A new study finds that red meat can affect your risk of heart disease and death. Peter Dawn / Unsplash
By Julia Ries
- Meat is a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, but it's still unclear why too much may be harmful to our health.
- Researchers looked at the impact of meat on our health and found that eating too much unprocessed and processed meat increases your risk of heart disease and death.
- It may also mess with our gut microbiome, something scientists are just learning is an important component for heart disease risk.
Health experts have long suspected that eating too much meat can have a detrimental effect on our health.
<p>But in November 2019, a <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/red-meat-may-not-hurt-your-heart-researchers-find" target="_blank">controversial study</a> published in the <a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from" target="_blank">Annals of Internal Medicine</a> suggested that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat" rel="noopener noreferrer">meat</a> might not be as harmful as people once thought, and claimed there wasn't evidence of meaningful health benefit from reducing our red or processed meat intake.</p><p>The study conflicted with previous scientific opinions on the risks of eating too much meat, and led to many debates about the benefits, risks, and harms of meat consumption.</p><p>Now, researchers from Northwestern Medicine and Cornell University took a closer look at the impact of meat on our health and found that eating too much unprocessed and processed meat (like pepperoni, bologna, and deli meats) does, in fact, increase your risk of heart disease and death.</p><p>Those who ate higher amounts of processed meat, unprocessed meat or poultry, but not fish, were significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of heart disease.</p><p>People who ate higher amounts of processed and unprocessed meat, but not chicken or <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/seafood" rel="noopener noreferrer">fish</a>, were strongly associated with a slightly higher risk of death, according to the new <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6969?guestAccessKey=f17333ad-bd7b-413d-a71b-8eadbcfe30cb&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=020320" target="_blank">study</a> published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday.</p><p>"Findings of this study suggest that people may obtain further health benefits through reducing unprocessed red meat and processed meat intake in addition to adoption of a healthy lifestyle including regular exercise and frequent consumption of fruits and vegetables," the study's lead author <a href="https://www.human.cornell.edu/people/wz365" target="_blank">Victor Zhong</a>, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell, told Healthline.</p>
Eating meat was linked to a slightly higher risk.
<p>Researchers looked at the health data of nearly 30,000 adults who had no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline and provided follow-up data for up to three decades.</p><p>Information about the participants' <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/diet" rel="noopener noreferrer">diets</a> was self-reported via a food frequency questionnaire or diet history.</p><p>The researchers had standardized the serving sizes: One serving constituted 4 ounces of unprocessed red meat or poultry, or 3 ounces of fish. Regarding processed meat, one serving was 2 slices of bacon, 2 links of sausage, or 1 hot dog.</p><p>Then, the researchers tracked the number of cardiovascular events, including strokes, heart failure events, and CVD deaths.</p><p>The researchers found that people who ate two servings of red meat — but not fish — a week were linked to a 3 percent higher risk of heart disease and premature death. That risk went up to 7 percent for processed red meat.</p><p>Those who ate two servings a week of poultry were associated with a 4 percent higher risk of heart disease, though the researchers say there's not enough evidence to make a clear recommendation about poultry.</p><p>The researchers found no associations between fish consumption and heart disease or death.</p>What is it about meat?
<p><a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/meat-good-or-bad" target="_blank">Meat</a> is a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, but it's still unclear why too much of it may be harmful to our health.</p><p>"The biological mechanisms underlying the associations of unprocessed red meat and processed meat intake with heart disease have not been fully understood," Zhong said.</p><p>Zhong suspects it may be due to the high levels of saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, heme iron, and added sodium in certain types of meat. These dietary factors are all associated with a handful of heart health conditions, including hypertension, high cholesterol, vascular stiffness, insulin resistance, and diabetes.</p><p>Dr. Nicole Harkin, a board-certified cardiologist and lipidologist with <a href="http://www.cardiologistmidtownnyc.com/" target="_blank">Manhattan Cardiovascular Associates</a>, says eating a lot of red meat increases blood pressure and cholesterol levels, two big risk factors for heart disease.</p><p>"Consumption of meat also may have other adverse effects on the heart and vascular system that we are still investigating, such as adversely affecting the lining of the blood vessels, called endothelial dysfunction," Harkin added.</p><p>It may also mess with our gut <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microbiome">microbiome</a>, something scientists are just learning is an important component for heart disease risk, Harkin said.</p>Do you need to give up meat?
<p>So, is there a safe amount of meat intake? According to Zhong's new study, most meat consumption carries a higher risk.</p><p>"Our study did not find a safe consumption amount for unprocessed red meat and processed meat. Only zero consumption was associated with no increased risk of heart disease and premature death," Zhong said.</p><p>Harkin advises her patients to eat red meat rarely — about once to twice a month, at most — and to avoid processed meat.</p><p>She also recommends eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans — all things that can help lower your risk of heart disease and keep you healthy.</p><p>"While we do not know an exact amount of meat that is 'acceptable' (and this probably varies from person to person due to other factors such as genetics, environment, and other lifestyle choices), this study and others indicate a dose response relationship: The more meat consumed, the higher the risk of heart disease," Harkin said.</p>The bottom line
<p>New research has found that eating too much unprocessed and processed meat (like pepperoni, bologna, and deli meats) increases your risk of heart disease and death.</p><p>This new study follows a controversial report that came out November 2019 suggesting that lowering your meat intake has no effect on heart health.</p><p>Health experts suspect meat has this effect because it contributes to higher blood pressure and cholesterol levels, two huge risk factors for heart disease.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/red-meat-processed-meat-is-still-bad-for-your-health" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Controversial Study Dismisses Public Health Risks of Meat ... ›
- Red and White Meats Carry the Same Cholesterol Risks, Study Finds ›
- Americans Continue to Eat Processed Meat Despite Serious Health ... ›
- Even 'Moderate' Consumption of Red and Processed Meat ... ›
- Cambridge University Takes Red Meat off the Menu - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
World Must Reach 'Peak Meat' by 2030 to Fight Climate Crisis, Scientists Say
13 December 2019
Climate
A group of scientists is warning that livestock production must not expand after 2030 for the world to stave off ecological disaster.
