Carcinogens in Meat

Carcinogens in Meat
4.69 (93.85%) 65 votes

Eight preparation methods to reduce exposure to carcinogens in cooked meat.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

What are some of the ways we can decrease our exposure to the “carcinogenic substances in meat [that are] formed during cooking”? They have a whole list of hazard factors. The first factor is “meat type,” with processed meat—red or white—being the worst. Then “[cooking] temperature,” with cooking at or under 260 degrees Fahrenheit—so, like boiling or microwaving, safer; whereas broiling, roasting, or pan-frying is the worst. “Turning [it] over” every minute lowers risk, and, rather than a “dark [and] flavorful” crust, they recommend pale and soft. Cooked rare lowers risk, as long as you meet food safety guidelines. Spices or a vinegar-containing marinade lowers carcinogen formation. Avoid gravy, stick to one serving (which is like “a deck of…cards or [the size of a] bar of soap”), and eat vegetables and fruit with your meat. Even just being around a barbecue may be a bad idea, even if you don’t eat anything off of it.

Here, they estimated the extra lifetime cancer risk associated with standing about six feet away from a charcoal grill every day, and about 30 feet away, with both 25% skin exposure and 100% skin exposure. They’re not talking about grilling in the nude. This is out of the recognition that light clothing probably provides little protection from these “gaseous” carcinogens. Skin “contact is often neglected in [these kinds of risk] assessments of [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons].” But, we know it’s a problem from studies on firefighters that show that even in “full protective” gear, breathing through a respirator, they still end up with these compounds in their bodies—likely through their neck, under their helmets.

“These results indicated that outdoor exposure to barbecue fumes (particularly [through the skin]) may have become a significant but largely neglected source of health hazards.” But, their estimates were from barbecuing once a day, every day, year-round. Though they’re thinking the toxic fumes might actually stick to people’s clothing, which they could then bring inside with them to continue exposure.

These are all some of the chemicals that led to the official scientific body that determines what is and is not carcinogenic to declare that processed meat does cause cancer, and red meat probably causes cancer. They considered both the nitrites in processed meat, as well as these cooked-meat carcinogens. “However, due to the practically unavoidable presence of other carcinogenic compounds, which are already present in raw or unprocessed meats,…these chemicals are not the only potentially carcinogenic substances in meat and meat products. These other substances are well-known environmental pollutants, such as some heavy metals,…dioxins, and…PCBs,” so-called persistent organic pollutants, to which we’re “primarily [exposed via] dietary intake of dairy products, meat, and fish.” Although dioxins are created when paper pulp is bleached, I have a feeling this is an autocorrect error.

How bad a problem is this in the United States? “The…USDA…examined whether levels of dioxin-like compounds…in meat and poultry…indicate possible concern for U.S. public health,” and they concluded that “a typical U.S. adult’s daily exposure…is below the EPA-established [reference dose]”—meaning the maximum acceptable limit of a toxic substance. “Only children consuming [average] daily servings of meat or poultry…[regularly] containing the highest…levels…may exceed the [limit].”

Putting all the carcinogens together, some toxicologists suggest “limit[ing the] consumption of beef, pork, and chicken so that children…consume at most five servings [combined] of [all these] meats each month.” So, on average, like one serving every six days or so, max. Yeah, but what about organic meat? We’ll find out, next.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Nik MacMillan via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

What are some of the ways we can decrease our exposure to the “carcinogenic substances in meat [that are] formed during cooking”? They have a whole list of hazard factors. The first factor is “meat type,” with processed meat—red or white—being the worst. Then “[cooking] temperature,” with cooking at or under 260 degrees Fahrenheit—so, like boiling or microwaving, safer; whereas broiling, roasting, or pan-frying is the worst. “Turning [it] over” every minute lowers risk, and, rather than a “dark [and] flavorful” crust, they recommend pale and soft. Cooked rare lowers risk, as long as you meet food safety guidelines. Spices or a vinegar-containing marinade lowers carcinogen formation. Avoid gravy, stick to one serving (which is like “a deck of…cards or [the size of a] bar of soap”), and eat vegetables and fruit with your meat. Even just being around a barbecue may be a bad idea, even if you don’t eat anything off of it.

Here, they estimated the extra lifetime cancer risk associated with standing about six feet away from a charcoal grill every day, and about 30 feet away, with both 25% skin exposure and 100% skin exposure. They’re not talking about grilling in the nude. This is out of the recognition that light clothing probably provides little protection from these “gaseous” carcinogens. Skin “contact is often neglected in [these kinds of risk] assessments of [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons].” But, we know it’s a problem from studies on firefighters that show that even in “full protective” gear, breathing through a respirator, they still end up with these compounds in their bodies—likely through their neck, under their helmets.

“These results indicated that outdoor exposure to barbecue fumes (particularly [through the skin]) may have become a significant but largely neglected source of health hazards.” But, their estimates were from barbecuing once a day, every day, year-round. Though they’re thinking the toxic fumes might actually stick to people’s clothing, which they could then bring inside with them to continue exposure.

These are all some of the chemicals that led to the official scientific body that determines what is and is not carcinogenic to declare that processed meat does cause cancer, and red meat probably causes cancer. They considered both the nitrites in processed meat, as well as these cooked-meat carcinogens. “However, due to the practically unavoidable presence of other carcinogenic compounds, which are already present in raw or unprocessed meats,…these chemicals are not the only potentially carcinogenic substances in meat and meat products. These other substances are well-known environmental pollutants, such as some heavy metals,…dioxins, and…PCBs,” so-called persistent organic pollutants, to which we’re “primarily [exposed via] dietary intake of dairy products, meat, and fish.” Although dioxins are created when paper pulp is bleached, I have a feeling this is an autocorrect error.

How bad a problem is this in the United States? “The…USDA…examined whether levels of dioxin-like compounds…in meat and poultry…indicate possible concern for U.S. public health,” and they concluded that “a typical U.S. adult’s daily exposure…is below the EPA-established [reference dose]”—meaning the maximum acceptable limit of a toxic substance. “Only children consuming [average] daily servings of meat or poultry…[regularly] containing the highest…levels…may exceed the [limit].”

Putting all the carcinogens together, some toxicologists suggest “limit[ing the] consumption of beef, pork, and chicken so that children…consume at most five servings [combined] of [all these] meats each month.” So, on average, like one serving every six days or so, max. Yeah, but what about organic meat? We’ll find out, next.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Nik MacMillan via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

Another way to decrease exposure is to move towards a more plant-based diet. For example, check out How Not to Die from Cancer.

Stay tuned for my next video: Is Organic Meat Less Carcinogenic?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

131 responses to “Carcinogens in Meat

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. I’m pretty excited to see what the science has to say on conventionally raised vs organic meat. Maybe we will be able to get
    some people to stop deluding themselves into thinking that their more expensive meat is so much safer than standard meat and dairy

    1. Then they’ll just say it has to be ccoked at low temperature (it’s the cooking method that’s the problem, not eating meat, heavens no) or it has to be exclusively grass-fed not just organic meat, or it has to be meat from heritage breeds. Or they didn’t dance naked, three times widdershins around a bonfire in the moonlight before eating the meat did they? That’s why the studies got it wrong

      1. Sorry grass fed as opposed to regular. I assume grass fed would be free range and/or possibly organic in marking depending on specific.

