More dangers found in meat.

[Gliondrach]

Non-human Molecule Is Absorbed by Eating Red Meat According to Study by UCSD Researchers

A non-human, cellular molecule is absorbed into human tissues as a result of eating red meat and milk products, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, published online the week of September 29, 2003 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers also showed that the same foreign molecule generates an immune response that could potentially lead to inflammation in human tissues.

Several previous studies have linked ingestion of red meat to cancer and heart disease, and possibly to some disorders involving inflammation. However, that research has primarily focused on the role of red-meat saturated fats and on products that arise from cooking. The UCSD study is the first to investigate human dietary absorption of a cell-surface molecular sugar called N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), which is found in non-human mammals. Not produced in humans, Neu5Gc occurs naturally in lamb, pork and beef, the so-called “red meats”. Levels are very low or undetectable in fruits, vegetables, hen’s eggs, poultry and fish. (see * below)

Conducting laboratory studies with human tissue, followed by tests in three adult subjects, the UCSD team provided the first proof that people who ingest Neu5Gc absorb some of it into their tissues. In addition, they demonstrated that many humans generate an immune response against the molecule, which the body sees as a foreign invader.
The study’s senior author, Ajit Varki, M.D., UCSD professor of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, and co-director of the UCSD Glycobiology Research and Training Center, said that although it is unlikely that the ingestion of Neu5Gc alone would be primarily responsible for any specific disease, “it is conceivable that gradual Neu5Gc incorporation into the cells of the body over a lifetime, with subsequent binding of the circulating antibodies against Neu5Gc (the immune response), could contribute to the inflammatory processes involved in various diseases.”

He added that another potential medical barrier related to Neu5Gc might occur in organ transplantation.

“Over the past decade, the number of patients waiting for organ transplantation has more than tripled, with little increase in the number of donor organs. This has led to an exploration of using animal organs for transplantation into humans, a process called xenotransplantation,” Varki said. “However, the leading donor candidate is the pig, an animal in which Neu5Gc happens to be very common. The current study raises the possibility that human antibodies against Neu5Gc might recognize the Neu5Gc in the pig organ and facilitate its rejection.”

In describing the research approach taken by his team, Varki explained that humans do not produce Neu5Gc because they lack the gene responsible for its production.** And yet, other researchers have reported small amounts of Neu5Gc in human cancer tissues.

To verify the existence of Neu5Gc in human cancers, Varki’s collaborator, Elaine Muchmore, M.D., UCSD professor of medicine and associate chief of staff for education at the San Diego VA Healthcare System, developed an antibody that would be attracted by, and bind to Neu5Gc on tissue samples. The antibody was purified by Pam Tangvoranuntakul, B.S., the study’s first author and a Ph.D. student in Varki’s lab.

Working with Nissi Varki, M.D., UCSD professor of pathology and medicine, Tangvoranuntakul found that the antibody stained not only human cancers, but also some healthy human tissues. They found that small amounts of Neu5Gc were present in blood vessels and secretory cells, such as the mucous membranes. A further chemical analysis by Sandra Diaz, a Varki research associate, confirmed the presence of Neu5Gc in human tissue.

Meanwhile, an analysis of healthy human tissue by postdoctoral fellow Pascal Gagneux, Ph.D., and Tangvoranuntakul determined that most people had circulating antibodies in the blood that recognized Neu5Gc, and thus could potentially initiate an inflammatory immune response.

In the absence of any known molecular mechanism that would produce Neu5Gc in humans, the group reasoned that the small amounts of Neu5Gc found in human tissue could arise from human ingestion of Neu5Gc in dietary sources. Postdoctoral fellow Muriel Bardor, Ph.D., showed that when human cells in culture were exposed to Neu5Gc, they easily absorbed and incorporated it onto their own surfaces.

However, to study the possibility of dietary absorption, it was necessary to carry out an ingestion study in healthy people. Because the researchers were hesitant to give a potentially harmful substance to humans, Ajit Varki volunteered to be the first subject, followed by Muchmore and Gagneux.

When the three volunteers drank Neu5Gc purified from pork sources and dissolved in water, there were no immediate ill effects. An analysis of the volunteers’ urine, blood, serum (the clear liquid that can be separated from clotted blood), hair and saliva, both before ingestion and regularly for several days after, determined that the human body eliminates most of the Neu5Gc, but retains and metabolically absorbs small amounts of the foreign sugar. At approximately two days following ingestion, the Neu5Gc levels were two to three times the baseline level prior to ingestion. By four to eight days following ingestion, the levels had dropped nearly to baseline.

The authors cautioned that a causal relationship between Neu5Gc expression in human tissues with any human disease would be premature and scientifically speculative at best. Instead, they said their findings point to the need for population-level analyses of the presence of Neu5Gc in human tissues in relationship to disease incidence, and the mechanisms of human incorporation and antibody response against this sugar.

The study was supported by grants to Varki from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation. Some human studies were done in the UCSD General Clinical Research Center, which is also supported by the NIH.



* Sialic Acid and Neu5Gc content of common food items

Food Neu5Gc intake if eaten at daily recommended servings Total micrograms
Cod 27
Salmon 810
Tuna 27
Chicken 27
Turkey 27
Duck 27
Milk (cow, 2%) 711
Milk (cow, raw) 711
Butter 45
Cheese (cow) 600
Lamb 4,860
Pork 5,130
Cheese (goat) 5,544
Beef 11,610
Beef, lean portion 9,720
Beef fat 10,260


**

In the late 1990s, the first example of a complete genetic and biochemical difference between humans and apes was reported by a group led by Ajit Varki, M.D., working closely with Elaine Muchmore, M.D. They showed that humans are different from chimpanzees and other great apes in not having the enzyme responsible for producing Neu5Gc, which is also found on the cell surfaces of other non-human mammals. The group showed that this biochemical difference was due to a human-specific mutation in the gene encoding the enzyme CMP-Neu5Ac hydroxylase (CMAH), which is responsible for synthesizing Neu5Gc in apes and other mammals.

News Media Contacts:
Sue Pondrom, Leslie Franz
619-543-6163

Questions about the study should be sent to Dr. Ajit Varki via email to varkiadmin at ucsd.edu.

health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/09_29_Varki.html

[Gliondrach]

This same non-human molecule is responsible for contaminating human stem cells that are grown in non-human serum. It will also contaminate other cells that are cultured in non-human serum during drug discovery. No wonder vivisection drug research leads down so many dead ends. Quite apart from the fact that lab animals are not models for humans, the human cells grown in petri dishes will not behave like human cells once they have been contaminated by bovine or mouse molecules.

Stem cells have now been grown in human serum. The best serum for anyone who is having their own adult stem cells cultured for treatment, is their own serum.

[veggiesosage]

Erm, your link didn't work for me.

And there is no such thing as a 'cellular molecule', if what I remember from my Biology O level is correct.

[Gliondrach]

The link seems all right to me.

The molecule is on the cell surface.

[veggiesosage]

Fair point re the molecule issue Gliondrach. Biology O level was never that well regarded I admit:D

Bums re the link. Its still not working for me. Will email self at work and see if that helps. Will also give it a go tomorrow.

[Gliondrach]

Try the link but only up to news/ erase the part after that. Then, on their website, type in

neu5Gc meat into the search box. It is the first article that comes up. They have a lot of other useful information, including evolutionary changes between humans and chimps.

[veggiesosage]

Still not working. I'll give it another try tomorrow. Prob something to do with my rubbish pooter

[Bowwowmeow]

That's interesting that it is a sugar molecule. I have read a bit about glycation of proteins in the body due to high levels of blood sugar, and how this reaction between the tissues of the body and the sugar we ingest leads to inflammation, cell damage, and cross linking. Inflammation is considered by some to be the necessary groundwork for the development of disease. They will never detect, from the experimental ingestion of this molecule, what kind of specific disease it will cause. Rather, the inflammation will weaken the cellular structure of the body and leave it open to whatever disease gets its foot in the door first. None of us are born perfect, and we need to get away from the idea of specific causes for different diseases. Smoking cigarettes, for example, may give some people lung cancer, but others will get emphysema, coronary artery disease, or tuberculosis. It all depends on where an individual is weakest. And apparently it all begins with inflammation at the cellular level. I am not the least bit surprised to find yet another way in which the consumption of flesh by animals who have not adapted to it causes damage to their internal systems.

The link worked fine for me, by the way. Obviously. :D

[Gliondrach]

Another finding, reported on that site shows that extremely small differences between species makes them respond to different diseases.

Type the folllowing into a browser: health.ucsd.edu/news/ Then go to their search box and type in malaria neu5Gc Then click on the link that says 'A Single Oxygen Atom can Explain Differences in Human-Chimpanzee Malaria Susceptibility'
the bit about malaria is half-way down the page.

8 Sept, 2005.

A Single Oxygen Atom can Explain Differences in Human-Chimpanzee Malaria Susceptibility

It has long been known that chimpanzees don’t get sick from the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum, nor are humans infected with the malarial species that affects chimpanzees, called Plasmodium reichenowi. But until now, the reason for this surprising difference has been a mystery.

Just as humans and chimps have been shown to be very close genetic cousins, the two malaria parasites are genetically very similar. It is these two seemingly coincidental, but surprising, similarities that piqued the interest of Varki, and UCSD colleague Pascal Gagneux, Ph.D., a scientist in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine who is also affiliated with the Zoological Society of San Diego,

A paper to be published in the September 6 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and currently on line at ) They have now found that this difference of a single oxygen atom on sialic acids can shed light on the puzzling discrepancy in malaria susceptibility between the two species.

To find the difference between the two malarial parasites, the researchers focused on how each invaded their target red blood cells. Both Plasmodium species uses molecular “hooks” on their surfaces to latch onto the sialic acids on the red blood cell.

The researchers detected differences in the red cell binding capabilities between the two malaria species that could be explained by the differences in sialic acids. Thus, they argue that in the course of evolution, humans first became resistant to the malaria parasite infecting great apes by loss of the target molecule Neu5Gc. However, in the bargain they gained an excess of another sialic acid called Neu5Ac, eventually facilitating the evolution of P. falciparum, a parasite that now causes more than 1.5 million deaths a year in humans.

Ajit Varki, M.D., is director of the Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Professor of Medicine and Cellular and Molecular Medicine, and associate dean for physician-scientist training at UCSD. He is an expert in Glycobiology, the study of glycans, cell-surface sugar chains attached to proteins and lipids, which have multiple roles in the development, organization and function of all organisms. Glycans have recently been found to be at the root of a growing list of human genetic disorders and infectious diseases. His studies in this field have led to his exploring evolutionary differences between humans and apes and their impact on human diseases.

