Industrial Carcinogens in Animal Fat

Industrial Carcinogens in Animal Fat
5 (100%) 5 votes

The buildup of industrial toxins in the meat and dairy supply may, in part, account for the relationship between animal fat consumption and disease.

Discuss
Republish

Let’s start with two Harvard studies rolled into one. After studying more than 100,000 people, they found that bacon and chicken consumption may double our risk of bladder cancer. Same with pancreatic cancer—a horrific disease. Long Island women who ate lots of barbeque have up to 47% greater odds of getting breast cancer.

It appeared to be the grilling, the frying, that really seemed to kind of cancer up the meat. But this other study, published a few months earlier, found that for endometrial cancer, at least, it didn’t matter how the meat was cooked. And it didn’t matter if it was red or white meat. In fact, those eating poultry and fish had the highest risk for cancer. Seems the only healthy fish may be some fanciful creature made out of dark green leafy veggies.

Another 35,000 women were studied. They concluded that women, both pre- and postmenopausal, who ate the most meat had the highest risk of breast cancer. Interestingly, the acknowledgements for the study show that an earlier analysis was funded by the Meat and Livestock Commission. Evidently, when they found out the results, they weren’t quite as enthusiastic in their support.

The Harvard Nurses Study.  Eat lots of dairy, and double our risk of a heart attack. Or, feed our kids lots of dairy, and triple their risk of colorectal cancer 65 years later. More dairy, more prostate cancer. More testicular cancer. More Parkinson’s disease—all, again, published within about a 12-month period. And this is no fluke. Every single forward-looking study in history on Parkinson’s and dairy found that the more dairy products people consume, the higher their risk of getting Parkinson’s. My father has Parkinson’s; it’s a terrible disease.

But why? Why more cancer? Why more disease? What is in animal products that may be so toxic it can cause enough brain damage to trigger Parkinson’s? Well, we can start with the industrial carcinogens that tend to build up in animal fat. Just how are dioxin levels affected by a so-called “vegetarian regime”? Vegetarians had significantly lower levels in their blood.

In fact, that’s how scientists study the dangers of living near something like a trash incinerator; they studied vegetarians, because the omnivores buy dioxins at the grocery store. So, to know how much toxic waste a community is exposed to, you study the vegetarians, who aren’t bringing dioxins in from outside, and swallowing them at home.

What about PCBs? Scientists looked at the diets and feces of vegans versus omnivores, and, not surprisingly, meat-eaters were found to flush much more of this serious carcinogen through their systems.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to theirhistory via Flickr.

Let’s start with two Harvard studies rolled into one. After studying more than 100,000 people, they found that bacon and chicken consumption may double our risk of bladder cancer. Same with pancreatic cancer—a horrific disease. Long Island women who ate lots of barbeque have up to 47% greater odds of getting breast cancer.

It appeared to be the grilling, the frying, that really seemed to kind of cancer up the meat. But this other study, published a few months earlier, found that for endometrial cancer, at least, it didn’t matter how the meat was cooked. And it didn’t matter if it was red or white meat. In fact, those eating poultry and fish had the highest risk for cancer. Seems the only healthy fish may be some fanciful creature made out of dark green leafy veggies.

Another 35,000 women were studied. They concluded that women, both pre- and postmenopausal, who ate the most meat had the highest risk of breast cancer. Interestingly, the acknowledgements for the study show that an earlier analysis was funded by the Meat and Livestock Commission. Evidently, when they found out the results, they weren’t quite as enthusiastic in their support.

The Harvard Nurses Study.  Eat lots of dairy, and double our risk of a heart attack. Or, feed our kids lots of dairy, and triple their risk of colorectal cancer 65 years later. More dairy, more prostate cancer. More testicular cancer. More Parkinson’s disease—all, again, published within about a 12-month period. And this is no fluke. Every single forward-looking study in history on Parkinson’s and dairy found that the more dairy products people consume, the higher their risk of getting Parkinson’s. My father has Parkinson’s; it’s a terrible disease.

But why? Why more cancer? Why more disease? What is in animal products that may be so toxic it can cause enough brain damage to trigger Parkinson’s? Well, we can start with the industrial carcinogens that tend to build up in animal fat. Just how are dioxin levels affected by a so-called “vegetarian regime”? Vegetarians had significantly lower levels in their blood.

In fact, that’s how scientists study the dangers of living near something like a trash incinerator; they studied vegetarians, because the omnivores buy dioxins at the grocery store. So, to know how much toxic waste a community is exposed to, you study the vegetarians, who aren’t bringing dioxins in from outside, and swallowing them at home.

What about PCBs? Scientists looked at the diets and feces of vegans versus omnivores, and, not surprisingly, meat-eaters were found to flush much more of this serious carcinogen through their systems.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to theirhistory via Flickr.

13 responses to “Industrial Carcinogens in Animal Fat

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. HOW do national guidelines not take these facts into account, considering that the USA, UK, Canada, Ireland etc all reccomend meat and dairy with no mention of a possible side effect??? I wonder if they talk about studies like this at their review boards? Strange that these findings get little attention from HCPs. There’s a lot of paranoid members of the public out there, who think the government is out to GET them, and the big industries are out to get us all….but it can’t be the case.

    I’m just saying, what is the greater context of the studies?? Is it just one study showing this? [or the few you mentioned]. Are there other studies showing opposite results? It’s hard to believe, if evidence is all pointing in the direction you have highlighted, that this could slip through the cracks for health and nutrition recommendations.

    VERY interesting and informative videos I must say; gets people thinking, in a good way! I find journals hard to read and digest, and way too vast, so I am finding your videos just wonderful. Many thanks.

    1. Lobbyists create doubt and confusion in the marketplace. The public stays uninformed. Remember 7000 studies linking cigarettes to cancer before government started to stand against it.

  2. The key studies that Dr. Greger and others such as Dr. McDougall point out are contained within the over 10,000 articles per week that are added to the medical literature. Dr. Greger reviews between 6 -7000 articles annually on human nutrition alone. The literature shows that protocols and guidelines developed by “expert consensus” are usually not based on the best science or valid statistical methods. The other issue is the influence of food and pharmaceutical industries. You can read Marion Nestles “Food Politics” to get a sense for how bad it is. Ernie Bodai MD who was the physician who conceived and championed the breast cancer stamp relates that he was surprised by the opposition of breast cancer research groups who feared it would take funding away from them. I know of no studies that support the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs unless in the face of starvation. I guess the short answer is that the important studies don’t even make it to the cracks to slip through! Nutritionfacts.org fills an important void in that it sifts through all the studies and gives the rest of us the “executive summary”… so keep tuned as the science adds to our understanding every month.

    1. I had to read rightto the bottom of this comment before I could tell it was a positive comment. I thought you were slating Dr. Greger. Thank goodness you are not.

    1. DanielFaster: :-) Fun comment.

      I don’t know about bestest since there are just so many good ones. But I totally agree this is a really, really, really good one.

      1. At 1500 we’re approaching the point where it may be impossible for someone with a job at least to watch them all in one lifetime lol. As far as I can see this one has no previous video tab. It might be interesting to have a date-title index, perhaps a project for a volunteer. :-)

  3. History shows that meat was extremely important for people that lived in colder climates. Grains were harvested for human consumption while grasses, alfalfa and cornstalks (foods not digestible by humans) were fed to the ruminant animals. There was not the competition for grain that there is now; feeding grain to animals for marbling is a relatively new phenomenon. People would feed the animal through the winter and use the dairy which is a complete protein. Sheep and goats were perfect because they are easier to keep rather then the less efficient cattle we consume today. When grasses ran out for the animals and grains for the people, the animals were then consumed. Today it is too easy to get a quick meat meal from a burger joint. Meat is processed from the feed lots to the packing plants neatly packaged product. We are a spoiled nation that wastes 40% of the food that is produced and have a craving for anything sweet and processed. In my opinion, the best diet is one that is balanced with no artificial preservatives, sweeteners or refined products. I see nothing wrong with grass fed meats and veggies grown from animal “out puts”.

    1. Moderation is a tricky philosophy because people do not really understands what moderation is nor do they know how to moderate themselves. As shared by Jeff Novick:
      The items we know that are causing harm to Americans right now are the excess consumption of added sugars, refined grains, sodium, fat, and saturated fat. How much of these items are Americans consuming?

      Added Sugars – 242% over the recommended upper limit.

      Refined Grains – 200% over the recommended upper limit.

      Sodium – 229% over the recommended upper limit.

      Saturated fats – 158% over the recommended upper limit.

      Solid fats – 281% over the recommended upper limit.

      These are things we can no longer consume in “moderation”, because clearly their currently level of of consumption is above and beyond the upper limits. What we need is a dramatic reduction in these foods to get back to safe levels. On the other side of it, there are healthy foods that are truly eaten in only moderation

      Fruits – only 42% of the recommended minimum intake.

      Vegetables – only 59% of the recommended minimum intake.

      Whole Grains – only 15% of the recommended minimum intake.

      Fiber – only 40% of the recommended minimum intake.

      These are foods we need to dramatically increase the consumption of.

      http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=18349

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This