instead of 1.7%!

Also, farther down the page:

They also didn't mention, but probably across the general population vegetarian women are more likely to exercise.

So potentially, if all the other variables are taken into consideration (including the women who ate a lot of processed meat taken out, I don't think balogna should count as "red meat"), the women who ate meat might have lessened their chances of cancer. After all, it said many of the meat-eating women were smokers...and their increase in cancer was quite small.

It really angers me that studies can say anything the researchers want them to say. It isn't science at all--the outcome of the research all depends on who pays for it.

They never tell you in the article who payed for it though.

You are missing some information given in the article that is not in your summary... such as 678 women got cancer, of which 529 ate meat. It changes the numbers.

Also, they were using a population from the UK, which may be why they were considering factors such as smoking, and so on. It may not be consistant with the population in Cananda or the US.

Finally, it did have a separate division for red meat versus processed meats, like bologna. Why should processed meats not be included? It is a form of meat that people in the study ate.

[pampered_mom]

Originally Posted by ChristaN

They did adjust for confounding factors such as BMI, activity level, age, smoking, etc., so these should not be the reason that meat eaters had higher levels of breast cancer. However, as noted by pampered mom, Vegetarians and consumers of soy products are, of course, treated exactly the same in scientific studies, as well, though -- we are all junk food veggies.

What about enironmental factors? There are an awful lot of compounds (natural and synthetic) in our environment that can also have endocrine-modulating activity. I'm thinking of things like DDT, DDE, lindane, methoxychlor, PCB, TCDD, triazine herbicides, etc. *If* the meat eaters in the study consumed your average feedlot meat then they would have an increased risk of having a higher concentration of them in their bodies which would certainly increase their risk as well. ChristaN...I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the higher up the food chain you eat the more concentrated these types of things are. Properly raised animals can reduce the exposure to these types of contaiminants.

AND...referencing their results in terms of relative risk is also just plain suspicious. Often times that's done to over-inflate results so that they sound much more impressive than they really are.

[quietserena]

Did any of these people eat quality meat vs. conventional? Did they make that distinction?

I find that whenever a study makes a link like this, people in question are always eating just grocery store meat and dairy.

[Metasequoia]

Originally Posted by melissa17s

Finally, it did have a separate division for red meat versus processed meats, like bologna. Why should processed meats not be included? It is a form of meat that people in the study ate.

There's a BIG difference between processed, nitrite, hormone, antibiotic laden "meat" and grass fed, organic beef from a local farm. I'd be interested in a study where the meat is actually meat & not some processed franken-food.

[melissa17s]

Originally Posted by Metasequoia

There's a BIG difference between processed, nitrite, hormone, antibiotic laden "meat" and grass fed, organic beef from a local farm. I'd be interested in a study where the meat is actually meat & not some processed franken-food.

Isn't the UK required to follow the EU standards? It would eliminate many of the North American contaminents in food because they seem to have higher standards in regards to franken foods, hormones, and what not. Do you have information on how the beef in the UK are fed because for all I know they could be grass fed- but I do not know?

What I understood from the article in the op was that they analyzed the results based on different types of meat the participants ate, the quantity, and their age. The op indicated that bolgna was evaluated the same as red meat, which was the opposite of what was indicated in the article.

Just because some are interested in grass-fed meat does not mean that studying the effects of processed foods or meats using other animal husbandry techniques are bad. Instead, it can lead to shifts and changes in thought to encourage eating different alternatives, such as either a vegetarian diet or a traditional food diet with grass fed animals.

[Metasequoia]

Yes, it'd be great IF they differentiated between grass fed meat & processed meat & made that apparent in the study. With a study like this, saying "Breast cancer risk higher among meat eaters" makes people think that eating meat is harmful to their health, period.

[Leilalu]

Originally Posted by Metasequoia

There's a BIG difference between processed, nitrite, hormone, antibiotic laden "meat" and grass fed, organic beef from a local farm. I'd be interested in a study where the meat is actually meat & not some processed franken-food.

No joke!
Hmm, let's see, anti- food or food? anti-food, or food.....

I mean, seriously- since becoming more aware of anitbiotics and grassfed beef, and environmental toxins, ecoli, etc- I cannot look at meat the same way again.

I mean, why waste the calories.
I'm guessing that the meat in question in that study is enough to CAUSE cancer all by itself. heck, ACTUAL, real, studies have been done before on the matter.