    2. I have lost 70 pounds on a ovo-lacto vegetarian ketogenic diet. But most of my online keto friends eat a lot of meat, so I plan to share a link to this video with them. Thank you! I’m really happy you mentioned POP’s. While losing weight, I have been concerned about the liberation of POP’s from my stored body fat. It’s one of many reasons I’m taking it slow (less than 1.5 lb. a week) I’m excited that you will be publishing a book later this year on a broader range of dietary options for weight loss. Keto and intermittent fasting reversed my morbid obesity, and has been the easiest diet I’ve done to date. FYI: I’ve been consistently vegetarian for 45 years; vegan or veganish for decades of that time.

    1. These studies were specfic to:

      1. rats
      2. casein, and
      3. aflatoxin poisoning

      Saying that these studies demonstrate that all animal proteins cause cancer in humans even in the absence of aflatoxin poisoning would appear to be drawing a very long bow.

      1. No, it does not say that it causes cancer, it says that it favors cancer developement which has been initiated by a carcinogen (tested with the most potent known carcinogen aflatoxin), and yes, Campbell et al. conclude that all animal proteins favors cancer development, as they are proteins with complete amino-acids profile (1). Chemicals or pollutants may disturb the immune system and create the conditions for cancer initiation, but cancer development is linked to protein metabolism: the more one eats “complete” proteins, the more the cancer grows. Plant proteins with incomplete amino-acid profiles doesn’t have such effect.

        (1) Schulsinger et al. Effect of Dietary Protein Quality on Development of Aflatoxin B1 -Induced Hepatic Preneoplastic Lesions
        https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/81/16/1241/969468?redirectedFrom=fulltext

        1. I am doing ann of 1 trying to replicate T. Colin Campbell’s experiment trying to shut off the Cancer in my dog with hemangiosarcoma.

          He is so close to his old self since I got rid of the animal products that it doesn’t look like he might die any day.

          I missed the olive oil on his canned food label though and I was watching T. Colin Campbell saying even the smallest amount of animal product increased it and I have to start making my own pill pockets to get rid of the rest of it.

          I got him to eat pineapple the past few days. Working on increasing those enzymes. He only eats a few bites though.

          He looks so good, but my vet says that the bloodwork shows that he is still dying.

          But he hasn’t even slown down all that much and he would eat all day long so I am still testing broccoli and pineapple for their superhero powers.

          1. William Li said a mysterious sentence that immunotherapy doesn’t work if the people don’t get the bacteria from cranberry or pomegranate so I have to figure out can I give capsules full of Pom or has that lost its enzymes? How about cranberry sauce? Are there any enzymes left in that?

            He doesn’t eat either of those in their natural form.

                1. Thanks Tom,

                  I will try that.

                  I haven’t figured out his food yet.

                  After he rejected it, I started giving one thing at a time to see which thing he was rejecting.

                  So far, he is eating just about all of it, just not together.

                  I think he doesn’t like mushrooms and that is what tested to lengthen their lives.

                  I bought supplements, but genuinely prefer giving him food.

                  1. As the human of a plant based corgi I might be of some help.
                    Have you tried sauteeing the mushrooms? That’s what gets them eaten here or do the have to be raw for all of the beneficial effects? Also legumes are a big hit, I just cook a serving or two more when I make them.
                    Bell peppers (not the green though), tomatoes and about anything remotely related to cabbage, the later only cooked, get’s him to do about anything. Same goes for yeast pills (not sure if that’s a thing in the US).
                    Lately mine is also interested in berries, especialy raspberries, if I’m not careful he eats them all and I get none.

                    Hope you can help your canin friend

                    1. Thanks for the help.

                      Good to hear from an owner doing a plant based menu.

                      I wish I could get my dog to eat berries. I am happy that I can get him to eat pineapple and watermelon. Enzymes and lycopene is a start. Mine loves tomatoes and sweet potatoes. He also loves tempeh and edamame, but only gets those in small doses. He seems to enjoy bell peppers and eats broccoli, if I remember to start with it. If I start with artichoke, he won’t eat the broccoli. Apples is similar. If I feed them when he is hungry, he will eat a whole apple. If I try to add them in when he is still looking for food at the end, he won’t touch them. I got him to eat two slices of beet. Kale, he will eat if it is crunchy stemmed. Not at all if it isn’t.

                      He eats pearled barley and chick peas and lentils and split green peas and would like more rice, but I am the one eating the rice and I am not so sure about the whole glycemic index thing. Trying to use wisdom.

                      I have to go back and watch the apoptosis videos and look at those foods again. I still have plenty of anti-angiogenesis foods.

                      That is a good question about the mushrooms. I do heat them, because of the toxin in mushrooms unless they are heated theory of things. I have learned that the toxin grows back in leftovers and you have to heat them again, so leaving the mushrooms out of the base. I did buy some Turkey Tail Mushroom and Maitake Mushrooms capsules and I do give those now, but I preferred giving the mushrooms themselves.

                      I tasted my first apricot kernel today. It tastes like Marzipan with a kick. Not as much of a kick as Wasabi or a Jalapeno or some other strong flavor. I was happy about that, because “bitter” doesn’t sound like something I would subject my dog or myself to. It was as if you got Marzipam at the holidays and forgot it until the next year and maybe ate it after something with vinegar, but the flavor is less of a kick than vinegar.

                      Praying about how to use them. I saw enough images that tell me that it does help shrink stupid tumors. Dosage for a dog is an issue.

                      If my vet is right, I have one or two weeks left at the most.

                      Those and the enzymes are the brand new players in this war.

                      I already wanted to cycle off the turmeric and ginger and other spices, because they can affect the anemia, so it feels right to try the next things.

                      I think the enzymes will be the main focus over the next few days and I will try a few apricot kernels.

                      But I still have to re-watch the apoptosis videos.

          2. Deb, my dog eats from the broccoli family, but forget lettuce, etc.! Kale stems–good. Leaves–not so much. My meat-eating husband had been giving him “twistems” (dried hide?) I thought I could protect him from cancer with fruits, (which he likes,) and the broccoli family veggies, but he has a tumor between his toes right now which will come out tomorrow and the vets say hasn’t spread…. Keep us informed about your dog.

            1. Thanks Liisa,

              Sorry to hear about your dog!

              My dog wasn’t expected to live through the first weekend, and it is a month tomorrow, so I am already blessed.

              Let me know how it goes with the surgery. I was just looking at a Chinese herb, called Tumoclear on Activeherb.com. They also have something for protecting the liver after you get cancer. Pondering those today.

              I keep looking everything up and I keep doing every type of math, including financial cost and “Chinese studies are bogus” math and “anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence is both important enough to try some things and not important enough to take risks.

              I know I don’t have much time to figure out if I can figure this out, so I am looking behind every stone.

