Red Meat Increases Cancer Risk Because of Toxic Immune Response

By Carl Engelking | January 2, 2015 2:15 pm

red meat

Consumption of red meat has long been linked to the development of certain types of cancer. Now scientists believe they’ve found the culprit behind red meat’s carcinogenic effects.

A new study reports that a sugar molecule found in the flesh of beef, lamb and pork could be triggering an immune response in humans that causes inflammation, which ultimately contributes to tumor growth. Long-term exposure to this sugar in mice caused a five-fold increase in their chances of developing cancer.

Not So Sweet Sugar

Humans are the only carnivores that face an increased risk of cancer as a result of eating red meat, but no one really knew why. Although there’s an abundance of theories attempting to explain red meat’s ill effects, concrete evidence is still in short supply.

Researchers decided to focus on a single sugar molecule, called Neu5Gc, that has been found in high levels in cancerous tissues but isn’t produced by the human body – indicating that it comes from our diet. Neu5Gc is naturally produced in most mammals, but humans are the exception.

When researchers measured the amount of Neu5Gc in various foods, they found that red meat had especially high levels. Beef, bison, pork and lamb had the greatest amount of the sugar. Poultry, fish (with the exception of caviar), vegetables and fruits lacked Neu5Gc.

Testing Neu5Gc

Researchers suspected that the immune system could be to blame, launching antibodies against the sugar whenever humans ate it. That could cause chronic inflammation, a known contributor to cancer.

So researchers bred “humanized” mice that lacked the ability to produce Neu5Gc. They fed them the mouse equivalent of red meat, mouse chow enriched with Neu5Gc, for 12 weeks. The mice also received regular injections of Neu5Gc antibodies to mimic what happens in the human body.

And indeed, scientists found that the mice developed five times as many tumors as humanized mice fed a normal diet. The liver was the most common spot for tumors to develop, and biopsies of the tumors found Neu5Gc in them. Humans, by contrast, tend to develop cancer of the colon as a result of red meat-heavy diets. Researchers published their results in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It’s Not All Bad News

Researchers told The Telegraph that red meat is an important source of iron, proteins and other vitamins; so moderate red meat consumption does yield nutritional benefits. And the study doesn’t indicate that eating red meat is the direct cause of cancer. Rather, Neu5Gc appears to accelerate the development of cancer.

There are still plenty of questions to answer in regard to red meat’s link to cancer in humans. Why does Neu5Gc cause liver cancers in mice and colon cancer in humans? What other dietary and biological factors contribute to cancer progression in humans?

Regardless, it may be a good time to heed the advice of those Chick-fil-A cows and “Eat Mor Chikin.”

 

Photo credit:Maria Komar/Shutterstock

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Health & Medicine, top posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • jillian

    For the purposes of this study, does red meat include pork, or not? Only beef? Lamb? Trying to figure out the definition of ‘red meat,’ per this study. Thanks-

    • Ken McPherson

      It lists all those meats in paragraph 5.

    • poxitee

      Second paragraph of the article has your answer.

    • ArveKlarness

      You didn’t bother to read the article, did you?

    • etniko

      So, you didn’t read the word PORK in the second paragraph?
      This happen when people only read the title and then write comments.

    • Rogelio Ocano

      L2R

    • bfulmer

      The Word is “Mammals”

  • David Daniels

    they were specific about which animals create the Neu5Gc. A new study reports that a sugar molecule found in the flesh of beef, lamb and pork could be triggering an immune response in humans that causes inflammation, which ultimately contributes to tumor growth. the flesh of beef, lamb, and PORK. Jesus, instead of posting try re-reading if your reading comprehension is that bad, it needs work.

  • Obieda

    Good thing I eat poultry meat

    • zlop

      But, what did the poultry eat?

      • foa

        …and what did the fox say?

        • zlop

          Fox died of GMO overdose?

          • Paul Shipley

            Yep nothing to see here except for the product of a very poor education system

          • spybird

            your comments have a distinctive
            flavor of a bigoted know-it-all
            attitude guy.STFU!

          • Paul Shipley

            See above comment. As for me I love a juicy big piece of cow flesh, that’s the flavour I like. Enjoy your China sourced GM soy tofu. Mmmmm GM tofu sounds lovely.