Varki and Gagneux are both members of UCSD’s Project for Explaining the Origin of Humans ( http://origins.ucsd.edu/ ). They are also co-authors of a paper on the ethics of great ape research, published in the September 1 issue of Nature (see press release at: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/general/EthicsCaptiveApes.asp) Varki also co-authored a paper with Edwin H. McConkey of the University of Colorado, “Thoughts on the Future of Great Ape Research,” published in the September 2 issue of Science. Here the researchers outline three reasons for substantially increasing such research in an ethically acceptable fashion: to understand the contribution of genomic DNA to the evolution of humans and apes; to improve our understanding of both species at all levels, from molecular to behavioral to states of diseases; and to help preserve populations of great apes.

In addition to Dr. Varki, contributors to the first Science article include Toshiyuki Hayakawa, Takashi Angata, and Amanda Lewis (all from UCSD) and Tarjei S. Mikkelsen, from the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University. (Mikkelsen was also the first author of the Chimpanzee Genome Project, recently published in Nature magazine.)

In addition to Varki and Gagneux, contributors to the PNAS paper include Maria J. Martin at UCSD, Julian C. Rayner, Division of Geographic Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and John W. Barnwell with the Division of Parasitic Diseases, Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, and by the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation.

[Bowwowmeow]

The researchers detected differences in the red cell binding capabilities between the two malaria species that could be explained by the differences in sialic acids. Thus, they argue that in the course of evolution, humans first became resistant to the malaria parasite infecting great apes by loss of the target molecule Neu5Gc. However, in the bargain they gained an excess of another sialic acid called Neu5Ac, eventually facilitating the evolution of P. falciparum, a parasite that now causes more than 1.5 million deaths a year in humans.


That's interesting that its the same molecule now being introduced back into human systems by the eating of flesh. Now omnis can be susceptible to two kinds of malaria.

[Gliondrach]

With global warming, if there is wetter weather in temperate regions (droughts in the tropics), malaria might spread to places where it is not currently a threat - such as my street. This could result in meatheads dropping like flies. Perhaps vegans will inherit the earth.

[Gliondrach]

Red meat and inflammatory polyarthritis. A study found that a high consumption of red meat seems to be linked to the incidence of inflammatory polyarthritis. This could be due to the iron in meat, or the protein. Or something else.

gigtforeningen.dk/5E2CD8A8-CC63-438A-9C4F-8AFA3B7305A2

Damn! The link no longer works. I should have copied and pasted it here at the time. But another study came to different conclusions. More research needs to be done.

[Bowwowmeow]

FDA Says Viruses Safe for Treating Meat


From Associated Press
August 18, 2006 9:52 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - A mix of bacteria-killing viruses can be safely sprayed on cold cuts, hot dogs and sausages to combat common microbes that kill hundreds of people a year, federal health officials said Friday in granting the first-ever approval of viruses as a food additive.
The combination of six viruses is designed to be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, including sliced ham and turkey, said John Vazzana, president and chief executive officer of manufacturer Intralytix Inc.
The special viruses called bacteriophages are meant to kill strains of the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, the Food and Drug Administration said in declaring it safe to use on ready-to-eat meats prior to their packaging.
The viruses are the first to win FDA approval for use as a food additive, said Andrew Zajac, of the regulatory agency's office of food additive safety.
The bacterium the viruses target can cause a serious infection called listeriosis, primarily in pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. In the United States, an estimated 2,500 people become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 500 die.
Luncheon meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria since once purchased, they typically aren't cooked or reheated, which can kill harmful bacteria like Listeria, Zajac said.
The preparation of bacteriophages - the name is Greek for "bacteria-eater" - attacks only strains of the Listeria bacterium and not human or plant cells, the FDA said.
"As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it's safe," Zajac said. People normally come into contact with phages through food, water and the environment, and they are found in our digestive tracts, the FDA said.
Consumers won't be aware that meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray, Zajac added. The Department of Agriculture will regulate the actual use of the product.
The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria. However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway, the FDA said.
"The FDA is applying one of the toughest food-safety standards which they have to find this is safe," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. "They couldn't approve this product if they had questions about its safety."
Intralytix, based in Baltimore, first petitioned the FDA in 2002 to allow the viruses to be used as a food additive. It has since licensed the product to a multinational company, which intends to market it worldwide, said Intralytix president Vazzana. He declined to name the company but said he expected it to announce its plans within weeks or months.
Intralytix also plans to seek FDA approval for another bacteriophage product to kill E. coli bacteria on beef before it is ground, Vazzana said.
Scientists have long studied bacteriophages as a bacteria-fighting alternative to antibiotics.
---
On the Net:
Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov/
Intralytix Inc.: http://www.intralytix.com/


Have some viruses to go with your bacteria! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Another example of the FDA hard at work to protect the unsuspecting consumer from profiteering capitalists. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Oracl]

It feels so good to be a vegan! :agree: :colors:

[Delicious]

Aughhhhhhhhhh! My brain, my brain! (Just joking...it's really nice to be amongst a group of smart vegans! :D ).

So, in short, this article provides further evidence that eating animals decreases immune function and increases the likelihood of disease and illness.

[my3labs]

A little OT and something we all know but...
One of the crew members on the Ellen Degeneres show had really high cholesterol a few weeks ago so they decided to change his diet and see what happened. He cut out all red meat and dairy and guess what? His cholesterol dropped from 266 to 213 in just a few weeks.

[Gliondrach]

More dangers in eating meat. The programme said that 1 in 4 foreign chickens on sale in the UK are infected with this deadly bacteria. They think it started in South America:



The poison on your plate, ITV1 24th September, 8pm

A Tonight with Trevor McDonald investigation is to reveal that a new antibiotic-resistant superbug is now causing infections in an estimated 30,000 people in England and Wales a year.

A Tonight source, a senior scientist, says that the superbug, mutant cousin to the E.coli bacteria that naturally resides in our guts, is fatal in 10% of cases suggesting that it could be killing up to 3,000 men, women and children. This 10% death rate is also backed by a research paper that was presented at a major conference in Chicago last week.

MRSA deaths number 2500 people a year. CJD, the human form of BSE, has claimed 161 lives.

Scientists have found this new superbug ESBL E.coli in something millions of Britons eat every day – chicken.

As there is no comprehensive national strategy, individual doctors have been developing their own methods of detecting and treating ESBL ecoli infections.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) published a report two years ago about ESBL E.coli and made a series of recommendations, one of which was keeping GPs informed about the lethal bug. Tonight surveyed 50 GPs and 70% of them had never heard of it.

The superbug usually manifests itself as a urinary tract or blood infection. It is difficult to detect and there is only one class of antibiotics available to treat it reliably, which must be given intravenously into the blood stream. The bug can attack the organs and become lethal. And some doctors are concerned that it could become resistant to that last class of antibiotics.

The first known outbreak of ESBL E.coli infections appeared in the UK in 2003 and mainly affected elderly women.

But as Tonight reporter Jonathan Maitland discovers, the superbug is now marching across Britain and affecting all age group.

For more information about issues brought up in the programme and for advice on food safety, visit the following websites:

itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Thepoisononyourplate/default.html

[veggiesosage]

Of course it had to be foreign chickens didn't it, not our plucky clucky Brit chickens by George!

I suspect the campaign to eat only UK chickens is only minutes away. And the Guardian will have another smarmy article about organic chicken from farmers markets. Thus missing the point...

[Gliondrach]

I hope they find it in all meat. Milk and eggs would be nice, too.

[my3labs]

I hope they find it in all meat. Milk and eggs would be nice, too.

Here, Here! I keep waiting for some massive dead animal ecoli outbreak.

[Gliondrach]

It's great being vegan.


Grilled meat consumption and PhIP-DNA adducts in prostate carcinogenesis.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Apr;16(4):803-8.

2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) is the major heterocyclic amine generated from cooking meats at high temperatures, and dietary exposures have been shown to induce prostate cancer in rats. PhIP derives its carcinogenic potential through the formation of PhIP-DNA adducts. The purpose of this study was to examine whether self-reported consumption and preparation doneness of grilled meats were associated with PhIP-DNA adduct levels in prostate epithelial cells. The study population consisted of 268 African-American and Caucasian men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. PhIP-DNA adducts in tumor and adjacent nontumor cells were measured using immunohistochemical methods, and dietary meat intake information was based on food frequency questionnaires. Data were analyzed using multivariate linear regression models. After adjusting for age at prostatectomy and race, grilled meat consumption (P = 0.002) was significantly associated with higher adduct levels in tumor cells, but this association seemed to be primarily due to consumption of grilled red meats (P = 0.001) as opposed to grilled white meat consumption (P = 0.15). Among the specific food items, grilled hamburger consumption had the most significant association with adduct level in tumor cells (P = 0.002). Similar trends in positive associations with grilled meat consumption and adduct levels were observed in nontumor cells, but none of these associations reached statistical significance. Our results suggest that dietary interventions targeted at lower consumption of grilled red meats may reduce prostate cancer risk via the PhIP prostate carcinogenic pathway.




OR as it is obvious to vegans, have no meat at all and reduce the risk even further.

BUT, this next one showed a higher risk of pancreatic cancer amongst those who eat well done chicken and pig meat but not hamburger:



Dietary mutagen exposure and risk of pancreatic cancer.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Apr;16(4):655-61.

To investigate the association between dietary exposure to food mutagens and risk of pancreatic cancer, we conducted a hospital-based case-control study at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center during June 2002 to May 2006. A total of 626 cases and 530 noncancer controls were frequency matched for race, sex and age (+/-5 years). Dietary exposure information was collected via personal interview using a meat preparation questionnaire. A significantly greater portion of the cases than controls showed a preference to well-done pork, bacon, grilled chicken, and pan-fried chicken, but not to hamburger and steak. Cases had a higher daily intake of food mutagens and mutagenicity activity (revertants per gram of daily meat intake) than controls did. The daily intakes of 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx) and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), as well as the mutagenic activity, were significant predictors for pancreatic cancer (P = 0.008, 0.031, and 0.029, respectively) with adjustment of other confounders. A significant trend of elevated cancer risk with increasing DiMeIQx intake was observed in quintile analysis (P(trend) = 0.024). A higher intake of dietary mutagens (those in the two top quintiles) was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer among those without a family history of cancer but not among those with a family history of cancer. A possible synergistic effect of dietary mutagen exposure and smoking was observed among individuals with the highest level of exposure (top 10%) to PhIP and BaP, P(interaction) = 0.09 and 0.099, respectively. These data support the hypothesis that dietary mutagen exposure alone and in interaction with other factors contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer.

