Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[Karl Masks]

How will the post-meat future look?​

Less bowel cancer for a start.

Plant-based diet can cut bowel cancer risk in men by 22%, says study

Researchers find no such link for women, suggesting connection between diet and bowel cancer is clearer for men

www.theguardian.com

But not for women?

What is the causal factor?

They studied 80k and 93k men/women respectively and found, after 19 years, only 5k instances of cancer?

Now, I'm not saying there aren't links, I don't know. But it's not exactly conclusive at all. What were the diets of those participating? can we trust food questionaires (personally I think those who are critical of these are a bit too close to crankery, but nonetheless the point still stands)

 

[ddraig]

But but but

 

[Karl Masks]

But but but

What is the causal factor? Can you answer, or do you just want simplistic headlines? Nearly 200,000 participants men and women and only 5000 cases? Hardly screams MEAT HATES YOUR BUM!

 

[ddraig]

What is the causal factor? Can you answer, or do you just want simplistic headlines? Nearly 200,000 participants men and women and only 5000 cases? Hardly screams MEAT HATES YOUR BUM!

Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless

You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable

 

[Karl Masks]

Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless

You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable

Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?

I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha

 

[ddraig]

Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?

I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha

I'm not a fucking doctor, why do you think I owe you an answer? Get over yourself

It's you that's constantly looking for a gotcha and any little thing to justify an attack

 

[editor]

Can you explain why meat doesn't give women CRC?

I don't think you understand any of this and just want a simple gotcha

Plenty of people here you can direct your vital questions to

Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study​

• Jihye Kim,
• Carol J. Boushey,
• Lynne R. Wilkens,
• Christopher A. Haiman,
• Loïc Le Marchand &
• Song-Yi Park

Conclusions​

Greater adherence to plant-based diets rich in healthy plant foods and low in less healthy plant foods is associated with a reduced risk of CRC in men, but not in women. The strength of the association among men may vary by race and ethnicity and anatomic subsite of tumors.

Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study - BMC Medicine

Background Plant-based diets assessed by a priori indices are associated with health outcomes. This study investigated the associations between pre-defined indices of plant-based diets and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluated whether the association varies by sex, race and ethnicity...

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

 

[editor]

Here's some good news for the future

Almost half of those who currently eat meat say they intend to eat less in the short-term future, with almost 30% saying that they plan to eat a plant-based diet in the long term.

Many young people willing to go without cars, meat, and flights to help climate, survey states

The survey of 500 young people found that more than 90% of 16-24-year-olds judge protecting the environment to be very important.

www.irishexaminer.com

 

[editor]

Handy factchecker here

How does livestock contribute to global warming?​

According to FAO data, 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock farming, an industry that emits not only carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) — two gases considered to play a similar role to CO2 in driving global warming. Though methane and nitrous oxide do not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, their respective climate warming potential is about 25 times and 300 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. To compare the impact of different greenhouse gases, a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) is typically calculated.

Examining greenhouse gas emissions tied to livestock farming does not tell us everything about the impact of meat consumption on the climate. As such, comparing greenhouse gas emission from plant-based and animal-based foods is more insightful. A 2021 study published in Nature Food did just this.

It found that that plant-based foods account for just 29% of greenhouse gases emitted by the global food industry. In contrast, 57% of greenhouse gas emission in the industry are linked to breeding and rearing cows, pigs and other livestock, as well as producing feed. A quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions in the food industry are said to result from beef production alone. This is followed by rice cultivation, which generates more greenhouse gases than pork, poultry, lamb, mutton and dairy production.

Verdict​

The meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes not only to global warming but also causes direct environmental pollution. People who eat a lot of meat can help fight the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.

Fact check: How bad is eating meat for the climate? – DW – 10/30/2022

More and more people are going vegeterian or vegan in an effort to help fight climate change. But is a meatless diet really better for the planet?

www.dw.com

 

[Karl Masks]

Plenty of people here you can direct your vital questions to

Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study​

• Jihye Kim,
• Carol J. Boushey,
• Lynne R. Wilkens,
• Christopher A. Haiman,
• Loïc Le Marchand &
• Song-Yi Park

Plant-based dietary patterns defined by a priori indices and colorectal cancer risk by sex and race/ethnicity: the Multiethnic Cohort Study - BMC Medicine

Background Plant-based diets assessed by a priori indices are associated with health outcomes. This study investigated the associations between pre-defined indices of plant-based diets and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluated whether the association varies by sex, race and ethnicity...

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

All these are just links to the same thing: the same study I was referring to.

In so doing you don't provide any further analysis, pertaining to the questions I asked for example.

 

[editor]

All these are just links to the same thing: the same study I was referring to.

In so doing you don't provide any further analysis, pertaining to the questions I asked for example.

You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors.

What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated whataboutery, by the way?

