A large study found that animal protein is not linked to higher mortality and may even help lower cancer-related deaths.
Eating foods that contain animal protein is not connected to a higher chance of death and may even provide some protection against cancer-related mortality, according to new research.
The findings, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, are based on an analysis of data from nearly 16,000 adults aged 19 and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHAMES III).
Researchers looked at how much animal and plant protein participants consumed and compared those patterns with their risk of dying from cancer, heart disease, or any cause. The results revealed no elevated risk of death linked to greater animal protein intake. Instead, the data pointed to a small but meaningful decrease in cancer-related deaths among people who consumed more animal protein.
“There’s a lot of confusion around protein – how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, which is important for anyone trying to make informed, evidence-based decisions about what they eat,” explains Stuart Phillips, Professor and Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, who supervised the research.
To ensure reliable results, the team employed advanced statistical methods, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method and multivariate Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modelling, to estimate long-term dietary intake and minimize measurement error.
“It was imperative that our analysis used the most rigorous, gold standard methods to assess usual intake and mortality risk. These methods allowed us to account for fluctuations in daily protein intake and provide a more accurate picture of long-term eating habits,” says Phillips.
The researchers found no associations between total protein, animal protein, or plant protein and risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer. When both plant and animal protein were included in the analysis, the results remained consistent, suggesting that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may offer a small protective effect.
A new declaration from the World Health Organization has revealed that it wants the masses to eat less meat and more plant-based foods in order to supposedly combat "climate change."
World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus issued a grave warning on the matter, saying in a video address, "Our food systems are harming the health of people and planet. Food systems contribute to over 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and account for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. Transforming food systems is therefore essential by shifting for this healthier, diversified and more plant-based diets."
"If food systems deliver healthy diets for all we could save 8 million lives per year," Tedros claimed, "WHO is committed to supporting countries to develop and implement policies to improve diets and fight climate change. I'm therefore very pleased that over 130 countries have signed the code 28 UAE Declaration on climate and health. Together, we can protect and promote the health of both people and planet. Thank you."
Watch for 2024 to be the Year of Water Crisis. As we head into the New Year, The New York Times has decided to push a story about a “groundwater crisis” created by the American love of poultry and dairy products.
America’s striking dietary shift in recent decades, toward far more chicken and cheese, has not only contributed to concerns about American health but has taken a major, undocumented toll on underground water supplies.
The effects are being felt in key agricultural regions nationwide as farmers have drained groundwater to grow animal feed.
In Arkansas for example, where cotton was once king, the land is now ruled by fields of soybeans to feed the chickens, a billion or so of them, that have come to dominate the region’s economy. And Idaho, long famous for potatoes, is now America’s largest producer of alfalfa to feed the cows that supply the state’s huge cheese factories.
Today alfalfa, a particularly water-intensive crop used largely for animal feed, covers 6 million acres of irrigated land, much of it in the driest parts of the American West.
These transformations are tied to the changing American diet.
This is a subject that will likely require even more attention in 2024. In early 2023, the World Economic Forum decided that the world wasn’t panicked enough about COVID-19 or carbon dioxide but began turning its attention to a “water crisis.”
To be fair, if she doesn’t give you one red cent you’d be in the same (good)
company as the Virginia GOP the last month or two before the Virginia
elections. . . Honestly I kinda suspect Ronna didn’t give VA GOP $ because
all 3 VA RNC members voted against her in January. . .
https://t.co/yXvxkKqRhA
Beege Welborn comments "Holy SMOKES, if that is even CLOSE to true?! Girlfriend needs a career
in lawn maintenance and small engine repair. DAMN I wish Harmeet had won."
First, he said the FBI staked out their home for THREE MONTHS prior to the
raid on Wednesday am. (Todd, Greg, and another brother live together in
the home their father built in NJ).
After Todd and his other
brother left for work after 6am, Greg left the house around 7am to go to work.
They all work for same company. That's when armed FBI agents and SWAT
vehicles surrounded Greg. "Greg walked out, froze in the face of guns
drawn, and ran."
A woman who lives with them heard the commotion.
When she opened the door, she faced armed agents who told her to get on the
ground. She thought they were being robbed.
About 30 armed agents
stormed the house and property. They threw flashbangs inside areas of the
property including the garage. This resulted in broken windows of vehicles and
a boat. "They went nutty, tore up the house, stuff scattered everywhere."
Agents told Todd, after he returned to the house that afternoon
from work, to open his gun safe. When he refused, they told him if he didn't,
they would break it open. Although not a defendant, FBI took his guns and
ammo. Todd confronted the agents, asking "who killed someone?" They
treated my brother like a criminal, Todd said.
Vehicles were
everywhere blocking the driveway and parked around the property. FBI and local
law enforcement used helicopters, drones, and search dogs to try to track down
Greg. That's when Todd again confronted agents. "Go get Hunter, go get
Joe Biden," Todd said. "Everyone of you is corrupt, you're all Joe Biden's
puppets." He demanded to know why they were not arresting Antifa and
BLM. They then asked him not to be rude, lol.
News reporters
were staked out near the house the entire time. The FBI asked Todd if the
media tried to interview him. He said no, but he hoped they had. "They are as
corrupt as you guys."
At Da Signal, Tyler O'Neil adopts my "testosterone poisoning" theory, Trans Anomaly: Nashville Shooter’s Manifesto Suggests an Inconvenient
Aspect of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Girls just can't hold it as well as boys. "It seems America’s elites
want to silence any debate on these drugs before it begins. Perhaps that
explains why we still don’t know, eight months after the shooting, whether
Audrey Hale was on testosterone." Michael A. Letts at Am Think thinks
The Nashville shooter’s motive was leftist beliefs. "As long as the authorities continue to hide the manifesto, the worse it
continues to look for them. In taking extraordinary measures to hide it, they
tied their own reputations to a mass shooting. They aided and abetted the
crime."
One of the benefits of using coffee as a dry rub is that it can act as a tenderizer. Coffee's natural acidity breaks down the meat's fibers, making your pork chops deliciously soft. Another culinary advantage of using grounds in your dry rub is the impeccable crust they form. When you sear or grill the pork, these coffee grounds give your meat a beautiful, flavorful crunch. But this trick isn't just about adding a delightful texture — the crust also acts as a barrier, helping to seal in the pork's juices. The result? A piece of meat that's not just tender on the inside but is also delightfully juicy. Coffee is also uniquely adept at enhancing and complementing the meat's flavors, making every bite richer and adding earthy notes to the dish's profile.
I dunno, Georgia's brined pork chops are pretty good, and salt is a heck of a lot cheaper than coffee.
World leaders and officials attending the United Nations COP27 climate conference can spend up to $100 per entree to eat red meat, seafood and other gourmet menu items. However, the UN has previously discouraged red meat consumption due to the carbon emissions that beef farming creates.
Delegates who arrive at Egypt’s beachside resort city of Sharm El-Sheikh to discuss ways to mitigate the “climate crisis” are able to enjoy COPGourmet’s $100 Angus beef medallion which is served with mushroom sauce and sauteed potatoes, according to screenshots obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. However, the UN aims to “minimize emissions per calorie” and to reduce meat consumption in order to prevent the planet from overheating, according to a COP27 food security document.
“The menu on offer is yet another example of the staggering disconnect between so-called leaders and the people they represent,” Nathan McGovern, a spokesperson for the animal and climate activist group Animal Rebellion, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It is hypocritical for delegates at COP27 to be dining on the destruction of our natural world, whilst simultaneously claiming to be trying to protect it.”
“It was amusing to hear about how Angus beef and sea bass was being served to certain officials, while at the same time, side events at COP27 were championing the idea of going vegan and eliminating red meat,” Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow President Craig Rucker told the DCNF.
The VIP menu is only available for COP27 attendees who have security clearance to enter the private, “Blue Zone” of the conference. Such attendees can also purchase the $125 “classic cocktail” package to receive unlimited cocktails, foie gras and other savoury as well as sweet snacks for up to 90 minutes.
The UN organizers vowed to make the conference a sustainable and carbon-neutral event to demonstrate their “ambitious aspiration” towards climate action, according to the COP27 official website.
“The conference also had chilly air conditioning, often left its doors wide open to the desert air and featured some 400 private jets flying into a posh Red Sea resort area in a country that gets 90% of its energy from fossil fuels,” Rucker said.
COPGourmet and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
You'll eat your bugs and soy patties and like it, peons!
As President
Joe Biden
signs the largest
climate package in
American history, some leftists are bothered by policymakers’ hesitance to
create a tax on meat.
Democratic
lawmakers have long claimed that excrement produced by livestock and poultry
farming — “farting cows,” as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) once
put
it — have an outsized impact on global temperatures. Discussion about crafting
new disincentives for meat consumption resurfaced as the
Inflation Reduction Act
advanced through Congress after months of gridlock.
Vox
reporter Kenny Torrella, for instance, noted that the Inflation Reduction Act
devotes 5% of its funds toward “changing farming practices” while entirely
ignoring meat and dairy production — the sector’s “biggest climate
culprit.”
“Even though the money to cut emissions from agriculture is misplaced, the
strategy — hand out money to do the right thing rather than penalize polluters
for doing the wrong thing — is politically smart, and in keeping with the
bill’s carrot rather than stick approach to energy,” Torrella wrote. “Just
like the environmental movement had for decades, the effort to shift our
meat-centric food system to a more plant-based one has historically focused on
the stick approach: suing farms for pollution, banning the cage confinement of
hens and pigs, and even floating the concept of a tax on meat consumption.”
Biden
was able to advance many of his policy goals through the $740 billion law,
which includes $369 billion in climate spending. The package likewise
incorporates billions in new taxes that the federal government will reap from
businesses
and the
middle class
with a
twice-as-large
Internal Revenue Service.
Though Torrella admitted that “handing out carrots in Congress might be a more
politically effective path to reforming the factory farming industry, the
emissions that it spews, and the suffering it creates,” he personally
supports
a meat tax, claiming that the approach “has a lot of merit” and could “build
public support for a life and death issue that is too often ignored.”
How
large could such a tax be?
According
to researchers Cameron Hepburn and Franziska Funke, as high as 56% for beef,
25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork — costs that are necessary to
“reflect the environmental costs of their production.”
Kip
Hansen’s recent
WUWT article
was dead-on about nonsense behind meat being a problem for climate change.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), assisted by academics, wants you to believe
that meat is unhealthy compared to
soy, tofu, insect and fungus
protein diets.
The WEF
asserts that
in the future “…meat will be a special treat, not a staple for the good of
the environment and our health.” Academics claim that eating red meat
causes mortality,
numerous types of cancer (colorectal, breast), Type 2 diabetes, and the
list goes on. Does
this make sense?
There is a saying… math is hard. Well, as will
be shown, statistics appears to be even harder for academic food
researchers. A look inside the statistical workings of food research (nutritional epidemiology) is a way to show this and to address doubtful red meat−negative health
claims.
Background
Many food claims – beneficial or
harmful – are made based on observational study of large groups of people
called cohorts. These cohorts are given a
food frequency questionnaire, FFQ. A FFQ asks questions about different types and portion sizes of
foods consumed. Years later food researchers ask about their health
conditions.
They then perform statistical analysis of
food−disease associations with the data collected. Surprising food−disease
associations end up as published research claims. But are these claims
true?
Unhealthy red meat claims merit special attention given the
WEF’s fixation on it. Kip Hansen’s
WUWT article
pointed out an evaluation of red meat FFQ studies completed by the Bradley
Johnston
research group in
2019. It was an international collaboration examining red meat consumption
and 30 different health outcomes.
