No evidence of adverse health effects from meat consumption: Study
Adults can continue to eat their current levels of red meat, as well as processed and unprocessed meats, unless they feel inclined to change their habits for non-nutritional reasons, according to a panel of reviewers who conducted several recent studies and developed a new guideline on the topic.
An editorial accompanying the studies and guideline stated, “This is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument.”
Unprocessed red meat and processed meat are unlikely to be causal factors for adverse health outcomes, although it is possible they have a very small causal effect, the guideline stated. The guideline, editorial, and reviews were published by Annals of Internal Medicine on Oct. 1.
The guideline stated, “Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible.”
The guideline was developed by a panel based on four de novo systematic reviews that considered evidence on consumption of meat, as well as one review that addressed consumers' beliefs and values about consuming it. The reviews included data from millions of patients.
The first review was a meta-analysis of cohort studies that focused on how dietary patterns, including the amount of red or processed meat consumed, affected all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. More than 100 studies including more than six million participants were analyzed. The overall conclusions were that dietary patterns, including differences in meat consumption, may result in only small differences in outcomes over long periods.
The next study was a meta-analysis that looked specifically at cohort studies examining how reductions in red and processed meat might affect cancer incidence and mortality. It included 118 studies with more than six million participants, and it, too, found that the possible impact of reduced meat intake was very small.
The third study was a meta-analysis of cohort studies that looked specifically at meat consumption and its relationship to all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes and found that any link was very small.
In the fourth analysis, researchers examined randomized controlled trials that compared diets with differing amounts of red meat for at least six months. They found 12 eligible studies, but one of them—the Women's Health Initiative—was so large (almost 49,000 women) that it dominated the analysis. The authors concluded that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence, although the certainty of the evidence was low.
Finally, a review of consumers' beliefs about meat consumption found that reasons for eating meat included enjoyment, the belief that meat was essential to a healthy diet, cultural reasons, and disbelief about potential negative health effects.
The editorial said that nutritional epidemiology research often has methodological problems and that it may be time to stop producing observational research in this area. “These meta-analyses include millions of participants. Further research involving much smaller cohorts has limited value,” the editorial said. “High-quality randomized controlled trials are welcome, but only if they're designed to tell us things we don't already know.”
Instead, the editorial continued, a major overhaul of the methods for communicating nutritional data is needed to reach target populations and change health outcomes. One potential takeaway from these studies is that there are many reasons other than health to reduce meat consumption, the editorialists said.
“Ethical concerns about animal welfare can be important, as can concerns about the effects of meat consumption on the environment,” they wrote. “Both of these issues might be more likely to sway people, and they have the added benefit of empirical evidence behind them. And if they result in reducing meat consumption, and some receive a small health benefit as a side effect, everyone wins.”
courtesy: acpinternist.org
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
London, Nov 22: A bomb disposal squad deployed as a “precaution” to the South Terminal of Gatwick Airport concluded an investigation into a "security incident" on Friday after making a “suspect package” safe.
The South Terminal of Gatwick Airport, the UK's second busiest airport after Heathrow, which was briefly shut owing to the incident reopened following the incident.
The Gatwick is around 45 km south of London.
Two people detained during the enquiries have since been allowed to continue their journey as the airport was opened.
“Police have concluded their investigation into a report of a suspect package at Gatwick Airport. Officers from the EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team made the package safe, and the airport has been handed back to its operator,” Sussex Police said in an updated statement.
“Two people detained while enquiries were ongoing have subsequently been allowed to continue their journeys. There will remain an increased police presence in the area to assist with passengers accessing the South Terminal for onward travel,” the statement added.
Earlier on Friday, the incident caused severe disruption at the busy airport’s South Terminal, while the North Terminal of Gatwick Airport remained unaffected.
“Police were called to the South Terminal at Gatwick Airport at 8.20 am on Friday (November 22) following the discovery of a suspected prohibited item in luggage,” a Sussex Police statement said.
“To ensure the safety of the public, staff and other airport users, a security cordon has been put in place whilst the matter is dealt with. As a precaution, an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team is being deployed to the airport. This is causing significant disruption and some roads around the South Terminal have been closed. We’d advise the public to avoid the area where possible,” it said.
Footage on social media taken outside the airport showed crowds of frustrated travellers being moved away from the terminal building.
Gatwick said it was working hard to resolve the issue.
“A large part of the South Terminal has been evacuated as a precaution while we continue to investigate a security incident," the airport said in a social media post.
“Passengers will not be able to enter the South Terminal while this is ongoing. The safety and security of our passengers and staff remain our top priority. We are working hard to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.”
Train and bus services that serve the airport were also impacted while the police carried out their inquiries.
In an unrelated incident in south London on Friday morning, the US Embassy area in Nine Elms by the River Thames was the scene of a controlled explosion by Scotland Yard dealing with what they believe may have been a “hoax device”.
“We can confirm the 'loud bang' reported in the area a short time ago was a controlled explosion carried out by officers,” the Metropolitan Police said in a post on X.
“Initial indications are that the item was a hoax device. An investigation will now follow. Some cordons will remain in place for the time being but the majority of the police response will now be stood down,” it added.