              He looks totally normal and it is hard to understand that on the inside, he has a death sentence type cancer and has the worst case of it that my vet ever witnessed and that he is expected to drop dead all of the sudden, and it was expected to happen already. I look at him smiling up at me asking to go out and I can’t even understand that he has something terminal. It is inconceivable. The vet gave me the number of the slight drop in Red blood cells and the continued drop in liver function and those two things are the only sign that anything is wrong.

              I am happy that I am making my own food now and that it is vegan no oil and as low glycemic index as possible.

              That is how I am stopping time as much as possible.

              1. I left him at the vet today in a cage with a pleasant mat but he looked so sad and inquisitive as I left. I should have let the tech take him back…. :( Surgery tomorrow….

                1. Awwww, that is so painful.

                  Yes, my dog did not understand his three days and nights in the animal hospital at all.

                  I really thought I was going to be putting him down, but the vet suggested that we meet outside and that I let my dog see me through the door and he came out and jumped straight into the car, which I had the doors open, in case he was coming home.

                  I was looking at the Apricot Kernels again tonight. There are a lot of sites with legitimate pictures of dogs with tumors, and while the tumor regresses and with it gone at the end. Enough that I genuinely might be trying it. There were 7 months after diagnosis of Hemangiosarcoma testimonials and things like that. The thing is, I think I already have been healing him. I just know that the vet keeps making it clear that he does not expect him to be alive for more than a week or two more and didn’t expect him to last the month. He said that if my dog lives two months, he will sit with me and ask me what I did, because even dogs who get the spleen removed and go through chemo often don’t last more than a month – two or three at the longest and my dog’s cancer is so big and I didn’t do surgery or chemo, so if he lives two months, the vet will consider it significant enough to want to know what I have to say.

                  He does house calls, so if he is still alive a few months from now, we might be having a cup of Matcha tea. He has Cancer and I gave the name of Dr. Greger’s book to him a few times. We will see what happens, but I honestly think he will be alive longer.

                  Reading all of the people eating the apricot kernels makes me laugh that people are worried about the cyano version of B-12.

                  I won’t just give him anything, but the photos of the tumors going away without surgery or chemo is enough for me to try it.

                  1. Deb

                    The apricot kernels thing is nonsense probably. I say that because the sweet apricot kernels contain little to no amygdalin/latrile/B17. They are however perfectly safe or so I understand.

                    Kernels from bitter apricots on the other hand do contain significant amounts of amygdalin/laetrile/B17. They have been known to kill people. There is a risk of cyanide poisoning if you feed t your dog bitter apricot kernels.

                    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772248.2015.1030667?journalCode=gtec20
                    https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/laetrile-pdq
                    https://www.omicsonline.org/cyanide-poisoning-in-a-children-caused-by-apricot-seeds-2157-7420.1000106.php?aid=1583

                    1. Thanks for the links Tom.

                      I will look at them.

                      I was just celebrating re-watching an Amla versus Cancer video.

                      Anti-anemic, protects liver, apoptosis are all I needed to hear. I haven’t been giving him much of that, but he is going to be getting more of that now.

                    2. The children getting cyanide poisoning piece helped me.

                      It gives me a closer concept of weight and amount of kernels, etc.

                      I have them on-hand, and am not throwing out the photos of the tumors shrinking, but this week will be Amla and Enzymes.

                      Amla is what I need right now.

                      Anti-anemia, protects the liver and might still do the job of causing apoptosis is my stand-in for Turmeric.

                      I might be getting some Triphala from an every batch tested for heavy metals by a third party place.

                      Gotta look that up.

            2. Just read that Kale isn’t good for dogs.

              Kale and turnip and garlic and onions can contribute to Heinz Anemia.

              My dog used to jump on the Kale if it fell on the floor.

              He doesn’t do that anymore.

              I am going to be buying some lab tested Triphala,

              It is inexpensive and I can get a lot based lab test report.

              I already have lab tested Amla and that is in Triphala, but Triphala is markedly more powerful and I need all the power I can get and I found a dog who had Cancer, whose owner treated him with that.

              I can get a jar of it for $9 and a whole pound of Triphala for $20.

              The anti-anemia and protecting the liver are probably my bigger focus right now.

              My dog isn’t getting animal products or oils right now, so the Cancer is not multiplying like it was.

              The anemia and liver problems are more urgent this week.

              1. Deb–better than expected. The surgeon said it went well and at first I was told he would limp afterward, but now I’m being told that the limp will be temporary until he heals.

                Now where did you find out about kale being bad for dogs? I see from searching that there’s a wide variation in opinions on this topic.

          3. If you watch the #1 Anticancer Vegetable video https://nutritionfacts.org/video/1-anticancer-vegetable/ you will see that all the cruciferous family is very effective. Not just broccoli. My dogs love canned collards. They get very excited when I open a can. Available at WalMart, picked and packed same day, for just 44 cents a can. Very convenient. Price Rite also has frozen collars for cheap. They also eat potatoes, corn grits and oat groats at each meal for calories.

            1. My dog loves goji berries. Has that been tested to see as safe for dog…I would guess not but she seems totally fine with it and likes it. I had one dog before knowing grapes were bad for dogs I would give a grape in his food. Remarkably no matter how concealed above or below a dish of hot soup like stuff..in the end the grape would be in the middle untouched and the rest of the dish completely clean not a scrap or drop left. Some dogs seem to know.

              But goji berries I think have great antioxidant effects and some other things that may help. I just give a one or two though not a plate of them.

              1. My dog doesn’t seem to know and care. He eats lots of grapes, just need to cut them up otherwise the get through untouched. As far as I know the statement “grapes are poisonous for dogs” comes from 7 dogs from the US and GB who, after having eaten grapes, got sick, some even died. But nobody ever proved that it were the grapes themselfe, not something on them, pesticides or something like that. Or maybe the dogs were allergic to grapes.
                Luckily I didn’t notice that mine had eaten some, otherwise I might have paniced, but since nothing happened to him, he gets his share of grapes like with everything else I eat and he likes, which is pretty much anything apart from lettuce and raw spinach.

            2. Thanks Blair!

              I will check it out!

              Figuring out what my dog will eat has become an expensive adventure.

              Dogs will drink out of puddles and might well eat their own poop, if they aren’t well-trained, but put something like blueberries in front of them and they do the whole push the bowl away with their noses and glare at their owners and then, if the owner leaves the unwanted food in the bowl, later, they run over to the bowl looking to see if anything has changed on the inside of it and push the bowl away again.

              My dog eventually will often eat what is in there.

              But some things, he will eat everything else and there will be the same carrot left in the dish all day long.

              1. In the case of metastatic cancer, I would give your dog CBD-rich cannabis material. CBD has been found efficient in reducing metastasis of cancer cells.

                1. Thanks AB30.

                  I bought hemp seeds.

                  I had a peanut butter flavored hemp oil, which he loved, but which was expensive and lasted 6 days. Not practical.

                  Amla and Triphala I can get enough to last 3 months for $20.

                  Turmeric was another inexpensive Cancer killer, but I have moved to Amla next.

                  The mushroom caps which they studied for his Cancer are expensive and he would have to take 9 cspsules per day.