A <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a> published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/home" target="_blank">Lancet Planetary Health</a>, signed by more than 50 leading scientists in the field, calls for meat production to peak by 2030, after which governments need firm commitments to stop expanding livestock production, to reduce the most resource-intensive livestock production, and to start "replacing livestock with foods that simultaneously minimize environmental burdens and maximize public health benefits—mainly pulses (including beans, peas, and lentils), grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds."
<p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"></a>The scientists warn that a coordinated effort from the world's governments to identify and reduce the largest sources of emissions is needed to reduce the risk of global temperatures exceeding the "safe" limit of 1.5-2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/world/peak-meat-2030-lancet-intl-scli-scn/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>"The reduction we need means we need deep transformation in every sector," said Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist at Harvard Law School and lead author of the letter, to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/world/peak-meat-2030-lancet-intl-scli-scn/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "To reduce to 1.5 C, we need to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. We're suggesting agriculture transitions to optimal systems, and that's plant-based."</p><p>In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, it's important to cut back on methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that cattle and sheep notoriously emit during digestion. </p><p> Furthermore, carbon-capturing forests are destroyed to create room for livestock and to grow grains for intensively raised animals, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. More than 80 percent of farmland is used to raise livestock, but it produces just 18 percent of calories. </p><p>Researchers have found that the best way to store large amounts of carbon is to reduce <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat">meat</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dairy" rel="noopener noreferrer">dairy</a> intake and for people to shift to a plant-based diet so land is returned to forest, according to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>"If the livestock sector were to continue with business as usual, this sector alone would account for 49 percent of the emissions budget for 1.5°C by 2030, requiring other sectors to reduce emissions beyond a realistic or planned level," the scientists wrote in their <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a> notes that decreasing livestock production will reduce the carbon footprint left by animal husbandry. The UN estimates that raising animals for meat accounts for nearly 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is twice as much as the fashion industry, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-must-hit-peak-meat-by-2030-to-avoid-climate-change-crisis-scientists-say/" target="_blank">CBS News</a>. </p>
<p>"Ruminant meat is 10 to 100 times more damaging to the climate than plant-based food," said Pete Smith, at the University of Aberdeen, UK, a senior author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on land use and climate change, to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "As a planet, we need to transition away from a dependence on livestock, just as we need to transition away from fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of hitting the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Livestock numbers need to peak very soon and thereafter decline substantially."</p>
<p>The scientists also pointed out that the land being used to raise cattle is needed to fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. A growing body of research has found that trees are one of the best weapons we have to capture excess carbon. A <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76?hwshib2=authn%3A1562396078%3A20190704%3Ac3ad5971-c185-4942-9acd-92aa24c51c06%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AS1lvoYPtq07c7tMzRommqA%3D%3D" target="_blank">study</a> published in July found that planting 500 billion trees, which we have the space to do if we reduce land used for livestock, can remove nearly two-thirds of the CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-planting-trees-2639092782.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Food demand is expected to increase massively as our population expands toward 10 billion," said professor Matthew Betts at Oregon State University and another author of the letter, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy">The Guardian</a> reported. "Reducing human demand for resource-intensive animal protein would considerably slow the rate of global forest loss, with huge benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, in addition to carbon storage."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Flat-lay of friends eating vegan and vegetarian Thanksgiving or Friendsgiving dinner with pumpkin pie, roasted vegetables, fruit and rose wine. Foxys_forest_manufacture / Royalty-free / iStock / Getty Images
Thanksgiving can be a tricky holiday if you're trying to avoid animal products — after all, its unofficial name is Turkey Day. But, as more and more studies show the impact of meat and dairy consumption on the Earth, preparing a vegan Thanksgiving is one way to show gratitude for this planet and all its biodiversity.
<p>A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegan" target="_self">vegan</a> Thanksgiving doesn't have to be a sacrifice. A plant-based feast can be just as delicious as a traditional holiday meal. Here are some tips for putting together an animal-free spread that still gives your tastebuds plenty to be thankful for.</p>
1. Meatless Turkey
<p>The traditional centerpiece of the Thanksgiving meal may feel like the most intimidating element to swap out, but there are plenty of faux-turkey alternatives on the market. Juliet Lapidos <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/11/what-s-the-best-vegetarian-turkey-hint-it-s-not-tofurky.html" target="_blank">sampled four back in 2009</a> and rated the Gardein Stuffed Veggie Turkey Roast as the tastiest. The product is now sold as the <a href="https://www.gardein.com/products/savory-stuffed-turky/" target="_blank">savory stuffed turk'y</a> or <a href="https://www.gardein.com/products/holiday-roast/" target="_blank">holiday roast</a>. Gardein's replacement turkeys got a bill of approval from <a href="https://www.thespruceeats.com/gardeins-savory-stuffed-turky-3376903" target="_blank">The Spruce Eats</a> for their natural ingredients and realistic appearance.</p><p>You also don't have to bother with fake meat at all. <a href="https://wellvegan.com/recipe/6-turkey-alternatives-for-a-vegan-thanksgiving" target="_blank">Well Vegan</a> suggests an all veggie-take on the turducken: the Butternut Squash Vegducken. This dish stuffs a zucchini inside an eggplant inside a butternut squash for "a flavor combination that's perfectly suited for the season."</p><p>Epicurious has the original <a href="https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/vegducken" target="_blank">vegetarian recipe</a>, plus tips for <a href="https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/vegan-thanksgiving-vegducken-recipe-article" target="_blank">turning it vegan</a>.</p>2. Animal-Free Gravy
