Resize 
TOPICS: dietary choices, health benefits, veganism
In this column I will explore some of the shocking claims about eating meat that I have seen. As a complement to Paige Pinkston's cogent "Beef: It's what's going to destroy the environment" (CT, Sept. 19) I will examine the health effects of eating animal products as described in "The Food Revolution." In the book, John Robbins, the son of the ice cream magnate, recommends a vegan diet as the best path to long-term health. In criticizing his work we should examine the evidence.
Amazingly, red meat causes 40 out of every 100 deaths from cancer. An 11,000-person, 12-year study published in the British Medical Journal concludes that there is a "roughly 40-percent reduction in mortality from cancer in vegetarians and fish eaters compared with (non-fish) meat eaters."
The American Institute of Cancer Research's metastudy finds that although meat can be part of a balanced diet, one should eat red meat infrequently and stop eating all processed meats (pepperoni, sausage, lunch meats, etc.). Despite what Robbins implies, the Institute maintains "it is not necessary to become a strict vegetarian." Therefore you can reduce your risk of cancer by eating very little red meat or none at all.
Although Robbins' assertions are not backed by evidence, the data about red meat and cancer are frightening.
The American Heart Association observes that "many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." These are many of the largest killers of Americans every year. But the AHA says that a little meat and some milk can be part of a balanced diet -- a maximum of six ounces of lean meat and a maximum of three servings of low-fat dairy daily. The association discourages consuming red meat and whole milk.
Robbins goes too far in his assertion. Although a vegan diet is included within the AHA's guidelines, the AHA does not only recommend veganism.
The putative health effects of milk are deceiving. The president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine states that, "recent studies, including the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, have shown that milk offers no protection against broken bones. (The study actually found a 45 percent increase in hip fractures for female milk drinkers.) And, unlike prescription drug ads, the mustache ads don't reveal the many unwanted 'side-effects' of milk, among them increased risk of prostate and ovarian cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart disease."
Interestingly, the dairy industry can deceive us into believing the opposite because advertising is regulated by the FCC, which does not seek the truth behind most ads. The FDA regulates food labels, which must be backed by evidence. Look for the necessary subterfuge on the next carton of milk you buy: "The potassium in milk helps maintain normal blood pressure" or "The calcium in milk helps build strong bones." Milk itself does neither, although low-fat or skim milk can be part of a healthy diet if consumed in moderation.
These facts lead to some shocking conclusions. There could be a historical parallel between smoking and animal products. In 1950 a study in the British Medical Journal linked smoking and lung cancer, a connection that was corroborated by the U.S. Surgeon General. Subsequently, American per capita smoking rates peaked, and the consequent rate of lung cancer deaths peaked two decades later. If the movement against cigarette smoking can reduce the smoking rate by half, then maybe it's time to harness those resources against another health threat: fatty animal products.
A vegan diet certainly falls within the above health guidelines; however, Robbins errs in not stating both sides of the issue. To decrease dramatically the risk of heart disease and cancer we do not have to become vegans. We can consume very little -- or no -- red meat and whole milk.
This column has been endorsed by Virginia Tech Relay for Life. If you're interested in helping, the organization would like the community to know that its efforts "include not only raising money that funds the type of research found in these resources, but also to educate our campus and community on the dangers of cancer and what we can do to fight back against it.
Our goal is to raise money and show the nation that Virginia Tech cares about this fight, but also to educate our students on how they can protect themselves against this terrible disease."
Leave a comment 14 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
Hi, While I will grant you that small amounts of animal products in the diet can be compatible with good health if the other choices are from a variety of healthy whole plant food, a sizable reduction in animal product consumption will definitely benefit our society's health. The AHA's diet recommendations have never been shown to reverse heart disease or slowed its progression because they are too weak. Please read Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease by Dr.Caldwell Esselstyn of the CLeveland Clinic. For an excellent program of disease reversal through nutrition density, please read Eat for Health by Dr. Joel Fuhrman, which contains both vegetarian and non-vegetarian options. They key for good health whether you are vegetarian or not is to consume a diet high in nutrients per calorie. Many vegetarians have an easier time doing this because they eat many more fruits and vegetables, but some vegetarians still eat too much white sugar & white flour and processed foods to obtain good health. Since you are raising finds for cancer research, please also read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell from Cornell University about the largest epidemiological study ever conducted and its implications for eating to prevent cancer. Good luck!
Reply to this Top
Re: "Veganism not required for living a long, happy life" Neither are meat, milk, and eggs...
Reply to this Top
It is not clear to me that Mr Thomas actually read Mr Robbins book. Just by glancing inside you can clearly see that "The Food Revolution" is well documented and cites credible sources. And, Mr Robbins never insists that health benefits happen only with strict veganism. In fact, quite the opposite. However, it is clear from the evidence he cites, that the closer you get to a vegan diet the more health benefits you enjoy. And, Mr Robbins spends a lot of time exploring the environmental impact of modern meat production agriculture--an important topic worthy of of any citizens' consideration. In other words, Mr Robbins has given us a lot of credible, well cited tidbits to consider with his book. It's a good read, and contrary to Mr Thomas's review, "Robbins errs in not stating both sides of the issue. " it does fairly explore all sides of these issues.
Reply to this Top
Veganism is required for others to live a long, happy life: the animals who otherwise will be used/abused/killed for food.
Reply to this Top
Saying "you can reduce your risk of cancer by eating very little red meat or none at all" is a little like saying "you can reduce your chance of getting lung cancer by smoking less or none at all." Most doctors will tell you to just stop smoking altogether. The same advice can apply to eating meat.
Reply to this Top
Is this column aimed at converting vegans into meat-eaters or keeping meat-eaters from going vegan? I don't understand why Relay for Life would endorse either of these goals, since a vegetarian or vegan diet is less likely than a meat-eater diet to cause cancer. Just because consuming less meat and milk is healthier than more meat and milk is no reason to argue that "Veganism is not required for living a long, happy life," especially since the columnist fails to prove that vegans do not live longer, healthier lives than non-vegans, therefore, failing to support his claim. As a vegetarian, and hopefully one day a vegan, I am offended by this column. It would have been a noble column to simply argue that people should eat less meat, but he went too far in discouraging his audience from going vegan. I think the columnist would do well to educate himself on the many other reasons to go vegan on top of better health: helps feed the world, save the environment, and decrease animal cruelty. Also, the argument of the first comment should be said that the column does not recognize that if you're not eating meat, you're probably eating something better for you.
Reply to this Top
Kris, to prove the claim stated in the headline, all he must show is that a non-vegan can live a long, happy life. He doesn't need to show that there are vegans who do not.
Reply to this Top
Also, for the hundred thousandth time, Burke, let's not use "cause" when we mean "correlate." The fact that vegetarians are not as heavily afflicted by certain diseases doesn't make it a direct effect of their vegetarianism. Did you ever think that anyone who is consciencious enough about their diet to completely forego eating meat and plan vegetarian meals is probably more concerned about his or her health than the average person?
Reply to this Top
I think the only thing proven about diet and longevity...is that people who eat LESS live LONGER. In Japan they eat all kinds of Western junk food, but not as much as here....they are thinner and live longer (on average)
Reply to this Top
Still, Paul, how is that "proven?" There are so many factors that go into how long someone lives that it is difficult to do even a basic control experiment. That's not to say that we should ignore trends that are seen in lifespan, but to say that diet is the answer is a bit too absolute for my taste. Also, there is the issue of "how little is too little?" Clearly eating less only works to a point before malnourishment counteracts any benefits.
Reply to this Top
True, restricted diets have only been scientifically proven effective in extending lifespans of monkeys, rats and mice. A lot more difficult getting a human to control diet and lifestyle as you say. However, you can certainly notice differences in other countries where lifespans are longer. I did work study in Japan for 2 years and I noticed: they eat more fish, more veggies, more soy products and have smaller portions. I'm certainly not discounting exercise (hell of a lot of stairs!) which keeps them THIN or a fairly good health care system. Far from perfect though...since high salt (soy sauce) leads to high bp, cardiovascular problems and stomach cancer.
Reply to this Top
As for the environmental aspects, Paige Pinkston's earlier column that I reference already discussed those. In addition, I find that talking about animal cruelty turns people off of veganism, although the ethical aspects are why I myself choose to be a vegan. I may write another column about animal cruelty. Jason, your comments are well taken. In an earlier version of the essay I wrote that it is not yet proven whether the absence of meat or the presence of lots of fruits and vegetables in peoples' diets contributes to lowering cancer rates. I then noted that people should still eat less meat anyways because some cancers are probably, and other negative health effects are definitely, caused (in the sense that smoking causes lung cancer, not only correlated) by meats. I am sorry to write that I deleted this paragraph for three reasons: 1) I felt that people would not understand that it is not evidence that there are positive health effects of meat eating; 2) space concerns; 3) I couldn't word it in a way that wasn't confusing. A research paper would definitely examine more of these nuances. Jean, I have not yet read those books but I look forward to The China Study. Paul, I would need to see some more evidence to analyze the validity of your arguments. Thank you all, and good luck!
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Here are the footnotes to my column: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/burket/burkes/articles/healthconsequencesofmeat.htm. First of all I am a vegan and tried hard to maintain objectivity in this column. When I saw the headline (which my editor created) I knew I had been successful in not overly preaching veganism. Unfortunately the headline came from the other side, so Maggie and Kris, your points are well taken. Mary, you also made a clever point that I had not yet picked up on. For my column I relied strictly on evidence, because Robbins certainly advocates a vegan diet above all others. In my reading of the book (Stephen) to my knowledge he does not cite the evidence that I do: you can eat a very small (Matt, not simply less) amount of meat and experience the health benefits.
Reply to this Top
Excellent column, thanks for the mention in the beginning. I always appreciate when the benefits of vegetarianism/veganism are able to discussed without the use of scare tactics involving disfigured poultry.
Reply to this Top