Eating meat is good for your health

1. Pro claims that I have cited weak studies, while himself citing older studies from the same institution [1]. Most of pro's sources are opinion articles from internet websites, whereas the majority of mine are peer-reviewed, scientific publications, from respected journals. If the content of pro's sources is supported by the scientific literature, I encourage pro to demonstrate this. The Harvard publication that pro cites did not find that red meat consumption does not reduce mortality, let alone cancer related mortality, as was found in the more recent Harvard study that I cited above. 2. Pro claims consuming a selenium containing compound which also contains elements that contribute to cancer is somehow healthy in comparison with getting selenium from other sources that lack such mutagens, such as nuts, cereals, mushrooms or eggs. If selenium were absorbed through the lungs, for arguments sake, adding this compound to cigarettes would not mean that they were therefore healthy. 3. Pro argues that I only argue against consumption of 'processed' red meat. As you can see by reading my first round, this is clearly false. The World Cancer Research Fund's recommendation of less than 300g per week applies only to unprocessed red meats. Their recommendation regarding processed meats is that there is no safe level of consumption whatsoever. Pro has misrepresented my argument, as well as my sources in this assertion (see WCRF reference from my first round). My argument is against the consumption of all red meat, whether processed or unprocessed, as well as all processed meats (whether red or not). 4. Pro's webMD source is almost 10 years old and seems to conflict drastically with more reliable sources i.e. the peer-reviewed literature. This quote sums up the science regarding the health effects of a vegetarian diet: "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in non-vegetarians.[2][3] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[4]" "Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[5] lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[6] dementias such as Alzheimer"s disease and other disorders.[7] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[8]" 5. While I am aware of the limitations of correlational studies, the extent that these studies have gone to in order to control for confounding factors is quite impressive. The recent Harvard study, for example, controlled for every possible confound mentioned by pro above (including smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, etc.). In other words, the statistics that pro presented regarding vegetarians and other lifestyle parameters are irrelevant because the studies I cited controlled for all of these. Pro's argument against the science here is reminiscent of tobacco companies less than only a few decades ago. 6. The vast majority of epidemiological studies demonstrate the links mentioned above, and contrary to pro's claims the World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 recommendations were far from being based solely on correlational data. As stated above, research was not only correlational, but also mechanistic and experimental in origin (characterization of mutagens, characterization of DNA damage in human cells after a meat meal in comparison with control non-meat meal - cited in round 1). 7. Pro picks out one study which found no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. This does not outweigh the majority of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies. 8. If you agree with pro in that the over 200 scientists from 30 different countries are practicing pseudo-science, along with the researchers responsible for the over 7000 peer-reviewed publications that these scientists summarized, as well as Harvard Medical School's leading researchers, then vote pro in this debate. Conclusion: Pro has seemingly misread the core of my argument, and misrepresented my sources. Pro claims that my sources are weak, but presents sources that are for the most part unreliable, whereas mine are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Pro uses logical fallacy in claiming that eating a selenium containing but carcinogenic compound is healthy in comparison with a selenium containing, non carcinogenic food source. Pro claims that red meat consumption lowers cancer risk, but this claim is at direct odds with the vast majority of epidemiological evidence showing that meat consumers get more cancer, and die more prematurely, even when studies controlled for all of the possible confounds mentioned by pro above (alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity etc.). If respected scientific journals such as those that I have cited, and organizations such as the WCRF and Harvard Medical School are pseudo-science, then I do not know what pro considers to be real science. In light of these facts I urge you to vote con. References: [1] Red Meat Consumption and Mortality; An Pan, Qi Sun, Adam M. Bernstein, Matthias B. Schulze, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Archives of Internal Medicine, online March 12, 2012 Versus http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [2] http://www.vrg.org... [3] Key et al. Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70 (3): 516S. [4] Fraser G. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases?Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1607S"12S. [5] Appleby, P.; Thorogood, M.; Mann, J.; Key, T. (1998). "Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol". International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22 (5): 454"460. [6] Rizzo NS, Sabat" J, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Fraser GE. Vegetarian dietary patterns are associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome: The Adventist Health Study-2. Diabetes Care. 2011 May;34(5):1225-7 [7] Mattson, Mark P. Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. [8] Maggie Fox, Meat raises lung cancer risk, too, study finds, Reuters, December 10, 2007; A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk, PLoS Medicine. April 21, 2008. I believe that this is the final round; it was a pleasure debating you, Mirza. All the best for your final round and I anxiously await votes.