PisaczekSearch
文AEN
Diet and nutrition

Processed meat and meat products — everyday food or slow poison?

Sources: 12 · Article: 14 558 characters

Paul Clayton describes crispy bacon as carcinogenic.

  • Jerzy Zięba describes pork loin with additives, including wheat gluten, and calls it toxic.
  • Michał Tombak claims that highly processed foods eaten with meat and sausage are difficult to digest, and that their residue is said to produce toxins.
  • Grażyna Cichosz believes that moderate consumption of meat from ruminants and dairy products containing natural trans fats poses no health risk.

What the authors write

Paul Clayton

Paul Clayton describes crispy bacon as carcinogenic.

„Breakfast, of course, includes bacon—preferably crispy and carcinogenic. Sugar is put in most things that aren’t fried, but also in many that are. It brings to mind post-transition Scottish cuisine, which gave the world the deep-fried Mars bar, deep-fried pizza, and, for the connoisseur, deep-fried haggis resembling black pudding.”Śniadanie obejmuje oczywiście boczek – najlepiej chrupiący i rakotwórczy. Cukier umieszcza się w większości rzeczy, które nie są smażone, ale także wielu, które są. Przypomina to postprzejściową kuchnię szkocką, która dała światu: smażony w głębokim tłuszczu batonik Mars, smażoną pizzę, a dla konesera – przypominające kaszankę smażone w głębokim tłuszczu haggis.
Michał Tombak

Michał Tombak says that highly processed foods eaten with meat and sausage are difficult to digest, and that their residue is said to produce toxins.

„What is more, our diet is mostly based on refined, highly processed products and flour-based foods (alternated with meat, sausage, and dairy products). The digestive system struggles to digest this kind of food, and undigested residue settles on the walls of the large intestine, forming layers of deposits. These turn into a mass full of disease-causing parasites that release metabolic substances toxic to the body—toxins.”Na dodatek podstawę naszego żywienia przeważnie stanowią: produkty rafinowane, wysoko przetworzone, artykuły mączne (łączone na przemian z: mięsem, kiełbasą, nabiałem). Układ pokarmowy z trudem trawi taki pokarm, a niestrawione resztki osiadając na ściankach jelita grubego, tworzą na nim warstwy osadu, który przekształca się w masę pełną chorobotwórczych pasożytów wydzielających trujące dla organizmu substancje metaboliczne – toksyny.
Jerzy Zięba

Jerzy Zięba describes pork loin with additives, including wheat gluten, and calls it toxic.

„A few days ago, at a supermarket, I noticed some very expensive “smokehouse” pork loin. Along with a long list of E-number additives, its ingredients included soy protein—but why should soy protein be added to pork loin? Vegetable fiber… since when should pork contain fiber? Glucose… why would anyone put glucose in meat? Sugar… I ask: why should there be sugar in meat? Glucose syrup… what is glucose syrup doing in pork loin? Oh… it also contained wheat gluten, which damages our intestines!! Is this even still pork loin? Who allows the sale of pork loin that is toxic, and on what grounds?”Kilka dni temu w jednym z supermarketów zauważyłem bardzo drogą polędwicę „z komina”. W składzie tej polędwicy, oprócz litanii dodatków typu E, znajdowało się: białko sojowe, ale nie wiem po co do polędwicy należało dodać białko sojowe? Błonnik roślinny… od kiedy w mięsie wieprzowym ma znajdować się błonnik? Glukoza… po co komu w mięsie glukoza? Cukier… pytam: w jakim celu ma być w mięsie cukier? Syrop glukozowy… a co syrop glukozowy robi w polędwicy? Aha… był tam w niej jeszcze niszczący nam jelita pszenny gluten!! Czy to w ogóle jest jeszcze polędwica? Kto i na jakiej podstawie pozwala na sprzedaż polędwicy, która jest toksyczna?
Grażyna Cichosz

According to Grażyna Cichosz, moderate consumption of meat from ruminants and dairy products containing natural trans fats poses no health risk.

„With moderate consumption of these products, there is no health risk whatsoever. All the more so because conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and vaccenic acid have unique health-promoting effects (5, 6). In recent years, advertising and the popularization of the health benefits of vegetable fats have significantly increased their consumption.”Przy umiarkowanym spożyciu wymienionych produktów nie istnieje jakiekolwiek zagrożenie dla zdrowia. Tym bardziej, że skoniugowany kwas linolowy (CLA), a także kwas wakcenowy wykazuje unikalne prozdrowotne działanie (5, 6). W ostatnich latach, dzięki reklamie i popularyzacji prozdrowotnego działania tłuszczów roślinnych, ich spożycie istotnie wzrosło.

Research from PubMed · Europe PMC

We selected 5 studies with the best, positive results. This is a selection, not a full review of all research.

Total number of studies on this topic in PubMed: 677.

A meta-analysis of prospective studies found that higher processed meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer.

Aim of the study: Increasing evidence suggests that red and processed meat consumption may elevate the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet the magnitude and consistency of this association remain debated. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the relationship between red and processed meat intake and the risk of CRC, colon cancer, and rectal cancer using the most comprehensive set of prospective studies to date.

Results: Processed meat consumption showed similar associations with increased risk for colon cancer (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.20), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1.28), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30). Total meat consumption also correlated with an elevated risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.35), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.48). This meta-analysis provides robust evidence that high consumption of red and processed meats is significantly associated with an increased risk of colorectal, colon, and rectal cancers. These findings reinforce current dietary recommendations advocating for the limitation of red and processed meat intake as part of cancer prevention strategies.

Money for the studygovernment, public institutions · NIA NIH HHS, NCI NIH HHS, Semmelweis University
Do the authors have ties to companies?yes — the authors reported it
Did a manufacturer help with the study?unknown
Type of studycombined analysis of many studies (meta-analysis)

“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.

A meta-analysis of prospective studies found an association between higher red and processed meat consumption and increased colorectal cancer risk.

Aim of the study: The evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.

Results: Relevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.11-1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI = 1.04-1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk.

Money for the studyuniversity or foundation · World Cancer Research Fund International
Do the authors have ties to companies?no — the authors say so
Did a manufacturer help with the study?NO
Type of studycombined analysis of many studies (meta-analysis)

“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.

An umbrella review found that processed meat consumption may be associated with an increased risk of several cancers, including colorectal cancer.

Aim of the study: The purpose of this umbrella review was to evaluate the quality of evidence, validity and biases of the associations between red and processed meat consumption and multiple cancer outcomes according to existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The umbrella review identified 72 meta-analyses with 20 unique outcomes for red meat and 19 unique outcomes for processed meat.

Results: The umbrella review identified 72 meta-analyses with 20 unique outcomes for red meat and 19 unique outcomes for processed meat. Red meat consumption was associated with increased risk of overall cancer mortality, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Processed meat consumption might increase the risk of overall cancer mortality, NHL, bladder, breast, colorectal, esophageal, gastric, nasopharyngeal, oral cavity and oropharynx and prostate cancer. Dose-response analyses revealed that 100 g/d increment of red meat and 50 g/d increment of processed meat consumption were associated with 11%-51% and 8%-72% higher risk of multiple cancer outcomes, respectively, and seemed to be not correlated with any benefit.

Money for the studygovernment, public institutions · National Natural Science Foundation of China, Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province
Do the authors have ties to companies?not stated
Did a manufacturer help with the study?unknown
Type of studyreview of many studies

“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.

In the UK Biobank study, people who ate more red and processed meat had a higher risk of colorectal cancer.

Aim of the study: Most of the previous studies on diet and colorectal cancer were based on diets consumed during the 1990s.

Results: During an average of 5.7 years of follow-up, 2609 cases of colorectal cancer occurred. Participants who reported consuming an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat compared with 21 g/day had a 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4-37] higher risk of colorectal cancer. Participants in the highest fifth of intake of fibre from bread and breakfast cereals had a 14% (95% CI: 2-24) lower risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was associated with an 8% (95% CI: 4-12) higher risk per 10 g/day higher intake. Fish, poultry, cheese, fruit, vegetables, tea and coffee were not associated with colorectal-cancer risk. Consumption of red and processed meat at an average level of 76 g/d that meets the current UK government recommendation (≤90 g/day) was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.

Money for the studygovernment, public institutions · Girdlers’ New Zealand Health Research Council, Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council
Do the authors have ties to companies?not stated
Did a manufacturer help with the study?unknown
Type of studyobservation of people
Participants475 581

“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.

A meta-analysis found an association between processed meat consumption and an increased risk of several cancers, including colorectal cancer.

Aim of the study: Red meat and processed meat consumption has been hypothesized to increase risk of cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence of associations between consumption of red meat (unprocessed), processed meat, and total red and processed meat with the incidence of various cancer types.

Results: Processed meat consumption was significantly associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk. Total red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09-1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09-1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04-1.37). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers.

Money for the studynot stated
Do the authors have ties to companies?not stated
Did a manufacturer help with the study?unknown
Type of studycombined analysis of many studies (meta-analysis)

“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.

Perspectives and opinion materials

The content below presents the authors’ opinions, interpretations and hypotheses. It is not treated as equal to scientific studies and systematic reviews.

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Opinion material
„(2005) Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. J Nat Cancer Inst 97:1458-65. 4. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD. (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 70:2281-22855. 5. Scanlan RA. Nitrosamines and cancer. Peters JM, Preston-Martin S, London SJ, Bowman JD, Buckley JD, Thomas DC. Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. (1994) Cancer Causes Control. Mar; 5(2):195-202. 7. Sarasua S, Savitz DA.”(2005) Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. J Nat Cancer Inst 97:1458-65. 4. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD. (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 70:2281-22855. 5. Scanlan RA. Nitrosamines and cancer. Peters JM, Preston-Martin S, London SJ, Bowman JD, Buckley JD, Thomas DC. Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. (1994) Cancer Causes Control. Mar; 5(2):195-202. 7. Sarasua S, Savitz DA.
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Opinion material
„He references a Harvard study [2] that tracked over 121,000 adults for up to 28 years and shares with us that "people who ate three ounces of red meat every day were about 13 percent more likely to die-often from heart disease or cancer-before the study ended than people who didn't eat meat."[1] And, folks who eat processed meat fared worse. They increased their risk of early death by 20 percent. This sounds like pretty important information, not to be taken lightly.”He references a Harvard study [2] that tracked over 121,000 adults for up to 28 years and shares with us that "people who ate three ounces of red meat every day were about 13 percent more likely to die-often from heart disease or cancer-before the study ended than people who didn't eat meat."[1] And, folks who eat processed meat fared worse. They increased their risk of early death by 20 percent. This sounds like pretty important information, not to be taken lightly.
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Opinion material
„Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):195-202. (4) Nothlings U, Wilkens LR, Murphy SP, et al. 2005. Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. J Nat Cancer Inst 97:1458-65. (5) Sarasua S, Savitz DA. Cured and broiled meat consumption in relation to childhood cancer: Denver, Colorado (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):141-8. (6) Scanlan RA. Nitrosamines and cancer. User's guide to vitamin C. Basic Health Publications, 2002, p 64-67. ISBN-10: 1591200210; ISBN-13: 978-1591200215. (8) Smithsonian, July 1992, p 5.”Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia. Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):195-202. (4) Nothlings U, Wilkens LR, Murphy SP, et al. 2005. Meat and fat intake as risk factors for pancreatic cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. J Nat Cancer Inst 97:1458-65. (5) Sarasua S, Savitz DA. Cured and broiled meat consumption in relation to childhood cancer: Denver, Colorado (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1994 Mar; 5(2):141-8. (6) Scanlan RA. Nitrosamines and cancer. User's guide to vitamin C. Basic Health Publications, 2002, p 64-67. ISBN-10: 1591200210; ISBN-13: 978-1591200215. (8) Smithsonian, July 1992, p 5.

Pisaczek does not judge who is right. It shows what was written and where to read it. Every sentence above has its source.