The Johnston research group
reviewed published literature, selected 105 FFQ studies, analyzed them and
presented their findings in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. They
took a position opposite to the WEF – studies implicating red meat were
unreliable. Their findings created a firestorm among food researchers, who
are mostly academics. More about that later.
Analysis
Statistically
confirming the same claim in another study is a cornerstone of science. This
is called
replication.
Given the potential importance of the Johnston study, it was recently
independently evaluated in a
National Association of Scholars report.
In the report, 15 of the 105 FFQ studies were randomly
selected and subjected to counting of specific details. This included
counting number of food categories, number of health outcomes and number of
adjustment factors in each of the 15 studies.
Food researchers
use various techniques to manipulate FFQ data they collect. Researcher
flexibility allows food categories from FFQs to be analyzed and presented in
several ways. This includes individual foods, food groups, nutrient indexes or
food-group-specific nutrient indexes. It was found that there were from 3 to
51 (median of 15) food categories used in the 15 studies.
The
number of health outcomes ranged from just 1 to 32 (median of 3) in the 15
studies. Adjustment factors can modify a food−disease association. Nutrition
researchers almost always include these factors in their analysis. These
factors ranged from 3 to 17 (median of 9) in the 15 studies.
With
these counts, the analysis search space can be estimated. This is the number
of possible food−disease associations tested in a FFQ study. It is estimated
as
estimated as
the ‘number of food categories’ ´ ‘number of health outcomes’ ´ ‘2 raised to
the power of the number of adjustment factors’.
The typical
(median) analysis search space estimated in the 15 studies was
over 20,000. A large analysis search space means many possible associations can be
tested. Food researchers can then search thru their results and select and
only report surprising results, but also most likely false ones as we now
show.
Now the elephant in the room… many of these types of
analyses are likely performed by researchers with an
inadequate understanding
of statistical methods.
A p-value is a number calculated from a
statistical test. It describes how likely (the probability) you are to have
found a surprising result. It is a number between 0 and 1. The smaller the
number the more surprise (the greater the probability).
The
normal threshold for statistical significance for most science disciplines
is a p-value of less than 0.05. Researchers can claim a surprising result if
the p-value in a statistical test is less than 0.05.
However, a
false (chance) finding may occur about
5% of the time
when multiple tests are performed on the same set of data using a threshold
of 0.05. Five percent of 20,000 possible associations tested may lead to
1,000 false findings mistaken as true results in a study.
The
practice of performing many, many tests on a data set is called
multiple testing. Say 20,000 associations are tested on a red meat FFQ study data set.
Normally only several dozen results from all these tests would eventually be
presented in a published study.
Of course, some of the results
would be surprising. For example, a wild claim that red meat may lead to
complications associated with
erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, their study might not be accepted for publication.
Given
these many tests with 1,000 possible false findings and only several dozen
results presented, how does one tell whether a result claiming red meat
leads to erectile dysfunction complications is true or just a false
finding?
Without having access to the original data set to check
or confirm a claim, you can’t! The Johnston research group was right to call
out red meat FFQ studies as unreliable.
Cue the firestorm.
Nutrition thought leaders – from
Harvard
– badgered the main editor of Annals of Internal Medicine to withdraw
Johnson’s paper before it even appeared in print. The editor held firm. The
food research mob did not prevail.
Implications
Too
many nutrition thought leaders, mostly academics, take a position that
multiple testing is not a problem in food research. They teach it is not a
problem. They are wrong, it is a big problem.
No problem for
them, but massive disinformation problems for everyone else when false
findings are claimed as true results.
John Ioannidis from Stanford and others
have called out multiple testing as one of the greatest contributors to
false published research claims.
FFQ studies using multiple
testing and claiming red meat is unhealthy are largely academic exercises in
statistical flimflamming. Red meat is not unhealthy. It is belief of
deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food
researchers that are unhealthy.
There are over 50,000
food−disease
studies published
since the FFQ was introduced in the mid-1980s. Essentially all these studies
involve multiple testing and are very likely false.
The problem of multiple testing is one of the first things impressed on students in statistics. It is also one of the first things either forgotten or ignored in the rush to publish "hot" new results.
Reporting right from Madrid, where climate hypocrisy was alive and well at COP-25
Craig Rucker
They came for your car, your light bulb, your dishwasher and washing machine, your toilet, your electricity, your airline flight and so much more. Now you can add your burger and steak to their list of what they want to legislate, regulate or confiscate out of your existence. YOUR existence. Not theirs.
The global warming agenda is the gift that keeps on giving for everyone who wants to control what you do. Dangerous manmade climate change justifies all manner of meddling, in the name of saving the planet. And like the mafia, UN cops want a piece of the action whenever money and power are on the line.
Anti-meat crusaders have been pushing hard in recent months to use climate change to achieve their goal of forcing you into an all plant-based diet. This year their rhetoric became a big part of the dialogue at UN 25th Conference of the Parties (COP-25) on climate change, in Madrid.
They’ve introduced a new buzzword you’ll be hearing a lot of, “peak meat” – as in “peak oil,” or something that we’re going to run out of really soon … not because we’re actually going to run out, but because government policies will make it off limits and drive it into oblivion. As CFACT’s team learned – as usual – it’s do as I say, not as I do.
So ban meat, it is, especially beef. But what do you suppose was the big seller for anyone looking for lunch at the UN climate conference? Burger King! Delicious all-meat American burgers, with not a single one of Burger King’s latest meatless Whoppers in sight.
CFACT met with climate delegates as they lined up for juicy burgers and shot a fun video investigation that you’ll enjoy almost as much as a juicy red steak. Our team of reporters included “Benny the Bull,” who was none too amused at UN hypocrites feasting on his friends at the COP. You can watch Benny in action here. . . .
You can take my burger after you pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.
How does the United Nations convince people that they are super serious in their outrage about fossil fuels? How about flying 4,000 people from all over the world in fossil-fueled jet airplanes to isolated Salt Lake City to whine about it? Sounds like a good plan to the United Nations bureaucracy, which is sponsoring a sustainability and climate change conference this week in Salt Lake City.
The UN brags that up to 4,000 people are likely to attend, representing more 300 nongovernmental organizations (read, environmental activist groups) and more than 80 countries. There is no compelling agenda, no compelling actions items, and no expected meaningful outcome from the conference. It is simply an opportunity for leftist global activists to get together and express outrage about economic freedom and the existential global climate disruption that is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced – surpassing Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, the Black Plague, smallpox, AIDS, and the threat of nuclear war combined.
Salt Lake City is an isolated, medium-sized city with little national or international media impact. Most people flying to Salt Lake City for the UN conference will have to make at least one or two connecting flights to get there, exacerbating their carbon footprint for the conference. Why didn’t the UN choose New York or Brussels for such a conference? Because, silly, UN bureaucrats get tired of New York and Brussels and want to go someplace really cool and fun for their events. Carbon footprint, shmarbon footprint.
Seriously, now, if global warming is the greatest existential threat facing humanity, as the UN and Democratic presidential hopefuls claim, why would the UN induce 4,000 people to carbon-bomb the atmosphere with 4,000 multi-leg, roundtrip flights to whine about it? Almost nobody (other than us wonks here at CFACT) really cares or will be paying attention to the conference. Couldn’t they hold the conference at UN facilities in New York or Brussels? Or better yet, couldn’t the conference can be held online for a much lower carbon footprint? . . .
Funny how this so often comes down to Government forcing citizens to change their lifestyles, as demanded by people who won’t voluntarily change theirs
People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned.
Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target.
However, he said technology would help.
The conundrum facing the UK – and elsewhere – was how we shift ourselves away from consuming, he added.
In an interview with BBC News, Sir Ian warned that persuasive political leadership was needed to carry the public through the challenge.
Red Meat!
And taxes!
Sir Ian said polluting activities should incur more tax. He believes the Treasury should reform taxation policy to reward people with low-carbon lifestyles and nudge heavy consumers into more frugal patterns of behaviour.
