Suggested Lead: Dominik Alexander, who has extensive experience in health research methodology, meta-analysis and disease causation, as well as nutritional epidemiology, reports on the association between the intake of red meat and cancer.
Alexander 1: “Red meat as a food seems to undergo a great deal of scrutiny when it comes to potential associations with cancer or other disease types. It should undergo the same level of scientific scrutiny as other foods and dietary factors. Red meat has been evaluated in the epidemiologic literature over the past three or so decades with a greater focus on its potential relationship with cancer over the past 10 or so years, beginning in 2005 to 2007 when the World Cancer Research Fund issued their statement saying read meat was a convincing cause of colorectal cancer.” (:46 seconds)
Alexander says the evidence between red meat and cancer just isn’t there.
Alexander 2: “I think that statement is highly sensationalized given the weak body of evidence. So, the associations are weak in magnitude. They are inconsistent. There’s a great deal of bias involved with conducting nutritional epidemiology, looking at a specific food and a specific outcome or even a broad outcome such as cancer. So in the studies we’re relying upon participants to recall what they consumed. So they’re self-reporting their consumption behaviors. Now, relying on that historical perspective of their consumption it’s not just food, which we eat hundreds of foods, we don’t eat food in isolation. Now, foods are highly correlated, but they’re also correlated with activities, behaviors, lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, body mass index.” (:58 seconds)
Alexander explains the risk ratio when it comes to cancer and eating red meat.
Alexander 3: “We have to independently isolate the effects of a single food such as red meat and a cancer outcome which is very challenging. And the reason why scientifically I don’t have a lot of confidence in statements such as red meat is a convincing cause of colorectal cancer are because we can’t fully account for these other biases and confounding, isolating the effects of a specific food. It would be different if the associations across the literature were strong in magnitude, but they’re very weak, they’re close to the null value which means that they’re close to a relative risk or rate ratio which is 1.0 which means there’s no association between those that consume the most red meat and those who consume lower amounts.” (:45 seconds)
Click here to see more...