From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:11:56 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> The China Health Study found that disease increased in linear
rl> proportion with meat consumption, not as a step function.  As I
rl> recall, the Boston Cooperative Nurses study found that women who
rl> consumed meat just once a day were 2.49 times as likely to
rl> develop breast cancer as near-vegetarians.  The term,
rl> "near-vegetarian" was defined as an individual who consumes meat
rl> less than once/month.

From article <1992Sep4.181622.10665@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> What I'm trying to get at Mr.  Lawrence is your opinion, which I 
jh> value, on whether your interpretation of these two studies leads 
jh> you to conclude that the the x,y intercept is "absolute health 
jh> and well-being" and "zero meat consumption." 

There are lots of causes of disease in our society.  Abstaining 
from meat wouldn't eliminate the risk of emphysema anymore than 
abstaining from cigarette smoking would eliminate the risk of 
colon cancer.  

jh> I accept the 
jh> linearity of the meat consumption and health relationship, I'm 
jh> curious if you believe the data warrant the interpretation that 
jh> "near-vegetarian" nurses would have less breast cancer if they 
jh> consumed no meat--ever.  

Walter Willett was quoted by the NYT as saying, "The optimum 
amount of red meat you eat should be zero."  Be that as it may, 
I'm sure you'll agree with me that we should avoid the risk of 
assuming that meat-consumption is either "evil" or "not-evil", 
and, in practical terms, most americans would find it tough to
adopt a "no-meat-ever" sort of diet anyway at this point in 
time.  What matters is that the advantages of eating meat less 
than once a month appear to be well-established, at least for 
Boston nurses.   Why stretch the data?

jh> As my personal observation, vegetarian friends of mine are more 
jh> concerned with other healthy lifestyle choices in addition to 
jh> cutting out meat consumption than non-vegetarians.  Again, from 
jh> my experience only, vegetarians as a group would tend to work out 
jh> more, not smoke or drink excessively and so forth...Did the study 
jh> control for other lifestyle choices other than meat consumption.  
jh> If the two study groups were not equivalent in this manner, I'd 
jh> say the study has major problems.  

I don't disagree, but it's important to analyze the data from the 
Boston study in conjunction with the data from other studies.  
While it might be true that fitness would improve a person's 
chance of avoiding a disease like colon cancer in some mysterious 
way, it wouldn't change the role that bile salts (metabolized 
from fats) appear to play as tumor promoters.  I'd strongly 
recommend that you read the article: Willett, et al.  "Relation 
of Meat, Fat, and Fiber Intake to the risk of colon cancer in a 
prospective study among women", New England Journal of Medicine, 
12/13/90.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals