• Archives

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 21,921 other followers

  • Instagram

    Today, the United States spends $218 billion a year growing, processing, transporting, and disposing of food that is never eaten. Fortunately, there are a number of ways to reduce food waste.Click here to read IFT Achievement Awardee Edward Hirschberg’s solution for how we can address food loss due to poor transportation and storage. Link available in bio or copy/paste this link: http://bit.ly/IFTFoodWaste Today, we are celebrating women in science for International Women's Day! The International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. These particular five women have been at the forefront of some of today’s most complex and controversial scientific issues including genetic engineering and lab-grown meat. In addition to highlighting their work, these interviews explore the influence of gender in food and science. Click link in bio #IWD2017 #internationalwomensday #womeninstem #foodscience http://hubs.ly/H06wKB60 Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tons — gets lost or wasted. Fruits and vegetables have the highest wastage rates of any food. What can we do with spilled, wilted, blemished produce? Click here to read IFT Achievement Awardee Edward Hirschberg’s solution for bringing life back to the "ugly" lettuce. Link available in bio or copy and paste the following to view solution: http://bit.ly/IFTFoodWaste #Repost @hanna_instruments ・・・
The Hanna Texas team had a great time at @iftfoodscience's Lunch & Learn at @nasajohnson on 2/23. Hanna USA proudly sponsored this event featuring a talk by @nasa scientist Dr. Shannon Walker, a tour of the food lab facility, and behind-the-scenes tour of Mission Control! Thank you again to IFT and NASA for an incredible event.

Imbalance, not meat, to blame for disease

Steak on dinner plateDiets high in red and processed meat have long been shown in epidemiological studies to be associated with increased cancer risk. The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AIRC) labeled processed meat as a “probable carcinogen” and red meat as a “possible carcinogen” based on an extensive analysis of the literature. Using only those studies that met the rigor of inclusion, 19 of 33 studies showed a link between increased cancer risk and the consumption of red or processed meat.

While this was a majority of the studies, a fairly substantial number (14 of 33) failed to show a statistically significant association. Furthermore, while red meat was categorized as a cancer risk in the same category as asbestos and cigarettes, the degree of risk is orders of magnitude different—the increased hazard from processed meat was 0.18 fold compared with cigarettes at more than 20 fold.

The other significant problem in assessing cause of disease with diet is that if one constituent goes up another goes down. This is coupled with the fact that epidemiological studies are fraught with confounding findings, some—but not all—of which can be accounted for in the analysis.

A recent meta-analysis showed that the Western dietary pattern (high in processed and red meat, high fat dairy products, fast food, refined grain, coffee, sugary drinks, and desserts) is associated with increase colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. But, to determine causality, further probing is needed to test whether meat and processed meat are the only culprits or whether it might be other lifestyle and dietary factors associated with meat eaters.

There also needs to be consideration for what is omitted, which can be at least as problematic as what is included. For example, in a recent study of a 30-year prospective cohort of more than 10,000 Dutch men and women, the CRC risk of vegetarians, pescetarians, and those who eat meat once in a week showed a non-significantly decreased risk compared to those who eat meat 6–7 times a week. The authors noted that the difference in risk was due to dietary constituents other than meat and specifically named lower dietary fiber (DF) and legume intakes.

Often, those with high meat consumption (Western diet) have low consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and whole grains, which lowers their intake of components known to be associated with lowered cancer risk such as DF, resistant starch, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. In addition, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle can increase the risk of CRC.

So, before meat is banished from plates, perhaps it is time to reconsider the important nutritional watchwords of balance and moderation. The problem I would argue is an overall imbalance with too much of some foods and not enough of the others.

Julie Miller JonesJulie Miller Jones, PhD, CFS
Distinguished Scholar and Professor Emerita of Foods and Nutrition
St. Catherine University

One Response

  1. Reblogged this on Dr Wayne Martindale and commented:
    It is good to see balance and measured evidence being introduced to this arena such as is put forward in this article. This is required because policies tinkering with protein consumption are not risk free. Indeed, the messaging associated with it is baffling at times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: