Dairy products are causing cancer.

[Goodfellers]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.

[Goodfellers]

Does anyone know why typed words end up linked when posted. Tried typing in Word then copy and pasting but still does it. Really annoying

[Rheghead]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.

I'm sure the the egg industry council or the replacement for the milk marketing board would sing a different tune but I'd be interested in their scientific studies (if any) to back up their statements. I'm trying to focus on the science, it is up to you to do what you want with the information, if you have devcided to continue to eat eggs and dairy then that is your decision, I will support your decision, it is your life afterall. As physicians though, the PCRM are oath-bound to give advice in the best interests of patients and public health and as a plant-based diet looks to be the best diet in terms of health then I cannot criticise them for their position. It worries me why the advice is watered-down in our own mainstream health organisations. They are supposed to adhere to the science as well and give people the best advice based upon that research.

I'd also give a caveat in the interpretation of the wording there. Science works by testing models and that means running experiments or studies based on sets of data and under certain criteria and testing them to see what results come out of the experiment. The criteria in most of these experiments or epidemiological studies is people's eating habits in relation to dairy, meat and eggs and testing against people who don't eat these products and the results show that people who eat animal products have a significant incidence of cancer rates than in the control group the vegans etc.

What the reports do not claim credit for is sets of factors or influences that may be outside the scope of the experiment, for example it may be that people who eat animal products might also smoke more , inhale glue, play Monopoly or whatever. But you have to take a reasonable judgement why that doesn't apply to the control group. You have to think if it is not the dairy, meat and eggs then what could account for the differences in cancer rates given that the scientists are testing a mechanism to those cancers as well and not just some random correllation. The deduction to any alternative mechanism has to be reasonable and logical.
So the language that can only be used in the conclusions is 'may cause because of other factors that be outside the scope of the experiment or study, the uncertainty may be real or it may be totally illusory depending on how much emphasis you may wish to place on what has not been deemed worthy of testing. So we must be careful not to confuse the emphasis of a scientific 'may' with a 'may' that we would use in everyday language. I've seen too many anti-intellectual arguments (from people who really should know better) who question the science in relation to other fields of study like Evolution and Climate Science, like "Yeah but Evolution is only a theory, right?" and "Climate Science is bunkum because they can't be 100% certain the IPCCC Report, they only claim fossil fuels is only likely to warm to the atmosphere above 2 degrees, so I will continue to drive my SUV." and the big one "Science can't disprove God because the Big Bang may have been the start of the Universe". It is the job of individuals and policy-makers to interpret the science and spread the word but in relation to eating dairy, meat and eggs it seems the message is not getting through.

What the reports also do not claim is the impeccable quality of the data so caution needs to be administered here if you think it is not too bad to be eating animal products. Because the criteria is dependent on who only 'claim' to be vegan but I've had often heard people who talk about their cousin or friend who went vegan once but who sneaked a sausage when nobody was looking. I also know that it is almost impossible to totally avoid eating animal products altogether because of poor food labelling and genuine mistakes or intentional acts to deceive in food preparation. As there seems to be no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that we can eat then we can be reasonable to assume that a lot of cancers in the vegan populations are due to eating animal products as well.

[Fulmar]

As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.

[Rheghead]

As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.

You are quite correct that age increases the number of mutations at the cellular level so therefore it is important that we adopt a suitable diet to reflect that vulnerability to cancer as we age. That means if you want the best preventative measure from cancer then a plant-based diet is the best answer. Studies show that aging populations could benefit the most from adopting a plant-based diet especially because of thel ower saturated, trans fat content but also the oestrogen in meat and dairy may be having an effect or keeping the level higher than the body needs it as we age, post-menopausal women have lower oestrogen levels etc etc. The question that every older person must ask themselves is 'why should I continue to eat meat and dairy if it will put me at greater risk of getting cancer?', life is precious especially if we want to see our grandkids grow up.

You mentioned cancer charities and how much you trust them and so you should. Lets take BreastCancerUK for an example, it is a charity dependent on subscription donations. It lists on its science and research page a list of risk factors that thought to cause breast cancer (with even less certainty than the risks with meat and dairy I might add) and yet no mention of the breast cancer risks associated with eating animal products? What is going on? There is enough scientific evidence for the link as I've just established. Well the answer is that well-established charities like it are also compared to businesses in the way they do their business. What would be the effect on their donorship if they now told everyone that they should stop eating meat and dairy? The response will be exactly the same resistance that every vegan gets who promotes a plant-based diet as a prudent action to prevent cancer. The response will be exactly what you have said, we need to 'weigh up the risks and decide what to do or not to do and for me'. That's a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks for telling me but I'm going to do what I want to do because I like what I'm doing". The end result for the charity is a reduced level of donor subscriptions a reduced global spread for its message...just for trying to address the number 1 cause of breast cancer to its members. You couldn't make it up, actually. People don't like being told what to do...even less they don't like people being 'oh holier than thou' and being on the moral pedestal. Changing people's behavior is hard, most health organisations won't tackle the main issues with eating meat and dairy because of the entrenched social, political, environmental and economic issues and people's lack of willing to change their habits. But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.