  • Just a Guest

    I think they may have forgotten that mice are not the species of interest in this matter

  • bwils74

    Hogwash

  • marine43

    All we eat is venison. Higher in cholesterol, believe it or not. But don’t know if it causes cancer. But then it won’t matter to me… I take alot of antioxidants etc… I also have a huge amount of doubt, about all these studies. Remember the one that said fish oil causes prostate cancer?

  • zlop

    “could be triggering an immune response in humans
    that causes inflammation”

    Vaccines and microcompetition damage the
    immune system. To what extent is it vaccine related?

    • drool

      Find some science to back that assertion.

      • zlop

        The mp3 is a good listen;
        “Dormant HPV Infections Can Cause Disease Even Without Activating”

        • Paul Shipley

          This is typical of so many idiots that assert these things that back their claims up by some blog that somebody wrote. It is frustrating that there are so many of these people out there spreading mis-information and through it disease. Someone said TV was responsible for the dumbing down of society. Chief Scientist Zlop leaves it for dead.

          • zlop

            Evil, Reptilian, Malthusian, Reptilian, Oligarchs are responsible for the zombie-fication. “Zombie Virus Is REAL Develop By NATO – Dr. Rebecca Carley YouTube”

            Additionally, television plays a part — “CIA Agent says “Never Watch Television” – YouTube”

          • Paul Shipley

            You really should Google Rebecca Carly. The wiki result will provide you with the reason I am laughing.

    • CarolAST

      “could be triggering an immune response in humans that causes inflammation”

      That’s sheer speculation, and speculation is not evidence. Nobody who understands and cares about science would ever hype this study, only those whose object is propaganda.

      • zlop

        Straightforward that, misdirecting and consuming cell resources, can cause death and illness.

        Viruses can misdirect function and leave behind fragments that consume cell resources. So can vaccines.

        • Paul Shipley

          Another great insight from Mad Scientist Zlop

    • Paul Shipley

      The famous scientist zlop is trying to challenge all the pseudo doctors. Move over Dr Oz and Dr Mercola we have a new contender.

      • zlop

        Not so complicated that, a cell poisoned and misdirected, to produce antibodies, for last years flu strain, will have difficulty functioning and producing effective antibodies, for other flu strains and diseases.

        • Paul Shipley

          Oh please. You just make me laugh with your ignorance . Stop it please. Move over Seinfeld.

  • CarolAST

    This is deceitful, because they present no evidence that humans even have those antibodies. It’s just pure speculation, and shame on whoever chose to fling this in our faces.

  • zlop

    What about fake meat — tofu, GMO soybean, hot dogs?
    I ate a few and my stomach felt uneasy.

    • spybird

      yeah. i`m a life-long vegetarian, but this stuff
      IS NOT HEALTH FOOD!

      • zlop

        What is safe to eat, is the most important question. Lentil based diet, with non-GMO fruits and vegetables?

      • zlop

        What is safe to eat, is the most important question. Lentil based diet, with non-GMO fruits and vegetables?

  • bbwh

    The only cancer victims I know have been vegetarians all their lives.

    Go figure.

    • zlop

      “Rats given GM soy found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA”

      I knew a Tofu eater, who was diagnosed with Protein Poisoning.

      • Paul Shipley

        The scientist at work who thinks DNA can have toxicity. So I disregard all of the comment. You know what a fact is? A fact is found on the balls of a flea. Now that’s a fact.

        • zlop

          “An excess of plasmid DNA can also contribute to cellular toxicity … This is particularly important for plasmid DNA transfections in which the nuclear envelope breakdown during cell division aids in uptake of the nucleic acid.”

          • Paul Shipley

            Cellular level not DNA level. I have foiled you again mad scientist Zlop.

          • zlop

            DNA can migrate from cells of different organisms. “DNA from GE foods can end up in your genes”

            “In the nucleus, “microcompetition” between the foreign N-boxes and the human N -boxes in the human genes can lead to a major disease”

          • Paul Shipley

            It is all those government departments worldwide that are colluding with big pharma! Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy. The only people that are arguing against GMO’s anymore are unqualified pseudo-scientists or trying to sell you their unlabeled organic food.

    • spybird

      very short-sighted bbwh. studies of largely vegetarian societies show a significantly
      lower rate of cancer compared to frequent
      meat eaters. it`s true that any study is
      subject to questionable conclusions due
      to other variables unaccounted for by the
      study criteria, but still………..

  • Major_Bong

    If you don’t $%&# anyone in the ^&#, or let anyone #^&@ you in the #^^, you can disregard any dietary advice these people give.

    They are simply trying to claim that everything my Pagan, Socialist, Sodomite friends ate is “healthy”, and everything that you Christians and Jews eat is evil.. I mean “unhealthy”. They’ve been doing it for years now.

  • Michelle Jones

    Many questions pop up: how does this compare with grass fed (low sugar) vs grain fed (high sugar), and could other sugars do this, not just Neu5Gc? Do toxins affect this (organic vs non-organic)? What if other nutrients affect the bioavailibility, such as fat content (low fat meat vs full fat meat), etc? Can other factors influence the human inflammatory response? What about the fact that meat is frequently consumed with bread, rice, potatoes, and other starchy foods that could affect blood sugar? How come people on a paleo anti-inflammatory diet eat lots of red meat but notice a decrease in inflammation? I suspect that this has more to do with what the cows eat than anything.

    • Michelle Jones

      There is already plenty of documented science that shows how grass fed meat has a higher omega 3 ratio to omega 6 fatty acids than grain fed meat, and omega 3 fatty acids are tied to a reduced inflammatory response. Omega 6 fatty acids, especially those in many processed vegetable oils (soy, canola, etc) and grain fed meats have a much higher correlation to inflammation.

    • http://atlantaexes.net wordofthemedia

      Exactly!!!! And what they didn’t mention how they are feeding these mice a high carbohydrate based diet at the same time which is allowing the cancer cells to grow. These studies are not revealing anything and leaving out the fact that all of the subjects in these studies are still eating junk and carbohydrates along with red meat. Just so they can continue to point the finger at red meat. But I guarantee of all 500,000 people who die from cancer each year 99% of them rarely ate meat. This is the most biased study on cancer I have read.

      • zlop

        Often, dogs get cancer, because of dog food?

        • http://atlantaexes.net wordofthemedia

          Um yes from a combination of sugar from their owners feeding them table food and the HIGH HIGH amounts of sugar, and grains in their dog food. Dog food is mostly carbohydrates which is why dogs are developing diabetes, cancer, arthritis and a million other autoimmune diseases. So please explain why their ancestors the gray wolf never develop these issues!

          • Sean Collins

            someone clearly read a few things about the paleo diet!

          • wordofthemedia

            here’s a cookie….or do you want a cracker?

          • JWrenn

            You really like red meat huh

          • Charlie Erickson

            That is because wolves almost never have the lifespans of dogs. They don’t live long enough to develop many of these dieases. The average lifespan for a wolf is about four years, even though their maximum lifespan is about the same as dogs. Most never make it to double digits because of their harsh lives in the wild. Dogs, like wolves, foxes, raccoons and most primates, are omnivores. Most will eat just about anything.

          • Paul Shipley

            Citation for that please or is it based on an assumption.

        • Paul Shipley

          Dinosaurs also got cancer because of dinosaur food.

          • http://daledaledaledale.com/ wordofthemedia

            Um the only dinosaurs that had cancer were herbivorous. The Hadrosaurs, the ONLY group of dinosaurs that had cancer. Now here’s your cookie and cracker and make sure you study!

          • Adam Black

            Did you do that dinosaur research on your Ouija board or your time-machine?

      • gamut

        I think you didn’t read the article. They tested by feeding different cohorts of nice the same food, but added the sugar to one. This made the particular diet irrelevant.

        Also, they didn’t use meat. Mice aren’t carnivores.

      • jaycdp

        Looks like you are addicted to beef

    • jaycdp

      Why not eat plant protien if they reduce the risk of cancer.

  • Chris Struven

    This is interesting, but the information is preliminary. This hypotheses needs further study. Also, we have known about red meat and cancer for a long time. We may need to breed food animals without Neu5Gc.

  • Florence Fahmie

    I would move away from nutrition as the main cause of cancer as a reseacher. Your nutrition is a factor in the strength of your immunne system, but your missing an important factor in the cause of cancer and why it grows. I think that researchers need to focus on a total different cause. Contact me for my 42 plus years of experience in the treatment of the hair, hair follicle and surrounding cells in life(vivo) humans. My work will accelerate your studies, in addition to adding studies. My work will also provide early detection. Florence Fahmie SES INCORPORATED

  • Florence Fahmie

    My linkedin profile is Florence Fahmie SES Incorporated

  • http://atlantaexes.net wordofthemedia

    Who eats red meat anymore??!! We’ve scared all Americans over the past 60 years to believe it’s bad for you and yet each year more and more people are diagnosed with cancer since then. HELLOOOOOOOOO! This is trash and I think it’s so funny how they didn’t mention these mice were probably fed meat from gmo and soy fed animals and animals who were injected steroids and antibiotics in their short life span. The mice also were eating HIGH CARB based diets, this is biased BS and until people realize that saturated fats and proteins are the only thing necessary for human life like ALL species on this planet, we will continue to develop more and more cancers and diseases. Insects and birds even eat a high saturated fat diet so why are humans eating plants and sugar all day???!!

    • spybird

      almost all studies that support one view over
      another come from people with a vested interest.
      it`s necessary to identify what if any is the bias
      of the commenter. there may be SOME truth
      in even the most biased study but it`s a JOB
      to separate the crap from the nuggets of truth.

      • Paul Shipley

        And that is why I flush your in depth study just like I would flush my dogs nuggets.

  • Regina Roman

    I have Crohs’s Disease (IBD), which is an inflammatory bowel disease triggered by an autoimmune response to some yet unkniwn trigger(s). I’ve beeb living with Crohn’s for well over 20years, and I’ve lost a significant amount of my digestive tract to complications caused by Crohn’s (including colon cancer). I wonder how, if at all, this particular sugar may have played a role in my development of, and continuing affliction with Crohn’s Disease.

    • zlop

      “triggered by an autoimmune response”
      Vaccines can cause allergies. Then you
      have wheat belly, GMO corn . .. …

      • Regina Roman

        This may be true for some, however, in most cases vaccines cause nothing more than immunity to diseases, and mild disomfort.

      • Tom Clane

        shut up

        • Paul Shipley

          Agreed

  • Tom Clane

    I love how when top notch scientists who’ve been in school for years come out with a study and Bible thumping, sock puppet, troll, vegan, gun nut, American idiot, fat, obese, overweight, uneducated, lifeless shrew people flame on the entire article. Have fun with your cancer faggots.

  • Herne Webber

    “Humans are the only carnivores that face an increased risk of cancer as a result of eating red meat, but no one really knew why.”

    Um, the inherent bias and falseness in this sentence is glaring. The reason humans face cancer, while carnivores, TRUE carnivores, do not, is that humans (and all other Primates) are OMNIVORES, not carnivores. No matter how cavemanish of a diet a person tries to adopt, there is literally no such thing as a carnivorous human, with the exception of perhaps some Inuit, but even they end up getting *some* vegetable matter (such as berries) in their natural diets. In addition, along with a host of other omnivorous and herbivorous animals, but including NO true carnivores, we possess salivary amylase, needed for starch digestion. If one is going to report on science, then respectfully, I ask you please to refer to the proper scientific categories of biology, not falling back on our culture’s current ridiculously immature focus on meat = masculinity.

    That aside, it has been known for thirty or forty years that humans lack a crucial enzyme that all true carnivores have for making digested (especially mammal) meat non-carcinogenic. Add to that that the human (primate) gut is so long as compared to true carnivores, that food without fibre essentially putrifies by the time it exits our guts. So sorry, but the idea that ‘no one really knew why’ is just blatherskite.

  • disqus_cFP6xmJjYf

    …could, suspected, there are ..theories, chances, still plenty of questions…,
    it is just unbelieveable what scientists is trying to sell und to tell the already dumb readers… LOL …
    it is like…the chances to die are increasing with age… LOL

  • intergalacticSpartacus

    This reads like augmented mouse chow causes cancer. I don’t eat augmented mouse chow.

  • Jorge

    Um, that’s kind of the whole point of this article. The “demolishing” of Neu5Gc increases inflammation which increases the risk of cancer.

  • JWrenn

    That is exactly what they think causes the issue, we have an immune response to it. The sugar doesn’t cause it directly, our immune response to the sugar causes inflammation that leads eventually to greater chance of a tumor.

    Nitpicking at a scientific study using the information put forth in an article is not a great way to go. They did not put everything from the study in the article. Go read the study if you want every bit of information.