                  I did but some, but I read someone who believes their dog got Heinz Anemia from it.

                  Feels safer to keep rotating between the superfoods.

                  Lots and lots of things kill Cancer.

                  I am evaluating it all.

                  Can anyone help me with the Amla dose which makes the Cancer die on Dr Greger’s video?

                  I need to figure it out and I don’t understand which measure looks like those letters.

                2. AB30

                  I didn’t finish the line of thought for CBD oil.

                  I did find a big bottle and it was cheaper and I had the thought that I could add my own peanut butter powder….

                  The problem was, right about then, I watched a video of a woman whose Cancer grew out of control with flaxseed oil.

                  That caused me to watch John McDougall’s video about no oil at all and he said that flaxseed oil causes Cancer to grow 1000 times faster and caused animals to have more tumors and bigger tumors.

                  Also, the Omega 3’s in oil form cause humans to bleed out they die from nose bleeds.

                  My dog has anemia and Cancer and the oils I gave for a week are ones that are pushed on the Cancer community, but they may have caused his Cancer to spread.

                  And the turmeric already may have contributed to anemia, but at least it really does kill Cancer, rather than grow it.

                  My dog is no oil.

                  He might die any day, but I am moving to anti anemia liver protective super foods and off of the other ones to see if I can buy more time.

        2. I did Dr. Campbell’s nutrition course at eCornell and plant proteins were as much carcinogenic as animal proteins when Dr. Campbell added the limiting amino acid to the plant based chows. Adding the limited amino acid is exactly what your body does when you eat a varied wfpb diet.

          He did say that you can add a couple of percentage points more before plant proteins would cause cancer but overall they are both carcinogenic (according to him at around 15-18% protein in the diets.

          Take note that these were animal studies and that what he did was feeding isolated casein protein powders and not whole foods.

          1. Casein protein powders are typically milk protein powders..

            Casein is the name for a family of related phosphoproteins. These proteins are commonly found in mammalian milk, making up 80% of the proteins in cow milk and between 20% and 45% of the proteins in human milk. Casein has a wide variety of uses, from being a major component of cheese, to use as a food additive”

            There is some study which shows a increase in IGF-1` levels in those who intake large quantities of soy protein something to the extend of 15 servings per day, but milk and meat, particularly milk, . Milk is the most commonly found source of instigation in the American diet.

            Please show study of plant protein producing this or other cancer favoring effect.
            Consumption of protein likely has a very different effect on humans than other mammals. Speaking to this difference is the vastly different proportion of protein in human breast milk as opposed to others. This however in isolated consideration speaks not to protein being bad but the growth necessities of different mammals as they advance from birth to mature. We grow comparatively very slowly into maturity.

          2. When I saw an interview with him, he said plant proteins didn’t cause Cancer.

            He pointed to animal proteins and oils.

            I wonder which study changed his mind.

            I can’t afford his class right now. I will have to keep watching interviews with him to see if he said it anywhere else.

        3. Some years ago, after reading Campbell’s The China Study, I did a Pubmed search for articles on casein consumption and cancer in humans. All the studies I found showed no effect except for one which showed an association between casein consumption and advanced prostate cancer.

          Campbell’s opinions are alays worthy of consideration but where is the supporting evidence from human studies?

          There is little doubt I think about the link between animal foods consumption and cancer. However the mechanism is unclear and it is likely that multiple factors are involved – IGF1, haem iron, Neu5Gc, compete proteins, common cooking methods etc

          However, even Campbell found that low levels of animal protein ‘switched’ cancer off. Also, single plant foods with incomplete proteins, may be harmless but what about meals? Rice and beans will probably constitute a meal containing complete protein.

          Here is the link to the IARC report on meat, fish, dairy and cancer if people are intereested. Nothing on frogs’ legs and snails though.

          https://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/sp156/sp156-ch4.pdf

          1. Tom,

            That is a great link.

            I do respect all of the researchers, even if science changes with more understanding.

            To me the switching Cancer on and off with Caseine is a valuable understanding even if it doesn’t translate to being the same in human beings.

            I feel like he deserves respect, because of his place in history, similar to people like Pritikin.

            I look at Dr Kelly or was it Dr Kelley who after being inspired by Campbell’s work saved the lives of people at his clinic. He said that the people who stuck with the diet lived and the ones who didn’t stick with it died.

            Campbell switching Cancer on and off is the biggest encouraging thing to me right now as I try to work my dogs Cancer through mostly with diet.

            I am not sure I would have tried to save him if there had not been hope and I have already been blessed with an amazing month.

            1. So Tom you believe rice and beans together are dangerous? Is that what you are saying?

              I am eating that combination very often, so if you have something you are going to point to, let me know.

              1. Listening to Dr Furhrman, he talked about T. Colin Campbell’s finding of not having Cancer turn on at 5% of the Caseine.

                To me, that is so significant.

                He has taken a lot of hits from lots of directions, but the doctors who used his principles spoke with deep respect for his role in history.

                Yes, there are mechanisms which still aren’t understood, but I feel like he permanently is part of the equation. Like Pritikin or John McDougall or Esselstyn.

                The fact that nobody at all fully understands the mechanism causes me to not throw and of the researchers under the bus.

              2. Deb

                No. I do not believe that rice and beans together are dangerous. I eat them often.

                What I believe is that together rice and beans provide comlete protein. And if complete protein does promote cacer, then rice and beans would promote cancer. However, there is no evidence that they do.

            2. That was Dr John Kelly. Dr Kelley was in fact a dentist and somebody I personally would consider to have been a dangerous quack.

              The Campbell study though, was 100% in the context of cancer caused by aflatoxin poisoning . In rats. And only casein was tested.

              But yes, give up animal foods and give up highly processed plant foods (not to mention chocolate, cocoa and even tea – all toxic to dogs)

              1. Back in the day, who knew that chocolate is a no-no for dogs — not our family! I used to be a great maker of fudge, and would share some of it with our little part fox terrier and part who-the-heck-remembers (mutt?). Oh boy! Lots of yap-yapping would ensue. She ate a lot of crap, come to think of it. Nevertheless, she lived to be 13 and got hit by a car.

                  1. My uncle’s dog ate a whole box of chocolate, which was on a low table one Christmas, while people were in the other room.

                    She survived and didn’t even get sick at all.

                    Probably depends on the size of the dog.

          2. Tom the idea of incomplete protein is a bit of a misstate. All protein foods are complete in amino profile with the exception of gelatin.
            Of course protein has variance and different levels of aminos constitute it.

            The rice and beans combination is pretty dated stuff.

            1. This from the internet magazine health…
              “according to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the terms “complete protein” and “incomplete protein” are misleading. That’s because if a person consumes enough calories from a healthful, varied diet—even if those calories come exclusively from plant-based foods—she should get an adequate supply of essential amino acids within a 24-hour period.
              Your liver helps by storing various essential amino acids over the course of a day for use later on. In other words, you don’t need to worry about eating complementary plant foods simultaneously, as long as you’re eating a variety of nutritious foods (and not just vegan junk food).”

                1. Thanks Ron,

                  I had read things like what Tom is saying and I have read things like what you are saying and I know that I am not as worried about eating beans and rice, because it seems like whole sections of nations eat it almost every day.

                  I will have to watch Dr Greger’s video again.

                  There is such a battle of ideas and it is as if everybody becomes fixed in their opinions and wars almost politically and I mean everybody.

                  I just had my FodMap perdon who gave me all of her rice talk to me that she is reintroducing some foods and I laughed, because she is so dead set against grains, because if this stupid polarizing process and she finally moved and I sent her a link to how the Rice Diet put 92% of Crohn’s patients in remission.

                  She can’t have her rice back, because some of us have been enjoying beans and rice.

                  It was such a relief nobody insulted anybody or argued arrogantly. Everybody talked about the pros and cons of various theories.

                  Someone said that nutritionists actually agree on 80 to 90 % of things and I am frustrated that the whole world do a process where we treat each other with such disrespect that we are not open to learn from each other.

                  1. I spent a little bit of time with it now….and there is nothing to the idea essential amino acids are not found in veggies..nothing.

                    So we don’t need to combine protein it is all nonsense. Sponsored probably by the meat industry.
                    I don’t agree with a lot of what McDougall says as he is focused on health and living long only and not performance but in this he is right….plant protein is fine OK will sustain us humans and is not by anything I have found cancer producing. The inverse may be true.

                2. McDougall mounted a challenge study published by the NIH in regards to complete amino acid profile in 2002. He used William Rose’s works to make his determinations. As you may know Rose was the scientist who really set the standard for amino acids and some as consideration essential.

                  McDougalls challenge paper really includes only a title and no abstract so it serves little benefit to cite it here.
                  But this from his site mentions the basic rational behind it and the specifics.

                  http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/031200puprotein.htm

                  Seems solid as I read it though I personally feel McDougall’s perspective is not from a non illness performance perspective.
                  So I don’t agree with a lot of the conclusions he draws from the evidence. He sets his protein standard way low to my opinion.
                  Not every plant contains the amounts of each amino to be recommended as complete by Roses work. Like tomatoes do not contain the amount of a certain amino Methioline(sp) to match his profile. But they do contain it in lesser amount. .8 I think.
                  So Dr Gregers summation video and McDougall’s challenge seem solid by my read.

                  In any event we to a extend store aminos so it certainly does not mean much to combine protein. So a bean meal for lunch and a rice meal for dinner would combine if not in our intestines and digestive tracts by our liver.
                  The combination thing seems way overstated.

                  Anyway read his stuff yourself and find if you agree or not with my recommendation of it.

                  1. Nah on a reread they all seem to meet Roses requirement, sorry.
                    In any event it appears Roses contentions challenge the thoughts on it.

                    So tell me what you think of it…

                    1. Ah ha….found it. This is the McDougall study.http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/25/e197

                      The challenge rebuttal to it states the quantity of the aminos not that they do not exist in any manner in veggies….
                      So Greger McDougall are right….they are in veggies…abeit in small amounts as I alluded to earlier….

                    2. The sleezy dogs are trying to weasel out of it…..
                      ” Although an indiscriminate mixture of plant proteins could meet protein amino acid requirements, it must be remembered that the amino acid content in most plant proteins is more limited in amount per serving than that from animal sources. Thus, it is difficult to maintain essential amino acids at optimum quantity and distribution. We certainly agree with Dr McDougall that a vegetarian diet based on the AHA guidelines of 5 to 6 servings of whole grains and 5 or more servings of vegetables and fruit would, in fact, supply all of the amino acids necessary for health.”

                      but they cannot and concede to him at the end. HIs numbers add up. Rose was not a dotard and was in fact the guy who started it all and was and is the standard .
                      AHA…..should be AHAW…for weasel

                    3. I am sold Tom
                      The question for me now is why the AHA was at that time supporting the myth of a complicated scheme for protein amino acids which seemed to lean by overt bias to meat????

                      I see corruption everywhere but this…?
                      AHA heart health…..meat?
                      Geeze louise

                    4. Failing to define in their rebut…exactly what is…”optimum quantity and distribution.” that is so difficult to arrive at…optimum by my read is best not essential or necessary. Which leaves it out there in the sky perhaps with this or that or that or this…optimum. Why is it best or what is best….seems lacking here. I guess they take more to mean best. Not to be a stickler, but as to the people McDougall is involved with, who says best is more? Probably not by my read. Meats do generally provide more of each amino generally much more of some.
                      I simply cannot believe this nonsense. Not that I like McDougalls work I do not as mentioned.

                    5. From what the health..
                      “AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION CORPORATE PARTNERS
                      “Texas Beef Council partners with American Heart Association”. Progressive Cattlemen
                      “American Heart Association Certifies Three More Beef Cuts”. South Dakota Beef Industy Council
                      “Fostering and Developing Relationships with Influencers”. Kentucky Beef Council 2013 Annual Report
                      “Health and Nutrition”. Tyson Foods, Inc.

                3. I read Dr McDougalls take on it and I found it interesting that Breast milk is 5 to 6% protein and that is the level where they say Cancer cells shut off.

                  I just remembered where the topic came up.

                  Vegan dog food.

                  That is where I read back and forth between the theories.

                  I also watched videos.

                  Plant Based London has a video about during war time, the one country, which cut out meat intake had an improvement in mortality rates, and fared better than the countries, which ate animal products.

                  I haven’t watched the videos on that topic often enough to have an opinion yet, but the concept of 5% resonates, except that if Dr Barnard is right and meat has addictive properties, 5% would not be what most people stick to.

              1. Ron, I agree. I was just responding to remarks about compkte proteins by another poster. And the lunatic end of the miltant meat eating spectrum still talk about this

                1. I understand. I never really spent some time with it so I think I see the basis for McDougall’s claims pretty clearly.

          3. Studies about casein per se and cancer in human have very little meaning, as there are a lot of factors involved in human nutrition.

            What experimental studies showed is that an abundance of complete proteins, that is, animal proteins or plants proteins to which the limiting amino-acid is added (as pointed out by Netgogate above), favor cancer development above a certain quantity.

            In experimental studies, an excess in animal protein causes a suractivation of the enzyms in the liver, increasing cancer development through different mechanisms. They show that complete proteins are a more potent carcinogen than any chemical carcinogens, including those described in Dr Greger’s video.

            Those studies were reductionist and not based on whole foods, but epidemiologic studies like the China Study tend to confirm that cancer risk increases with animal products consumption and decreases otherwise with whole plant foods consumption.

            By eating only plant foods, human have the correct amount of proteins for a normal caloric intake, so eating high calories, high proteins foods like animal products seem to create a nutritional imbalance that leads to overeat complete proteins and thus favor cancer development.

            1. Well first as to this…”plants proteins to which the limiting amino-acid is added (as pointed out by Netgogate above),”

              This notion is refuted here….. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-protein-combining-myth/
              And Dr McDougall has refuted it in a study of the literature by the father of the science William Rose. The AHA has not provide a refute to the basis of his claim in that study.

              “They show that complete proteins are a more potent carcinogen than any chemical carcinogens, including those described in Dr Greger’s video.”

              Please produce the published studies so we can review them for authenticity.

              1. You confound different things. Dr Greger’s video is about human nutrition, showing that there is no need to combine different foods within each meal in order to get all our needed proteins, in term of amino-acids, as there is a pool of amino-acids within the body from which the body builds its own proteins.

                The issue here about cancer is different. I have written about studies showing that an excess in complete proteins (particularly animal proteins which are complete by definition) favor cancer development. The link to some of the studies have been mentioned in my other posts above. And the issue is very well explained in T.Colin Campbell’s books, including ‘Whole: rethinking the science of nutrition”. Those experimental studies show that the organism can not handle too much of amino-acids without creating a suractivation of enzyms and other mechanisms favoring cancer development, and that this carcinogenic effect is far more important than the carcinogenic effect of mutagens or chemicals suggested to be carcinogenic.

                That’s why Dr Campbell thinks that the survey of carcinogenic chemicals is a distraction from the main known cause of cancer: excess of complete proteins due to a non whole-foods plant-based diet.

                1. Veggies all have complete essential amino acid profiles, McDougall showed that in his study of Roses works.
                  The science is far from conclusive on excess aminos being a sole cause of cancer. It is not that simple.
                  We find peoples with low animal protein levels get cancer as well. Vegans do occasionally get cancer. That refuses the admission of cancer fighting elements through antioxidant affect and other affect of WFPBed things.

                  1. That vegans do occasionally get cancer is not a proof of anything, as a lot of people become vegan after having had health issues and after having eaten during decades a diet rich in animal proteins….

                    Cancer can take decades to grow into the organism, and there are still traces of cancer cells once initiated many years after, even if the cancer has not developed or is in remission.

                    So it is the daily eating pattern that conditions cancer development, and also the timing of the disease chronology at the time of the eating pattern change that matters.

                    That’s why in early cancer, switching to a plant-based diet can be sufficient to avoid the disease, but if the disease is already advanced, then some medicinal treatment may be necessary. As part of medicinal treatments, some evidences show that CBD compounds may be be able to limit cancer metastasis.

      2. Rats are mammals like human, and cancers are a disease found in mammals. It is not specific to human beings. So experimental proofs of cancer development on rats are most likely to be applicable to human mammals as well. As a matter of fact, all tests for carcinogenic chemicals are made on rats or mices too, so most of our knowledge on carcinogenic effects of chemical substances come from in vivo experimental studies.

        1. The problem is not about mutagens in meat, as such chemicals can be flushed out of our organism by our intelligent body, the problem is that meat itself is a carcinogen due to its complete amino-acid profile, and that the habit of eating meat each day increases our risks of cancer development.

          1. I’ve read that soy has all the amino acids in it, but yet it’s supposed to be protective against certain cancers.

            1. Soy is thought to cause the result of IGF-1 human growth hormone, presence in humans which is a positive as to cancer growth. But it only presents if one has consumed a inordinate amount, something to the effect of 15 typical servings per day.

              Meats can produce this same effect but dairy is the most conspicuous producer.
              So most always soy is safe. If one char broiled a soy burger over a grill…well cancer causing substances are present in the smoke itself which lands on the burger. Some cancer fighting effects are inherently in soy but enough to overcome those found in smoke on a soy burger…we probably just do not know as none have studied that specific that I know of.

        2. Except well over 97% (of drugs that are found to work on animals, then fail in human trails (sadly that’s after the LD 50 toxicity test where 50% of animals tested are needed die from poisoning via overdose) it’s a lot of suffering for such poor results in humans. Meaning rats, mice, dogs, rabbits are very different to humans so not as applicable as one might think

          1. To add from a article on this by CNN

            “In terms of cancer, it is difficult to translate animal models to human applications because a human tumor takes several years to develop, and rodent studies often just inject human tumors into the rat or mouse, said Dr. Gabriel Lopez-Berestein, professor of medicine and cancer biology at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
            In general, animal models give some hints about how to use cancer drugs in humans, he said. “But by no way should we be overexcited about it; we should be cautious about how to interpret that data” and in applying cancer studies in rodents to humans, he said.
            Cancer drug researchers generally like to test potential treatments on two animal species, such as rats and dogs or mice and monkeys, and examine how the drug behaves in the fluids of the body, before proceeding to humans, Lopez-Berestein said. “

    2. Aside from that particular toxin Dr Greger has exposed the role of meat in cancer in many videos.

      The present statement by WHO has both red meat and red meat processed as considered…from their site..

      ” Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?
      In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
      Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
      8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
      This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
      In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

    1. As per PCRM a quote from their site. The specifics of meat may provide a inordinate risk as explained here…

      “HCAs, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. Even meat that is cooked under normal grilling, frying, or oven-broiling may contain significant quantities of these mutagens.6,7,8 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. In some studies, grilled chicken has formed higher concentrations of these cancer-causing substances than other types of cooked meat.9
      The major classes of heterocyclic amines include amino-imidazo-quinolines, or amino-imidazo-quinoxalines (collectively called IQ-type compounds), and amino-imidazo-pyridines such as PhIP. IQ-type compounds and PhIP are formed from creatine or creatinine, specific amino acids, and sugars.10 All meats (including fish) are high in creatine, and HCA formation is greatest when cooking meat at high temperatures, as is most common with grilling or frying. Consumption of well-done meat and PhIP has been associated with increased risk of breast cancer and colon cancer, as discussed in greater detail below. A recent case-control study at the University of Utah that included 952 subjects with rectal cancer and 1205 controls found that men and women with the highest consumption of processed or well-cooked meat had an increased risk of rectal cancer.11
      Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
      Grilling or broiling meat over a direct flame results in fat dropping on the hot fire and the production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-containing flames. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) adhere to the surface of food, and the more intense the heat, the more PAHs are present.5 They are widely believed to play a significant role in human cancers.12 A fairly consistent association between grilled or broiled, but not fried, meat consumption and stomach cancer implies that dietary exposure to PAHs may play a role in the development of stomach cancer in humans.5”

  2. I learned way back in the seventies , as I was running a kitchen in Yellow Stone National Park, that is is worse for your health to cook bacon then eating it!

  3. I have been a full time fire fighter for 29 years and was a volunteer for 7 years before . There is a lot of talk in the fire service about why fire fighters get cancer at a much higher rate than the general population. All of the talk is about how we are being exposed to carcinogens in all the fires that we have. The reality is that we might have two dozen fires a year in my department. What nobody wants to consider is that fire fighters diets are a contributing factor. In my fire department we have many members who eat meat , dairy and or eggs at every meal. Every dinner is smoked or grilled. I have been plant based for about 5 years and am amazed at the amounts of animal products my coworkers consume at a single meal. None of them will even consider that the meat that they are smoking on the Traeger grill is loaded with carcinogens.

    1. All true. However the problem a bit with firefighters is the gear itself. Up until a few years ago the gear was often hung kept in cars and such when floating from duty station to duty station, on trucks unwashed after fires, perhaps hosed down but not really clean. It was once a marker of such, dirty gear meant a lot of fires and experience so it was generally not much cleaned.

      But it continually outgassed and thus provided continual exposure to toxins. Many depts. now provide washers and such at the stations or a central location but often the wash in the past was at ones home if it was washed at all. Usually it was just hosed down.

      1. The washing of the thermal barrier part is itself very hard to perform as it is so stiff and bulky. It pretty much has to be a commercial washer. Often just a shell is washed but the toxins get into the barrier by permeability. Depending on design often the thermal barrier is the part that provides the water protection not the shell by coating.

        Hood and gloves they do wash. SCBA’s and such are of course always kept washed.

        1. How many wash the interior of the helmet lining..the cloth part…I guess still to this day few wash the inside but always the outside of the helmet.

          1. Average life expectancy of fire fighters as you may know by some study was back in the day(maybe it is higher now) 53.
            A large part of it was the piss poor diets to my opinion. Cancers a lesser part.

      2. We are required to wash our gear immediately after fire incidents and have a cache of gear that is kept clean to use while ours is being cleaned. We are attempting to get our employer to purchase a second set of gear for every member so we have gear that fits after a fire. We also go through gross decon after a fire and are out of service until we are showered and in clean uniforms. A lot has changed in 29 years. That being said most of the people I work with think bacon and eggs are health food and are probably exposed to more carcinogens in their diet than from the environment that they are exposed to.

        1. I supposed things have improved, but the incidence of cancer and heart disease are often not presenting in on duty personnel(though that does occur) but in the retired from firefighting community. Which largly did perform up until the mid nineties without any of that.And some places still tend more progressive than others. California is particularly progressive, others maybe not, particularly rural based depts. with a older employee often in a volunteer status. The standards all call for this, but compliance with the standards may have significant variance in the specifics I mention.

          The requirement of a secondary rescue crew per example when a line was first advanced into a structure fire was a recognized practice of safety probably since about the mid eighties, per NFPA and various fire safety organizations to include those of the IAFF. but the actual implementation of that, even well funded city depts. many of them were not implementing the protocal till the mid nineties.
          So my guess is the result of that may not represent in present statistics drawn from usually, mortality, as related to firefighting history not present employment.

          The demographic is filled with risktaking as it is firefighting nor fire putting out…Fighters do tend to live by the same base mentality of risk taking live today tomorrow we die sort. So attention to diet may be secondary. Though the career does draw some from the fitness field due to physical test requirement, and those are attentive to diet, more are from the what I would call the macho mentality. Not macho as in male verses female, as females are truly macho as much as males, but in the consideration of things. As a UFC fighter is perhaps usually macho not caring about a bunch of things male or female. Diet is all performance not cause from harm. Though many UFC fighters are considering veganism for performance benefit now.

          Point being… I would say that is a safe correct statement today by your depts. experience, diet may be the thing. Past history and present history exempted in some specifics I mention, there may be exception. Hence states like NM have proceeded in the last decade to sponsor and fulfill legislation which provides special benefit for firefighters due to risk of employment. One of those risks is indeed cancer
          No it was not the result of their tendency to bad diet. It was occupation specific.
          But I admit again your depts. present result may confound that situation, it may be there diet more than the rest.

    2. It’s nice to hear you’re a plant-based firefighter :). I was doing street activism (similar to anonymous for the voiceless) and met two young firefighters who came over and had a conversation about veganism. At the end of it I think they were definitely interested in becoming vegan and adopting a plant-based diet. Just goes to show that people can change and not everyone follows the stereotypes of being vegan or a firefighter.

      1. 7th day Adventists are usually working class folk by majority. As such, they have tended to jobs such as firefighting. And they are usually by vast majority vegan or vegetarian.
        So it is not so exceptional that presence in the field.

        Most of course are not but some are. UFC fighters the Diaz brothers, both claim veganism with the exception of eggs when training for fights. With the transition of veganism to performance diet of preference. is when by my take, firefighters will tend to go to it. One UFC heavyweight champion at the present time is a firefighter though he is not a vegan. If he was, largly the group would start to consider it.

        But nevertheless fire fighters are fighters so they want to perform. This specific community here nutritionists little recognize that as they in the main are concerned with death Illness or mortality result But veganism provides significant benefit in muscle recovery and result.

        Sports often athletes are starting to advocate for it,

        1. Ron,
          It is interesting that you said Seventh Day Adventests tend to be working class as I have known a number of Dr.s ,Dentists and business professionals that were Adventist and none that are fire fighters. Perhaps it is different in New Mexico. I am in S.W. Washington near Portland Oregon. Our state has passed some presumptive cancer legislation for fire fighters though it doesn’t cover all cancer. I do live and work in an area that is fairly progressive though maybe not as much as California.

          1. Oh well..don’t know what to say…. but I did know at least one back in the day and he did adhere to his vegetarian diet in the firehouse out here.
            Most were perfectly OK with it. I know many of these peoples, as kids I took care of went to seventh day Adventists school, though not themselves so we had close contact. Functions and such plays Christmas all that. They have a church in Albuquerque but the school closed down. not for lack of attendance they had some management problems.

            And my favorite restaurant back in the day was seventh day Adventist…all working class meals, not a slice of fake meat with a parsley sprig on the middle but a whole big plate of all sorts of things most could not finish…that’s working class lunch food not professionals lunch.
            So I didn’t do a demographic study or any such but I did observe those things. I knew a 7th doc but she lived rural in Colorado still struck me as working class type though a doc…her clinic it was like homey not a doc in a big hospital.

            1. I would think of 7th as being white generally, but the reality was here in NM a lot of them were Hispanic, those that went to the school.
              Not a escalade in the parking lot and the school itself and church are in a lower middle class majority Hispanic area….just off Coors a major road on the westside, which tends hispanic. Anglo, the east side is mostly majority but really all areas are pretty diverse.
              Black mostly poor is Kirtland addition by the base south central. Barrios one southwest and one a bit northwest, as well generally the oldest parts of town.
              . Rich professional probably it would be four hills or even more rich off of rio grande blvd heading north. Unsers, peoples that run the various corporations here, they live north just off rio grande. Los ranchos a separate city corrales as well. The big money is there.
              7th the church is firmly middle class area.

    3. I did see an interesting study a week or two ago that considered the effect of airborne and contact chemical pollution on cancer risk It mentioned firefighters. Quie scary for all of us =more so for firefighters though

      Can’t find it now of course. However, I did it find this below which discusses some of the firefighter aspects. Takeaway – always wear a scarf so you have no exposed skin. Handling contaminated clothing should probably be avoided also

      https://www.ctif.org/news/groundbreaking-research-shows-firefighters-absorb-harmful-chemicals-through-skin-despite-full

      1. New Mexican law basically puts a timeline to it. If you tested well on admission to the fire service and have not known precipitating cause or a self caused or present state, each cancer has a time after employment they are considered to be a job employment injury. So as per workers compensation the employer/state local government, must pay for care and treatment. Pancreatic cancer is this many years, breast cancer this many and on and on.

        A active firefighter was also a state representative a bit ago, so likely she had a hand in the legislation.

    1. From PCRM….”HCAs, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish.”

  4. I’m a little late on the “does chia seed cause weight loss video”.

    We just compared an oat bran consumption group to a chia seeds consumption group…

    They had to compare with another similiar higher fat food that offers likewise satiety from its composition like flaxseeds too know the real answer. Chia seed probably had nothing special to offer.

  5. Good questions from the comments:

    1. Are any of these compounds exclusive to meats? As the BBQ smoke itself is unhealthy.

    2. What about fish?

    3. What about BBQ vegetables?

  6. This video really does cause me to ponder.

    Both of my brothers are the grill master of their households.

    That and the fire pit masters.

    So are fire pits like mini-fires and do carcinogens get on us and we bring them inside?

    I can do without the grilled food, but I do like a good fire pit.

    1. My brother and his wife and granddaughter tells stories around the fire pit and sometimes the stories are scary stories.

      So the next time his wife does a goose bumps type story, I can tell her that she is bringing carcinogens into the house and really scare her.

      1. Yes, Smoke will cause all sorts of problems from respiratory disease to heart disease to cancer

        Even our distant ancestors probably suffered the effects of woodsmoke (if they lived long enough)

  7. What about putting things like Portabella Mushrooms or perhaps Corn on the Cob on a grill? Would that be as harmful?

    1. Credit: Shutterstock….
      “Summer barbecues may expose you to potentially cancer-causing chemicals in a surprising way: The chemicals may literally get under your skin, a small new study from China suggests.
      The study found that people who sat around a grill were exposed to chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) through their skin. PAHs can be produced from the burning of organic substances, such as coal, gasoline and wood; they also form when meats are cooked using “high-temperature methods,” such as panfrying or grilling, according to the National Cancer Institute. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked with an increased risk of certain cancers.
      But most previous studies have focused on exposure to PAHs through food or the air, rather than through the skin.
      Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons are absorbed through the air in grilling.
      The new study, however, found that during grilling, people absorbed higher amounts of PAHs through their skin than through the air, the researchers said. Still, the greatest levels of exposure to PAHs occurred through eating the barbecued meats, the researchers noted. It’s known that exposure to smoke can put people into contact with carcinogens, including PAHs, that can be absorbed through the skin or inhaled, said Dr. Kenneth Spaeth, chief of occupational and environmental medicine at Northwell Health in Great Neck, New York, who was not involved with the study. But barbecues probably don’t represent that great a risk for most people, he said.
      In general, there’s no level of exposure to carcinogens that’s completely safe, although the lower a person’s exposure, the better, Spaeth said. However, most people probably don’t need to be overly worried about absorbing cancer-causing chemicals through their skin while attending a barbecue, if they don’t do this frequently.”

      To add….”Grilling or broiling meat over a direct flame results in fat dropping on the hot fire and the production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-containing flames. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) adhere to the surface of food, and the more intense the heat, the more PAHs are present.5 They are widely believed to play a significant role in human cancers.12 A fairly consistent association between grilled or broiled, but not fried, meat consumption and stomach cancer implies that dietary exposure to PAHs may play a role in the development of stomach cancer in humans.5”

      So in conclusion mine is this….there may be some risk to any barbeque grilling or standing by a campfire for that matter but the most significant risk is from the thing injested. Plants would tend to produce less PAH’s than meats.

      But meats as well contain this other substance HCA, when cooked on a grill…

      “HCAs, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. Even meat that is cooked under normal grilling, frying, or oven-broiling may contain significant quantities of these mutagens.6,7,8 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. In some studies, grilled chicken has formed higher concentrations of these cancer-causing substances than other types of cooked meat.9”

      Which are generally not found in veggies.
      So some risk perhaps with veggies or anything in smoke but much more with meat fish and other animal products it seems.

  8. I’m sorry for posting here. I know it’s off topic but I was hoping someone could help me.

    Under Nutritionfacts.com’s FAQ I found:
    “If you think Dr. Greger may have missed an important study, please contact us — he would be very appreciative. Please help us make the site as robust as possible by leaving comments or sending us a note if you have any questions anytime about anything.”

    I believe he may have missed an important topic.
    Specifically:
    Brasky, T. M., et al. (2017). “Long-Term, Supplemental, One-Carbon Metabolism-Related Vitamin B Use in Relation to Lung Cancer Risk in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) Cohort.” J Clin Oncol: JCO2017727735

    Does anyone know where I should be posting this or where to send a note about this?

    I’d appreciate any help.
    Thanks

    1. Usually the volunteers who monitor this site will see it and respond. If they do not, in several days you may care to repeat it, but mostly they do and will send it through proper channels.

      I would also put it in the center video the how not to die one, at the home page comment section. comments tend to stay there longer as it has few. So theyh are more likely to notice it.
      I tried official channels, but personally I found them not always to work, but perhaps that has changed I don’t know.

    2. It will be included in my next series of B12 vids. Basically, it’s an epidemiological study that found an association between vitamin B12 supplements and lung cancer risk in male smokers. Thankfully, an interventional trial (https://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/4488/JWE90057_11.18.09.pdf) failed to find any relationship between how much supplementation bumped B12 levels in the blood and cancer incidence or mortality (even in a study population with high smoking rates).

  9. I am going to post it down here.

    I am trying to understand the Amla dosages for killing my dogs Cancer.

    I watched the video and the numbers at the bottom went something like:

    1, 10, 100, 1000

    And there was a unit listed, which I don’t understand.

    Cancer died big time somewhere between 100 and 1000 somethings.

    I need to find the unit and translate it into dog size portions and check for safety.

    1. T. Colin Campbell:

      “For more than a half-century, there has been widespread acceptance of the idea that the association of diet with human cancer is largely attributable to the consumption of foods containing chemical carcinogens, mostly meaning those chemicals shown to cause cancer-initiating mutations. ”

      “This perception has led to unfortunate but a widespread belief that the association of food with cancer is primarily due to the presence of chemical carcinogens in the food we eat.

      I have seriously questioned this belief system since 1980 , both because of the unacceptable uncertainty of quantitatively estimating carcinogenic risk and, more importantly, because it excluded consideration of nutritional factors that were likely to be more important than chemical carcinogens.”

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01635581.2017.1339094

      1. So the Who distinction between red meat as being possibly cancer causing and processed meat being definitely cancer causing is non existant?

        WE can all then safely consume sodium nitrate and such as there is no study showing it harmful? AS we have concluded any cancer causing substance in anything appears to not cause cancer by our read of study?

        It is all due to complete animal protein when DR McDougall has published a research study which the AHA has admitted to, that plant protein is complete.
        And then no distinction exists with the exception of gelatin which is found to be incomplete. The basis of all this on McDougalls side from written statements of protein study by nitrogen analysis by William Rose the father of animo study of protein.
        Leading me to question how many misreads of scientific study and opinion can exist on one piece?

    2. ab30,

      Yes, he points to things like lung cancer going up, while smoking went down and skin cancer going up, while time out in the sun went down and people started wearing sun screen with such high SPF and stopped working outside and sunbathing for tans.

      That makes smoking and sun exposure not the main thing.

      It is smoking, plus animal products made even worse when animal products is combined with vegetable oils.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This