[Goodfellers]

But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.

Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim happier for everyone. Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed I say ’.

I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?

[Neil Howie]

In this study it was found that a totally plant-based diet, that means cutting out all dairy and meat offered the best chances of life longevity after having been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer patients will say they'd do anything to have that extra bit of life to be with with family but would that mean they would change their diet to being a vegan?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600

Hi,

just picking on one of the posts. I can't read the article in full, and it is difficult to know how accurate the reporting was or if there was a particular reason for the high egg consumption for a particular sample, e.g. they were in hospital.

Plus the link between eggs and prostrate cancer may be specific, due to the antigen. There is no idea of the positive effects, e.g. if it also has a 25% less risk of Alzheimers, and 15% less risk of stomach cancer.

Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk? Is it relative risk or absolute risk - does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?

My "go to" place for news articles like these is the NHS site, and as it happens there is a post here on the very thing! link

to quote

The study and data analysis also has several limitations. First, the number of deaths and cases of lethal prostate cancer were small (only 199 out of 27,607 men in the whole cohort, and 123 out of 3,127 in the case-only cohort [those who initially developed localised disease]). This small number increases the likelihood that the results are due to chance. Second, the researchers say that the group of men included in the study generally ate low amounts of the foods of interest, which limits the "power" (or ability to detect a difference) of the analysis.


Furthermore, while the researchers controlled statistically for a number of possible confounders, it is difficult to say whether other factors could account for this relationship. The researchers say that men in the study who consumed more red meat or eggs tended to have a higher BMI, exercise less and were more likely to smoke and have a family history of prostate cancer. Additionally, it is probably difficult to control completely for other dietary effects and focus the analysis on a single component of a person’s diet.


This study points to possible associations between diet and risk of prostate cancer. The aforementioned limitations, however, weaken the strength of these conclusions, along with the fact that previous research has looked at this question and found no association. While an 81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains.

[Rheghead]

But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.

Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim happier for everyone. Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed I say ’.

I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?

I'm glad that you are doing your own form of research on the other impacts of meat and dairy production but don't fall into the trap of because you don't like a fact then it is better to ignore it. I accept that is a natural human reaction to something that we would like to bury from our conciousness but be warned that those environmental studies have been put together by respected authors and peer-reviewed as valid. That said I'm focussing more on the health issues of eating dairy and meat, I'll probably move on to the other issues in the full goodness of time. Whether you want to eat meat or not, I'm not bothered, but I just want to have that discussion, sharing information never hurt anyone. But if you are armed with information that a meat-eating diet is damaging your health, your planet and your pocket then you have to ask why you continue to do it. Personally I'd be happier if the countryside is more natural and sustainable.

[Rheghead]

Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk? Is it relative risk or absolute risk - does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?

Well the risks of dying from prostate cancer are very much higher than that. From your own quote from the study there is a 0.72% risk of dying from it some 100 times higher than you suggested.

The Bazian critique also points to other factors as being contributory to prostate cancer like obesity in general. Well to state the obvious, if you are cutting out meat, dairy and eggs from your diet then you are going a long way to shedding a lot of pounds. That's one of the positive aspects of a plant-based diet, it is low on the bad fat and high in the good fat so BMIs will improve. It is a shame that Bazian failed to reinforce that point.

[Rheghead]

Another study to reinforce the notion that a diet rich in green leafy vegetables can reduce the risks of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724470

[Rheghead]

A risk factor with oesophageal cancer is acid reflux or heartburn, a very common digestive complaint. To reduce your exposure to acid reflux then the advice is to cut out processed meat and eat more vegetables as processed meat like bacon and pies can/will bring on heartburn.

http://www.healthline.com/health/ger...r#RiskFactors4

[Rheghead]

Here is a peer-reviewed physician's guide to plant-based diets.

Plant-based diets have been associated with lowering overall and ischemic heart disease mortality; supporting sustainable weight management; reducing medication needs; lowering the risk for most chronic diseases; decreasing the incidence and severity of high-risk conditions, including obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia; and even possibly reversing advanced coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes.

Cancer activity reduction via several mechanisms, including inhibiting tumor growth, detoxifying carcinogens, retarding cell growth, and preventing cancer formation

Protection against certain diseases, such as osteoporosis, some cancers, CVD, macular degeneration, and cataracts

That is quite a big list health benefits of adopting a plant-based diet.. One thing that stood out for me is the prevention of osteoporosis, we've been conditioned since kids that milk is essential for bone growth when it appears that the opposite is true.

http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/...6192-diet.html

[Bill Fernie]

Over 12 years ago I put some links in the links section of the web site under the heading Milk or Not Milk - http://www.caithness.org/links/milkornotmilk.htm

Oddly although not many links they are all still are working Some fairly biased stuff on both sides and one of them links to many other American web sites.

Over the years the arguments have come and gone on both sides but I always err on the side of caution when vested interests are concerned and even health related places who may have other things to say but may also have vested interests in the medical or pharmaceutical industries.

Perhaps balance and not over indulging in anything is common sense - even with what we have brought up to believe is good for us. I do think milk is good if you lack other sources of nutrition in your diet from fresh foods and particularly for children. Probably so after wartime when many foods were in short supply. However as we get older perhaps fresh fruit and vegetables are more important and less milk and fats generally would be good thing.

Being brought up with milk and all its many variations in foods does kind of colour your outlook after all we have had many decades of brain-washing about what to buy and what is good for us from TV etc

Moderation seems likely to be the best course. And of course I do wonder about that Hot chocolate I had last night before retiring to sleep.

The debate will rage on for along time to come as it does on Red Wine, Beer, Fruit Juices etc - when water beats them all for most of us if we are really thinking healthy.

Mostly if we were to just buy fresh fruit and vegetables and a few nuts we would survive and be thinner and healthier. And probably wealthier if we did not buy any so called value added products that only add profits to companies rather than benefits for us.

Would life be longer but duller - we can all decide for ourselves.

In the long run too much of anything is bad for us. Pity as we mostly like everything that's on offer from time to time.

Just be sensible and cut down on it all what ever it is and you will probably do yourself good and enjoy it more...........................

[Rheghead]

I also like to think of the history or rather the pre-history of drinking milk to put the whole dairy industry into context. Human Beings are the only animal that consume another species' lactations. But Humans have been evolved for about 150,000 years and archaeological evidence only supports that we have been drinking milk in just the last ~8000 years, possibly a little longer in the middle east. My opinion is that this is a fairly recent event or change in our dietary history as a species in relative terms and especially only a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms as some human populations are still incapable of digesting milk. Our bodies are still trying to cope with drinking milk. It is like our species as a whole is trying to tell us that drinking milk is unnatural and should be obsolete because the health risks are catching up with us as we get older. In the ancient past, we humans needed to just get old enough to create the next generation and live long enough until they were old enough to look after themselves and then we could die. Health issues in old age were never an important issue but it is catching up with us in the modern world.

[sids]

Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs. I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.

[Rheghead]

Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs. I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.

We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants. What is no longer a need then becomes a choice by definition. Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity because you are only deceiving yourself.

If that is your choice then fine, I support you but making choices require you to go through a decision-making process of weighing up the pros and cons. In this thread I've pointed out just the cancer risks of dairy and eggs. But that is not the full story, I will go on to stack up the environmental, health and economic reasons against animal products. If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them? It must become apparent that people are only capable of seing things from their own perspective and not further than their plate.

[tonkatojo]

We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants. What is no longer a need then becomes a choice by definition. Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity because you are only deceiving yourself.

Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.

[Rheghead]

Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.

It is because of that increasing population that makes the case for a plant-based diet more imperative for sustainability. Overpopulation arguments are just over-used reasons for unsustainability as a meateating diet requires 18 times more land for agriculture than for a plant-based diet. 30% of the Earth's land surface has already been given over to the purpose of raising animals for food, more meateaters and dairy eaters will require the destruction of wild places for food production. This means a huge land area has been robbed of the natural biodiversity that the Earth developed by itself and which we would value to be in had it been kept natural in the first place.

[Goodfellers]

Rhehead

You ask;

If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them?

I have said it before and I will say it again.........Because we like the taste. What plant smells or tasted like fried bacon?

[sids]

Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity

Don't tell me what to do, or not to do.

And don't mendaciously invent statements by me, that fried breakfast is a necessity, thankyou very much.

But I wouldn't try to convince an internet vegan zealot of anything. You're not here to be convinced. You came to preach and stayed to repeat huge quotes.