And, while he tries to say this is voluntary, government will force change
“We’ve got to reduce demand to a much greater extent than we have in the past, and if we don’t reduce demand we’re not going to reduce emissions.
“Emissions are a symptom of consumption and unless we reduce consumption we’ll not reduce emissions.
“It will very rarely come down to a direct message like ‘sorry, you can’t buy that but you can buy this’. But there will be stronger messages within the (tax) system that make one thing more attractive than the other.”
So, why are climate cultists not changing their behavior?
They don't want to cut their carbon footprint. They want to cut your carbon footprint.
Germany could introduce a "meat tax" to protect the climate and improve animal welfare.
Currently meat in the country has a reduced tax rate of seven per cent but the Social Democrat party and the Greens are arguing that this should increase to the standard 19 per cent, with additional revenue spent on improving animal welfare.
"I am in favour of abolishing the VAT reduction for meat and earmarking it for more animal welfare," Friedrich Ostendorf, agricultural policy spokesperson for the Greens told The Local website.
He said it mad "no sense" that meat was taxed at seven per cent while oat milk is taxed at 19 per cent.
Albert Stegemann, the agriculture spokesperson from Angela Merkel's party Christian Democrat party was open to the plans put forward by Germany's Animal Welfare Association. He described them as a "constructive proposal".
Developed countries consume double the global average of red and processed meat and experts belive raising prices would encourage people to eat healthier and less harmful foods.
Current levels of meat consumption are also believed to be unsustainable on environmental grounds.
Earlier this year researchers from City, University of London said developed countries need to eat 80 per cent less meat to safeguard the Earth from environmental disaster.
Beef burgers have been banned by a university as part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency.
Goldsmiths, University of London said it is to remove all beef products from sale from next month as the institution attempts to become carbon neutral by 2025.
Students will also face a 10p levy on bottles of water and single-use plastic cups when the academic year starts to discourage use of the products.
10p! That's absurd. That's 14 cents!
The college’s new Warden, Professor Frances Corner, said staff and students “care passionately about the future of our environment” and that “declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words”.
The move has been backed by Goldsmiths Students’ Union, with president Joe Leam saying that the university has a “huge carbon footprint” and that the promise to eradicate this in the next few years is needed.
A typical barbecue releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a 90-mile car journey, scientists have found.
The study found that red meat such as burgers were the worst culprit – causing nearly five times as much damage as one portion of chicken.
Adding cream to strawberries doubled the amount of greenhouse gas released, scientists said.
Manchester University experts calculated the impact of a typical barbecue meal based around beefburgers, before comparing it with a chicken-based meal, or a vegan option.
Their analysis found the burger meal, topped with cheese, would create more than 800 balloons worth of greenhouse gas emissions for a family of four – equivalent to a 90 mile drive in a typical car.
If the same family swapped the burgers for chicken, the emissions dropped dramatically – to the equivalent of 51 miles.
And those opting for vegetarian sausages, and cutting out extras like cheese and butter, saw their carbon footprint fall still lower, down to 33 miles per family.
Can these people be any more annoying? They can just mind their own business. Try yammering about this in the South and they’re lucky if the only phrase they hear is “bless your heart.” Keep going, and the next discussion involves what highways travel where. See, it’s funny that these same people want the Government out of our bedrooms (code for unfettered abortion) yet want the Government in every other aspect of our lives.
Well, they could nag about plastic bags, straws and disposable plastic cups, plates and cutlery, I suppose. Oh wait, they already do.
Yep, and as far as I know, the death rate is still 100%
Although American adults are eating less red meat than they did 18 years ago, processed meat consumption has remained the same — accounting for one quarter of all red meat and poultry eaten in the United States every year, according to a study published Friday in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Researchers at Tufts University evaluated nearly two decades of National Center of Health Statistics diet recall data collected from nearly 44,000 adults, ages 20 and older, in two-year cycles. The dates were 1999-2000 and 2015-16.The top five processed meats consumed by American adults weekly, in order:
Luncheon meat
Sausage
Hot dogs
Ham
Bacon
Why is bacon on the bottom?