<p>Gravy is another dish that screams animal product, but there are actually tons of recipes that don't require meat juices.</p><p><a href="https://lovingitvegan.com/vegan-gravy/" target="_blank">Alison Andrews of Loving It Vegan</a> shares a recipe for a gravy made in 30 minutes from garlic and onions, vegan butter, flour, coconut milk, vegetable stalk and soy sauce.</p><p>People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) also has <a href="https://www.peta.org/living/food/celebrate-vegan-holiday/" target="_blank">lots of gravy recipes</a> that emphasize different flavors, from <a href="https://www.peta.org/recipes/roasted-garlic-gravy/" target="_blank">Roasted Garlic Gravy</a> to <a href="https://www.peta.org/recipes/red-wine-shallot-gravy/" target="_blank">Red Wine and Shallot Gravy</a>.</p>3. Dairy-Free Mashed Potatoes
<p>You don't need milk and butter to make your mashed potatoes nice and creamy.</p><p>"They're extremely easy to veganize," <a href="https://simpleveganblog.com/vegan-mashed-potatoes/" target="_blank">Iosune of Simple Vegan Blog writes</a>, "you just need to use oil or vegan butter instead of regular butter (extra virgin olive oil is my favorite choice) and any unsweetened plant milk instead of cow's milk or cream (soy milk works so well), that's all!"</p><p>Iosune explains how you can make your own <a href="https://simpleveganblog.com/vegan-butter/" target="_blank">vegan butter</a>, too. All you need is plant-based milk, lemon juice, coconut oil, a neutral oil like sunflower oil, nutritional yeast (if you can find it) and salt.</p>4. Vegan Casseroles
<p>Side dishes are probably the easiest holiday foods to conceive of as vegan, since they tend to be veggie-based anyway. But that also means there are lots of exciting recipes out there to try. <a href="https://www.vegkitchen.com/12-comforting-easy-vegan-casseroles/" target="_blank">VegKitchen</a> suggests several, but the most seasonal include Quinoa, Broccoli and Vegan Cheese, Roasted Sweet Potato Mac and Cheese and Vegan Green Bean Casserole.</p><p>"Vegan casseroles are always comforting," VegKitchen writes, "and it's nice to know that they're also good for you, not starchy and heavy like the old-fashioned kind."</p>5. Earth-Friendly Pumpkin Pie
<p>Pumpkin pie is a holiday classic, but many traditional recipes call for cream or eggs. Then there's the fact that it's usually topped with whipped cream.</p><p>However, you can have the full pumpkin pie experience without any animal products. <a href="https://lovingitvegan.com/vegan-pumpkin-pie/" target="_blank">Loving It Vegan</a> shares a recipe that uses canned pureed pumpkin for the filling, and <a href="https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/vegan-pumpkin-pie" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the BBC Good Food</a> walks you through the process of making the filling from pumpkins or squash directly.</p><p>There are also plenty of vegan whipped-creams options out there, <a href="https://www.peta.org/living/food/dairy-free-vegan-whipped-cream-brands-recipes/" target="_blank">according to PETA</a>. You can buy one of the many ready-to-spray varieties for sale or make your own from chilled coconut milk, sugar and vanilla.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 10 Tips for a Sustainable Friendsgiving - EcoWatch ›
- 'A Vegan Diet Is Probably the Single Biggest Way to Reduce Your ... ›
- These Celebs Have Your Vegan Thanksgiving Covered - EcoWatch ›
- An Ode to Mac and Cheese, the Processed Food Poster Child - EcoWatch ›
- An Ode to Mac and Cheese, the Processed Food Poster Child ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Anne-Sophie Brändlin
October 16 marks World Food Day this year, a day celebrated every year by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
World Food Day is a call to make healthy and sustainable diets affordable and accessible for everyone, while nurturing the planet at the same time.
<p>But how can this be achieved?</p><p>One way, according to a new study, would be to introduce different ways for countries across the world to adapt their diets.</p><p>Researchers at the U.S. based Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future looked at diets in 140 countries across the world and measured the ecological impact of their food production in order to identify ways to mitigate climate change.</p><p>The study, called <a href="https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-09/country-specific-dietary-shifts-mitigate-climate-and-water-crises.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crise</em><em>s</em></a> found that an important first step would be to shift Europe and the United States away from a diet heavy in meat and dairy.</p><p>But study co-author, Martin Bloem, notes that the solutions needed are not one-size-fits-all.</p><p>"The situation for poorer countries is not the same as for high-income countries and the solutions for high-income countries are much more straight-forward," Bloem said.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/world-food-day-how-changes-in-our-diet-can-help-mitigate-climate-change/a-50796472" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTYzNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTY5MjM1NH0.t8i2qDgacEVw-iTHCYMxos1MzJITHNt3-rhzqFyZfX4/img.jpg?width=980" id="4cfbc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c739bf4332c8f07bfef8e5495a2ca32f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Why Meat and Dairy Are Bad for the Climate
<p>Livestock are responsible for almost 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/" target="_blank">FAO</a>.</p><p>Cattle is the biggest culprit. Raised for both beef and milk, cows represent about 65 percent of the livestock sector's emissions, followed by pork (9 percent), buffalo milk (8 percent), and poultry and eggs (8 percent).</p><p>A byproduct of cow digestion is methane (CH4) and accounts for the majority of livestock emissions. The greenhouse gas is estimated to be at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.</p><p>But livestock production is also responsible for other greenhouse gas emissions, such as nitrous oxide (N20) and carbon dioxide (CO2), mainly through the production of their feed, which often involves large applications of nitrogen-based fertilizers.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTYzOC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTIxNTgyOX0.8F1SHHSaID2I5npqGimiUuE48Gm07i4YFeYXefmCcUY/img.png?width=980" id="d7c92" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a607bc1060e3439bbc0d90f560485117" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />The Opposite Approach to Combat Hunger?
