NCBA Statement on 2007 WCRF/AICR Second Expert Report on Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer

Report Offers “Bad Advice” about Red Meat and Cancer
Another Scientific Review Finds No Link

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Mary K. Young, M.S., R.D., Vice President, Nutrition
October 31, 2007

“The WCRF/AICR recommendations about red meat and cancer are unsubstantiated and offer bad advice for consumers. There are volumes of research about the benefits of red meat in a healthy diet that far outweigh anything we’ve seen today.

“There is no evidence red meat causes cancer, according to a recent “Assessment of Red Meat and Cancer” by independent scientists. The comprehensive review evaluated every available epidemiological study on red meat and six types of cancer and concluded there was no causal link. How the WCRF review could come to a different conclusion is perplexing.

“At a time when Americans are overfed and undernourished, the report’s recommendations are especially disturbing as they are based on weak and inconsistent data.

“Lean beef can be an important part of the solution to the nation’s weight problem because the protein in lean beef helps control appetite and build muscle mass, which is essential to maintaining a healthy weight.

“Beef is the number one source of protein in the diet, which is a fundamental building block to muscle development. In addition, the other nutrients in lean beef – such as iron, zinc and B-vitamins – play a critical role in health by preventing anemia, promoting cognitive function, and building a healthy immune system.

“The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as long-standing recommendations from leading health organizations, continue to recommend lean, nutrient-rich meat as part of a healthy lifestyle. Dietary Guidelines and MyPyramid recommend adults eat 5.5 ounces of lean protein each day, and, on average, Americans are consuming 2.3 ounces of red meat each day which is well within these guidelines.

“When considering cancer risk, it’s important to look at what the science actually says: don’t smoke, use alcohol responsibly, be physically active, maintain a healthy weight and follow a diet consistent with the Dietary Guidelines which includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lowfat dairy products and lean meats.

“As a mother and a dietitian, I can tell you there is simply nothing in this report that should change how people enjoy nutrient-rich beef as part of a healthy, balanced diet.”

To speak with NCBA representatives and/or other scientific experts who can offer a perspective on this report, please contact:Meghan Pusey at 720-840-8744.

B-roll is available at 3:00-3:15 PM ET on October 31 at GA 26C/17 DL 4040V.

Provided by the Beef Checkoff.

High Blood Pressure and Other Scary Things

ACSH
Corrie Driebusch
October 31, 2007

This morning at 7am, ACSH staffers learned that trick or treating isn't just for little kids. Even when we're grown up, sometimes "tricks" are attempted. Today the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) issued a report concluding that consumption of red meat is causally linked with both breast and colon cancer, recommending we eat fewer burgers, chops, and steaks.

Well, ACSH's Dr. Kava explains, there is a line in the report that acknowledges that they're unsure whether the link between red meat consumption and cancer is caused by the red meat or something else red meat eaters are not consuming. We couldn't agree more. There were other conclusions drawn in the report we can't argue with -- for instance, the link between obesity and cancer is one that all here at ACSH believe to be true. But the problem is that these true statements, the ones that aren't hyperbole, did not get into all the news stories this morning -- the news networks presented the report as black and white: Red meat causes colon and rectal cancer.

The Today show this morning was particularly problematic. The message it promoted: Don't eat meat, vegetarianism is better, and every alcoholic drink is a potential poison. We can only imagine a mother waking up and hearing this message at 7:30 in the morning, thinking how this advice is contrary to her lifestyle and how the food she's planning for her family for lunch and dinner is now being called the "root" of cancer. And the comments about alcohol (a "link" we've been hearing about all month), ACSH staffers couldn't help but think of the many couples who go out to dinner every night and share a bottle of wine -- resulting in two and a half glasses per person. If we are telling people you are going to die if you go out to dinner and split a bottle of wine, the President should hold a press conference. That is just not true.

Also, ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan pointed out, Dr. Snyderman on the Today show repeated a line in the report that said cancer is a "mostly preventable disease." What a way to blame the victim. While there are some risk factors we can control (such as smoking -- the commonest cause of preventable disease and death -- and weight gain to the point of obesity), most are outside of our control (such as age and genetics). Statements like this only serve to make people feel guilty when diagnosed with cancer, as though they "brought this upon themselves."

All in all, ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross said, the report just seems to use some fuzzy math. If you have something that's statistically significant, that still doesn't mean that it's significant for an individual, he explained. If the numbers don't even rise to the level of confirming there's a real association, then the whole study is really junk.

Speaking of junk (not junk food), this "study" on dioxin made us wonder if we got the holiday wrong and it's April Fool's Day. The study found that the pollutant dioxin causes an increase in female births and decrease in male births. A side note: eradication of boys from the population? Is this really a negative consequence? (I kid, I kid.) This so-called study is replete with scientific errors of the most basic type and should be discarded.

Last night -- Mischief Night -- a major news network played a little trick on ACSH's Jeff Stier. The network mistakenly thought that scaremonger Dr. Samuel Epstein is a "client" of ours. Jeff explained that we do not have clients, and if we did, Epstein would never be one of them. An MSNBC producer had seen Jeff's New York Post op-ed that was critical of Dr. Epstein and made the wrong association. Then, after realizing that Jeff, and ACSH, will take an opposing position to Dr. Epstein on cancer scares, the network booker quickly got off the phone, even after Jeff offered to go on and offer a contrasting point of view. If you happen to be watching MSNBC this afternoon and see the segment on cancer, watch carefully whether it's balanced or not (based upon Jeff's conversation, we guess it will not be).

Finally, ACSH staffers found one piece of news to be our "treat" for the day -- that more young people are taking cholesterol-lowering medicine and medicine for high blood pressure. There are about 50 million people in this country with high blood pressure, Dr. Ross explained, and only about a quarter have been diagnosed and have it under control. Since high blood pressure is the greatest cause of cardiac disease in the country, it is essential to pay more attention. Dr. Ross (and the rest of ACSH) thinks it's good news that there's a bigger movement to get younger people to get their lipid levels under control. The NIH has noted that cholesterol-lowering drugs are vastly under-utilized, and increasing treatment of lipid abnormalities would further reduce the already-declining rate of heart disease.

Interpreting Health Studies: Science Panel Offers Tips for Journalists

ACSH
Ruth Kava
October 29, 2007

Widespread misinterpretation of health-related research, especially reports that conflate association with causation, leads to confusion and mistrust of health advice, according to physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 29, 2007 -- Widespread misinterpretation of health-related research, especially reports that conflate association with causation, leads to confusion and mistrust of health advice, according to physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

A new ACSH publication, "Distinguishing Association from Causation: A Backgrounder for Journalists," explains some of the basic issues and pitfalls involved in interpreting scientific studies. The paper offers tips to assist journalists and consumers in making sense of scientific reports.

"The news media are awash with headlines about the supposed risks or benefits of various foods, drugs, environmental chemicals or dietary supplements," said ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. "But the supposed causal connections between exposures and health effects are often conflicting or change over time," she continued.

The ACSH report describes the different types of studies scientists use to explore links between exposures and health. In addition, it presents important criteria for distinguishing if a link between an exposure and a health effect is truly causal (e.g., smoking and lung cancer) or if the connection is merely an association (e.g., carrying matches and lung cancer). The most useful criteria include:

• Temporality. For an association to be causal, the cause must precede the effect.
• Strength. Scientists can be more confident in the causality of strong associations than weak ones.
• Dose-response. Responses that increase in frequency as exposure increases are more convincingly supportive of causality than those that do not show this pattern.
• Consistency. Relationships that are repeatedly observed by different investigators, in different places, circumstances and times, are more likely to be causal.
• Biological plausibility. Associations that fit the known biology of the disease or health effect under investigation are more likely to be causal.

"Imprudent optimism about the significance of results or the importance of a discovery can lead consumers to mistrust scientific evidence or to ignore it entirely. Unfortunately, over-interpretation or emphasis can lead consumers to believe that a harmless exposure is dangerous, or conversely that some useless or dangerous product might be beneficial," stated Dr. John W. Morgan, cancer epidemiologist at Loma Linda University.

Download the full ACSH report, "Distinguishing Association from Causation: A Backgrounder for Journalists," at ACSH.org.

The American Council on Science and Health is an independent, non-profit consumer education organization concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.

The Best-to-Worst Ways to Cook Your Food

SixWise.com
October 10, 2007

You take great care in choosing the right foods for your family to eat, but did you know that the way they're prepared can have a large impact on their nutritional value?

Whereas some cooking methods will preserve the food's nutrients and flavor, others can actually diminish nutrient content and create harmful substances within your food.

What about the microwave? While some believe microwaving is a fast way to cook food without a lot of extra oils, others believe it can change the chemical structure of the food in unknown, potentially negative, ways, while reducing fragile nutrients.

It is always preferable to cook foods at lower temperatures than higher temperatures, not only because the nutrients are better preserved but also because the oils that you cook your food with -- particularly vegetable oils like soybean, corn and canola -- are easily damaged (oxidized) by the heat, posing health risks.

Fortunately, there are many cooking methods out there that are good for your food and good-tasting. Here we've outlined some of the most popular cooking methods, starting with the healthiest methods and ending up with the worst.

1. Eat Your Foods Raw

Well, it's not exactly a cooking method, but it is a very healthy way to consume many of your favorite foods. Raw foods, advocates say, are higher in vitamins and nutrients, which are destroyed by cooking. Eating raw may seem extreme, but you can actually prepare some pretty tasty dishes if you know what foods to combine.

If you would like to try out some delicious raw food recipes for yourself, Alive in 5: Raw Gourmet Meals in Five Minutes is packed with them (raw lasagna, spaghetti marinara, stuffed mushrooms, broccoli in cheese sauce, apple pie and more). They're healthy and delicious, even if you're new to raw foods!

2. Steaming

Simply put a little water in a pot, put in a steamer basket or colander, and add your food. As the water boils, the steam will gently cook your food. Be sure not to cook your food for too long (veggies should still be brightly colored and slightly crunchy when they're done), and you can also add some spices to the water to flavor the foods as they steam.

This method works especially well for fragile vegetables like leafy greens and fish.

3. Poaching

You can poach chicken, eggs and other foods by simmering them in a little bit of water or broth on your stovetop. Use a covered pan and take the foods off the heat when they're tender.

4. Baking/Roasting

Baking in your oven is a perfectly healthy way to cook, though it's preferable to use a lower temperature and a longer cooking time than a higher temperature to cook the food more quickly (roasting is typically done at a higher temperature). You can bake meat, fish, poultry, veggies, bread, fruit and anything else. To keep in some of the moisture, try keeping your baking dish covered.

Alive in 5: Raw Gourmet Meals in Five Minutes is the perfect cooking companion for anyone who wants to get more fresh, healthy and great-tasting foods into their diet -- but doesn't have a lot of time to do it.

5. Stir-Frying

Stir-frying is a fast, healthy way to cook. Chop your meat and veggies into small, uniform pieces, add a little oil or broth to a pan or wok, then stir the foods until they're just cooked through (add meat, which takes longer to cook, before the veggies). To preserve the nutrients in the veggies, cook them only slightly.

6. Braising

When you braise a piece of meat or fish, you brown it slightly in a pan, then cover it with a small amount of liquid such as broth. The pan is covered, and the food is left to slowly and gently finish cooking. After the food is removed, the leftover juices can be used to make a flavorful sauce.

7. Boiling

Boiled foods are healthy in that no harmful substances form when using this cooking method. However, there is some concern that nutrients may be lost when foods are boiled, and they may become overcooked. Steaming is a preferable cooking method to boiling.

Want a break from the stove? Try a raw smoothie for breakfast or a snack. All you need is a blender, some fresh or frozen fruit, and, if you like, some kefir, yogurt or whey protein powder.

8. Sauteing

Sauteing (cooking foods in a small amount of oil on your stovetop) is an acceptable form of cooking, although it does pose the problem of oxidizing oils. To avoid this, replace the oil with some broth instead and don't turn the heat up too high.

9. Grilling and Broiling

Many people love to grill their foods, however there are some potential problems to be aware of. Barbecue grill smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Meanwhile, heterocyclic amines form when food is cooked at a high temperature, such as those used in grilling and broiling. The chemicals have been linked to cancer.

Advanced glycation end (AGEs) products are also produced when meats are cooked at high temperatures. AGEs, according to researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

10. Frying

Frying foods is the absolute worst way to cook your foods. The high temperatures produce cancer-causing heterocyclic amines, along with AGEs. Meanwhile, frying exposes your foods to large amounts of oxidized (rancid) vegetable oils, which then soak into your food and wreak havoc in your body. You should avoid frying your foods and use the cooking methods higher up on this page instead.

Adams: Grass-fed vs. grain-fed meats? They do differ

The Daily News Journal (Tennessee)
By SARAH ADAMS
DNJ Columnist
October 10, 2007

You will not find me using this column to knock a good steak.

No, Sir. I also think a cheeseburger is one of the blessings of life. Beef stew, roast, ribs, filet — I love them all. Even better, I think I'm doing my body some good when I eat them. But only if they're the healthy kind: grass-fed.

That's a big "but." A big "but" is sometimes necessary and good. No one could dispute the fact that a big "but" can make an impact, as in the hind end of the previous paragraph. This big "but" makes all the difference.

Red meat is either healthy or harmful, depending chiefly on how the cow or sheep was treated and fed.

That's a very black-and-white statement, but is it really so hard to believe? Say you are considering buying meat from two different farmers. You frequently witness Farmer Rick's healthy stock peacefully chewing cud on a sunny hillside, while Farmer Nick's cows are packed into a muddy lot with grass visible only on the other side of the fence. From which farm would you prefer to buy meat for your family's Sunday dinner?

Moo food: grass vs. grain

The cows in the feed lot are fed mostly grain, which is not the food nature prescribed for them. Because of the digestive challenges that a grain diet causes and because of the crowded, stressful conditions in a feed lot, these cows require more antibiotics. The grain that the cows eat, unless it is organic, is going to be treated with pesticides, which have a very good chance of making their way to your table in the meat you eat.

Grass-fed cows have spent most of their lives in pasture. The meat from these cows not only has less fat and fewer toxins, but it may even offer higher levels of goodies like omega-3 fats, CLA (a cancer-fighting fat), and vitamins.

So, if grass makes a healthier cow and healthier meat, why isn't it every farmer's choice for their livestock? Because grain gets those cows fat fast. A little grain is fine and mimics a grazer's fall diet, which includes seeds, but too much grain moves away from the natural way of things.

Where's the grass-fed beef?

Most larger health food stores sell grass-fed meat, but expect to pay a lot. I mean a whole lot. However, you might want to buy a little this way to see if you like the flavor — some say it's a bit different than conventional meat.

The most economical way to buy grass-fed meat is to buy a quarter or half cow directly from the farmer, and then have it prepared by a meat processing company. I recently bought a half cow, which yielded about 75 lbs. of meat at $5 per lb. That's a lot of money at one shot, but it will provide steaks, burgers, roasts, and summer sausage for many months.

Lamb is another option and, quite fortunately, is usually grass-fed, even in your regular, old grocery store (according to the informational cookbook "Nourishing Traditions"). That's good news, but I'd still want to double-check the source.

Another consideration is deer meat, which may be the healthiest of all, since a deer's food and environment is completely wild. If you are not a hunter, you may know one who could get a deer for you — you'd be paying only for the meat processing, which costs about $50-$100 for the whole deer. That's a very good deal for high-quality food.

For the good of all livestock, let them eat grass.

Sarah Adams of Murfreesboro is a CPA and freelance food writer with a love for natural foods. E-mail her at write2sa@yahoo.com.

5 Food Rules to Break

Don't let your diet — or stomach — be held captive by these nutrition myths.

MSN
By Alan Aragon, M.S., Men's Health
October 05, 2007

It goes like this: A client looking to lead a healthier life hires me, a nutritionist, to help him improve his diet. I analyze what he's been eating, factor in his food preferences, and together we create an eating plan that fits his lifestyle and goals. Soon after, he's noticeably leaner and more energetic—a happy customer.

That's when the trouble starts. After a coworker asks him for the details of his diet, my client suddenly finds himself in a heated interrogation. Doesn't your nutritionist know red meat causes cancer? And that potatoes cause diabetes? Shouldn't he tell you to eat less salt, to prevent high blood pressure?

The upshot: Myths just made my job a lot harder. That's because nutrition misinformation fools men into being confused and frustrated in their quest to eat healthily, even if they're already achieving great results. Thankfully, you're about to be enlightened by science. Here are five food fallacies you can forget about for good.

Myth #1: "High protein intake is harmful to your kidneys."

The origin: Back in 1983, researchers first discovered that eating more protein increases your "glomerular filtration rate," or GFR. Think of GFR as the amount of blood your kidneys are filtering per minute. From this finding, many scientists made the leap that a higher GFR places your kidneys under greater stress.

What science really shows: Nearly 2 decades ago, Dutch researchers found that while a protein-rich meal did boost GFR, it didn't have an adverse effect on overall kidney function. In fact, there's zero published research showing that downing hefty amounts of protein damages the kidneys.

The bottom line: As a rule of thumb, shoot to eat your target body weight in grams of protein daily. For example, if you're a chubby 200 pounds and want to be a lean 180, then have 180 grams of protein a day. Likewise if you're a skinny 150 pounds but want to be a muscular 180.

Myth #2: "Sweet potatoes are better for you than white potatoes."

The origin: Because most Americans eat the highly processed version of the white potato—for instance, french fries and potato chips—consumption of this root vegetable has been linked to obesity and an increased diabetes risk. Meanwhile, sweet potatoes, which are typically eaten whole, have been celebrated for being rich in nutrients and also having a lower glycemic index than their white brethren.

What science really shows: White potatoes and sweet potatoes have complementary nutritional differences; one isn't necessarily better than the other. For instance, sweet potatoes have more fiber and vitamin A, but white potatoes are higher in essential minerals, such as iron, magnesium, and potassium. As for the glycemic index, sweet potatoes are lower on the scale, but baked white potatoes typically aren't eaten without cheese, sour cream, or butter. These toppings all contain fat, which lowers the glycemic index of a meal.

The bottom line: The form in which you consume a potato—for instance, a whole baked potato versus a processed potato that's used to make chips—is more important than the type of spud.

Myth #3: "Red meat causes cancer."

The origin: In a 1986 study, Japanese researchers discovered cancer developing in rats that were fed "heterocyclic amines," compounds that are generated from overcooking meat under high heat. And since then, some studies of large populations have suggested a potential link between meat and cancer.

What science really shows: No study has ever found a direct cause-and-effect relationship between red-meat consumption and cancer. As for the population studies, they're far from conclusive. That's because they rely on broad surveys of people's eating habits and health afflictions, and those numbers are simply crunched to find trends, not causes.

The bottom line: Don't stop grilling. Meat lovers who are worried about the supposed risks of grilled meat don't need to avoid burgers and steak; rather, they should just trim off the burned or overcooked sections of the meat before eating.

Myth #4: "High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is more fattening than regular sugar is."

The origin: In a 1968 study, rats that were fed large amounts of fructose developed high levels of fat in their bloodstreams. Then, in 2002, University of California at Davis researchers published a well-publicized paper noting that Americans' increasing consumption of fructose, including that in HFCS, paralleled our skyrocketing rates of obesity.

What science really shows: Both HFCS and sucrose—better known as table sugar—contain similar amounts of fructose. For instance, the two most commonly used types of HFCS are HFCS-42 and HFCS-55, which are 42 and 55 percent fructose, respectively. Sucrose is almost chemically identical, containing 50 percent fructose. This is why the University of California at Davis scientists determined fructose intakes from both HFCS and sucrose. The truth is, there's no evidence to show any differences in these two types of sugar. Both will cause weight gain when consumed in excess.

The bottom line: HFCS and regular sugar are empty-calorie carbohydrates that should be consumed in limited amounts. How? By keeping soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices, and prepackaged desserts to a minimum.

Myth #5: "Salt causes high blood pressure and should be avoided."

The origin: In the 1940s, a Duke University researcher named Walter Kempner, M.D., became famous for using salt restriction to treat people with high blood pressure. Later, studies confirmed that reducing salt could help reduce hypertension.

What science really shows: Large-scale scientific reviews have determined there's no reason for people with normal blood pressure to restrict their sodium intake. Now, if you already have high blood pressure, you may be "salt sensitive." As a result, reducing the amount of salt you eat could be helpful.

However, it's been known for the past 20 years that people with high blood pressure who don't want to lower their salt intake can simply consume more potassium-containing foods. Why? Because it's really the balance of the two minerals that matters. In fact, Dutch researchers determined that a low potassium intake has the same impact on your blood pressure as high salt consumption does. And it turns out, the average guy consumes 3,100 milligrams (mg) of potassium a day—1,600 mg less than recommended.

The bottom line: Strive for a potassium-rich diet, which you can achieve by eating a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and legumes. For instance, spinach, broccoli, bananas, white potatoes, and most types of beans each contain more than 400 mg potassium per serving.

In Defense of Butter

Sure, butter is rich in fat—especially the saturated kind. But most of this fat is composed of palmitic and stearic acids. Research shows these saturated fatty acids either have no effect on your cholesterol or actually improve it. Not enough to convince you that butter—in moderation, of course—isn't a dietary demon? Keep reading.

One pat of butter contains just 36 calories, and the fat it provides helps you feel full longer.

Butter is one of the top sources of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a natural fat that's been shown to fight cancer.

Studies show the fat in butter improves your body's ability to absorb vitamins A, E, D, and K. So a pat of butter on your vegetables actually makes them healthier (and tastier).