Does Red Meat Really Increase The Risk Of Colon Cancer?

If you're to believe some media sources, red meat causes cancer. Of course, as usual, there's a lot more to a recent study involving red meat and cancer than the media is letting on.

All you can eat

In a nutshell, here are the highlights from the red meat study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

American Cancer Society (ACS) researchers collected ten years of dietary and medical data from nearly 150,000 subjects over the age of 50. The data was analysed to assess a relationship between meat intake and colorectal cancer. A possible link between the two has been indicated in some studies but inconclusive in others.

The ACS team reported the following results:

• Those who consumed the largest amount of meat over ten years had a 30 percent higher risk of colon cancer compared to subjects who reported eating the least amount of meat
  
• Those who consumed the largest amount of PROCESSED meat had a 50 percent higher risk of colon cancer
  
• Colorectal cancer risk from eating red or processed meat on a regular basis (three ounces per day) is lower than the risk associated with obesity and physical activity
  
• Long-term consumption of poultry and fish was associated with a slightly lower risk of colorectal cancer

The ACS researchers included pork, along with beef and lamb, as red meat. Processed meat included bacon, cold cuts, hot dogs, sausage and ham.

Hold the hormones

First of all - and most obvious - eating red meat does not 'cause' colorectal cancer. Not even close. According to one of the researchers, a person who eats red meat a couple of times each week would qualify for the lowest consumption group for this study, putting them at very low risk.

And finally, what is it about meat that might cause colorectal cancer? Researchers speculate that fat may be to blame, or the iron content, or the nitrates used as preservatives, or the way meat is cooked.

Or it might be the hormones...especially the use of them in the US.

According to the Organic Consumers Association in the US, about two thirds of the cattle produced in the US are treated with several growth hormones allowed by the US Department of Agriculture and the US Food and Drug Administration. One of these hormones - 17 beta-oestradiol (a synthetic version of the female hormone progesterone) - has been proven to be carcinogenic. Fortunately, the European Union has banned the importation of any cattle treated with 17 beta- oestradiol.

Suddenly organic beef sounds pretty appealing.

So the next time you read an article with an absurdly simplistic phrase like, 'Eating red meat causes colorectal cancer,' you'll know that's probably just the hormones talking.

..and another thing

The Alliance for Natural Health hearing at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg began on Tuesday. This landmark case is challenging the EU Food Supplements Directive that threatens to lower the dosage amount of many nutritional supplements and ban many others that Ive been bringing you regular updates on in your daily e-alerts.

Opposing oral submissions were made by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and only one EU Member State, Greece.

Interestingly, neither the UK government nor Portugal attended to present oral arguments despite having filed Written Observations in the case. This means that none of the major EU countries felt the need to oppose the ANH's application for a declaration that the ban in the Directive was unlawful.

David Hinde Solicitor and ANH Legal Director said:

'Given the vigour with which the UK government resisted this application at the Judicial Review stage, it was extraordinary it did not now think the issue sufficiently important to warrant being represented at the ECJ to make oral submissions. The question inevitably arises whether this signifies a change of attitude on their part and a retreat from their previously bullish position about the legality of the Directive.'

Paul Lasok QC, a world leading expert on EU law, representing the ANH opened the proceedings and systematically undermined the legal and scientific basis of the Directive, highlighting contradictions between various arguments put forward by the key bodies involved in developing the Directive, namely the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

When asked by Judge Lenaerts as to the origin of the positive list which appeared to have been derived from an old list produced by the European Commission, and so omitted a vast array of nutrients that can normally be found in food, Mr Lasok responded:

'The list was put together without adding, without subtracting and without thinking.'

Advocate General Geelhoed, the senior judge at the hearing, appeared to be baffled by the procedure for adding nutrients to the positive list, which he described:

'As transparent as a black box.'

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the ANH said after the hearing:

'It was remarkable that the vast majority of points that we had gone to great length to show the Court were not countered in any effective way by the opposing parties. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament were not able to give any adequate scientific explanations for why so many forms of vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in foods could be banned across the EU.'

The final judgement is expected in June 2005 and obviously Ill keep you fully updated on developments as they happen in your daily e-alerts.