 

[Karl Masks]

You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors.

What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated whataboutery, by the way?

You just posted a bunch of links but they just direct me to the thing I already discussed. Do you understand that? Where is the whataboutery? I directly addressed the content of the study which you initially raised and now you don't want to talk about it? Why did you post it then?

This makes no sense

 

[butcher]

Here's some good news for the future

Many young people willing to go without cars, meat, and flights to help climate, survey states

The survey of 500 young people found that more than 90% of 16-24-year-olds judge protecting the environment to be very important.

www.irishexaminer.com

Gosh 500 people! That is representative.

 

[Karl Masks]

I forego cars and flights.

I couldn't learn to drive (yes you read that right)
I don't have a passport and never have.

I will now eat all the cow

 

[ddraig]

I forego cars and flights.

I couldn't learn to drive (yes you read that right)
I don't have a passport and never have.

I will now eat all the cow

Well done you!

 

[CNT36]

But but but

Awww, look at you thrashing about, bless

You could of course just ignore the thread if it makes you that uncomfortable

I'm not a fucking doctor, why do you think I owe you an answer? Get over yourself

It's you that's constantly looking for a gotcha and any little thing to justify an attack

You can direct your enquiries to the report's authors.

What point are you trying to make with all this uneducated whataboutery, by the way?

This is just weird. They are exactly the sort of questions that should be asked of a study let alone an article about one.

But not for women?

What is the causal factor?

They studied 80k and 93k men/women respectively and found, after 19 years, only 5k instances of cancer?

Now, I'm not saying there aren't links, I don't know. But it's not exactly conclusive at all. What were the diets of those participating? can we trust food questionaires (personally I think those who are critical of these are a bit too close to crankery, but nonetheless the point still stands)

They say 2.9% of participants developed cancer but the important thing is the difference between the diets; in the region of 20% less cancer cases over the lifetime of the study.
We can not trust food questionnaires. People are likely to be inaccurate about what exactly they have eaten.. This may go some way to explaining the differences between men and women. Shy meat eaters hiding in the numbers. Men also have higher rates of the cancer in the general population though when women get it it is harder to detect and diagnosis. This may have made easier to detect changes in the male cohort. The article specifically says the study is unable to identify causal factors. The role of meat in causing cancer is quite well understood though. It is to do with compounds produced when red meat in particular breaks down and how they affect cells in the bowel.

 

[CNT36]

Had a click through to the study had missed the link before. I haven't read through whole thing but it may answer some of your questions. I found this summary in an abstract to a meta analysis they reference that might be of interest.

Red meat and processed meat consumption has been hypothesized to increase risk of cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence of associations between consumption of red meat (unprocessed), processed meat, and total red and processed meat with the incidence of various cancer types. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through December 2020. Using a random-effect meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the highest versus the lowest category of red meat, processed meat, and total red and processed meat consumption in relation to incidence of various cancers. We identified 148 published articles. Red meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03–1.15), endometrial cancer (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.01-1.56), colorectal cancer (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03–1.17), colon cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.09-1.25), rectal cancer (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46), lung cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.44), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46). Processed meat consumption was significantly associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk. Total red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08–1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09–1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04–1.37). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption.

From Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Epidemiology

 

[editor]

Gosh 500 people! That is representative.

It seems pretty much in line with current trends, but perhaps you have some evidence that disproves this? Or are you just in denial?

Statistics gathered up to December 2021 showed that 5% of 18-to-24-year-olds identified as vegan or plant-based; 10% were vegetarian; and 4% were pescatarian.

The diet which has seen the sharpest uptake in recent years however is the ‘flexitarian’ diet. This eating regime is characterised by followers mainly eating vegetarian food, and only occasionally eating meat or fish.

Many followers of this diet do so because of its impact on the environment. Research published in Nature suggested moving to a majority plant-based flexitarian diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 52%.

According to YouGov data, one in five 18-to-24-year-olds follow such a diet – this is double the number reported in 2019.

Half of young people avoid meat as flexitarian diet grows in popularity

Almost half of young people avoid meat to some degree according to YouGov data, and flexitarian diets are on the rise

foodmatterslive.com

 

[Funky_monks]

Had a click through to the study had missed the link before. I haven't read through whole thing but it may answer some of your questions. I found this summary in an abstract to a meta analysis they reference that might be of interest.


From Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Epidemiology

Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat.

As per this letter published in the Lancet:

36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable?

The problem, is, of course as demonstrated above, there appears to be little understanding amongst some contributors to this thread how to read science and also, the many scientists and papers I mention are clearly wrong and all of these scientists are the wrong scientists, because, naturally, they are all shills for the meat industry. Or something.

 

[ddraig]

This is just weird. They are exactly the sort of questions that should be asked of a study let alone an article about one.

They say 2.9% of participants developed cancer but the important thing is the difference between the diets; in the region of 20% less cancer cases over the lifetime of the study.
We can not trust food questionnaires. People are likely to be inaccurate about what exactly they have eaten.. This may go some way to explaining the differences between men and women. Shy meat eaters hiding in the numbers. Men also have higher rates of the cancer in the general population though when women get it it is harder to detect and diagnosis. This may have made easier to detect changes in the male cohort. The article specifically says the study is unable to identify causal factors. The role of meat in causing cancer is quite well understood though. It is to do with compounds produced when red meat in particular breaks down and how they affect cells in the bowel.

They're not asking in good faith tho, check their other posts here and elsewhere

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat.

As per this letter published in the Lancet:

36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable?

The problem, is, of course as demonstrated above, there appears to be little understanding amongst some contributors to this thread how to read science and also, the many scientists and papers I mention are clearly wrong and all of these scientists are the wrong scientists, because, naturally, they are all shills for the meat industry. Or something.

Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.

Oh, and nice move Mr Science: Mmmm, a meta-analysis, I'll just ignore that and cite a letter instead.

 

[editor]

Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.

Oh, and nice move Mr Science: Mmmm, a meta-analysis, I'll just ignore that and cite a letter instead.

It's like the filthy tobacco industry all over again.

 

[Funky_monks]

Well, the affiliation information on the authors shows that at least four of the six of them are either employed by the meat industry or have advisory and consultancy roles with in it. The lead author for example is employed by 'Devenish Nutrition': "an agri-technology company based in Belfast, supplying quality animal feeds for the pig, poultry and ruminant sectors". Maybe they're not shills, maybe they're just people who work for the meat industry and who just happen to write letters defending the meat industry. In their spare time they probably also write letters defending broccoli.

It's referenced, you do know that, don't you?
I've posted more than one meta analysis in here that's been ignored because "the wrong scientists".
Amazing how we've suddenly developed a tiny bit of critical analysis now, isn't it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Back up in the thread somewhere, I posted a study that reviews some of these findings and suggests that whilst the findings for processed meat are substantiated, there is no such causal link for unprocessed meat.

As per this letter published in the Lancet:

36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable?

The problem, is, of course as demonstrated above, there appears to be little understanding amongst some contributors to this thread how to read science and also, the many scientists and papers I mention are clearly wrong and all of these scientists are the wrong scientists, because, naturally, they are all shills for the meat industry. Or something.

The reply to that is interesting. The authors are a bit defensive, indicating that the forthcoming GBD 2020 will tell a rather different story.

For GBD 2020, we have undertaken separate analyses for ischaemic stroke and for haemorrhagic stroke. Based on the meta-regression of available studies, there is a clear protective relationship between red meat intake and haemorrhagic stroke, which will be reflected in the GBD 2020 findings. This protective relationship was not identified in the GBD 2019 analysis because of the pooled approach to analysing ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke data in one meta-regression.

Including the estimated protective effect of red meat on haemorrhagic stroke in GBD 2020 will change the logic and estimates of the TMREL for GBD 2020. We expect that estimates of attributable deaths for red meat will be reduced based on this forthcoming analysis. The star-rating evaluation of the evidence on red meat consumption suggests that once between-study heterogeneity is taken into account, the strength of evidence regarding the relationship between red meat and various outcomes—including ischaemic heart disease—is relatively weak.

36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this reliable? – Author's reply


It does appear that even the authors of GBD 2019 think its estimates are unreliable. We'll see what GBD 2020 has to say.

 

[CNT36]

They're not asking in good faith tho, check their other posts here and elsewhere

I skimmed them here and a few pages back of their posts. I can't really see anything that jumps out.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's referenced, you do know that, don't you?
I've posted more than one meta analysis in here that's been ignored because "the wrong scientists".
Amazing how we've suddenly developed a tiny bit of critical analysis now, isn't it?

Yes, its referenced, but, as a science man, I'm sure you know that the peer review process is more rigorous for an article than a letter?

Your complaint that you've posted meta analyses that have been ignored because they're by "the wrong scientists", is ironic, because that's literally what you just did. In response to the meta-analysis posted by CNT36 you post a letter responding to an entirely different study!

It's just hilarious that you think of yourself as some impartial expert on these matters. You're not. You're in the mud with the rest of us, as biased, as partisan, as selective with facts and data.

And, given that you were moaning about accusations of 'shill' scientists, maybe sharing a letter written by employees of the meat industry wasn't the best move?

 

[butcher]

It seems pretty much in line with current trends, but perhaps you have some evidence that disproves this? Or are you just in denial?

Half of young people avoid meat as flexitarian diet grows in popularity

Almost half of young people avoid meat to some degree according to YouGov data, and flexitarian diets are on the rise

foodmatterslive.com

90% of 500 people asked an undefined question in an unreferenced study say the environment is important according to interpretation by 2nd source, and 500 people is hardly a significant data set. And really, ask any virtue signalling teen what they think about the environment they will give the same response......
ETA: the paper was actually about comparison of inter-generational fears about the environment, and they were given a script to read first stating "

scientists have agreed for more than 30 years that climate change is happening but “older generations did not do enough to stop it.” They also read that “future generations are more likely to experience the worst effects” of climate change and that “young people around the world have started to criticise older people and governments for not taking climate change seriously enough.”

Of course they would then say they are worried about the environment. Read the actual paper if you can be bothered.

WRT to the Nature paper did you read the whole thing or just cherry pick the figures that caught your eye as per? It was an extrapolation to projected figures to 2050 with be caveats.

WRT your YouGov Stats,looks like meat eating is actually gaining a bit of popularity in 18-24 year olds up 10% from Jan 22 to July 22.

Feel free to frantically quote your favourite paper again below.......

 

[Jeff Robinson]

New Ipsos MORI poll finds that 56% of the public favour increasing the provision of vegetarian or vegan options through public food provisioning choices and 47% support a tax on red meat and dairy.

New report examines people’s attitudes to climate change and how this translates into action

Report suggests public support new policies around food and travel – but backing is ‘fragile’.

www.bath.ac.uk

FWIW I don't support a tax on red meat. Even setting aside questions of political feasibility, taxing red meat over white meat would likely just shift people to consume even more chickens, and the vast majority of the suffering in the meat industry is in chicken 'farming'. Governments should remove all state subsidies from animal agriculture and reinvest them in plant-based and cellular meats and precision fermentation so that peoples cravings for meat can be satisfied in a way that don't harm animals, the environment and public health to the extent that animal ag currently does.

 

[editor]

Here's a Harvard published by the BMJ which will no doubt be swiftly ignored, dismissed or whatabouted into oblivion:

Conclusion​

Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, over eight years were associated with a higher risk of death in the subsequent eight years in US women and men. Increased consumption of healthier animal or plant foods was associated with a lower risk of death compared with red meat consumption. Our analysis provides further evidence to support the replacement of red and processed meat consumption with healthy alternative food choices.

What is already known on this topic​

• Higher consumption of red meat has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases and premature death
• Evidence is lacking about how changes in red meat consumption over time influence mortality, or what kind of alternative food choices would benefit health

What this study adds​

• Increases in red meat consumption, especially processed meat, were associated with a higher risk of death
• Decreases in red meat consumption and simultaneous increases in healthy alternative food choices over time were associated with a lower mortality risk
• Further evidence supports the health benefits of replacing red and processed meat consumption with healthy protein sources, whole grains, or vegetables

Association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality among US women and men: two prospective cohort studies

Objective To evaluate the association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality in women and men. Design Two prospective cohort studies with repeated measures of diet and lifestyle factors. Setting Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up...

www.bmj.com

 

[editor]

90% of 500 people asked an undefined question in an unreferenced study say the environment is important according to interpretation by 2nd source, and 500 people is hardly a significant data set. And really, ask any virtue signalling teen what they think about the environment they will give the same response......
ETA: the paper was actually about comparison of inter-generational fears about the environment, and they were given a script to read first stating "

scientists have agreed for more than 30 years that climate change is happening but “older generations did not do enough to stop it.” They also read that “future generations are more likely to experience the worst effects” of climate change and that “young people around the world have started to criticise older people and governments for not taking climate change seriously enough.”

Of course they would then say they are worried about the environment. Read the actual paper if you can be bothered.

WRT to the Nature paper did you read the whole thing or just cherry pick the figures that caught your eye as per? It was an extrapolation to projected figures to 2050 with be caveats.

WRT your YouGov Stats,looks like meat eating is actually gaining a bit of popularity in 18-24 year olds up 10% from Jan 22 to July 22.

Feel free to frantically quote your favourite paper again below.......

You can fluster around all you like, but it would appear that there is a downward trend in eating meat - at least in the UK and US - add that's a good thing, right?

Britons cut meat-eating by 17%, but must double that to hit target

People have been advised to reduce consumption by 30% for health and environmental reasons

www.theguardian.com

Nearly One in Four in U.S. Have Cut Back on Eating Meat

Nearly one in four Americans (23%) report eating less meat in the past year than they have previously, with the highest rates of reported meat consumption reduction among women, nonwhites and Democrats.

news.gallup.com

Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme

Despite the overall reduction in meat intake, reaching meat-consumption targets that align with sustainable diets will require a substantial acceleration of this trend.

www.thelancet.com

A 15-year snapshot of US diets reveals a gradual shift away from beef

US citizens are eating less animal-based products—and that's driven a 35% decrease in dietary carbon emissions over 15 years.

www.anthropocenemagazine.org