And despite study after study showing the health benefits of eating two servings of fish a week, especially seafood high in omega-3 fatty acids, Americans aren’t consuming any more fish and shellfish than they did in 1999.
“Americans consume more processed meat than fish for each year,” said study author Fang Fang Zhang, a nutrition and cancer epidemiologist at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.
Nothing wrong with the occasional fish. Darcizzle is preparing one of the best I ever ate, a Lookdown, or Moonfish.
Concerns about mercury content in fish and the protein’s high cost could both be contributing factors keeping seafood from gaining popularity in the American diet. Education could be another.
Processed meat is cheap, convenient, it’s everywhere and everybody loves the way this stuff tastes.
“There’s still a lack of awareness around the benefits of consuming fish and the negative impacts of consuming processed meat,” Zhang said. “People may look at protein as protein, but we’re realizing increasingly that the source of protein matters.”
Yet even for bacon-lovers who know it’s bad, its appeal is strong.
“Processed meat is cheap, convenient, it’s everywhere and everybody loves the way this stuff tastes,” said Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. Nestle was surprised to see that the data showed no significant correlation between people of certain income levels or race eating more processed meats.
While the U.S. guidelines include processed meat as part of a balanced diet, as long as they do not exceed the recommended daily sodium or fat intake, the World Health Organization classifies the food as carcinogenic and advises against eating it. The American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention recommend choosing fish, poultry or beans instead of red or processed meat.
Beans? Chili is alright on a sausage.
According to Colleen Doyle of the American Cancer Society, it's unknown whether there is a safe amount of processed meat or if certain processed meats are less unhealthy than others. Studies that have linked processed meat consumption to certain types of cancers have not yet differentiated between red processed meat — such as ham — or white processed meat, like turkey.
Warning labels?
Widespread education campaigns that mirror those that curbed tobacco use and red meat consumption could be the first step, the research suggests, but both Nestle and Zhang agree that it will take more than education. . . .
"These new compound-specific isotope measurements confirm earlier interpretations of Neanderthal diets as being composed of mainly large herbivores," researcher Michael P. Richards said.
The popular interpretation of the Neanderthal diet has always been meat-centric. But a handful of recent studies have called the assumption into question.
Let me guess, the handful of recent studies that called that assumption into question were vegan feminists.
New analysis of the Neanderthal diet by scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology showed the original interpretation is correct. Neanderthals, researchers confirmed, ate mostly meat.
Scientists typically determine a species' tropic level, its position on the food chain, by measuring nitrogen isotope ratios.
Neanderthals exhibit elevated nitrogen isotope ratios, but some researchers have argued those measurements can be explained by Neanderthals' consumption of mammoth meat or putrid meat. A few studies have argued cannibalism boosted Neanderthals' nitrogen isotope ratios.
It OK if they ate each other, as long as the only other thing they ate was fruits and nuts.
Because many of the bones used to measure Neanderthals' nitrogen isotope ratios have been sourced from infants and juveniles, some scientists have also suggested Neanderthals were late-weaned. Fish consumption, typically thought to be a signature of modern humans, has also been offered as an explanation for Neanderthals' elevated nitrogen isotope ratios.
Because so many explanations could in theory explain the elevated ratios, researchers decided to turn a different analysis technique, a novel method called compound-specific isotope analyses, or CSIA.
"There has recently been some frankly bizarre interpretations of the bulk isotope data ranging from Neanderthals primarily subsisting on aquatic plants to eating each other, both in direct contrast to the archaeological evidence," said Michael P. Richards, researcher at Simon Fraser University in Canada. "These new compound-specific isotope measurements confirm earlier interpretations of Neanderthal diets as being composed of mainly large herbivores."
I would suggest the scientists proposing bizarre interpretations to support vegetarian diets didn't live at the height of the ice age.