    • Mario Lanza

      Humans eat huge amounts of other sugars that positively create chronic inflammation. These are not related at all? This one sugar triggers the one immune response that creates the cancer, in the absence of which the cancer does not arise?

      • JWrenn

        There are a lot of different types of sugar. Many different sugar forms and molecules. They found a TYPE of sugar that all humans have a immune response to. The immune response causes inflammation. When the white blood cells attack the sugars they cause damaging chemicals to be released as a bi product. Those chemicals are what damage the cells around the site of the immune response in small ways. That then causes inflammation and an increase risk of cancer because of the constant damage repair cycle that is inflicted.

        Make sense?

        • Charity5712

          what
          Robert
          responded
          I’m amazed
          that people
          able to
          profit
          $6414
          in four weeks
          on the computer
          . check this

      • JWrenn

        Sorry think I misread this the first time. They are not saying anything about other sugars really. They are just saying this one molecule that is in red meat in abundance is a carcinogen, or at least has some carcinogenic effect.

        • Mario Lanza

          Thank you. My comment was based on reacting to someone suggesting some sort of link to investigate based on the diet of red meat animals, and this seemed to be a distraction, yet sounding plausible to discuss, offering the question: “can we eat red meat that was raised on grass?” Seems the use of the term “sugar” is perhaps an unfortunate distraction…same as saying that cholesterol is an alcohol…which it is but that is a distraction, maybe not central to what it’s mechanism and function is as a health effect. My concern: so what if it is technically a sugar, being a sugar is not what coincides with the cancer; so grain fed vs. grass fed is not yet on the radar. Likewise, I don’t see where inflammation in general demonstrated to be caused by excess sugar (specifically glucose and fructose) should matter to linking to cancer. But the question will come up: is grain fed red meat linked to this molecule? We don’t see it in any other part of the environment, it just gets in our bodies by us eating red meat?

          Well, this is going to be the beginning of a very long investigation process.

    • bigmyc

      If the central theme is as you say, “The sugar doesn’t cause it directly, our immune response to the sugar causes inflammation that leads eventually to greater chance of a tumor,” then anything that elicits inflammation would be cancerous, like say, our modern, westernized diets. Naturally, this includes the adrenal sapping stress levels that accompany modern living. I should also mention that gluten, phytic acid and lectin are all inflammatory collaborators. They aren’t found in red meat but they ARE found in wheat….

      • JWrenn

        It is not cancerous, it increases the chance of cancer. Not sure if that is how you meant it but yes in general inflammation is caused usually by damage…and damage on a cellular level repeatedly increases the chance of cancer.

        • bigmyc

          I understand the cascade of cellular degeneration due to environmental conditions. My point was in attempting to clarify the article’s position and your support of it and then exhibit many instances of a similar process via various other culprits. You DO realize that inflammation isn’t unique to the Nuewhatever sugar molecule, right? That was what I was asserting. I agree with you that the inflammation is a marker and not a cause of cancer propagation but the article seems to implicate inflammation as the culprit of cancer preponderance. Aside from that, there are so many confounders, ONCE AGAIN, associated with this study conclusion.

          • JWrenn

            The point of the article is pretty simple. “Now scientists believe they’ve found the culprit behind red meat’s carcinogenic effects.” That is all. Other studies have said it is carcinogenic. Even further studies have said things that are carcinogenic are often also inflammation causing. This article is just reporting that they believe they found the molecule in red meat that causes it. Nothing more.

          • bigmyc

            And what I’m saying is that this has the profile, yet again, of “scientists” going out of their way in order to “fill in the blanks” of a mystery that just might not even be such. Now, supposing that this Nue5 molecule is indeed, the cancer catalyst, it is still merely an isolated facet of the entire digestion process. So, what of the inherent compounds that are in place to counter these deleterious effects? These “give and take” situations occur everywhere in nature and their symbiosis perform a sort of metabolic harmony. So, what I’m saying is; this is a research follow up piece on something that might not require follow up. Neu5 might indeed cause cancer but at the same time, meat in it’s whole form, might not. Mind blown.

          • JWrenn

            They only found the compound because of evidence that meat has a carcinogenic effect. So your hypothesis has no evidence.

          • bigmyc

            Suspected evidence. Did you know that the most recent WHO released study is, once again, observational in nature, meaning that it relies on food questionnaires. Does that seem very reliable? Another way to put my “hypothesis” is that they are looking for the smoking gun in a pile full of toy guns…It is also known that 80% of what we eat is suspected to be “cancerous.” This includes all manners of macronutrient profiles and the items that contain them. Keep in mind, most of these same items also contain bio-available phyto-protectants and other metabolic enhancers that counter act the aforementioned deleterious effects of the same food items. These trials regarding the observation of Neu5 on the test mice are a bit dicey on more than one level. If meat does indeed have a “carcinogenic effect,” then I will also maintain that it’s increase in cancer risk is well overblown and hardly ever explained in that manner. So, regarding this, my “hypothesis” has plenty of merit.

  • Guest

    I guess that pork sponsor alone to take its cancer

  • Sunbunny

    Maybe it’s not inflammatory response at all… Here’s a totally different theory that contradicts all of this.
    Patrick Soon-Shiong: A cancer is not what people think, cells growing. Cancer is actually the inability of the cells to die.

    The key is figuring out the genetic mutation or glitch that prevents cells from dying a natural death. Soon-Shiong’s hope is to provide patients with the precise genetic mutations that fuel their cancer regardless of where tumors are found in the body.

    Patrick Soon-Shiong: The mutation that happens in lung cancer could be the exact same mutation that happens in the breast cancer. So you need to treat that patient based on its mutation not on its physical, anatomical location.

  • David G.

    Regarding inflammation, does all inflammation contribute equally to cancer, or does the source of inflammation factor in? Because I’ve dislocated or separated just about every joint in my body secondary to a genetic disorder (ehlers-danlos, type III severe) does the resulting chronic inflammation give me a higher risk of cancer?

  • bigbad_42

    OK so you fed mice a diet loaded with some sugar, then injected them with antibodies to that sugar, and lo and behold, they had an immune response. This is pure junk science. They could have gotten the same results if they fed them organic leafy greens and injected them with an antibody for chlorophyll.

  • Eric Lipps

    Evidently ypou didn’t read the article, at least not carefully enough.

    Researchers decided to focus on a single sugar molecule, called Neu5Gc, that has been found in high levels in cancerous tissues but isn’t produced by the human body – indicating that it comes from our diet. Neu5Gc is naturally produced in most mammals, but humans are the exception.

    I’m not going to worry about it, though, since this study reminds me of the one which led to saccharin being banned–because mice fed the rodent equivalent of what a human would get from drinking 800 cans of soda a day. Such forcing is used to find out whether a substance has any toxic potential–but even oxygen would fail that test at nhigh enough concentration and pressure.

    • bigmyc

      Just like T. Colin Campbell’s mice who were found to incur a higher rate of cancer the more animal protein that they ingested. Important to the study was that their cancers were induced by feeding them massive amounts of aflatoxin to see how the cancer propagated. The higher protein mice did indeed have many more tumors than those who ate less and no protein…but their surviving numbers were also higher. This was a fact that didn’t make it to public light so readily, probably do to Campbell’s personal agenda. That’s right, boys and girls, the mice who ate zero animal protein, had less tumors because they simply died off.

  • duelles

    I love my bacon, brisket, beef tenderloin, burgers. I will experiment on myself to see how this works out. Life is such a crap shoot and I feel good because I can touch my toes . . . .and look both ways before crossing the street, perhaps more important than the red meat thing.

  • Katherine Powell

    Perhaps you might want to reread the article as well as some of the papers you cited. Neu5Gc isn’t causing cancer, the increased immune response is believed to be a factor. Also, humans don’t synthesize Neu5Gc.

    • Mario Lanza

      Again, as I mentioned to JWrenn: so it is the sugar-triggered immune response that is responsible for the cancer? Then why don’t we see more cancers in the presence of chronic inflammation brought about by chronic excess sugar ingestion, there is far more of that I would think, and plenty of other lifestyle disease mechanisms, largely presence and complications and sequelae of cardiovascular disorders and diabetes, showing up from it, but I don’t recall seeing much about cancer.

  • Anechidna

    Are the researchers hunting for an answer to the rising incidence of cancer which may be the result of improved detection methods or are they seeking headlines. What’s the incidence of cancer in vegans/vegetarians verses red meat eaters and since when has pork been a red meat or does the colour of meat not matt

  • JonFrum

    So did heavily or entirely meat-eating cultures like the Inuit or the Maasai all die of cancer? God forbid anyone should reality-check another bogus nutrition pseudo-study.

  • Peter Lewicke

    It is a logical fallacy to think that a correlation shows causation.

    This article describes a correlation; there is not causative link mentioned, so this is of no concern.

  • L.Edl

    Baised Interpretatión. How many of you are scientists? It’s an article based on one research performed under certain conditions.

  • Luna Laflue

    Lol meat eaters are too funny, anyway to hang onto it, even at the expense of their health. The mental gymnastics here is strong.

    Where would you get protein? lol “Spirulina is 65-71 percent complete protein compared to beef, which is only 22 percent, and lentils, which is only 26 percent.” Where I do wonder?

  • RIchard Feinman

    Red Meat Increases Cancer Risk…”Consumption of red meat has long been linked to the development of certain types of cancer.” but, in the end, “And the study doesn’t indicate that eating red meat is the direct cause of cancer”

    Are there any other reasons for not subscribing to Discover?

  • bibiel

    All you unconvinced meat-lovers, how do you explain the extraordinary health of the people of Okinawa?

  • jaycdp

    The cow itself is displaying weak immune system. Hardly lives 2 years.That is why they need anti biotic therapy while living. So governments must also feed anti biotics to the people when they approve this meet. Science(male ) without respecting law of the nature (female ) is dangerous . Sex by force is called rape. Sex by convince is natural ( pleased by the nature )

  • Paul Daly

    In the European wide study they found that for the Italian population those who ate more red meat and more processed red meat had lower colon cancer rates and also a lower all causes death rate. Because that result was cosidered to be an anomaly the data was discarded as far as the overall results for colon cancer are concerned. They all so generally didn’t bother with much detail about all causes death rates prefering to look only at specific illnesses. Another problen was the failure to take account of the fact that vegans and vegetarians tend to be a group of people who are going to be both mentally and physically healthier regardless of their diet on average. Therefor you can safely completely ignore the mice research stuff. If you follow the –

    “Red Meat Increases Cancer Risk Because of Toxic Immune Response”

    advice you’ll probably have a shorter and less pleasant life on average all other things being equal as it were.

  • Western Lib

    So what’s “moderate” red meat consumption? One serving per day? One per week?

  • John Ales

    rare red meat has been shown to be an anticarcinogen, in scientific studies, and inuit indians who have an almost 100% meat diet have a 0% cancer rate. don’t over cook your meat= no cancer. it’s the processing, that beautiful black char is a cancer causing agent, in fact, all smoke is a carcinogen.

  • dmnla .

    Just eat red meat then… why get worked up about it?

  • Dante Poe

    that includes lamb too.

  • Dante Poe

    and Soy products.

  • Derak Khism

    Well, if they were able to breed mice that cannot produce Neu5Ge, what’s stopping them from doing the same gene isolation with cows, sheep and pigs? Surely the meat harvested from these “humanized” animals would lack the inflammatory property that red meat currently has?

  • Jennifer Coombes

    I dont understand ? We, by nature want & need meat! But Now it is bad for us ! I can understand the chem treated meat being bad!is it the chems that the meat source is being feed in the feed?For 30 years I have heard so much crap about what is good or bad! Then it turns around again & says “Oh” we were wrong!now you can eat butter ! Soy is bad!Fish is good! Oh wait !! Not from japan! SMH :)

  • http://www.smokershistory.com/ CarolAST

    Pure rubbish. The experiment with mice was not only a travesty but a failure, but the health fascist propagandists think we’re too stupid to realize this. They started with pure speculation that an immune reaction to the sugar was to blame, inflicted externally derived antibodies on the mice, and the mice proceeded to develop tumors in the wrong organs (liver instead of colon). And it’s obviously part of a centrally planned and orchestrated propaganda offensive to accompany the World Health Organization’s ridiculous proclamation that red meat is carcinogenic. And, it’s clear evidence that these charlatans start with a pre-ordained conclusion, and cobble together flimsy “evidence” to support it.

  • Jennifer Mistsoftime

    Too much intellect not enough common sense going round. Data shows modern day living has spawned increased degenerative disease & cancer. Surely if we could stand back & look at the whole scenario ( all the variables) we could attack from a different perspective? R C Trials always leave out important data. How can you adjust for so many variables?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+