[Oracl]

It's great being vegan.
:agree: :cheer: :yea:

[Gliondrach]

Whoda thunk it? It was also on the radio this morning. The meat industry will probably increase its advertising to tell us lies about how wonderful meat is. It's great being vegan!



Red meat and alcohol 'raise the risk of cancer'

Denis Campbell, health correspondent
Sunday October 28, 2007
The Observer

Eating red meat and drinking alcohol in even small quantities increases the risk of developing cancer, a group of world renowned scientists will warn this week.
People should minimise their consumption of both in order to safeguard their health, the biggest inquiry ever undertaken into lifestyle and cancer will recommend.

In addition, the millions of people who are now obese are running as great a risk of getting cancer as smokers do, a major global report by the World Cancer Research Fund will also warn.

The findings from a panel of 21 experts in diet, nutrition and public health will reopen the controversy about the role that red meat such as beef, pork and lamb and alcoholic drinks play in causing cancer, and how much it is safe to consume. The livestock and drink industries are likely to object fiercely to the report. But the experts, who have spent five years producing the document, insist their recommendations are based on the most up-to-date, accurate and credible scientific and medical research evidence available worldwide.
'The bad guys in terms of increasing your chances of getting cancer are alcohol, meat consumption and being seriously overweight,' said one senior figure behind the report. 'There's plenty of evidence showing that clearly meat is linked to cancer. Huge numbers of studies have shown that. Alcohol also increases your risk of cancer. Any alcohol above zero increases your risk of developing breast cancer and other cancers.'

The report will set out 10 detailed recommendations which the scientists believe are a definitive blueprint for how those seeking to avoid cancer should live. The 10 will cover: body fatness; physical activity; foods and drinks that promote weight gain; plant foods, notably fruit and vegetables; animal foods, particularly meat; alcoholic drinks; the preservation, processing and preparation of food; dietary supplements; lactation and breastfeeding; and cancer survivors.

One of the panel, Professor David Shuker, of the Open University, said: 'We know that red meat increases your risk of bowel cancer. We might say that it's just like cigarette smoking. So if you are concerned about bowel cancer you would come to the conclusion, supported by the evidence, that one should reduce one's consumption of red meat.'

Research showed that eating as little as 100g of red meat a day increases the risk of developing cancer, Shuker said. But the WCRF is likely to reaffirm this week that it believes people should consume as little as 80g per day for health reasons. The Food Standards Agency does not specify a 'safe' figure for meat-eating. But a spokeswoman said its view was that people should 'eat meat in moderation and choose leaner cuts'.

The report is also likely to say that men should have no more than two drinks per day, and women just one, if they want to reduce their cancer risk, in line with the government's advice on safe drinking limits.

Professor Sir Michael Marmot, chair of the expert panel, told The Observer last night that diet was a factor in one third of all cancer cases: 'People are suffering and dying because they get cancer from being obese.'

observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2200610,00.html

[Gliondrach]

Being vegan is great.

Here are some extracts from an article. I knew that excess iron was bad but it's even badder than I thought.




...too much iron in our beloved meats and supplements could literally leave us toxic.

So what's the problem? Well for starters, iron has been linked to cardiovascular disease, in part due to its pro-oxidative nature.(2) That's right; it has properties which make it the antithesis of beneficial antioxidants that we hear so much about (4). One might think of it as "anti-vitamin E."

Such oxidation could "harden" the plaques lining one's arteries (lipid peroxidation) and increase the atherogenic effects of high-cholesterol diets.

As many of us are aware, oxidative damage goes beyond hardened arteries. Excess iron in tissues is also linked to DNA damage and cancer development,(4, 22) as well as diabetes

Let's start with a quote. "Iron stores in excess of normal eventually occur in most men and some women."(1) Ugh. Whereas women rid themselves of a fair amount of iron-rich blood monthly and generally consume less meat, we meat-swilling men have no good way of disposing of the stuff. Iron just hangs around in our systems, accumulating with time.

And the fact that (terrestrial) animal flesh contains heme iron — which is particularly bioavailable — doesn't help. At a whopping 30% or so bioavailability (depending upon bodily iron stores) (18), a big steak equates to bushels of plant material. We might call it the predicament of the predatory instinct, because veggies offer us as little as 2%.(18) And let's not even get into the "meat-fish-poultry" factor that further enhances iron bioavailability in animal foods.(18) Hence we're victims of our very carnivorous nature. (And sadly I, for one, enjoy meat in a big, bloody way.)

So how do we know that men accumulate iron in their circulation as they age? Although there is some debate whether transferrin saturation or serum ferritin (both iron-related proteins) is the best marker of iron status (23), it's clear that we gain progressively more iron from age 12 to 32 or so.(6) As an example, a teenage male may have a serum ferritin of 23 ug/L whereas a thirty-something man will be closer to 125 ug/L.(6) If iron overload does indeed predispose us to several diseases (10) or tissue damage, then this is disconcerting.

t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=460353


The writer advocates some measures to reduce iron levels, including donating blood. But also says that switching to milk, eggs and tuna will help. Tuna with all the poisons found in fish.

Fuzzy also gets a mention in the article.

In the article published after the above one, the writer says that two people could exercise on a treadmill. One could walk for 40 minutes. One could walk for one minute and then run for 30 seconds. Doing this twelve times it would take only 18 minutes. Both would burn up about 300 calories. Futhermore, the one who did the 18 minutes would continue to burn extra calories long after the exercise session had finished. I knew that interval training - mixing hard and not so hard exercises, as in walking and running - burns more calories but I didn't know it was that many more. You also become overall fitter than with long, steady exercise.

[Gliondrach]

This is from 2004. I don't know if there have been any changes to make things safer.

U.S. Continues to Violate World Health Organization Guidelines for BSE

January 23, 2004 Michael Greger, M.D. for the Organic Consumers Association

Now Available at organicconsumers.org/madcow/Greger.pdf
The United States is violating all four concrete recommendations laid down by the World Health Organization to prevent the spread of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), or Mad Cow disease, into the human population. Inadequate testing of the brains of U.S. cattle is likely missing hundreds of cases of BSE and inadequate testing of the brains of human dementia victims is likely missing hundreds of cases of the human spongiform encephalopathy, sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob disease. New research suggests that some of these cases of the sporadic form of CJD may be caused by eating BSE-infected meat. Until we follow the guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and enact science-based safeguards proven to work in Europe-such as a total ban on the feeding of slaughterhouse waste, blood and excrement to farmed animals, and dramatically increased surveillance for both these diseases-the safety of the American food supply will remain in question.

CONTENTS:

Introduction

WHO Recommendation #1:
Stop Feeding Infected Animals to Other Animals

WHO Recommendation #2:
All Countries Must Establish Adequate Testing & Surveillance

WHO Recommendation #3:
Stop Feeding Bovine Brains, Eyes, Spinal Cords, & Intestines to People or Livestock

-High Risk Tissues in Human Food
-Advanced Meat Recovery
-Central Nervous Contamination in Other Meat Products
-Prion Infection Within Muscle
-Some Sporadic CJD May be Caused by Eating Meat
-Are Thousands of Americans Dying From Sporadic CJD?
-High Risk Tissues in Animal Feed
-Feeding Poultry Litter to Cattle

WHO Recommendation #4:
Stop Weaning Calves on Cow's Blood

Conclusion

References

Now Available at organicconsumers.org/madcow/Greger.pdf
Don't forget the h tt p:// w w w.


organicconsumers.org/madcow/greger12304.cfm

As he said the year before:

The European Commission's risk assessment of the U.S. points out, for example, the "young age at slaughter makes it unlikely that fully developed clinical cases would occur (and could be detected)..."[1] Less than half of American dairy cows make it past their fourth birthday, before being retired into hamburger meat.[2] In fact the majority of U.S. cattle are slaughtered before they reach age two.[3] While this may mean that the prion load in an infected animal may be less at slaughter (since prions accumulate with age), it also means mad cow disease may be harder to detect in the United States.[4] Younger cattle could be infected and infectious, but be slaughtered for human consumption before they started showing symptoms.[5] In fact the latest case of Mad Cow disease in Japan was in an animal only 23 months old. Although the rapid tests used in Japan and Europe were able to detect the deadly prions in so young a case, it seems that the test used in the U.S. which takes days instead of hours, failed to pick it up.[6] The chief reason why our present Mad Cow surveillance program has not more confirmed cases in the U.S. could very well be because our surveillance program is inadequate.[7] In other words, the reason other Mad Cows haven't been found in the U.S. may be because we Americans have eaten all the evidence.

organicconsumers.org/madcow/greger123103a.cfm


On the same site it tells of how a 23-year-old woman has died of mad cow disease. She was a friend of John Selwyn Gummer, who was the minister in charge of such things in the Thatcher government. He famously appeared on telly with his young daughter who he had encouraged to scoff down a beef burger for the watching public to prove his faith in beef.

[Oracl]

I love being vegan! :smallheart: :cloud9:

[Gliondrach]

I changed it slightly.

[Oracl]

Meat raises lung cancer risk: study

People who eat a lot of red meat and processed meats have a higher risk of several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, US researchers have reported.

The work is the first big study to show a link between meat consumption and lung cancer. It also shows that people who eat a lot of meat have a higher risk of liver and esophageal cancer and that men raise their risk of pancreatic cancer by eating red meat.

"A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites," Dr Amanda Cross and colleagues at the US National Cancer Institute wrote in their report, published in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine.

The researchers studied 500,000 people aged 50 to 71 who took part in a diet and health study completed in conjunction with the AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons.

After eight years, 53,396 cases of cancer were diagnosed.

"Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20 per cent to 60 per cent) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake," the researchers wrote.

The people in the top 20 per cent of eating processed meat had a 20 per cent higher risk of colorectal cancer, mostly rectal cancer, and a 16 per cent higher risk for lung cancer.

"Furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver," the researchers wrote.

These differences held even when smoking was accounted for.

"Red meat intake was not associated with gastric or bladder cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, or melanoma," the researchers added.

Red meat was defined as all types of beef, pork and lamb. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats, cold cuts, ham and most types of hot dogs including turkey dogs.

Meats can cause cancer by several routes, the researchers noted.

"For example, they are both sources of saturated fat and iron, which have independently been associated with carcinogenesis," the researchers wrote.

Meat is also a source of several chemicals known to cause DNA mutations, including N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Jeanine Genkinger of Georgetown University in Washington DC and Anita Koushik of the University of Montreal said the findings fit in with other research.

"Meat consumption in relation to cancer risk has been reported in over 100 epidemiological studies from many countries with diverse diets," they wrote in a commentary.

- Reuters

:)

[Gliondrach]

I'm sure I've read that somewhere else. :whistle:

[Oracl]

:)

[thevegantwins]

February 17, 2008
USDA Makes Nation's Largest Beef Recall
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:28 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Sunday recalled 143 million pounds of frozen beef from a California slaughterhouse, the subject of an animal-abuse investigation, that provided meat to school lunch programs.

Officials said it was the largest beef recall in the United States, surpassing a 1999 ban of 35 million pounds of ready-to-eat meats. No illnesses have been linked to the newly recalled meat, and officials said the health threat was likely small.

The recall will affect beef products dating to Feb. 1, 2006, that came from Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., the federal agency said.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that Westland did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations.

''Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection, Food Safety and Inspection Service has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall,'' Schafer said in a statement.

A phone message left for Westland president Steve Mendell was not immediately returned.

Federal officials suspended operations at Westland/Hallmark after an undercover Humane Society video surfaced showing crippled and sick animals being shoved with forklifts.

Two former employees were charged Friday. Five felony counts of animal cruelty and three misdemeanors were filed against a pen manager. Three misdemeanor counts -- illegal movement of a non-ambulatory animal -- were filed against an employee who worked under that manager. Both were fired.

Authorities said the video showed workers kicking, shocking and otherwise abusing ''downer'' animals that were apparently too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. Some animals had water forced down their throats, San Bernardino County prosecutor Michael Ramos said.

No charges have been filed against Westland, but an investigation by federal authorities continues.

Officials estimate that about 37 million pounds of the recalled beef went to school programs, but they believe most of the meat probably has already been eaten.

''We don't know how much product is out there right now. We don't think there is a health hazard, but we do have to take this action,'' said Dr. Dick Raymond, USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety.

Most of the beef was sent to distribution centers in bulk packages. The USDA said it will work with distributors to determine how much meat remains.

Federal regulations call for keeping downed cattle out of the food supply because they may pose a higher risk of contamination from E. coli, salmonella or mad cow disease because they typically wallow in feces and their immune systems are often weak.

About 150 school districts around the nation have stopped using ground beef from Hallmark Meat Packing Co., which is associated with Westland. Two fast-food chains, Jack-In-the-Box and In-N-Out, said they would not use beef from Westland/Hallmark.

Jack in the Box, a San Diego-based company with restaurants in 18 states, told its meat suppliers not to use Hallmark until further notice, but it was unclear whether it had used any Hallmark meat. In-N-Out, an Irvine-based chain, also halted use of the Westland/Hallmark beef. Other chains such as McDonald's and Burger King said they do not buy beef from Westland.

Raymond countered a claim leveled by Humane Society President and CEO Wayne Pacelle, who said a USDA inspector was at the Westland plant for about two hours each day. USDA inspectors are there at slaughterhouses ''continuously,'' Raymond said.

Federal lawmakers on Thursday had called for the Government Accountability Office to investigate the safety of meat in the National School Lunch Program.

Upon learning about the recall, some legislators criticized the USDA, saying the federal agency should conduct more thorough inspections to ensure tainted beef doesn't get to the public.

''Today marks the largest beef recall in U.S. history, and it involves the national school lunch program and other federal food and nutrition programs,'' said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. ''This begs the question: how much longer will we continue to test our luck with weak enforcement of federal food safety regulations?''

Advocacy groups also weighed in, noting the problems at Westland wouldn't have been revealed had it not been for animal right activists.

''On the one hand, I'm glad that the recall is taking place. On the other, it's somewhat disturbing, given that obviously much of this food has already been eaten,'' said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union. ''It's really closing the barn door after the cows left.''

[thevegantwins]

And other parents have questioned how healthy my kids' diet is? :confused:

Right now, my kids are eating homemade banana wheat bran muffins and apple slices along with rice milk. Not pieces of multiple murdered downer cows.

[my3labs]

And other parents have questioned how healthy my kids' diet is? :confused:

Amen, TVT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tails4wagging]

Those poor bullocks, life in misery then the horrors of a slaughterhouse.:(

[Soynut]

The horrors of ONE slaughter house is exposed to the public at large, and it's good, but there are so many more of them who are involved in cruel treatment of animals. Maybe this will wake some people up to what's really behind that "harmless" looking steak on their plate.

[Gliondrach]

The scum who work in slaughterhouses will behave like that every day. They have no compassion for their victims. Those two purveyors of dead animals - Macwotsit and Blubberking - say they don't get meat from that company. They must think that the places they do get meat from are better. The 'downers' will be seen in every slaughterhouse and most of them will just be pushed through the system. Too much money and lack of time are involved to bother about regulations.

[dreamer]

I was thinking the same thing...when I heard about this case, I just thought to myself, "don't all slaughterhouses do the EXACT SAME THING?" Now I'm sure there are omnis who think, "this only happens in rare situations and see, we do something about it when it does."

I think the reason this got more attention is that it was the HSUS instead of a group like PETA. Though it might not get much respect, I think HSUS gets a bit more than the more "marginalized" animal rights groups (like PETA, Farm Sanctuary, etc).

[Gliondrach]

Row over slaughterhouse video

Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 February 2008, 03:52 GMT
- Search: US slaughterhouse video

A US cattle industry spokesman said nearly all meat bound for American dinner tables were treated humanely, despite a secret video showing workers at a slaughterhouse abusing sick or crippled animals.

The undercover video taken at Westland/Hallmark Meat of Chino, Southern California, by the Humane Society of the US showed workers shocking, kicking and shoving debilitated cattle with forklifts, and led to the largest recall of beef in US history.

But Bo Reagan, vice president of research for the Colorado-based National Cattleman's Beef Association, said the incident was not indicative of how most slaughterhouses operated.

"The welfare of our animals - that's the heart and soul of our operations," he said.

US Department of Agriculture guidelines mandate that an inspector must review sick or injured animals, called "downer" cattle, before they can be slaughtered, and that the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act sets strict rules for the humane treatment of animals.

"What happened in this case was that there were some animals that were harvested out of compliance," Mr Reagan said.

The video prompted the recall of 143 million pounds of the company's beef. Federal regulations call for keeping downed cattle out of the food supply because they may pose a higher risk of contamination from E.coli, salmonella or mad cow disease since they typically wallow in faeces and their immune systems are often weak.

But Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society, said his organisation chose to investigate the Westland/Hallmark plant at random and said he was sceptical of the cattle industry's practices.

"I think this is the typical rhetorical and typical false assurances that we hear from the industry after glaring problems have been exposed," he said.

He said it is impossible to say whether the treatment depicted on the video was isolated, but stopped short of calling it widespread.

ht tp://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/go-green/row-over-slaughterhouse-video/article/20080218235109990003

One of the morons said:
'The welfare of our animals - that's the heart and soul of our operations,' he said.

He must think we're idiots.

[Soynut]

People should be aware of that this place was investigated by random and their methods are common practices in that particular industry. But as always, too many want to enjoy their meat and not give it any further thought - it's SO much more comfortable that way.

I applaud the Humane Society, an old reptuable and well recognized organization, for not only concentrate on issues around cats and dogs, but take on farm animal cases and expose the cruelty to the public. For most people this is way out of their comfort zone. Yuppi - Yay!

[thevegantwins]

I applaud the Humane Society, an old reptuable and well recognized organization, for not only concentrate on issues around cats and dogs, but take on farm animal cases and expose the cruelty to the public. For most people this is way out of their comfort zone. Yuppi - Yay!

I'm conflicted about HSUS. Like PETA, they do some good but I don't approve of their message which is to treat animals more humanely before murdering them. They are a welfarist organization completely.

[dreamer]

I know the HSUS isn't perfect, but they do encourage vegetarianism and point out that ALL factory farm practices are inhumane. I've started giving $ to them instead of the ASPCA because the ASPCA is OK with some factory farm practices and does not encourage vegetarianism (or any "reduction" in meat intake). Since the HSUS is one of the biggest humane advocacy groups (ASPCA is bigger, but I don't like them for the reasons stated) which hasn't been "stained" by the label of going "overboard" (as PETA has), I choose to like them and support them. They are by no means the only group I support, but I do REALLY like that they are investigating and highlighting farm animal abuse:thumbsup:

[Oracl]

I'm conflicted about HSUS. Like PETA, they do some good but I don't approve of their message which is to treat animals more humanely before murdering them. They are a welfarist organization completely.
I agree. :s:igh:

I am always happy when they draw attention to animal issues but they need to start pushing the word vegan out there and stop accepting animals as property.

HSI - Australia has started promoting the "Humane Choice" label on food, which really pisses me off. This is part of what they say about it:

The Humane Choice label will initially cover beef, pork, lamb, chicken and eggs and will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care, from birth through to death. There is only ONE humane choice standard so there is no ambiguity for the consumer.

The only "Humane Choice" is to stop being a "consumer" of animals and go vegan. :hbang:

[Soynut]

I'm conflicted about HSUS. Like PETA, they do some good but I don't approve of their message which is to treat animals more humanely before murdering them. They are a welfarist organization completely.

I don't necessarily agree with everything they do or say either, but I appreciate the good things they do such as an investigation of this magnitude. The president of The Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle, is vegan and that is a big plus for the organization, I think.:)

Most supporters of HSUS are meat eaters so maybe this will wake them up and make different choices! (I'm into wishful thinking). Also, I think it was important that it was uncovered by a well known "mainstream" organization that people in middle America recognize.

[Gliondrach]

Red meat raises risk of all kinds of death

Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

People who eat the most red meat and the most processed meat have the highest overall risk of death from all causes, including heart disease and cancer, U.S. researchers reported on Monday. Skip related content

The National Cancer Institute study is one of the largest to look at the highly controversial and emotive issue of whether eating meat is indeed bad for health.

Rashmi Sinha and colleagues looked at the records of more than 500,000 people aged 50 to 71 who filled out questionnaires on their diet and other health habits.

Even when other factors were accounted for -- eating fresh fruits and vegetables, smoking, exercise, obesity -- the heaviest meat-eaters were more likely to die over the next 10 years than the people who ate the least amount of meat.

"Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality," Sinha and colleagues wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

They divided the volunteers into five groups, called quintiles. Between 1995 and 2005, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died.

The quintile who ate the most red meat had a higher risk for overall death, death from heart disease and cancer than the men and women who ate the least red meat.

The researchers said thousands of deaths could be prevented if people simply ate less meat.

"For overall mortality, 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption to the level of intake in the first quintile," Sinha's team wrote.

HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT

Many studies have shown that people who eat less meat are healthier in many ways, and Sinha's team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat.

The U.S. government now recommends a "plant-based diet" that stresses fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Barry Popkin, an expert in nutrition and economics at the University of North Carolina, said the study was unusually thorough and careful.

Eating less meat has other benefits, he said, and governments should start promoting this. For instance, farming animals for meat causes greenhouse gas emissions that warm the atmosphere and uses fresh water in excess, he said.

"I was pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock," Popkin said in a telephone interview.

"I didn't expect it to be more than cars."

Cancer experts said the study fit in with what is known from other research.

"This large study provides further evidence to support the recommendations by groups such as the World Cancer Research Fund in demonstrating an association between a high consumption of red and processed meats and a increase risk of death from cancer," said Ian Olver, Chief Executive Officer of Cancer Council Australia.

The meat industry denounced the study as flawed.

But American Meat Institute executive president, James Hodges, said: "Meat products are part of a healthy, balanced diet and studies show they actually provide a sense of satisfaction and fullness that can help with weight control. Proper body weight contributes to good health overall."

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
yahoo.com/22/20090324/tpl-uk-meat-death-41a8b2f.html

[thevegantwins]

:dunce: Really? I'm so surprised that eating the flesh from another species isn't healthy. :rolleyes:

:D

[squirrel]

:dunce: Really? I'm so surprised that eating the flesh from another species isn't healthy. :rolleyes:

:D

"But it's what we've always done so it must be alright"

At last main stream science is getting through to the masses

[Gliondrach]

They say that those who eat the most meat could cut their risk if they ate the amounts of those who eat the least meat. Don't they have the sense to realise that they could cut their risk even more by not eating meat at all?

[Gliondrach]

No, this sounds Irish:

Slán agus beannacht leat. :eat:

[Gliondrach]

More danger from meat.


Public release date: 30-Mar-2009

Colon cancer and the microbes in your gut

Society for General Microbiology

A typical Western diet, rich in meat and fats and low in complex carbohydrates, is a recipe for colon cancer, Professor Stephen O'Keefe from the University of Pittsburgh, USA, told the Society for General Microbiology meeting at Harrogate today (Tuesday 31 March). He described an expanding body of evidence to show that the composition of the diet directly influences the diversity of the microbes in the gut, providing the link between diet, colonic disease and colon cancer.

People eating a healthy diet containing high levels of complex carbohydrate had significant populations of micro-organisms in their gut called Firmicutes. These bacteria use the undigested residues of starch and proteins in the colon to manufacture short-chain fatty acids and vitamins such as folate and biotin that maintain colonic health. One of these fatty acids, butyrate, not only provides most of the energy to maintain a healthy gut wall, but it also regulates cell growth and differentiation. Both experimental and human studies support its role in reducing colon cancer risk.

However, gut microbes may also make toxic products from food residues. Diets high in meat will produce sulphur - this decreases the activity of 'good' bacteria that use methane and increases the production of hydrogen sulphide and other possible carcinogens by sulphur-reducing bacteria.

"Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in adults in Westernized communities." said Professor O'Keefe, "Our results suggest that a diet that maintains the health of the colon wall is also one that maintains general body health and reduces heart disease".

"A diet rich in fibre and resistant starch encourages the growth of good bacteria and increases production of short chain fatty acids which lessen the risk of cancer, while a high meat and fat diet reduces the numbers of these good bacteria." Professor O'Keefe went on. "Our investigations to date have focused on a small number of bacterial species and have therefore revealed but the tip of the iceberg, our colons harbour over 800 bacterial species and 7,000 different strains. The characterization of their properties and metabolism can be expected to provide the key to colonic health and disease".
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/sfgm-cca032709.php

[Gliondrach]

It mentions that people who ate more fish had lower risks of colon and prostate cancer. That'll be because of the omega-3, which it is better to obtain from capules made from algae. Fish are polluted with dioxins, PCBs, mercury. Even farmed fish are polluted.


Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat

By Jane E. Brody

Published: April 27, 2009

There was a time when red meat was a luxury for ordinary Americans, or was at least something special: cooking a roast for Sunday dinner, ordering a steak at a restaurant. Not anymore. Meat consumption has more than doubled in the United States in the last 50 years.

Now a new study of more than 500,000 Americans has provided the best evidence yet that our affinity for red meat has exacted a hefty price on our health and limited our longevity.

The study found that, other things being equal, the men and women who consumed the most red and processed meat were likely to die sooner, especially from one of our two leading killers, heart disease and cancer, than people who consumed much smaller amounts of these foods.

Results of the decade-long study were published in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine. The study, directed by Rashmi Sinha, a nutritional epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, involved 322,263 men and 223,390 women ages 50 to 71 who participated in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. Each participant completed detailed questionnaires about diet and other habits and characteristics, including smoking, exercise, alcohol consumption, education, use of supplements, weight and family history of cancer.

Determining Risk

During the decade, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died, and the researchers kept track of the timing and reasons for each death. Red meat consumption ranged from a low of less than an ounce a day, on average, to a high of four ounces a day, and processed meat consumption ranged from at most once a week to an average of one and a half ounces a day.

The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent. But the number of excess deaths that could be attributed to high meat consumption is quite large given the size of the American population.

Extrapolated to all Americans in the age group studied, the new findings suggest that over the course of a decade, the deaths of one million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats, according to estimates prepared by Dr. Barry Popkin, who wrote an editorial accompanying the report.

To prevent premature deaths related to red and processed meats, Dr. Popkin suggested in an interview that people should eat a hamburger only once or twice a week instead of every day, a small steak once a week instead of every other day, and a hot dog every month and a half instead of once a week.

In place of red meat, nonvegetarians might consider poultry and fish. In the study, the largest consumers of “white” meat from poultry and fish had a slight survival advantage. Likewise, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables also tended to live longer.

Anyone who worries about global well-being has yet another reason to consume less red meat. Dr. Popkin, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, said that a reduced dependence on livestock for food could help to save the planet from the ravaging effects of environmental pollution, global warming and the depletion of potable water.

“In the United States,” Dr. Popkin wrote, “livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process, 37 percent of pesticides applied, 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water.”

Finding a Culprit

A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates. The subjects in the study who ate the most red meat had other less-than-healthful habits. They were more likely to smoke, weigh more for their height, and consume more calories and more total fat and saturated fat. They also ate less fruits, vegetables and fiber; took fewer vitamin supplements; and were less physically active.

But in analyzing mortality data in relation to meat consumption, the cancer institute researchers carefully controlled for all these and many other factors that could influence death rates. The study data have not yet been analyzed to determine what, if any, life-saving benefits might come from eating more protein from vegetable sources like beans or a completely vegetarian diet.

The results mirror those of several other studies in recent years that have linked a high-meat diet to life-threatening health problems. The earliest studies highlighted the connection between the saturated fats in red meats to higher blood levels of artery-damaging cholesterol and subsequent heart disease, which prompted many people to eat leaner meats and more skinless poultry and fish. Along with other dietary changes, like consuming less dairy fat, this resulted in a nationwide drop in average serum cholesterol levels and contributed to a reduction in coronary death rates.

Elevated blood pressure, another coronary risk factor, has also been shown to be associated with eating more red and processed meat, Dr. Sinha and colleagues reported.

Poultry and fish contain less saturated fat than red meat, and fish contains omega-3 fatty acids that have been linked in several large studies to heart benefits. For example, men who consume two servings of fatty fish a week were found to have a 50 percent lower risk of cardiac deaths, and in the Nurses’ Health Study of 84,688 women, those who ate fish and foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids at least once a week cut their coronary risk by more than 20 percent.

Ties to Cancer

Choosing protein from sources other than meat has also been linked to lower rates of cancer. When meat is cooked, especially grilled or broiled at high temperatures, carcinogens can form on the surface of the meat. And processed meats like sausages, salami and bologna usually contain nitrosamines, although there are products now available that are free of these carcinogens.

Data from one million participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition trial found that those who ate the least fish had a 40 percent greater risk of developing colon cancer than those who ate more than 1.75 ounces of fish a day. Likewise, while a diet high in red meat was linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer in the large Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, among the 35,534 men in the study, those who consumed at least three servings of fish a week had half the risk of advanced prostate cancer compared with men who rarely ate fish.

Another study, which randomly assigned more than 19,500 women to a low-fat diet, found after eight years a 40 percent reduced risk of ovarian cancer among them, when compared with 29,000 women who ate their regular diets.
nytimes.com/2009/04/28/health/28brod.html?em

[Gliondrach]

As well as all the dangers to health and the environment, it seems that murder and enslavement of humans can be the result of cattle ranching. I heard on the radio yesterday, You and Yours, BBC Radio 4, a discussion about cattle ranching in Brazil. The bloke said that some cattle ranchers use slave labour and that people who are opposed to the chopping down of the Amazon forest for cattle grazing are often killed. Here's something from a newspaper article about it.

You can hear the radio programme by searching for it on the Radio 4 website. It was the 1st June programme.

British supermarkets accused over destruction of Amazon rainforest

David Adam in Maraba
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 31 May 2009 22.15 BST

British supermarkets are driving rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest by using meat from farms responsible for illegal deforestation, according to a three-year investigation of the global trade in Brazilian cattle products.

The report names Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons and Marks and Spencer among dozens of high-profile companies it says profit from products supplied by Brazilian farms on illegally deforested land. Much of the trade is in processed beef, used for pies, canned meat and frozen ready meals. The supermarkets insist it is not from the Amazon.

The Greenpeace investigation also tracked the global trade in other Brazilian goods made from cattle. It names Nike, Adidas, Timberland and Clarks Shoes among companies it says use leather linked to Amazon destruction.

Greenpeace wants companies to refuse to buy products sourced from farms that have carried out illegal deforestation. It wants consumers to pressure supermarkets and high-street brands identified in the report to clean-up supply chains.

Sarah Shoraka, Greenpeace forests campaigner, said: "Shoes, handbags and ready meals aren't normally associated with rainforest destruction and climate change, but we've found a smoking gun. UK companies are driving the destruction of the Amazon by buying beef and leather products from unscrupulous suppliers in Brazil. These products are ending up on our shelves." She added : "The cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in the world and is a disaster for the fight against climate change. Global brands must take a stand."

Officials from around the world gather in Bonn for talks on a new treaty on global warming, which is expected to include urgent efforts to protect forests. Clearing tropical forests for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions – more than the entire global transport system. Many of the companies named in the Greenpeace report promote their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Greenpeace report compiles government records, company documents and trade data from Brazil, China, Europe, Vietnam and the USA, to piece together the global movement of meat, leather and cosmetics ingredients made from Brazilian cattle.

Campaigners used satellite images, surveillance flights and undercover visits to assess deforestation on dozens of ranches across the Amazonian states of Para and Mato Grosso.

Cattle farming is now the biggest threat to the remaining Amazon rainforest, a fifth of which has been lost since 1970. Big ranches are blamed for 80% of all deforestation in the region; the number of cattle in the Amazon grew from 21m in 1995 to 56m in 2006.

The report, Slaughtering the Amazon, describes how ranches responsible for illegal deforestation sell cattle to slaughterhouses controlled by a handful of Brazilian companies. These ship beef or hides to facilities in the south of Brazil and process them for export. They are often processed again in the importing country.

Greenpeace says records show that cattle from hundreds of farms across the Amazon are mixed and processed in this way, making it currently impossible to trace the origins of products. "In effect, criminal or 'dirty' supplies of cattle are 'laundered' through the supply chain."

The investigation focused on three Brazilian companies, Bertin, JBS and Marfrig, which operate slaughterhouses and together control a third of Brazilian beef exports. Greenpeace says satellite images and trade records show that all three companies – part-owned by the Brazilian government– source cattle from farms that have carried out illegal deforestation in the Amazon. It says exports from the south of the country near São Paolo are "polluted" with products from animals raised on deforested land.

Britain is the second largest importer of processed Brazilian beef after the US, taking 50,000 tonnes last year.

Greenpeace says Marfrig facilities export processed beef to Green Isle Foods, an Irish subsidiary of Northern Foods. Product labels show Northern Foods supplies convenience foods that contain the Marfrig meat to Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons, the report says. It says Tesco and Marks and Spencer sell tinned Brazilian beef supplied separately by JBS.

Tesco and Marks and Spencer denied the meat came from the Amazon. Marks and Spencer said: "We do not accept and have never used any beef from the Amazon region. We have been working with our Brazilian beef supplier for over 20 years and through the traceability measures we have in place we can ensure that all the product supplied to us by them is from the exact location we specify."

Sainsbury's said it used "a small amount of Brazilian beef in our frozen and canned range". Morrisons said its suppliers provided documents to prove beef was not linked to Amazon deforestation. Asda said it was confident its beef did not come from the Amazon. It said: "If that isn't the case we'd take that very seriously indeed."

A Tesco spokesman said: "Our canned beef is sourced from São Paolo, which is about 1.900 miles away from the Amazon. I have also been informed that the cows cannot travel more than 190 miles."

The report says: "While the blue chip companies behind reputable global brands appear to believe that Amazon sources are excluded from their products, Greenpeace investigations expose for the first time how their blind consumption of raw materials fuels deforestation and climate change."

Northern Foods said: "The only Brazilian beef we buy for our Green Isle business is cooked beef from a single site in São Paulo state, not in or near the Amazon basin, and not sourcing materials from sites in or near the Amazon basin. The supplier we use, Marfrig, provides certificates to verify the farm source for this plant."

Marfrig said it only bought cattle from farms not included on a Brazilian government prohibited list. "We have not been informed of any such violations by Greenpeace so cannot comment."

Nike and Adidas said they would be discussing the issue with Greenpeace. Timberland said it used Bertin leather, but did not track the origin of all raw materials. Clarks Shoes said its UK operation was phasing out Bertin leather and seeking ways to guarantee source. Bertin said it would investigate and act on any evidence of "supplier irregularity".
guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/31/supermarkets-amazon-cattle-deforestation-greenpeace

[Bowwowmeow]

Hmph. Naturally they're all innocent. Its got to be the other guy. :hbang:

[Gliondrach]

Mad fish disease?

Farmed fish and mad cow disease – researchers air new concerns
16. June 2009

University of Louisville neurologist Robert P. Friedland, M.D., questions the safety of eating farmed fish in the June issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, adding a new worry to concerns about the nation's food supply.

Friedland and his co-authors suggest farmed fish could transmit Creutzfeldt Jakob disease--commonly known as mad cow disease--if they are fed byproducts rendered from cows. The scientists urge government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until the safety of this common practice can be confirmed.

"We have not proven that it's possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited," Friedland said. "Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows," he added.

Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is an untreatable, universally-fatal disease that can be contracted by eating parts of an animal infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease). An outbreak in England attributed to infected beef prompted most countries to outlaw feeding rendered cow material to other cattle because the disease is so easily spread within the same species.

The risk of transmission of BSE to humans who eat farmed fish would appear to be low because of perceived barriers between species. But, according to the authors, it is possible for a disease to be spread by eating a carrier that is not infected itself. It's also possible that eating diseased cow parts could cause fish to experience a pathological change that allows the infection to be passed between the two species.

"The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe. The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult. Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public," Friedland said.

There have been 163 deaths from Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in the United Kingdom attributed to eating infected beef. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been identified in nine Canadian and three U.S. cattle.
news-medical.net/news/20090616/Farmed-fish-and-mad-cow-disease-e28093-researchers-air-new-concerns.aspx

[Gliondrach]

The results from only one man but a scan revealed no heart problems before he started the bad and mad atkins diet.

You can't read the article in the ADA's journal without paying for it. In the same edition they have an article titled: 'Carbohydrate Intake and Obesity: An Association that Needs “Refining”,' which should be interesting. I think it will say that carbohydrates don't necessarily cause obesity. Just eating too many of them. I read somewhere recently that the theory of carbs causing obesity started at about the same time that people in industrialised countries started eating more rubbishy food and in larger portions.

Atkins diet blamed for one man's chest pain and artery blockage
July 18, 7:46

Case Study Shows Risks with Atkins Diet

In an article published in today’s Journal of the American Dietetic Association, PCRM researchers present a case study of a previously healthy 51-year-old man who developed high cholesterol, atherosclerosis, and erectile dysfunction after going on the Atkins Diet, which avoids carbohydrate and emphasizes fatty foods. Within one month, his LDL (“bad”) cholesterol had risen from 85 mg/dl to 154 mg/dl. Eventually, he ended up in an emergency room with chest pain caused by a near total blockage of a coronary artery. Two months after discontinuing the low-carbohydrate diet, his health problems were resolved. The case is remarkable because the individual had a heart scan showing no cardiac disease shortly before beginning the diet.


Barnett TD, Barnard ND, Radak TL. Development of symptomatic cardiovascular disease after self-reported adherence to the Atkins Diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1263-1265.

examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m7d18-Atkins-diet-blamed-for-one-mans-chest-pain-and-artery-blockage

[Gliondrach]

Eating Red Meat Sets Up Target for Disease-Causing Bacteria

Non-human molecules absorbed by eating red meat increase risk of food poisoning in humans

October 29, 2008

By Debra Kain

Offering another reason why eating red meat could be bad for you, an international research team, including University of California, San Diego School of Medicine professor Ajit Varki, M.D., has uncovered the first example of a bacterium that causes food poisoning in humans when it targets a non-human molecule absorbed into the body through red meats such as lamb, pork and beef.

In findings to be published on line October 29th in advance of print in the journal Nature, the scientists discovered that a potent bacterial toxin called subtilase cytotoxin specifically targets human cells that have a non-human, cellular molecule on their surface. The molecule –N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) – is a type of glycan, or sugar molecule, that humans don’t naturally produce.

Subtilase cytotoxinis produced by certain kinds of E. coli bacteria, causing bloody diarrhea and a potentially fatal disease called haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) in humans. Humans usually become infected after eating contaminated red meat, which is why this is also known as “hamburger” disease.

Varki, UC San Diego School of Medicine distinguished professor of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, and co-director of the UCSD Glycobiology Research and Training Center, previously discovered that humans don’t produce Neu5Gc because they lack the gene responsible for its production. Therefore, it was thought that humans should be resistant to the toxin.

“Ironically, humans may set themselves up for an increased risk of illness from this kind of E. coli bacteria present in contaminated red meat or dairy, because these very same products have high-levels of Neu5Gc,” Varki explained. “The Neu5Gc molecule is absorbed into the body, making it a target for the toxin produced by E. coli.”

In the Nature study, the researchers discovered that sites where the Neu5Gc has been incorporated into the human body coincide with toxin binding. “When the toxin binds to the non-human Neu5Gc receptors, it can result in serious food-poisoning and other symptoms in humans,” said Varki. The research emphasizes the need for people to eat only well-cook meat or pasteurized dairy products, processes that destroy contaminating bacteria.

Five years ago, Varki and his colleagues at the UC San Diego School of Medicine published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing how Neu5Gc is absorbed into human tissues – including the surface of cells lining the intestines and blood vessels – as a result of eating red meat and milk products. At the time, the researchers also showed that this foreign molecule generates an immune response that could potentially lead to inflammation in human tissues. The UC San Diego study was the first to investigate human dietary absorption of the Neu5Gc glycans which, while not produced in humans, does occur naturally in red meats. Levels are very low or undetectable in fruits, vegetables, eggs, poultry and fish. The researchers proved that people who ingest Neu5Gc incorporate some of it into their tissues, and demonstrated that many generated an immune response against the molecule, conjecturing that a lifetime of gradual incorporation of this glycan “invader” could result in disease.

The UC San Diego team included postdoctoral fellow Jonas C. Löfling and professor of pathology Nissi M. Varki. The international research collaborators included Jamie Rossjohn and Dr. Travis Beddoe, as well as Emma Byres and Matthew C.C. Wilce from Monash University in Victoria, Australia; Adrienne W. Paton, James C. Paton, Ursula M. Talbot and Damien C. Chong of the University of Adelaide, South Australia; David F. Smith, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; and Hai Yu, Shengshu Huang and Xi Chen, UC Davis Department of Chemistry.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council.
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/health/10-08RedMeat.asp

And see first post here:
http://www.thesaucyvegan.com/showthread.php?t=366


Red meat linked to breast cancer

Eating red meat increases a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer, according to new research from the University of Leeds.