<p>But with over 800 million people still going hungry every day, impact on the climate cannot be the only guide for what people eat, the study points out.</p><p>Animal source foods, specifically milk and eggs, are in fact a valuable source of protein and nutrients like calcium, which are especially important for young children and pregnant women.</p><p><em>Read more: </em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-struggling-to-eradicate-malnutrition-in-children/a-49294026" target="_blank">Pakistan struggling to eradicate malnutrition in children</a></p><p>"Some countries, such as Indonesia, India and most of the African countries may actually need to dramatically increase their greenhouse gas emissions and water use, because they have to combat hunger and stunting," Bloem said.</p><p>In these countries, there is still a 40 percent rate of stunting, a side effect of undernutrition that results in lower than average growth in children.</p><p>Stunting also has a major, long-term impact on the cognitive abilities of the children.</p><p>"It's irreversible by the age of two, so stunting has huge implications for the human capital in those countries. That's why it's very critical that we prevent stunting and we need animal source foods for that," Bloem said. "We cannot keep that out of the equation when talking about climate protection." </p><p>Another solution, according to Bloem, would be to fortify certain products, like cereal. This would help reduce the need to get nutrients through animal products. It's a practice already in use in many developed countries, but so far hasn't been applied in many poorer countries.</p>Fish Could Make All the Difference
<p>Diets in which protein came predominantly from low food chain animals – such as small fish and mollusks – were found to have nearly as low of an environmental impact as a vegan diet.</p><p>"Small fish are really critical for poor people, particularly in Africa and Asia, as that's one of the main sources for protein and calcium, because the milk intake is very low in those countries," Bloem said.</p><p>"But 80% of all the fish produced nowadays actually comes from Asia and is imported in Europe and the US. And the feed for some of these bigger fish we import are actually those smaller fish, which means the poorer people have no more access to this vital source of protein and calcium." </p><p>Researchers also determined that a diet that reduced animal food consumption by two-thirds – termed by study authors as going "two-thirds vegan" – generally had a lower climate and water footprint than vegetarian diets that included eggs and diary, but not fish.</p>Where You Get Your Food From Matters
<p>Researchers also found that local production wasn't always the best way to go from a climate perspective.</p><p>The production of one pound (0.45 kilograms) of beef in Paraguay, for instance, contributes nearly 17 times more greenhouse gases than one pound of beef produced in Denmark. Often, this disparity came from deforestation to create grazing land, according to the study.</p><p>"So a food's country of origin can have enormous consequences for the climate," Bloem said.</p><p>"In Europe the soil is much more fertile, for instance, which makes the production there more efficient. So trade could actually be good for the climate if food is produced in places where the climate impact is the lowest," Bloem said, adding that this is the case even when emissions from transportation are factored in.</p><p>The study concludes that middle- and low-income countries need to be guided and supported by developed countries to avoid environmental mistakes the planet is already paying for. </p><p>"It needs to be a close collaboration between developed and developing countries. It's a joint problem. We are all in this together," Bloem said.</p><p>Another way industrialized countries could reduce their impact on the climate is <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/fighting-climate-change-by-tackling-food-waste/a-48384916" target="_blank">reducing food waste</a> — one-third of all food produced worldwide ends up in the bin, with Europeans on average throwing away 95 kilograms (209 lbs) of food per person, per year. In low-income African countries south of the Sahara, it's only 6 kilograms (13 lbs).</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTY0OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODE4NDE2Mn0.uQPcuPUg8AcuSSDvgd87IJOJRFtn6bLm_MBs7P4yJJQ/img.png?width=980" id="3a3ed" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d80706920d88c1ee328e8b9ea51cb4d9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Context Is Key
<p>But despite the findings, one key conclusion of the report is that there aren't always straight-forward answers, according to Bloem.</p><p>"That's why we conducted analyses in all these different countries so that you can see what the most optimal way is for each individual country – but also the entire world to deal with diets and health criteria, as well as climate and sustainability," he said.</p><p>In the end, the study came up with nine plant-forward diets, ranging from no red meat to pescatarian (a vegetarian diet that includes seafood), lacto-ovo vegetarian (a vegetarian diet that includes dairy and eggs), to vegan, which are to be presented to policymakers in each country.</p><p>At the same time, the study urges people in the Western world to do more. </p><p>Baby boomers in the developed world, for instance, on average spend less than 10% of their income on food, while the same generation in countries like Nigeria, Kenya or Bangladesh spends 50 to 60% of their income on food, according to Bloem.</p><p>"For us in the Western world, we can pay more for our food so that we can pay for the unintended consequences."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Going Vegan Is the Best Thing You Can Do for the Planet, New ... ›
- 6 Pressing Questions About Beef and Climate Change, Answered ... ›
- Shift to Vegetarian Diets Is Needed to Save the World, Climate ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Controversial Study Dismisses Public Health Risks of Meat Consumption
01 October 2019
Health + Wellness
Pexels
It has long been a public health truism that limiting meat consumption is better for your body. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund both say red or processed meat can cause cancer, as Reuters noted. But a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine Tuesday argued that this might not be the case.
<p>"Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease," Bradley Johnson, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada and a co-leader of the study, said, as Reuters reported.</p>
<div id="c2d74" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OG8V011576661385"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1178776713171480576" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Free in Annals today: Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From t… https://t.co/jbUJwPuPhm</div> — Annals of Int Med (@Annals of Int Med)<a href="https://twitter.com/AnnalsofIM/statuses/1178776713171480576">1569877243.0</a></blockquote></div><p>To reach this conclusion, a team of 14 researchers in seven countries spent three years reviewing studies of the link between the consumption of red or processed meat and heart disease or cancer, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR1rxtOebw4ApvB0Yp326JrJsfn2Pv1emvMo-Al9FxSrSOgpHD0wdglEQao" target="_blank">The New York Times explained</a>.</p><p>Their three reviews of the evidence covered randomized trials of 54,000 people and observational studies covering millions, according to The New York Times and Reuters. They concluded that the randomized trials showed no statistically significant link between meat consumption and diabetes, heart disease or cancer. The observational studies showed "a very small reduction in risk" for those who ate less red or processed meat, but observational studies are a weaker form of evidence than random trials, as The New York Times explained:</p><blockquote>At the heart of the debate is a dispute over nutritional research itself, and whether it's possible to ascertain the effects of just one component of the diet. The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, in which one group of participants is assigned one drug or diet, and another is assigned a different intervention or a placebo.<br><br>But asking people to stick to a diet assigned by a flip of a coin, and to stay with it long enough to know if it affects the risk for heart attack or cancer, is nearly impossible.<br><br>The alternative is an observational study: Investigators ask people what they eat and look for links to health. But it can be hard to know what people really are eating, and people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none.</blockquote><p>The researchers concluded that adults could continue to consume red and processed meat at their current levels.</p><p>Many public health experts pushed back against the new findings.</p><p>"From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence," Dr. Frank Hu and colleagues at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health wrote on the <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/" target="_blank">school's website</a>.</p>
<div id="dd100" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0BDZYF1576661385"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1178789558520909824" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A closer look at the science behind those new "guidelines" on red and processed meat. https://t.co/TxCZSnVA8Y</div> — The Nutrition Source (@The Nutrition Source)<a href="https://twitter.com/HSPHnutrition/statuses/1178789558520909824">1569880306.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Because of the difficulty of conducting randomized trials for a variety of public health issues, they argued in part that dismissing high-quality observational studies as weak evidence would make it difficult to support things like the benefits of exercise or the harm caused by air pollution.</p><p>University of Reading nutrition and food science professor Gunter Kuhnle agreed that it was wrong to dismiss the observational evidence entirely.</p><p>"The data clearly shows that the while the association between meat and cancer does not have to be addressed urgently, it should not be ignored," he told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Small dietary changes can mitigate the effect of red and processed meat on cancer risk, for example a high-fibre diet."</p><p>The Harvard response also faulted the study for setting aside a major problem with meat consumption: its impact on the planet. Meat and dairy account for about 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, The New York Times pointed out. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html" target="_self">recent study</a> found that people in the U.S. should cut their beef consumption by 40 percent in order to feed a growing world population without exhausting the earth's resources.</p><p>"This is a missed opportunity because <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a> and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health," the Harvard nutritionists wrote.</p><p>But others who agreed with the new study's findings on the personal health level acknowledged that there were other reasons to cut down on red and processed meats.</p><p>Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain's Quadram Institute of bioscience, told Reuters he hoped the study would "discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that 'bacon is killing us'," but he also said that eating less meat could have health and other benefits.</p><p>"There are (also) strong environmental and ethical arguments for reducing meat consumption in the modern world," he said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Even 'Moderate' Consumption of Red and Processed Meat ... ›
- Cut Beef Consumption in Half to Help Save the Earth, Says New Study ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Meat-eaters put a lot of faith in USDA inspection facilities, which are often overwhelmed by an endless flow of animals ready for slaughter to meet our seemingly endless demand for meat.
<p>Cutting back on meat has tremendous <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html" target="_self">benefits for the environment</a>. And, it may keep you safe from food-borne illnesses when there's a slip-up at a processing plant like the one that happened recently in Chino, CA.</p>
<div id="c6041" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0GZWR01576661502"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1153379430766653440" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#NowReading - Cut beef consumption in half to help save the earth, says new study https://t.co/7ZMc557NNT via… https://t.co/Rm7NaPdY8Q</div> — World Resources Inst (@World Resources Inst)<a href="https://twitter.com/WorldResources/statuses/1153379430766653440">1563822059.0</a></blockquote></div><p>American Beef Packers Inc., recalled nearly 25,000 pounds of raw beef that are not safe to eat last weekend, according to a <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-089-2019-release" target="_blank">statement</a> from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.<br></p><p>Inspectors at the facility pulled a possibly contaminated carcass off of the production line and took a few samples for testing. While they were waiting for the results to come back, the questionable carcass was released into the production line where it was butchered into various cuts and ground meat mix, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/05/health/beef-recall-aug-31-wellness-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. </p><p>The wholesale distributor sent the questionable meats out to various places in California and Oregon, according to the USDA.</p>
<p>Anyone in those states who buys beef should look for establishment number "EST. 34741" inside the USDA mark of inspection, the USDA said.</p>
<p>While there are no confirmed cases of illnesses due to this batch of meat, the USDA is concerned that some of it is in the fridges and freezers of people in California and Oregon. The Food Safety and Inspection Service urges people who have bought beef recently <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/8ac77cc3-2f87-428d-b88e-0d82e09fa20e/089-2019-Labels.pdf?MOD=AJPERES" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">to check</a> the label for EST. 34741 and, if it is found, either throw it away or return it to the store where it was bought, according to its <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-089-2019-release" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, another massive recall was underway when Tyson recalled nearly 40,000 pounds of its Weaver chicken patties after some consumers found pieces of rubber in their meal, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyson-foods-recall/tyson-recalls-nearly-40000-pounds-of-weaver-chicken-patties-idUSKCN1V61PL" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. </p>
<p>In that instance, the USDA labeled the recall as Class 1, the strictest classification of recall where the product may cause serious harm or death. The USDA classification rubric says of a Class 1 recall, "This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death."</p>
<p>Tyson, the country's largest meat processor, did not say how many customers found rubber in their food. Nor did it disclose how the rubber from the machines used for processing slipped into the patties, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyson-foods-recall/tyson-recalls-nearly-40000-pounds-of-weaver-chicken-patties-idUSKCN1V61PL" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>That recall followed one just a few months earlier of 12-million pounds of frozen ready-to-eat chicken strips, which may have been contaminated. </p>
<div id="13367" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="THDI3Y1576661502"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1114179958237204481" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">One more reason to leave out buying burgers for you summer BBQ.
https://t.co/PwKWagOQNP</div> — Ecogreenlabs (@Ecogreenlabs)<a href="https://twitter.com/ecogreenlabs/statuses/1114179958237204481">1554476177.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Soft, Purple Plastic' Found in Beef Patties Leads to Recall of 20,000 ... ›
- Tyson, Perdue Recall More Than 120,000 Pounds of Chicken ... ›
- Tyson Foods Recalls Nearly 70,000 Pounds of Chicken Strips After ... ›
- Tyson Foods Recalls Almost 200,000 Pounds of Chicken Fritters ... ›
- Tyson Recalls Almost 12 Million Pounds of Chicken Strips After 3 ... ›
- Nearly 43,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Over E. Coli Fears - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Goldsmiths
In a bid to fight the climate crisis, one London university is taking beef off the menu at all campus eateries.
<p>Goldsmiths, University of London <a href="https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/carbon-neutral-plan/" target="_blank">announced the beef ban Monday</a> as part of a series of steps designed to help the institution, which has declared a climate emergency, go carbon neutral by 2025. Other measures include an extra 10 pence charge for bottled water and single-use <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastic</a> cups and the installation of more solar panels on its campus in Southeast London.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Goldsmiths’ new Warden Professor Frances Corner has announced an ambitious drive for the College to be carbon neutral by 2025. <br><br>The plan includes the removal of all beef products from campus outlets and a 10p levy on plastic bottles <a href="https://t.co/sYRHZ0gxxa">https://t.co/sYRHZ0gxxa</a></p>— Goldsmiths (@GoldsmithsUoL) <a href="https://twitter.com/GoldsmithsUoL/status/1160804482780975105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><p>"Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words," Goldsmiths' new Warden Prof. Frances Corner said in a statement. "I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use."</p><p>Goldsmiths' announcement comes about a week <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegetarian-climate-change-2639648388.html" target="_self">after a draft report</a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended a global shift towards <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian" target="_self">vegetarian</a> diets in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" target="_self">Agriculture</a> and other land use practices contribute almost 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while cattle and rice fields are responsible for half of all <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions, the report found. Another <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">study released last month</a> calculated that beef consumption had to fall in order for Earth's current resources to be able to feed the 10 billion people expected to be living on this planet in 30 years. Europeans would have to eat 22 percent less beef for everyone else to have enough food, the study found.</p>
<p>At least one Goldsmiths student is ready to give up campus burgers for the planet.</p><p>"I think it's a really positive move—Goldsmiths is recognising its own power and accountability in being more environmentally conscious," 20-year-old psychology student Isabelle Gosse told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/12/goldsmiths-bans-beef-from-university-cafes-to-tackle-climate-crisis" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Banning the sale of beef meat on campus, phasing out single-use plastics and the other pledges that the new warden has made highlights the current climate emergency that the world is facing."</p><p>The Goldsmiths Students' Union also supports the decision, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-university-bans-burgers-to-help-save-the-planet_uk_5d517416e4b0fd2733f3746f" target="_blank">HuffPost reported</a>.</p><p>The beef ban will go into effect at the start of the coming academic year. The school will also switch to a 100 percent <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> supplier as soon as its current contract ends, according to The Guardian. Further, its endowment fund will cease investments in companies that earn more than 10 percent of their revenue from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction starting December 2019.</p><p>"It's encouraging to see an institution like Goldsmiths not simply declaring a climate emergency, but acting on it," <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a> UK Climate Emergency Campaigner Rosie Rogers told The Guardian. "From energy use, to food sales and plastic pollution—all universities and organisations with campus sites can make changes across their facilities that are better for our planet. We call on others to urgently follow suit, and to include cutting all ties from fossil fuel funding in their climate emergency response."</p><p>Goldsmiths currently emits around 3.7 million kilograms (approximately 8.2 million pounds) of carbon per year, according to figures released by the university. That number is down nearly 10 percent from what it was three years ago, Goldsmiths said.</p><p>But for Goldsmiths Students' Union President Joe Leam it's still too high.</p><p>"It is clear our university has a huge carbon footprint," he wrote in a blog quoted by HuffPost. "The promise to have ended this by 2030 at the latest, with the hope of doing so by 2025, is one which is needed. Whilst this plan/action is only the beginning, and much work is yet to be done, it is fantastic to see Goldsmiths taking responsibility and responding to its impact on the climate."</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
The world's population will hit 10 billion in just 30 years and all of those people need to eat. To feed that many humans with the resources Earth has, we will have to cut down the amount of beef we eat, according to a new report by the World Resources Institute.
<p>The report makes several concrete recommendations, including cutting beef consumption. To feed a growing world, Americans will need to eat about 40 percent less beef and Europeans need to cut their consumption by 22 percent. That averages out to a burger and a half per week, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p><br>This calculation is part of a 565-page report that looks at ways humans can optimize production of natural resources to sustain a growing population and navigate agriculture through the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. Titled <em><a href="https://wrr-food.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Creating a Sustainable Food Future</a></em>, the report released Wednesday identified the gaps in food production and global demand that need to be filled in order to prevent a catastrophe, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>Right now, Americans consume an equivalent of three hamburgers per week, but beef only provides 3 percent of the calories Americans consume while it is responsible for nearly half of the agricultural land and greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S. diets.</p><p>"This is a huge global challenge," said Tim Searchinger, the report's lead author, as <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/how-many-hamburgers-should-i-eat-new-report-suggests-eating-less-beef/1753998001/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=amp&utm_campaign=speakable" target="_blank">USA Today</a> reported. He suggests that consumers should shift from cattle, sheep and goats to chicken, pork and vegetable-based alternatives.</p><p>Providing a healthy diet for a population of 10 billion will require a massive overhaul to farming, which already swallows up 90 percent of all the water humans use and coughs up one-fourth of the annual global emissions that cause global warming. Yet, despite our intensive agriculture, more than 820 million people still experience chronic hunger, according to the UN, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-world-hunger-un-2639209390.html" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported this week.</p><p>"There is a pathway to achieve this but the challenge is even bigger than any of us thought," said Richard Waite of the World Resources Institute and a co-author of the report, as <a href="https://wrr-food.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf" target="_blank">National Geographic</a> reported.</p>
<p><br>While the report has many recommendations for dealing with the world's impending food crisis, the authors suggest that the most impactful way to keep the climate crisis at bay and to feed the world is to simply cut back on ruminant <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" rel="noopener noreferrer">meat</a>, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. This is especially true as more money flows into the developing world and the demand for food outpaces population growth. The demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise nearly 70 percent, while the global demand for beef, sheep and goat, is expected rise even faster to 88 percent.</p><p>"We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, [and] cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds," said Waite, as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a> reported.</p><p>The report says that beef, goat, and sheep farming takes up 20 times more land than farming for beans, chickpeas, and lentils per gram of protein. It also generates 20 times as much greenhouse gas emissions, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>Besides insisting that high-meat consumers move toward more plant-based diets, the report also calls for strategies to reduce the one-third of food that is lost or wasted, use technology to boost crop yields, and improve the management of wild fisheries and aquaculture farms, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</p>
<p class=""><em>Correction: This post has been updated to correct a typo.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Americans Continue to Eat Processed Meat Despite Serious Health Warnings
25 June 2019
Health + Wellness
Denis Poroy / Getty Images
By Dan Gray
Processed foods, in their many delicious forms, are an American favorite.
But new research shows that despite increasing evidence on just how unhealthy processed foods are, Americans have continued to eat the products at the same rate.
<p>A <a href="https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(19)30294-1/fulltext" target="_blank">study</a> published in the July edition of Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics looked at trends between 1999 and 2016.</p><p>Data on nearly 44,000 people shows that over this timespan the amount of processed <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption">meat consumed</a> by adults in the U.S. has remained unchanged.</p><p>Consumption of healthier meat options such as fish and shellfish also stayed the same.</p><p>If there's a silver lining, it's news that Americans are eating more chicken and less red meat than they used to.</p><p>Given the acknowledged health risks of consuming processed meats, the data would seem to suggest that Americans are unaware of these dangers.</p><p>Experts interviewed by Healthline say the report isn't particularly surprising. They also offer some advice on how to eat better.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/americans-still-eat-too-much-processed-meat-and-not-enough-fish" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em><em></em></p>
What is Processed Meat?
<p>Processed meat isn't hard to identify.</p><p>Any meat product that's been altered in some way to add flavor or shelf life is considered processed.</p><p>The long list includes certain deli meats, along with hot dogs, sausage, bacon, and ham.</p><p>"The World Health Organization (WHO) <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf" target="_blank">declared</a> processed red meat to be in the same cancer-causing category as cigarettes and plutonium, so it obviously carries some significant danger," <a href="https://www.nationaljewish.org/doctors-departments/providers/physicians/andrew-m-freeman" target="_blank">Dr. Andrew Freeman</a>, a cardiologist and director of cardiovascular prevention and wellness at National Jewish Health, told Healthline.</p><p>To understand what makes these meats so unhealthy, it helps to look at what's in it.</p><p>"A lot of it has to do with the actual components associated with the processing of red meat," explained <a href="https://www.kristinkirkpatrick.com/" target="_blank">Kristin Kirkpatrick</a>, MS, RDN, a licensed, registered dietitian who manages wellness nutrition services at the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute.</p><p>One primary component of processed meat are nitrites and nitrates, components that prevent the growth of bacteria and add a salty flavor.</p><p>"A large WHO <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/retrieve/pii/S1470204515004441" target="_blank">study</a> showed strong associations between nitrates and nitrites and cancers of the stomach and colon," Kirkpatrick told Healthline. "Just last week, The BMJ <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110" target="_blank">found</a> early death associated with processed red meat as well, showing that processed red meat carries much more sodium than unprocessed meat, potentially increasing the risk for hypertension, stroke, and heart attack."</p>Why Do We Keep Eating It?
<p>Freeman acknowledges one big reason for the popularity of these meat products.</p><p>"It tastes really good," he said. "When meats are cured, salted, and spiced, it makes them taste good — although I would argue you can put those same spices on vegetables and make them taste good, too."</p><p>Delicious as it is, why aren't more people aware of the risks? The study's lead author believes it has to do with a lack of education.</p><p>"While factors other than health (e.g. social, cultural and economic) can influence Americans' food choices, the lack of widespread awareness of health risks associated with processed meat may have contributed to the lack of consumption change in the past 18 years," Dr. Fang Fang Zhang of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, said in a press release.</p><p>Freeman agrees, saying it's good business for major food producers to downplay the risks and continue marketing their products. In this way, processed meat is pervasive in the U.S.</p><p>"The clincher is that these products are served in healthcare institutions," he said. "You can walk into a large majority of hospital systems in this country and get bacon, eggs, salami, whatever. If you see that stuff served everywhere and see fast food commercials, it's hard to realize that there could be harm.</p><p>He also points out that while other carcinogenic products such as cigarettes have warning labels, processed meats contain no such caution.</p><p>"If you go to the store right now, there's nothing on the packaging saying this product may be associated with cancer, or with heart disease for that matter, sadly," Freeman said. "It doesn't surprise me that the study showed no change and it should be a warning to us that we really need to do a much better effort at raising awareness of the risks of consuming these products regularly."</p>How Much is Too Much?
<p>For anyone who loves a hot dog at the ballpark or sausages at a summer cookout, the idea of dropping processed meat entirely may seem daunting.</p><p>A diet that includes no processed meat is ideal, but it can be enjoyed as an occasional treat.</p><p>Kirkpatrick says that eating processed meat even once a day is "way too much."</p><p>"Many experts would say never eating processed meat is acceptable, but if we look at the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110" target="_blank">studyTrusted Source</a> in The BMJ, participants were grouped by consumption and the lowest consumption — less than six times per month, or none at all — had better outcomes. I tell my patients to look at red processed meat the same way they do dessert — a few times a month as a treat."</p><p>For carnivores wary of moving to a fully plant-based diet, there are healthier meat-based options available.</p><p>"Fish is a fabulous source of protein and lots of fish is high in omega-3 fatty acids, which may be protective to health," said Kirkpatrick. "Wild line-caught salmon, wild trout, and sardines are some of the best."</p><p>Making change on an individual level requires willpower, but it is still relatively straightforward. Changing things on a societal level constitutes a much bigger task.</p><p>Prior studies have shown the health risks of processed meats. But this most recent study, one that shows societal trends, could help move the needle in the right direction.</p><p>"Findings of this study can inform public health policy priorities for improving diet and reducing chronic disease burden in the U.S.," said Zhang. "Because stores and fast food restaurants are the main purchase locations for processed meat, future policies may prioritize these as primary sites of intervention for reducing processed meat consumption among U.S. adults."</p>From Your Site Articles
- USDA Seeking to Replace Government Inspectors at Beef Slaughter ... ›
- Most Meat Will Be Plant-Based or Lab-Grown in 20 Years, Analysts ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Tyson Recalls Almost 12 Million Pounds of Chicken Strips After 3 Injured by Metal Fragments
06 May 2019
Food
Tyson Foods employees processing chicken. Greg Smith / Corbis / Getty Images
Tyson Foods is recalling nearly 12 million pounds of frozen chicken strips after three people reported they were injured by metal fragments in the strips, CNN reported Saturday.
<p>The recall expands on a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tyson-chicken-recall-metal-2632462708.html" target="_self">March 21 recall</a> of 69,093 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat chicken products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service said in its <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-034-2019-exp-release" target="_blank">Saturday recall announcement</a>. The company is now recalling an additional 11,760,424 pounds over concerns they may be contaminated with pieces of metal.</p>
<div id="869cc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="AIGSN51568219127"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1124550594398756865" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Recall: Tyson Foods, Inc. Recalls Chicken Strip Products Due to Possible Foreign Matter Contamination https://t.co/Qo91tqIRGN</div> — USDA Food Safety (@USDA Food Safety)<a href="https://twitter.com/USDAFoodSafety/statuses/1124550594398756865">1556948729.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Consumers expect that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> they eat is safe. In their best interest and in an abundance of caution we're taking quick and decisive action to expand this recall," Tyson Foods Vice President of Regulatory Food Policy, Food and Agriculture Barbara Masters said in a <a href="https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-releases/2019/5/tyson-foods-voluntarily-expands-recall-ready-eat-chicken-breast-strips" target="_blank">statement</a>.<br></p><p>FSIS was originally informed of the problem when two people complained of finding metal in their chicken.</p><p>"FSIS is now aware of six complaints during this time frame involving similar pieces of metal with three alleging oral injury," the agency wrote.</p><p>The original recall covered products with a "use by" date of Nov. 30, 2019. The newly recalled items were produced Oct. 1, 2018 through March 8, 2019 and have "Use By Dates" of Oct. 1, 2019 through March 7, 2020, according to FSIS. </p><p>The new recall also covers an extended range of products. The full list can be found <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/974d1119-b539-4087-a4cf-13d85744846f/Recall-034-2019-EXP-Products-Chart.pdf?MOD=AJPERES" target="_blank">here</a>. The recalled products have an establishment number of "P-7221" and were sent to retail, Department of Defense and institutional establishments across the country. They were also sent to institutions in the U.S. Virgin Islands.</p><p>In addition to Tyson Foods, recalled chicken was also sold under Publix, Kirkwood, Giant Eagle, Hannaford, Food Lion, Best Choice, Great Value, Meijer and Spare Time labels, <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2019/05/04/tyson-frozen-chicken-recall-12-million-pounds-recalled-metal-risk/1099777001/" target="_blank">USA Today reported</a>.</p><p>"FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them," the agency warned. "These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase."</p><p>The recall follows <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tyson-chicken-nuggets-recall-2627540782.html" target="_self">another recall</a> of Tyson Food chicken nuggets in January after customers found "soft, blue rubber" inside. Tyson said the rubber had come from a piece of equipment that got pinched and ended up in the nugget mixture.<br></p><p>The metal contamination was also blamed on equipment, according to the company statement.</p><p>"Our company is taking corrective action at the location that makes these products. We have discontinued use of the specific equipment believed to be associated with the metal fragments, and we will be installing metal-detecting X-ray machinery to replace the plant's existing metal-detection system. We will also be using a third-party video auditing system for metal-detection verification," Masters said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Tyson Foods Recalls Nearly 70,000 Pounds of Chicken Strips After ... ›
- Tyson, Perdue Recall More Than 120,000 Pounds of Chicken ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pixabay
An E. coli outbreak linked to ground beef has spread to 10 states and infected at least 156 people, CNN reported Wednesday.
<p>
The outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing <em>Escherichia coli </em>O103 began March 1 and has hospitalized 20 people, but no one has died, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2019/o103-04-19/index.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said</a>.
</p>
<p>"Ill people in this outbreak report eating ground beef at home and in restaurants," CDC wrote. "Traceback investigations are ongoing to determine the source of raw ground beef supplied to grocery stores and restaurant locations where ill people reported eating."</p><p>As of an update Tuesday, the CDC said no common supplier of the beef had yet been found.</p><p>However, also on Tuesday, K2D Foods recalled around 113,424 pounds of raw ground beef over possible contamination with the same strain of E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-047-2019-release" target="_blank">announced</a>. Investigators are working to determine if the recalled beef is linked to the outbreak in any way.</p>
<div id="296a3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6UUUHN1568219115"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1120911821630836736" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Recall: K2D Foods Recalls Raw Ground Beef Products Due to Possible E. coli O103 Contamination https://t.co/zZWNbMvQ4P</div> — USDA Food Safety (@USDA Food Safety)<a href="https://twitter.com/USDAFoodSafety/statuses/1120911821630836736">1556081178.0</a></blockquote></div><p>K2D Foods does business as (DBA) Colorado Premium Foods and is based in Carrolton, Georgia. The recalled beef was produced on March 26, March 29, April 2, April 5, April 10 and April 12 and came in two 24-pound vacuum-packed packages in cardboard boxes labeled "GROUND BEEF PUCK" with "Use Thru" dates of April 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 28th and 30th, according to FSIS. The products had an establishment code of "EST. 51308" and were sent to distributors in Ft. Orange, Florida and Norcross, Georgia.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTQxNDk2Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTc4NTEyNX0.vwFuxab7zWpzLZz1rPxApFB7eVhoHxBIwpV15d_BukM/img.png?width=980" id="84e82" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="945aa21b026a33d321713d41cf5be24b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The label information of the recalled beef.
USDA FSIS
<p>The first cases in the outbreak were reported to the CDC by health officials in Kentucky and Georgia, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-beef/some-156-people-in-10-states-infected-with-e-coli-from-ground-beef-cdc-idUSKCN1RZ2FV" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. When it first announced the outbreak earlier this month, CDC said that it had infected 109 people in six states, according to CNN. It has since spread to 10, with cases reported in Tennessee, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio and Virginia.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTQxNDk2NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDQ1MDg4NX0.vWbTc5SanH0A5J5VlH6yDCaQUXyeyDYuwahPp2dSXVk/img.png?width=980" id="a06c2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="66529e945cc7cb98cbbefc58fc3baa87" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A map showing the state-by-state spread of the outbreak.
CDC
<p>Symptoms usually begin three to four days after consuming contaminated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> and include severe stomach cramps, diarrhea and vomiting. Some people infected with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli can develop kidney failure, but no cases have been reported in this outbreak so far.</p><p>The CDC said that many infected people had bought trays or chubs of beef from grocery stores, according to Reuters. However, the agency is not recommending that consumers or restaurants stop cooking or serving beef at this time.</p><p>"Consumers and restaurants should handle ground beef safely and cook it thoroughly to avoid foodborne illness," the agency said.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Lettuce Recall Is a Wake Up Call for Food Safety - EcoWatch ›
- Nearly 43,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Over E. Coli Fears - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less