A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
At this point we're beating a dead horseradish. Pretty much every study says the less meat, the healthier
Vegans had a 40% higher risk of bowel cancer when compared with meat eaters.
Regarding vegetarians and cancer yes, but most studies show that a moderate intake of meat is beneficial to your OVERALL health. And this study does NOT show that less meat the better.
Also a lot of studies including this one, show that some nutrients are hard to obtain as a vegan, so you need supplements to stay healthy. Especially if you are Vegan.
I don't think you read the article, but just had a knee jerk reaction to the headline.
Do we know what moderate means?
Here it means less than 150g per day. But there is no minimum recommendation AFAIK, probably because most people eat too much.
So optimal amount is a bit murky. It probably also varies depending of what types of meat you eat. It is generally understood that chicken is better for your health than red meat.
150gr is moderate ?! Daaaaamn. TIL our family is moderate as fuck then. More than 150 is just not feeling okay. We are pushing to 200 when it’s steak day. I’m curious what’s the average now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
I live in Denmark, and we were highest on meat consumption in 2002, but in 2020 the amount of meat consumed per person was cut by more than half!
So the highest number was in 2002 with 146 kg per year per person, or 397 gr per day, more than double the recommendation on average!
Supermarkets here are making smaller packages, and beef is now taxed to reduce consumption of that in particular. Also because it is considered more environmentally harmful than other types of meat.
Which studies? A quick search doesn't seem to confirm that at all. From checking some of those studies, there seems to be a weak/low certainty correlation of lower meat consumption with lower cancer risks, a correlation (with geographical differences) of meat consumption with being overweight, but also other factors like smoking and low physical activity which really call into question whether other studies took that into account, and also a correlation between higher meat consumption and lower risk for depression (which I would also call into question given meat consumption's correlation with high socioeconomic status).
All I can get from those metastudies is a big nothing burger of "maybe"'s in either direction.
Except it's not meat itself, but contaminants in the meat.
"It's not the cigarette I smoke, it's all the bad chemicals in the cigarette" Big brain time over here
If they put a shitload of glyphosate on corn, it's not corn that gives you leukemia, it's the glyphosate, ya smarmy axe grinder.
The bad news about glyphosate is it's apparently on everything. It's at the point where it may be confounding experiments that haven't controlled for its presence.
That is just one of many, the second most used herbicide, atrazine, is in all the municipal water systems too, testing is done in spring usually when the water table is high, but in the fall when the water table is lower it returns higher values of pollutants. But atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor, one of many out there.
A point missing from the headline:
While being vegetarian appeared to be protective overall, the scientists also found that those who follow a vegetarian diet had nearly double the risk of the most common type of cancer of the oesophagus, known as squamous cell carcinoma, compared with meat eaters. This may be due to vegetarians being deficient in key nutrients such as B vitamins, the team suggested.
So you can just choose what kind of cancer you want by altering your diet.
I feel like we're just gonna end up back where we always do, with moderation being the best policy. Don't eat too much of any one thing but eat some of everything.
I mean it says overall protective, so no, not just equal choice. Also seems quite easy to fix if it is only due to lack of B vitamins.
The best is to eat meat sometimes and vegetarian meals sometimes (with cheese, mushrooms, tofu, or something else besides meat for protein)
I haven't gone full vegetarian but I eat vegetarian meals a lot
These studies aren't very useful without considering the base rate. From Google, the lifetime risk for men for pancreatic cancer is about 1.8% (1.7% for women). the article said vegetarians had 21% less chance, which means it's a 1.4% chance.
To me this smells like a study with a lot of data massaging to get something publishable.
Quality over quantity, baby