Vegan Diets are Healthier

We are getting into the meat of this debate. Things are sizzling. A Low-Meat Diet is Best for Health My claims at the end of the last round have gone unrebutted. Studies show that people who consume modest amounts of meat or fish have better health than vegans. The National Institute of Health, American Heart Association, and World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a balanced diet that includes meat. The longest-lived populations consume meat. Pro persists in comparing unplanned diets having meat with a theoretically optimum vegan diet. The planning for the idealized vegan diet is beyond the average person. Also, comprehensive studies show that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat-eaters, and that the best health is achieved by those with low-meat and low-fish diets. Vegetarians who consume dairy are somewhere in between in overall heath. Pro responds that he will get to the planning issue in the next round, but indicated no intention to dispute the rest. The Cancer Study Controversy Pro's Case is Negated if the Study is Accurate. Suppose the WCRF/AID study is 100% correct. Pro's case is still negated, because the Study did not recommend the vegan diet that Pro advocates. They recommended a low-meat diet. The American Institute for Cancer Research summarizes, "Studies show we can eat up to 18 ounces a week of red meat without raising cancer risk. Research on processed meat [preserved by smoking, curing or salting] shows cancer risk starts to increase with any portion." http://www.aicr.org... A vegan diet also extrudes white meat, fish, and dairy not subject to the claimed risks. The dispute is about whether there is proved causal relationship between meat consumption and cancer above the 18 ounce threshold. It's About the Science, not the Authors The review of the WCRF/AID study was done by Exponent. Exponent is an independent organization of 900 professionals. Their website http://www.exponent.com... notes "Our multidisciplinary organization of scientists, physicians, engineers, and regulatory consultants performs in-depth investigations in more than 90 technical disciplines. We analyze failures and accidents to determine their causes and to understand how to prevent them. We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions." Their reputation depends upon their integrity. Pro objects that Exponent was paid by the Cattlemen's Association. Suppose you are accused of a crime, and you believe that you can be proved innocent by showing that someone else's DNA was at the crime scene. What you do is hire an independent forensic expert to investigate and report. That's what the Cattlemen did. It plays out in Court by each side presenting the evidence they uncovered. Arguing that the defendant paid for his defense does not dispose of the evidence, the evidence must be examined directly. If the hired expert finds nothing, the defense fails. In Pro's ref R3.14, a professor summarizes the Exponent findings: The report omitted a comparison of several groups of socially matched meat-eating consumers and vegetarians in which there was no difference in mortality from colorectal cancer between the two groups; The WCRF/AICR report omitted 13 cohort studies involving 1.6 million people -- including a large study conducted by the American Cancer Society -- in which 11 of the studies found no significant association between eating red meat and cancer; The report did not refer to follow-up work by certain of its research sources that drew different conclusions, and The report did not refer to recent work by researchers that involved more subjects and reached different conclusions. The full Exponent report is on the US Department of Agriculture web site. According to R3.14, the results of the exponent study were discussed non-confrontationally with WCRF/AID who agreed to make revisions. Pro objected that the website I cited reporting the Exponent study was inadequately qualified. Pro's R3.14 has the same info, plus more detail. At some point, WCRF complained that they couldn't comment because the report had not been published and was not publish. However, WCRF was soon given a copy of the report and it was published on the USDA website. That makes who made the initial summary irrelevant. WCRF/AID ultimately responded by making corrections to their report, posted at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org... While they admitted errors, they said that the errors did not substantially change their conclusions. Exponent did not back off. Keep in mind that the WCRF/AID study was a metastudy. Neither WCRF/AID or Exponent generated the underlying data, both are analyzing data collected by others. In WCRF's fervent denial of having made significant errors (Pro's ref R3.16) they show bias, saying "Our 2009 Report on public policy implications of our recommendations also points out that current industrial methods for meat production are very wasteful of scarce energy and natural resources such as water and diverts grain needed for human consumption into animal feed." They are assuming that conserving resources is more important than meat production. That's an anti-meat public policy agenda. (In the US, 40% of the corn crop goes to making ethanol, a value system that places fuel over food.) WCRF's bias does not negate their report. As with Exponent, their work stands on it's own. I think there is a good case that processed meat poses cancer risk. The risk for fresh meat above 18 ounces per week is in doubt, but since the most healthful diets are low-meat, it's not important for the present debate. A properly-planned diet with meat limits quantities and avoids processed meats, just as a properly-planned vegan diet avoids tropical oils, fried starches, and other things. Obesity, etc. Pro establishes that obesity is bad for health. We are comparing properly planned diets, and a properly-planned low-meat diet avoids overeating. I pointed this out in R1, and Pro has not responded. The planning for that is easy; the realization is more difficult because meat tastes good. Both the planning and the realization of a vegan diet are much more difficult. Iron Pro persists in comparing an unplanned meat diet with a perfectly-planned and executed vegan diet. The data shows that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat eaters. It's important to understand why vegans fair so poorly, despite vegans having an easier time of reducing calories. The answer is that vegans have trouble maintaining the required intake of protein, iron, B12, and other nutrients. That relates to our debate because Pro must prove that the vegan diet can be correctly planned by an average person. B12 Pro claims that the B12-producing bacteria in animals are contaminants. I claim that the B12 bacteria are compatible with the human digestive system, which is loaded with bacteria. Pro has presented no data showing harm from consuming B12-producing bacteria is harmful. I presented data that avoiding supposed contamination too rigorously may lead to allergies and asthma. The resolution is negated.