The findings are most striking for post-menopausal women – those with the highest intake of red meat, the equivalent to one portion a day (just over 2 oz or more than 57 grams) - run a 56 per cent greater risk of breast cancer than those who eat none. Women who eat the most processed meat, such as bacon, sausages, ham or pies, run a 64 per cent greater risk of breast cancer than those who eat none.

Researchers at the University’s Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics have been tracking the eating habits and health of more than 35,000 women for the past seven years, and their latest findings are published in the British Journal of Cancer. Earlier findings, widely reported in January, showed that pre-menopausal women who have the greatest intake of fibre have cut their risk of breast cancer in half.

Read full text of the report from the British Journal of Cancer
reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/redmeat.htm

From:
British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 1139 – 1146
Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women’s Cohort Study

[Fauxmage]

If you are worried about your health, read "The China Study", which is an excellent study of the undeniable role animal protein plays in causing human cancer.

If you care at all for any sort of animal, their levels of intelligence have no relation to their ability to suffer. If you ever had the chance, as I have, to know fish and chickens, you would not say this about them.

You will harm yourself, and you will harm them. I can't imagine wanting to eat animal flesh again, ever, not when it was only days after I quit, and not after 31 years either.

[Gliondrach]

Let me say now, that I hate cruelty to animals, BUT, I now feel that fish and poultry are stupid enough for me to eat without a guilty conscience - provided that they are free-range.



Fish and chickens can feel pain. They can suffer. So, if you hate cruelty to animals, you really shouldn't eat them or harm them.

Welcome to the forum.

When didn't it?

[Gliondrach]

And also see the first post in the thread:
http://www.thesaucyvegan.com/showthread.php?t=366

Non-human sugar in biotech drugs causes inflammation

25-Jul-2010
University of California - San Diego

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine have discovered that a kind of sugar molecule common to chimpanzees, gorillas and other mammals but not found in humans provokes a strong immune response in some people, likely worsening conditions in which chronic inflammation is a major issue.

This non-human sialic acid sugar is an ingredient in some biotechnology drugs, and may be limiting or undermining their therapeutic effectiveness in some patients, the scientists report in a letter published in the advance online July 25 edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology. However, they also propose a simple modification to the drug-making process that could solve the problem.

The presence of the non-human sialic acid sugar contaminant, called N-glycolyneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc, has long been known but ignored because it was believed healthy human immune systems did not react to it, said Ajit Varki, MD, professor of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine. "Now we know that to be untrue." "We're all exposed to this non-human sugar," Varki added. "It's part of our diet, and especially abundant in red meat. We all develop antibodies to Neu5Gc, but this immune response varies greatly in people. Meanwhile, Neu5Gc from animal foods can get incorporated into the human body. For most people, this may not be a problem. But for some, the immune response to incorporated Neu5Gc may exacerbate a chronic inflammation process. This isn't the cause of any disease or condition, but we believe it might be akin to adding fuel to an existing fire."

Every animal cell is cloaked in sugar molecules, which serve as vital contact points for interaction with other cells and their surrounding environment. At the same time, the attached sugars are targets for infectious diseases like influenza, malaria and cholera.

"Sialic acids are required for survival, but they're also used to attack you," said Varki, who is founder and co-director of the Glycobiology Research and Training Center at UC San Diego. "They are crucial for things like brain plasticity and kidney function, but lots of pathogens attach to them, and some even coat themselves with these sugars to avoid detection. In evolutionary terms, if you have sialic acid, you're going to be attacked. But you don't have it, you're going to die."

Perhaps because of this evolutionary pressure, different species can have different kinds of sialic acids. In mammals, there are two major types: Neu5Gc and Neu5Ac, which differ by one oxygen atom. Humans have only the "Ac" version; other mammals also have the "Gc" version. This human-specific change likely happened two or three million years ago, said Varki, who also co-directs the Center for Academic Research Training in Anthropogeny at UCSD. "No one knows why, but this may have been selected by an infectious disease, like malaria"

Although the Ac and Gc versions are very similar in structure, the single oxygen atom difference is recognized by the human immune system, which develops antibodies to the non-human sugar.

And therein lies the problem, said Varki. Antibodies are naturally circulating proteins that identify and neutralize invaders, such as viruses or bacteria. Part of that process involves inflammation, the host's attempt to kill and remove invasive cells or tissues perceived to be harmful. If there is a strong antibody response to diet-incorporated Neu5Gc, the resulting inflammation could cause harm to the person. This may partially explain associations between certain foods and increased risk of diseases associated with inflammation, such as cancer and heart attacks – diseases that are rare in other primates.

The problem may also be exacerbated by the presence of Neu5Gc in drugs developed through recombinant biotechnology, some of which are actually used to treat inflammatory disorders. Neu5Gc contamination is unavoidable with current methods, said Varki, because many biotherapeutics such as antibodies, clotting factors or hormones are produced using cells, tissues or serum from mammalian sources, which naturally contain the non-human sialic acid.

Varki and colleagues studied several biotherapeutic agents currently in clinical use, and found the non-human sialic acid in almost all of them, although in varying amounts.

They also report that anti-Neu5Gc antibodies from normal humans interacted with a Neu5Gc-containing drug used to treat some forms of cancer, producing immune complexes in vitro. Mice with a human-like defect in Neu5Gc synthesis also generated anti-Neu5Gc antibodies when injected with the drug, and cleared it from the circulation faster.

These problems were not seen with another otherwise similar drug, which happened to be practically free of Neu5Gc.

"It's reasonable to suggest that for some patients who have problems with some drugs, this may be part of the reason why," although a lot more needs to be done to work out the details," Varki said.

Meanwhile, the UCSD scientists have developed a novel yet simple solution: Add the human sialic acid to the drug-making process. The Ac version, said Varki, competes with the Gc version, reducing the chances of the Gc version making it into the final product.

"In our initial tests, it removes low-level Gc contamination in drugs," said Varki. "It's simple and should only require minor FDA approval for the process adjustment. We think that while we've identified a problem, we've also come up with an answer, at least for some drugs."



Co-authors of the study are Darius Ghaderi, Rachel E. Taylor, Vered Padler-Karavani and Sandra Diaz, all of the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego and in the Glycobiology Research and Training Center.

Declaration: None of the authors have a personal financial interest in any companies whose products are studied or mentioned. Varki is co-founder of Sialix, Inc., a startup biotech company focused on solving problems arising from Neu5Gc

ht--tp://ww--w.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/uoc--nsi072010.php

[ChenLi]

Wow @ the old post about fish and 'poultry'.

Clearly they've had no interaction with either animal. Fascinating creatures.

[Gliondrach]

Animal Protein Bad for Bones

posted 3/03/10

Animal protein is associated with decreased bone health, according to a study in this month's British Journal of Nutrition. In Peking, China, 757 girls with an average age of 10 years were randomly assigned to a group consuming cow's milk fortified with calcium, one consuming cow’s milk fortified with calcium and vitamin D, or a third group that served as controls and made no changes. Bone mass was measured at the beginning of the study and at 12, 24, 48, and 60 months. While calcium intake was positively associated with bone health, animal protein, especially from meat and eggs, was negatively associated with bone mineral density and content.

Zhang Q, Ma G, Greenfield H, et al. The association between dietary protein intake and bone mass accretion in pubertal girls with low calcium intakes. British Journal of Nutrition. 2010;103:714-723.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/archive100302.html

The abstract from the study is below. In case anyone is wondering what some of the things in the abstract mean, 'Ca' is calcium. '3-d' is three days. The proximal forearm and distal forearm are the two ends of the forearm. The proximal is near the elbow and the distal is near the wrist.

Not for nothing am I called Mr Helpful.
----------

British Journal of Nutrition (2010), 103:714-723

The association between dietary protein intake and bone mass accretion in pubertal girls with low calcium intakes

Zhang Q, Ma G, Greenfield H, Zhu K, Du X, Foo LH, Hu X, Fraser DR.

Abstract
To assess the association between protein intakes and bone mass accrual in girls, data were analysed for 757 pre-pubertal girls (mean age 10·1 years) in urban Peking, China, who participated in a 5-year study including 2 years of milk supplementation (intervention groups only) and 3 years of follow-up study. At 0, 12, 24, 48 and 60 months from the baseline, bone mass of the proximal or distal forearm (PF or DF) and total body (TB) was measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; dietary intakes were assessed by a 3-d food record (including two weekdays and one weekend day). Linear mixed models were used and continuous variables were logarithm transformed. The mean longitudinal Ca intake (432–675 mg/d on average) positively influenced bone mineral content (BMC) at TB, PF and DF after controlling for baseline bone mass and other possible confounders. However, negative associations were observed between protein intake (55·9–61·0 g/d on average) and BMC accrual at TB, PF or DF (beta = − 1·92, − 10·2 or − 4·82, respectively, P < 0·01) after adjustment. When protein intake was considered according to animal or plant food sources, protein from animal foods, particularly meat, had significant negative effects on BMC accrual at DF or PF after adjustment. It was concluded that higher protein intake, especially from animal foods, appeared to have a negative effect on bone mass accrual in Chinese pubertal girls with low Ca intakes.
PMID: 19814838
------------

Now, remember this is a study in young Chinese girls. Another study in postmenopausal women found no increased risk of fractures in those with a high protein diet as long as they had enough calcium. But another found an increase in osteoporotic forearm fractures in women aged between 35 - 59 who had high protein intakes. But not an increase in hip fractures. And the risk seemed to be higher with animal protein than with vegetable protein - but they weren't sure. They also said that the lack of evidence for risk of hip fractures may have been due to the low number of such fractures - too few to determine if protein was a risk factor.

As it was found that young girls seem to be at risk of reduced bone health by too much protein and especially animal protein it might be because they are still growing. But it is vital that growing people are not put at risk of bad health.

[Gliondrach]

The scum used mice in this study. I hope it puts the fear of Death into all those who work in slaughterhouses and torture labs.

Airborne Pathogens Can Induce Mad Cow Disease, New Findings Suggest

ScienceDaily (Jan. 13, 2011) — Airborne prions are also infectious and can induce mad cow disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disorder, new findings suggest. This is the surprising conclusion of researchers at the University of Zurich, the University Hospital Zurich and the University of Tübingen. They recommend precautionary measures for scientific labs, slaughterhouses and animal feed plants.

The prion is the infectious agent that caused the epidemic of mad cow disease, also termed bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and claimed the life of over 280,000 cows in the past decades. Transmission of BSE to humans, e.g. by ingesting food derived from BSE-infected cows, causes variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease which is characterized by a progressive and invariably lethal break-down of brain cells.

It is known that prions can be transmitted through contaminated surgical instruments and, more rarely, through blood transfusions. The consumption of food products made from BSE-infected cows can also induce the disease that is responsible for the death of almost 300 people. However, prions are not generally considered to be airborne -- in contrast to many viruses including influenza and chicken pox.

A high rate of infection

Prof. Adriano Aguzzi's team of scientists at the universities of Zurich and Tübingen and the University Hospital Zurich have now challenged the notion that airborne prions are innocuous. In a study, mice were housed in special inhalation chambers and exposed to aerosols containing prions. Unexpectedly, it was found that inhalation of prion-tainted aerosols induced disease with frightening efficiency. Just a single minute of exposure to the aerosols was sufficient to infect 100% of the mice, according to Prof. Aguzzi who published the findings in the Open-Access-Journal "PLoS Pathogens." The longer expo-sure lasted, the shorter the time of incubation in the recipient mice and the sooner clinical signs of a prion disease occurred. Prof. Aguzzi says the findings are entirely unexpected and appear to contra-dict the widely held view that prions are not airborne.

The prions appear to transfer from the airways and colonize the brain directly because immune system defects -- known to prevent the passage of prions from the digestive tract to the brain -- did not prevent infection.

Protecting humans and animals

Precautionary measures against prion infections in scientific laboratories, slaughterhouses and animal feed plants do not typically include stringent protection against aerosols. The new findings suggest that it may be advisable to reconsider regulations in light of a possible airborne transmission of prions. Prof. Aguzzi recommends precautionary measures to minimize the risk of a prion infection in humans and animals. He does, however, emphasize that the findings stem from the production of aerosols in laboratory conditions and that Creutzfeldt-Jakob patients do not exhale prions.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110113213056.htm

That website sometimes sensationalises the results of studies but the actual study from PLoS says:

'In summary, our results establish aerosols as a surprisingly efficient modality of prion transmission. This novel pathway of prion transmission is not only conceptually relevant for the field of prion research, but also highlights a hitherto unappreciated risk factor for laboratory personnel and personnel of the meat processing industry. In the light of these findings, it may be appropriate to revise current prion-related biosafety guidelines and health standards in diagnostic and scientific laboratories being potentially confronted with prion infected materials. While we did not investigate whether production of prion aerosols in nature suffices to cause horizontal prion transmission, the finding of prions in biological fluids such as saliva, urine and blood suggests that it may be worth testing this possibility in future studies.'

[Gliondrach]

Background: The notion that the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is low among the Inuit subsisting on a traditional marine diet has attained axiomatic status. The scientific evidence for this is weak and rests on early clinical evidence and uncertain mortality statistics. Methods: We reviewed the literature and performed new analyses of the mortality statistics from Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. Findings: The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence. Interpretation: The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations. If the mortality from IHD is low, it seems not to be associated with a low prevalence of general atherosclerosis. A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population.

Bertelsen in his classic 1940 description of the disease and mortality pattern among the Inuit of Greenland stated that ‘arteriosclerosis and degeneration of the myocardium are quite common conditions among the Inuit, in particular considering the low mean age of the population.’[1]. Bertelsen, who is considered the father of epidemiology in Greenland, based his opinion both on many years of clinical practice in Greenland and on the reports of medical officers since 1838. Despite this historical background, the unreferenced 1975 statement ‘coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among these people [the Greenland Eskimos] when living in their own cultural environment’ [2] has attained axiomatic status in the atherosclerosis literature [3]. The present article will explore whether this latter widely accepted opinion of the medical research community is valid in the light of current knowledge.
.
.
Adjustment for 'garbage codes' reduced the difference between IHD mortality in Greenland and Denmark considerably. Based on the above, we find the hypothesis that mortality from IHD is low amongst the Inuit compared to western populations insufficiently founded. Since mortality from stroke is higher among the Inuit and Alaska Natives than in the white comparison populations, a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite.

In addition to our own genetic studies among the Canadian Inuit, studies in Greenland have shown a low prevalence of certain apolipoprotein (a) isoforms consistent with a low genetic disposition for IHD (45), but the genotype of the Inuit does not unequivocally indicate a population with a high or low predisposition for atherosclerois.

Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit - what is the evidence?
Atherosclerosis 166 (2003) 351-357

In the earliest study they cite (from 1936 when they would have been living mostly traditional lives), using clinical and x-ray examination of 389 Eskimos, they say: 'Data definitively disprove the alleged absence of arteriosclerosis among the Eskimo.'

Next, we have some information from The Paleopathology of the Cardiovascular System. Texas Heart Institute Journal. 1993; 20:252-7.

Some frozen Eskimo bodies were examined after being recovered from the permafrost. One was the body of a woman found in 1972 who was estimated to have died about A.D. 400. She was about 53 years old at death and had 'a moderate degree of aortic and coronary atherosclerosis, visible grossly as yellow streaking in the brown vessels, and confirmed on microscopy.' There was no sign of a heart attack, though. She died in a landslide or earthquake.

Several other bodies were recovered in 1980. An entire family had been trapped whilst asleep. They had been crushed and frozen, probably in a storm that sent huge pieces of ice on to the land. Only two of the bodies, both women, were well preserved. They had died in about 1520. The younger one had been aged 25-30. The other woman had been aged 42-45. Both showed severe osteoporosis. As the authors said: 'Osteoporosis is a major health problem for modern Eskimos, the most likely cause being the traditional high-protein diet, which results in metabolic acidosis and consequent calcium loss from the bones.'


More cases of osteoporosis:
Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 or 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20-39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated.

Eskimos ... have difficulties in handling carbohydrates to which they are relatively unaccustomed; both sucrose and lactose intolerance have been demonstrated in Alaskan and Greenland Eskimos (8-10), and impairment of glucose tolerance exists in Canadian Eskimos(11).

We have made similar observations on living Canadian Eskimos and also on skeletons. Studies on the bones of a modern Eskimo archaeological population, the Sadlermiut Eskimo from Southampton Island at the northern border of Hudson Bay, have indicated that the Sadlermiut had normal bone composition, and that the densities of bone sections and of whole bones were comparable to those of our white population. However, the older group of Sadlermiut (over 35 years), both male and female, had almost 10 to 15% lower bone weights and densities that the young adults (34, 35). This is a striking concordance with present results in living Eskimos. Interestingly the studies of Merbs (36, 37) on Sadlermiut skeletal pathology have indicated that there was a high incidence of vertebral compression fractures. Recent investigations (Merbs and Mazes, unpublished observations) have indicated that density of long bones was correlated with the number and severity of compression fractures in the Sadlermiut.

Lack of physical activity in the elderly is one mechanism that probably can be excluded for the Eskimos because this population, especially the male, tends to remain quite active.
.
.
Calcium intake (1,2) appears sufficiently high (500 to 2,500 mg daily) to preclude a deficiency of this mineral even in the presence of poor absorption.

The most obvious factor in the 2 to 3% higher rate of bone loss in middle-aged Eskimos would be their meat diet.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1974 Sep;27(9):916-25.
Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos.

[Gliondrach]

UI study: High levels of MRSA bacteria in retail meat products

Jan. 20, 2012

Retail pork products in the United States. have a higher prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria (MRSA) than previously identified, according to new research by the University of Iowa College of Public Health and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

MRSA can occur in the environment and in raw meat products, and is estimated to cause around 185,000 cases of food poisoning each year. The bacteria can also cause serious, life-threatening infections of the bloodstream, skin, lungs, and other organs. MRSA is resistant to a number of antibiotics.

The study, published Jan. 19 in the online science journal PLoS ONE, represents the largest sampling of raw meat products for MRSA contamination to date in the U.S. The researchers collected 395 raw pork samples from 36 stores in Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey. Of these samples, 26 -- or about 7 percent -- carried MRSA.

"This study shows that the meat we buy in our grocery stores has a higher prevalence of staph than we originally thought," says lead study author Tara Smith, Ph.D., interim director of the UI Center for Emerging and Infectious Diseases and assistant professor of epidemiology. "With this knowledge, we can start to recommend safer ways to handle raw meat products to make it safer for the consumer."

The study also found no significant difference in MRSA contamination between conventional pork products and those raised without antibiotics or antibiotic growth promotants.

"We were surprised to see no significant difference in antibiotic-free and conventionally produced pork," Smith says. "Though it's possible that this finding has more to do with the handling of the raw meat at the plant than the way the animals were raised, it's certainly worth exploring further."

To read the full findings from the study, visit: ht--tp://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030092. Additional information about the Center for Emerging Infectious Disease can be found at ht--tp://ww--w.public-health.uiowa.edu/CEID/index.html, and more on Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy at ht--tp://ww--w.iatp.org.

STORY SOURCE: University of Iowa College of Public Health Office of Communications and External Relations, 4257 Westlawn, Iowa City, Iowa 52242.
ht--tp://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2012/january/012012MRSA_pork.html
===========
As the abstract of the study says:

S. aureus was isolated from 256 samples (64.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 59.9%–69.5%). S. aureus was isolated from 67.3% (202/300) of conventional pork samples and from 56.8% (54/95) of alternative pork samples (labeled “raised without antibiotics” or “raised without antibiotic growth promotants”). Two hundred and thirty samples (58.2%, 95% CI 53.2%–63.1%) were found to carry methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). MSSA was isolated from 61.0% (183/300) of conventional samples and from 49.5% (47/95) of alternative samples. Twenty-six pork samples (6.6%, 95% CI 4.3%–9.5%) carried methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). No statistically significant differences were observed for the prevalence of S. aureus in general, or MSSA or MRSA specifically, when comparing pork products from conventionally raised swine and swine raised without antibiotics, a finding that contrasts with a prior study from the Netherlands examining both conventional and “biologic” meat products.

[Bladerunner]

^^^
"This study shows that the meat we buy in our grocery stores has a higher prevalence of staph than we originally thought," says lead study author Tara Smith, Ph.D., interim director of the UI Center for Emerging and Infectious Diseases and assistant professor of epidemiology. "With this knowledge, we can start to recommend safer ways to handle raw meat products to make it safer for the consumer."Safest way of all is don't handle meat products, don't eat meat products.


Bladerunner:no: