- McDonald's -

Reply to Prana 69

Posted by: Lars on March 01, 19100 at 00:31:07:

In Reply to: MDG & LARS posted by Prana 69 on February 27, 19100 at 17:11:25:

: MDG - thanks for your excellent, well considered responses to Lars. It must be frustrating to have to constantly repeat your responses in the light of Lars' continual misrepresentation of, and inability and/or refusal (which = ignorance) to understand the entirety of your position (not just the 'health' aspect).

You must be kidding! I have come up with scentific reference, after reference, supporting my views. The only scientific evidence that MDG came up with was on my side (National Cancer Institute, se below). The Institute even state that EXPERTS AGREE that you should INCLUDE MEAT if you want to eat in a way to stay healthy... (se below).

If pictures on dead animals, and bad language, is evidence then I you've just made your point. (That you also is brainwashed.) Look at real evidence among my references at the bottom of this message instead. These are written by members of the science community and published in scientific magazines.

Even the owner (McSpotlight) of this website stated that "-it is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether eating meat causes cancer." In my way to read that means that there is no proof that ...

: LARS - This issue goes far beyond the question of whether meat or veg. is a better diet, and you consistently fail to consider both the merits of MDG's argument and it's several points.

My only point was (and still is) that meat itself isn't unhealthy. You can (and should) easy include meat in a healthy diet. I have shown in reference, after reference, that the science community can't find any proof of that meat is bad for you. (Reference list at the bottom of the message.)

The truth is that institutions, after institutions, recommends us (the humans) to eat meat. For instance: FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and even the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the National Cancer Institute recommend a fare including meat.

The National Cancer Institute even state (Go there!) that EXPERTS AGREE that you should INCLUDE MEAT if you want to eat in a way to stay healthy and have a lower cancer risk. And look at this, which is the same institute's Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. Even here is meat included. Why? Because it's dangerous?

: On environmental grounds, the argument in favour of vegetarianism cannot be disputed. Comparisons of rates of yield in grain vs. meat as well as environmental preservation (soil, air, water) clearly favour vegetarianism.

: On social and humanitarian grounds, vegetarianism is a clear winner. Substitution of grain for beef production could feed the starving many times over. In fact, just directing the current volumes of grain produced for the meat industry to human consumption would immediately end world hunger

You make it too easy!!! The big problem is the population growth, not meat-eating. Do you have any solution for the population growth?

One example:
World Watch Institue report that, "As world population approaches 6 billion on October 12, water tables are falling on every continent, major rivers are drained dry before they reach the sea and millions of people lack enough water to satisfy basic needs." See more!!!.

Breading animals for food purposes doesn't destroy the world! Why?
- Because, that all cultivated soil need to rest every 3-5 years, in order to not "drain out" (from nutrients). During this "resting time" it's a good solution to have animals grazing there. This way you'll get more food out of the earth, not less as you seem to think. You can't go on, year after year, just growing. That way your wonderful world will be out of food before you grow old (cause to factors as draining out of nutrients).

: On ethical grounds, there is no valid argument that human animals (yes, Lars, we are all animals!) are of any greater 'value' than non-human animals. I challenge you to find any evidence or present any logical argument to refute this claim.

Ethical grounds?

  1. The western world, and the most people living there, does believe that we the humans have more value than other animals. The world are more or less built on that the strongest animals, the geneticly superior ones, are in "charge". Even among the humans that rule excist. It's not the loosers that becomes leaders, bosses, scientists, etc.
  2. We are geneticly coded to eat a fare consisting partly of meat.
  3. We, the humans, have eaten meat from as long as it it possible (by archeology) to "go back" in time.

This is nothing you can ignore!
The academic world (biology, archeology, food chemistry and nutrition) agrees with both of those statements, and that a human fare partly consist of meat. In that way it is ethical to eat meat. (Are you also in favor for that other meat-eating animals also should stop eating meat?)

: Now, try debating the entire argument.

Entire argument?

My argements and statements (and views) are supported by the most people in the western world. That doesn't make them right, but at least that makes them more "correct". Almost all people, if they can afford, would choose to eat meat. (Even people in starving countries.)

If you look at yourself, both "historicly", "geneticly", and "ethicly", you are an all-eater and should eat a fare consisting of meat. Sorry, but this is how to look at the entire "argument".



BMJ 1999;319:186 ( 17 July )
A Stewart Truswell, Professor of human nutrition.
Whether meat is a risk factor for cancer remains uncertain.

"We found that since the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy two more prospective studies have failed to show an association of meat intake with colorectal cancer. There are now 12 prospective studies reporting meat intake and subsequent large bowel cancer, but in only two was a significant association found. Even in these the association was weak (relative risk <2.0) and seen only in people with the highest fifth of meat intake. These two studies come from groups in the United States.

As well as this accumulation of mostly negative prospective studies, a multinational combined report of five follow up studies of vegetarians and socially matched omnivore controls (total 76 000 subjects) found the relative risk of colorectal cancer in the vegetarians to be 0.99 (indistinguishable from 1.00). This is as near as we are likely to get to randomised controlled trials of meat eating. "

"Meat is the major source of available iron, vitamin B-12, zinc, and protein in Britain and most other affluent countries."


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 516S-524S, September 1999
Timothy J Key, Gary E Fraser, Margaret Thorogood, Paul N Appleby, Valerie Beral, Gillian Reeves, Michael L Burr, Jenny Chang-Claude, Rainer Frentzel-Beyme, Jan W Kuzma, Jim Mann and Klim McPherson.
From the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom; the Center for Health Research and the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Loma Linda University, CA; the Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London; the Centre for Applied Public Health Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom; the Division of Epidemiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany; the Bremer Institut für Präventionsforschung und Sozialmedizin, Bremen, Germany; the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

"There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined."


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 570S-575S, September 1999
David C Nieman

Physical fitness and vegetarian diets: is there a relation?

"The available evidence supports neither a beneficial nor a detrimental effect of a vegetarian diet on physical performance capacity, especially when carbohydrate intake is controlled for."


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 532S-538S, September 1999
Gary E Fraser

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists

"Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat."


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 2, 221-227, August 1999
Frank B Hu, Meir J Stampfer, JoAnn E Manson, Eric Rimm, Graham A Colditz, Frank E Speizer, Charles H Hennekens and Walter C Willett
From the Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; the Channing Laboratory, Boston; and the Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Dietary protein and risk of ischemic heart disease in women

"Conclusions: Our data do not support the hypothesis that a high protein intake increases the risk of ischemic heart disease. In contrast, our findings suggest that replacing carbohydrates with protein may be associated with a lower risk of ischemic heart disease. Because a high dietary protein intake is often accompanied by increases in saturated fat and cholesterol intakes, application of these findings to public dietary advice should be cautious."


Public Health Nutr 1998; 1: 33-41.
Key TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, Beral V, Reeves G, et al.

Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: a collaborative analysis of 8300 deaths among 76 000 men and women in five prospective studies.

"In the recent meta-analysis of five cohorts referred to by Truswell, meat eaters were not at greater risk of colon cancer than those who were not meat eaters."


BMJ 1997;315:1018 (18 October)
Brian D Cox, University lecturer, Margaret J Whichelow, Senior research associate
Health and Lifestyle Survey, Department of Community Medicine, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2SR

Frequent consumption of red meat is not risk factor for cancer

"Editor-Headlines such as "Big meat eaters cancer warning" (Daily Mail, 13 September) have appeared in advance of the publication of the Department of Health's report on diet and cancer. A prospective study, however, analysed data from a nationwide random stratified sample of British adults to determine the relation between diet and cancer and found a protective role for fruit and salads but no evidence that frequent consumption of meat is a risk factor for cancer."

"There were no indications that, when compared with the reference category of eating red meat less than once a week, more frequent consumption of meat was associated with the development of cancer in men or women (1). In contrast, there were significant trends for the relation between increasing frequency of consumption of fruit or salads in winter with a decreasing risk of developing cancer, the association being strongest with salads in men and with fruit in women.

Most of the supportive evidence in prospective studies for an association between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer comes from the United States rather than Europe. The way in which the meat is cooked and the relation of meat to fruit and salad vegetables in a balanced diet might explain the inconsistent findings."


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 61, 1351S-1359S, 1995
L Serra-Majem, L Ribas, R Tresserras, J Ngo and L Salleras,
Department of Public Health, University of Barcelona, Spain.

How could changes in diet explain changes in coronary heart disease mortality in Spain? The Spanish paradox

"We review and compare trends in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke mortality in Spain from 1966 to 1990 and changes in food consumption at national and regional levels. Since 1976, a decrease in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in males and females has been observed, and standardized CHD mortality rates have fallen. Stroke mortality decreased during the same period. Trends in food consumption show increases in intakes of meat, dairy products, fish, and fruit, but decreases in consumption of olive oil, sugar, and all foods rich in carbohydrates. Although fat and saturated fat intakes increased, these changes were not accompanied by an increase in CHD mortality rates. This paradoxical situation can be explained by expanded access to clinical care, increased consumption of fruit and fish, improved control of hypertension, and a reduction in cigarette smoking. Diet appears to have an important role in this paradox, but it may not be as critical as other factors."


BMJ 1994;309:955 (8 October)
R West
University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF4 4XN.

Risk of death in meat and non-meat eaters

"Vegetarian volunteers clearly have a low standardised mortality ratio, comparable to that of university teachers and ministers of the church but perhaps no lower than that of similarly health conscious meat eating volunteers. "


BMJ 1994;308:1667-1670 (25 June).
M Thorogood, J Mann, P Appleby, and K McPherson.

Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters.

"Conclusions : The reduced mortality from cancer among those not eating meat is not explained by lifestyle related risk factors, which have a low prevalence among vegetarians. No firm conclusion can be made about deaths from ischaemic heart disease. These data do not justify advice to exclude meat from the diet since there are several attributes of a vegetarian diet apart from not eating meat which might reduce the risk."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 57, 434-440, Copyright © 1993
AK Kant, A Schatzkin, TB Harris, RG Ziegler and G Block
City University of New York, Queens College, Flushing 11367-0904.

Dietary diversity and subsequent mortality in the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study

"We examined the relation of dietary diversity to subsequent all-cause mortality by using data from the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) Epidemiologic Follow-up Study, 1982-1987. The analytic cohort consisted of 4160 men and 6264 women (including 2556 deaths), 25-74 y at baseline (1971-1975). Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were evaluated for variety among the five major food groups: dairy, meat, grain, fruit, and vegetable, with a dietary diversity score (DDS); consumption of each food group contributed 1 point to a maximum possible DDS of 5. Age-adjusted risk of mortality was inversely related to DDS (P < or = 0.0009) in men and women. The inverse diversity-mortality association was adjusted for potential confounders: education, race, smoking status, and dietary fiber intake; the relative risk of mortality in men and women consuming two or fewer food groups was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8) and 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.9), respectively. In conclusion, diets that omitted several food groups were associated with an increased risk of mortality. "


American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 48, 739-748, 1988
DA Snowdon
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists

"This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed for mortality between 1960 and 1980. "

"The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated."




BMJ 1999; 318: 1471-1480.
Malcolm Law, Nicholas Wald, Meir Stampfer, Eric Rimm, D J P Barker, Johan P Mackenbach, and Anton E Kunst.
Why heart disease mortality is low in France: the time lag explanation • Commentary: Alcohol and other dietary factors may be important • Commentary: Intrauterine nutrition may be important • Commentary: Heterogeneity of populations should be taken into account • Authors' response

Eur J Cancer Prevention 1999; 8: 175-178
Truswell AS.
Report of an expert workshop on meat intake and colorectal cancer risk convened in December 1998 in Adelaide, South Australia.

Eur J Cancer Prev 1996; 5: 445-454
Gaard M, Tretli S, Løken FB.
Dietary factors and risk of colon cancer: a prospective study of 50 535 Norwegian men and women.

WCRF and American Institute for Cancer Research , 1997.
World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, DC.

Am J Epidemiol 1989; 130: 497-502
Engle A, Muscat JE, Harris RE.
Nutritional risk factors and ovarian cancer.


U. S. Food and Drug Administration
FDA Consumer
April 1992


What should Americans eat to stay healthy? These guidelines, published by the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, reflect recommendations of nutrition authorities who agree that enough is known about the effect of diet on health to encourage certain dietary practices.

The guidelines are:
Eat a variety of foods.
Maintain a healthy weight.
Choose a diet low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.
Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain products.
Use sugars only in moderation.
Use salt and sodium only in moderation.

Children and adolescents should not drink alcoholic beverages.

The Dietary Guidelines suggest at least the following number of servings from each of these food groups:

Vegetables 3-5 servings
Fruits 2-4 servings
Breads, cereals, rice, and pasta 6-11 servings
Milk, yogurt and cheese 2-3 servings*
Meats, poultry, fish, dried beans and peas, eggs, and nuts 2-3 servings

* People aged 12 through 24 years should have three or more servings daily of foods rich in calcium.

Judith Foulke is a staff writer for FDA Consumer

DHHS Publication No. (FDA) 92-2257

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup