Vegetarians and Pescetarians have Lower Risk of Certain Cancer

Well, we've been saying this for a long time and here we have some pretty decent evidence. One more reason you, yes *you!* eat too much meat.

*************

Cancer incidence in British vegetarians

Key, TJ, Appleby, PN, Spencer, EA, Travis, RC, Allen, NE, Thorogood, M, Mann, JI. Cancer incidence in British vegetarians. British Journal of Cancer. 101:192-197. 2009.

Abstract

Background: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians.

Methods: We studied 61 566 British men and women, comprising 32 403 meat eaters, 8562 non-meat eaters who did eat fish (‘fish eaters’) and 20 601 vegetarians. After an average follow-up of 12.2 years, there were 3350 incident cancers of which 2204 were among meat eaters, 317 among fish eaters and 829 among vegetarians. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated by Cox regression, stratified by sex and recruitment protocol and adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol, body mass index, physical activity level and, for women only, parity and oral contraceptive use.

Results: There was significant heterogeneity in cancer risk between groups for the following four cancer sites: stomach cancer, RRs (compared with meat eaters) of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.07–1.20) in fish eaters and 0.36 (0.16–0.78) in vegetarians, P for heterogeneity=0.007; ovarian cancer, RRs of 0.37 (0.18–0.77) in fish eaters and 0.69 (0.45–1.07) in vegetarians, P for heterogeneity=0.007; bladder cancer, RRs of 0.81 (0.36–1.81) in fish eaters and 0.47 (0.25–0.89) in vegetarians, P for heterogeneity=0.05; and cancers of the lymphatic and haematopoietic tissues, RRs of 0.85 (0.56–1.29) in fish eaters and 0.55 (0.39–0.78) in vegetarians, P for heterogeneity=0.002. The RRs for all malignant neoplasms were 0.82 (0.73–0.93) in fish eaters and 0.88 (0.81–0.96) in vegetarians (P for heterogeneity=0.001).

Conclusion: The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n1/abs/6605098a.html


********************

Cancer. 2010 Sep 15;116(18):4345-53.
Meat and components of meat and the risk of bladder cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.

Ferrucci LM, Sinha R, Ward MH, Graubard BI, Hollenbeck AR, Kilfoy BA, Schatzkin A, Michaud DS, Cross AJ.

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meat could be involved in bladder carcinogenesis via multiple potentially carcinogenic meat-related compounds related to cooking and processing, including nitrate, nitrite, heterocyclic amines (HCAs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The authors comprehensively investigated the association between meat and meat components and bladder cancer.

METHODS: During 7 years of follow-up, 854 transitional cell bladder-cancer cases were identified among 300,933 men and women who had completed a validated food-frequency questionnaire in the large prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. The authors estimated intake of nitrate and nitrite from processed meat and HCAs and PAHs from cooked meat by using quantitative databases of measured values. Total dietary nitrate and nitrite were calculated based on literature values.

RESULTS: The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for red meat (HR for fifth quintile compared with first quintile, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54; P(trend) = .07) and the HCA 2-amino-1 methyl-6-phenylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridine (PhIP) (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.48; P(trend) = .06) conferred a borderline statistically significant increased risk of bladder cancer. Positive associations were observed in the top quintile for total dietary nitrite (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.61; P(trend) = .06) and nitrate plus nitrite intake from processed meat (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.67; P(trend) = .11).

CONCLUSIONS: These findings provided modest support for an increased risk of bladder cancer with total dietary nitrite and nitrate plus nitrite from processed meat. Results also suggested a positive association between red meat and PhIP and bladder carcinogenesis.
© 2010 American Cancer Society.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681011


*****************

Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15;70(6):2406-14. Epub 2010 Mar 9.
A large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: an investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this association.

Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, Graubard BI, Ward MH, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Sinha R.

Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, Maryland, USA. crossa@mail.nih.gov
Abstract

Although the relation between red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer has been reported in several epidemiologic studies, very few investigated the potential mechanisms. This study examined multiple potential mechanisms in a large U.S. prospective cohort with a detailed questionnaire on meat type and meat cooking methods linked to databases for estimating intake of mutagens formed in meats cooked at high temperatures (heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), heme iron, nitrate, and nitrite. During 7 years of follow-up, 2,719 colorectal cancer cases were ascertained from a cohort of 300,948 men and women. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) comparing the fifth to the first quintile for both red (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42; P(trend) < 0.001) and processed meat (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P(trend) = 0.017) intakes indicated an elevated risk for colorectal cancer. The potential mechanisms for this relation include heme iron (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29; P(trend) = 0.022), nitrate from processed meats (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P(trend) = 0.001), and heterocyclic amine intake [HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34; P(trend) < 0.001 for 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx) and HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P(trend) <0.001 for 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx)]. In general, the elevated risks were higher for rectal cancer than for colon cancer, with the exception of MeIQx and DiMeIQx, which were only associated with colon cancer. In conclusion, we found a positive association for red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer; heme iron, nitrate/nitrite, and heterocyclic amines from meat may explain these associations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20215514

******************


J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jul 15;101(14):1001-11. Epub 2009 Jun 26.
Dietary fatty acids and pancreatic cancer in the NIH-AARP diet and health study.

Thiébaut AC, Jiao L, Silverman DT, Cross AJ, Thompson FE, Subar AF, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ.

Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Comment in:

* J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jul 15;101(14):972-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research relating dietary fat, a modifiable risk factor, to pancreatic cancer has been inconclusive.

METHODS: We prospectively analyzed the association between intakes of fat, fat subtypes, and fat food sources and exocrine pancreatic cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study, a US cohort of 308 736 men and 216 737 women who completed a 124-item food frequency questionnaire in 1995-1996. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models, with adjustment for energy intake, smoking history, body mass index, and diabetes. Statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS: Over an average follow-up of 6.3 years, 865 men and 472 women were diagnosed with exocrine pancreatic cancer (45.0 and 34.5 cases per 100 000 person-years, respectively). After multivariable adjustment and combination of data for men and women, pancreatic cancer risk was directly related to the intakes of total fat (highest vs lowest quintile, 46.8 vs 33.2 cases per 100 000 person-years, HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.46; P(trend) = .03), saturated fat (51.5 vs 33.1 cases per 100 000 person-years, HR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.62; P(trend) < .001), and monounsaturated fat (46.2 vs 32.9 cases per 100 000 person-years, HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.46; P(trend) = .05) but not polyunsaturated fat. The associations were strongest for saturated fat from animal food sources (52.0 vs 32.2 cases per 100 000 person-years, HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.70; P(trend) < .001); specifically, intakes from red meat and dairy products were both statistically significantly associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk (HR = 1.27 and 1.19, respectively).

CONCLUSION: In this large prospective cohort with a wide range of intakes, dietary fat of animal origin was associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19561318

A classic example of science-y spam

...why? Because I have a science-y email address. On another note, who pays $76 for a book about catching beetles?!

Anyway, see email below.

"To: Science-y email address person
From: Publisher of Obscure Science-y Books
Date: Today

METHODS FOR CATCHING BEETLES
By Carlos Aguilar Julio
English version
See on www.naturalia-editions.com
BOOK REVIEW
Many methods have been written about the collection of beetles in the world. However, only very specific papers were developed until now, for example: the traps, or about specific sampling methods of some families or genera of Coleoptera in the planet.
This book aims provide to the scientific world and for students a collection of knowledge and experience of the author and others professionals of entomology, related to methods and capture techniques, transfer and preservation of Coleoptera, encompassed in a single work.
This study tool has long been expected. There are many forums (especially in the internet) which perceived the need for instruction about this subject. Our colleagues were the first to applaud this initiative, describing it as very valuable in relation to its content.
Now the students can count throughout this material, which is complement of development in the field activities, through practice.
The methods of capture are varied and numerous, such as or more than the number of families of beetles.
Early detection of environmental damage, which can be detected through the study of beetles populations and / or endangered species (it require also knowledge for the capture of different species in selected environments) will provide help for the implementation of measures to assist the conservation and protection of the environment.
On the other hand, there is a tacit agreement among entomologists, in which the number of known species of Coleoptera is very small compared with the suspected number of existing species. This reminds us that phrase regarding the tip of the iceberg, and arouse our interest about how much we are lacking to know.
This book offers:
1) A brief summary of the physical and structural characteristics of major biomes in the world.
2) Instructions to collect beetles in every kind of environment such as savannas, forests, deserts, streams, rivers, mountains, caves, beaches, mangroves, dunes, etc.

3) Specific details about all beetles families known until now, in the long chapter "Where do they live? What do they eat? How to collect them?"
4) A variety of traps chosen according to their effectiveness, and how to make them by yourself.
Finally, we hope that this tool now available to all supporters of life on this planet, serve to understand it, preserve and improve it.
Jorge Barrett Viedma
Editor
Naturalia - Scientific Collection
www.naturalia-editions.com
info@naturalia-editions.com
METHODS FOR CATCHING BEETLES
By Carlos Aguilar Julio
English version
Limited Edition
14.8 x 21 cm
320 pages
16 color plates
160 images
Full color cover
Price: $ 76 plus shipping
Buy on line

Guns: This Is Why

I live in Texas, a big gun-loving state. Just a few days ago when discussing the recent Supreme Court decision, I missed my opportunity to get on my soapbox when someone baited me by asking, "What, you wouldn't allow me to protect myself?" This is why, dumby: You are far more likely to blow yourself away than to protect your precious dvd collection.

When people talk about guns, the words they use include "rights, freedom, American, 2nd amendment, protection, safety, etc." But somehow suicide, accidental gun injuries and death, and domestic violence never rise to become part of that conversation. For the life of me I don't know why. Is it that we are confronted daily with images in the media of heroic gunfights between the bad guys vs. the good guys? But what about the good guy vs. himself? Or the bad guy grabbing the good guy's gun and using it against him? Or the good guy's young child accidentally shooting her foot off? Why do we never talk about these things?

clipped from www.cnn.com ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves. Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater. Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors. One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

And what's better is that the article concludes with some controversial statistics about guns and mentions that both sides agree that research about gun violence has dropped sharply in the last decade. Apparently the CDC (the main funder of research on gun-related injuries), cut back in 1996 when Congress ordered that none of the agency's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

This is a classic case of the Bush administration's famous policies on scientific research.

Gender Imbalance in Intramural NIH Scientists

This article reporting on a study conducted by the NIH on its intramural female scientists doesn't come as a surprise. The article goes on to report that women are more likely to make career concessions than men and that a change in academic and scientific culture will be necessary to combat the gender gap. (Don't hold your breath!) It also says that while men and women rate themselves equally when it comes to professional skills, women are less confident that they will obtain PI positions and receive tenure.

I find it interesting that the story has long been "more women trained in science and admitted to university, graduate school, and postdocs will soon translate to more women in tenured and PI positions." That seems so hopelessly naive to me. The reality is that something is wrong with the system and the culture (of academia, research, and the "rest of the world") and that throwing more women into the system at the lower level isn't going to magically solve the problem.

clipped from www.nih.gov Although women comprise nearly half of all undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral scientists nationwide, after committing 10 to 15 years to scientific training, many leave academic research during the career transition to faculty or tenured positions. For example, at the NIH, only 29 percent of the tenure-track principal investigators (PI) and 19 percent of tenured PIs — the NIH equivalent of assistant and full professors, respectively — are women. These figures have hardly changed over the last decade and mirror the disparities at most academic research institutions.

Politics vs. Science, Again

Even given the "unnamed sources," I can't say that this sort of censorship would really surprise me.

clipped from blogs.wsj.com More allegations this morning that the White House is muzzling top docs in the administration. Julie Gerberding, the physician who runs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before the Senate yesterday on health and climate change. But her prepared remarks were “severely edited” by the White House, the Associated Press reported, citing two unnamed sources.