Cooked Food Can Induce Cancer

So now eating is hazardous to one's health? Wow. Great.

I think the conclusion to be drawn is that too much of anything can be bad for one's health. Many of the studies that report on the cancer-inducing properties of some substance are based on studies where rats are given (fed/injected) thousands of times the equivalent 'dose' that a human would get. I.e., these are grossly unrealistic studies.

The problem with these studies is that, by conception and design, they can never detect the 'hormesis' effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis -- that exposure to small quantities of a substance, or agent, can actually make a person healthier.

It may well be that cooking food actually makes us healthier since it exposes us to small doses of these toxins, which then triggers an immune-type response within our bodies.

WARNING! Being alive causes death.

Death is the result of a sexually transmitted disease: childbirth.

Despite various delaying tactics, the death rate is still exactly 1.000....

How do you expect us to develop immunity from a growingly toxic environment, if we don't wallow in it?? I say go the way of the superbug and become superhumans...

AArrrrg

Breathing also causes cancer, so stop doing it!

So much research for nothing!

What a waste!

Everybody dies.

Not everybody lives.

I remember a few years back, there was a scare going around about the fat sizzling on the hot coals of the grill putting carcinogens on your steak, burger, or whatever you were grilling. Carcinogenic or not, it tastes much better that way.

I don't grill that often so I'm not worried about it. Besides, my daily bowl of oatmeal helps clean up all that bad stuff chugging its way through.

I stopped eating the crispy fat from the edges of my meat now. Does that count?

I like to think that the delicious flavor of cooked meat and vegetables means that my body is telling me that they're good for me. Wild speculation about the shape of proteins being incompatible is at odds with the omnivore concept. Cooked food has fewer nasty bacteria to kill me. And then there are foods that are toxic unless thoroughly washed. And what about ethanol in fermented foods? I think the worst thing you can do is worry worry worry. These exercise and diet gurus keep dropping dead from heart disease and cancer anyway. Enjoy life!!!

From your first link! "Exposure to HIGH levels of HCAs and PAHs CAN cause cancer in animals; however, whether such exposure causes cancer in humans is unclear. Currently, NO Federal guidelines address consumption levels of HCAs and PAHs formed in meat."

What are the alternatives?!?

I love the "studies" expressing the halfbaked preiudices (pun intended) of the writers.

Cooking meat is needed to neutralize bacteria, viruses, worms and the occasional hyena spittle (when we stay with the ancestral image). If you got an intestinal upset or met a tapeworm, I am sure the cooking would be seen as very benign. Living is a risk, so is eating, breathing. So is loving, etc. Get over it.

By the way, a well functioning stomach is more acidic, than your car's battery. It disinfects, and some enzymatic digestion takes place there. In the small intestines's alkaline environment some other digestion takes place. By the time the food is absorbable, the protein's original structure is long gone. There are few exceptions, like for glucosamine. It spells real trouble when, if, a bacteria or virus gets that far and still recognizable. Allergies, autoimmune problems, anyone?

So, cooking meant exactly to denature proteins, rendering them harmless. Getting some rattlesnake stew in a western restaurant, it would not do to have some venom floating around with its three dimensional structure intact, would it now? The same is true for some mold toxin.

No, I will not reply to comments given here.

For me, it's not about who's wrong and who's right.

In that sense, this is not a debate nor is it a contest.

We all try to do our best in the limited time given for us to live - and we cannot really teach each other how.

The findings are presented as such, and the articles are presented as such, for each one's own personal contemplation and judgement.

However I do appreciate comments given to the original post, if only to demonstrate the impact and possible gravity of the subject.

Thanks for that.

"In that sense, this is not a debate nor is it a contest."

You stress that this is a debate but you cite only one side of the argument in the articles and research that you presented. It is irresponsible to put biased information into a forum where it can be picked up by headline seeking members of the press and re-quoted as fact based on scientific research. The scandal over MMR vaccine being linked to Autism is an example of the possible consequences of your actions. The UK is currently experiencing a serious outbreak off measles because FALSE allegations prompted many gullible parents to deny their children the MMR vaccine. The result, enough of our teenage population have been left unprotected to allow measles to spread, when if vaccination take up rates had been a few % higher, propagation should have been impossible. You make no mention that some carcinogens and toxins are destroyed by cooking. You make no mention that our bodies can process cooked food far more easily, thus extracting more nourishment and leaving us in a much healthier condition to fight off all disease.

Propagators of this type of pseudo science should be held responsible under the law for the consequences of their action.

Ignored since the eighties? I remember as a young teen hearing conversations in my Father's hardware that grilling meat created cancer causing chemicals in food. (I believe this was the day of the local fire company's annual chicken barbecue) The date for these conversations would be sometime in the mid 1960's. So the truth has been there a long time - but what would you do besides cook the food? Why cause a furor about something you can't amend?

Hi Yuval,

Thanks for a great article. This has been known for some time. The idiots who want to ignore it can do so. It will improve the gene pool. Check this one out:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5A05797EB75AD13C8FCF3D40861DD97A

-S

By posting the links you have, you must tend to agree with the inference of the research, or at least find them compelling.

Going back one step, the more controversial "China Study" implicates animal protein, whether cooked or not, in cancer development. Does it really? One critical review would disagree. And the commentary on the commentary is even more detailed. But, to me, even these critiques are biased, in that, it is motivated by a pre-existing habit that is pleasurable to the sense of taste, and therefore our brain. There is then the expected rebuttal. The veg. vs. meat-eating debate will be ongoing. Depending on one's predisposition, one can find research to support one's choice.

The body, being the complex machine that it is, is constantly in flux at the micro-level. And we live in a virtual sea of factors which can influence health. Oddly, what we ingest still isn't given the importance it deserves. True, that is only one of these factors, but a crucial one, as without eating we die. And, yes, we are going to die no matter how hard we try not to.

As most of us recognize, trying to pin any one factor as the cause of a disease (or, more broadly, injurious to health) such as cancer, can be difficult -- especially this kind of factor -- but not impossible. If it were, we would have to throw out all the MSDS information as flawed. The toxicity values, specifically, reference carcinogenic activity, if any. For anyone who works where MSDS are required to be posted, do you ignore them because there is no research cited on it to support the statements made? (At least, I don't recall seeing such.) I don't. Fortunately or unfortunately, food isn't required to have an MSDS sheet. We're supposed to "know" (learn?) enough to interpret the FDA required labeling to read between the ingredients. Not so easy. Research can be fickle and confusing.

Life is programmed to fizzle out. We can discover influential factors detrimental to normal health maintenance. But there are so many to pay attention to, and even then you'll still die. If any one of us wants to play loose with some of the factors, like indulging in smoking tobacco, doing deep breathing exercises in an asbestos waste site, consuming too much alcohol, or any number of pleasurable activities, we take responsibility for doing so. We will almost certainly shorten our lifetime. The problem with many of these "vices" is they are pleasurable. This interferes with incentives to limit our involvement with them. Plus, carcinogenic effects from "substances" can vary in manifestation time. If we are exposed to one or more, and are lucky, cancer doesn't manifest until we are getting old and about to die anyway. It's a gamble, to be sure. Dealer's choice.

I can only wonder, how elegantly you managed to "hop over" the main issue here, presenting it as "protein does or does not cause cancer" totally ignoring the O.P intention to raise the possibility of "cooking protein destroys it's chemical profile, making it dangerous to digest, given the counted and documented mutagen and carcinogen compounds created during the cooking process"

What a shame.

You must be thinking we are all a bunch of idiots

On the contrary. I think most readers here have good analytical skills. I'm sorry if my post upset you, because you see it as side-stepping, simple-minded, oblique, misconstrued, and/or whatever pressed a button for you.

I did back up (as opposed to hop over the subject) to another basic consideration. I was not disagreeing with or disputing the cited research implicating toxic byproducts of cooked food, merely pointing out that there are multiple factors -- mostly environmental -- in addition to diet, that other research indicates contributes to the development of cancerous cellular activity. Also, I was mostly providing a context for the thread title. It does say "Can" as opposed to "Does." Your reaction/response to my post could be taken to mean you think cooked food is the primary cause of cancer development. Is that your view? I didn't see anything in the articles or research cited that concluded that. If you know of research concluding that, please post it as I certainly don't claim to know everything and learn something new almost every day. How one would design such an experiment of that specificity doesn't seem trivial. Maybe you have some ideas for that. Do we even have good mortality data of people eating raw food vs. cooked food to analyze? How do we order these chemical risks if we can't absolutely separate them out from one another in some quantifiable way?

A well-known (at least used to be) reference to longevity correlated with lifestyle (raw food, for example and correlated by observation) is the Hunza people. Now it should seem "obvious" and logical to conclude their diet is the main factor in their health. But what about stress? Exercise was also cited as contributing to their health status. Multiple factors. (It should be noted that the author of the linked article about the Hunza, mentions John Robbin's website as a "source" for the article. John Robbins is an advocate of vegetarianism, as well as noting and supporting raw food benefits.) And there are usually outliers in any cohort. I have seen stories in the news about people living long, healthy, lives who not only were eating cooked food all their lives, but smoked, drank alcohol and weren't exercise devotees. I wouldn't advocate the "gamble" of stacking risk factors, but some seem to avoid the risk (of cancer and other diseased states) while doing so.

The relevance of "backing up" to the basic question of whether or not animal protein is correlated with cancer or not is demonstrated in a logical way. The primary source of protein and fat in man's diet (in the U.S., at least) is animal flesh (With the exception of vegetable oils and fats as fat sources.) Thus my citing The China Study as relevant to the topic of cancer. If animal protein, alone, contributes to "inducing" cancer, then cooked animal protein and fat, likely exacerbates that problem. As a source of carcinogenic substances that cause, or increases the risk -- and there ARE multiple factors -- eliminating meat entirely greatly reduces that risk, if it is correct. Other substances cited regarding raw vs. cooked food are definitely relevant. I would, therefore, agree that making raw food a larger portion of one's diet is a healthy decision. Growing it yourself is even better.

Looking at the citations in the article at the American Nutrition Association, for instance, meat is certainly the focus of several of the studies.

Without some discussion by you or Yuval I can only infer that you are both advocates of a raw food diet. And by your reaction, very devoted advocates. The majority of the links provided would indicate that. I am curious, would you also agree with John Robbins, that a vegetarian diet is healthier than including meat in one's diet? Or is uncooked meat fine in your view? (What is your view of The China Study?) I'd still worry about antibiotics and hormones if eating meat. Were the Hunza basically, also, vegetarian? According to the article, yes. How do we separate the lack or minimal amount of meat out from "uncooked" to rank the two as risk factors? The question of cooked vs. raw is not as simplistic, scientifically, as the cited research seems to indicate. Conclusions from research aren't usually written up as definitive or absolute. If you are advocates, your experience with a raw food diet would be interesting to read.

I don't consider you or any other readers here idiots. Too quick to anger... possibly. I hope this better expresses my thoughts about the O.P.

(To be continued next week, if you wish.)

What can I say ? You assume too much, and argue very little relevance:

1. I don't "think cooked food is the primary cause of cancer development" as you said I do, and I can't see how and according to what you deduced that, just by my saying you avoided the main issue, and chose to side-wind it into the non relevant issue of "protein can cause cancer" - this is not the issue in question here. As to "How do we order these chemical risks if we can't absolutely separate them out from one another in some quantifiable way?" which you so innocently ask, well, refer yourself to countless other such misshapes of harmful products we all consume every day without having a debate such as this one.

2. Adding "stress" and "lifestyle" to the equation (what has the Hunza people got to do with anything?), is again, sidewinding and non relevant here, because if I understand it correctly, the Original Post was not about "how many factors are piled up by industry to induce cancer", but instead, the O.P referred specifically (if I understand it correctly) to the chemical change which cooking proteins causes, producing mutagens and carcinogens we consume without considering the studies which show that clearly, not just those presented here by Yuval.

3. I don't see where Yuval was "'backing up' to the basic question of whether or not animal protein is correlated with cancer" or even chose to relate to that - however remotely. Again, you chose to divert it that way. For your information: plant matter is as much as protein as animal matter, be it meat, bone, milk or whatever. So, by presenting the Original Post as advocating to avoid meat, is again, sidewinding and dishonest. You might as well be presenting the Original Post as advocating to avoid food altogether (as I read someone else suggested here...), because basically, other than proteins, we can only feed ourselves with minerals...

4. By inferring that "you are both advocates of a raw food diet" again, not only you are assuming too much, but you are also attributing yours truly and Youval, with what is perhaps ('perhaps' because I can only speak for myself) nothing but your own wishful thinking.

I do not advocate for anything, this way or another, but merely referring to your manipulative, sidewinding, and dishonest way of argumentation, and unlike you, I do not pretend to know what you are advocating for.

You are slick, I'll give you that, but far from honest, direct to the point, or relevant.

Again: What a shame.

BTW: Did you wrap yours truly with Youval as mutually-supporting advocates of your fancy, just because we both come from the same country ? Hmmm... maybe it's just me, don't bother

????

As I basically agreed (4th paragraph of previous post) with results showing harmful chemicals being created from "cooking" food, that are carcinogenic, I'm not sure why you think my response was "slick." I have no agenda, other than posting thoughts that come to mind when I read a thread title and any links included. I do believe posting our thoughts are within the bounds of a "discussion." My comments were "advocating" context for the OP.

I apologize for suggesting you might be an advocate of a raw food diet. Your response is welcome to address that musing -- not an assumption.

The word "cancer" is in the thread title. Therefore a discussion of other contributing factors (as you agree, "we all consume everyday") should not be considered irrelevant.

You have, now, also made clear, you don't think cooked food is the primary cause of inducing cancer. So we agree that assessment wasn't addressed in the links, AFAIK. As it is, it seems the conclusion Yuval wanted to convey is, cooked food can contribute to inducing cancer. Period. O.K. Fine. So can a multitude of other factors.

The OP ended with "Any comments?" I offered mine. Whether or not the "other" subjects I referred to are irrelevant or not, I leave with each reader. You consider them irrelevant. Others may or may not agree. Since no one else posted yet in response to my posts it is inconclusive.

Is "Yes" or "Good post and links" the only responses acceptable to the OP? (And/or you, I guess. See next paragraph.) Then the only thing being "advocated" in the OP is the information by itself. No further discussion on you or Yuval's part.

Yuval posted, "No, I will not reply to comments given here." To quote you, "What a shame." To post something one thinks is interesting and/or valuable information, but not be willing to participate in the "discussion," should have been stated IN the OP. Usually, OP'ers do participate. A lack thereof seems disingenuous. Thankfully, you have taken up the cause. What is still lacking, though, is a real discussion of the ideas presented in the links. If my comments are irrelevant, please help us get the discussion back on track by picking some points for discussion from the links provided in the OP.

I'll start the process with a quote from the first link in the OP.

Nevertheless, numerous epidemiologic studies have used detailed questionnaires to examine participants' meat consumption and meat cooking methods to estimate HCA and PAH exposures. Researchers found that high consumption of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats was associated with increased risks of colorectal (14), pancreatic (15, 16), and prostate (17, 18) cancer.

I would note that the epidemiological studies, mentioned, focus on meat consumption and its cooking. Why the NCI decided that meat should be selected for the questionnaire distributed is explained in section 1: HCAs are not found in significant amounts in foods other than meat cooked at high temperatures. PAHs can be found in other charred foods, as well as in cigarette smoke and car exhaust fumes.

So I, now, also, see the link between "other" charred foods and "other" more readily recognizable risk factors, such as cigarette smoking and car fumes. Is cooked food (other than meat) possibly akin to second hand smoke? Your thoughts?

I hope you find the quotes and my comments about them more specifically related to the OP.

If I may: My intention was to present the issue for notice. I am aware that this is an explosive issue by nature, as expressed vividly in comment #1. My asking you guys for comments on the issue was aimed to have a "whiff" of the social mood on such a grave issue.

The fact that some chose to debate the scientific and health implications of the issue in a clear and specific way is naturally welcome (although, as mentioned above, not my original intent - that's what serious and controlled studies are for) - but if and when, please relate to the effects of cooking rather than "eating meat", or "protein correlation to cancer" - which I think is nonsense in it's purest form - as Zilbeng mentioned - all of and any bio-matter is in fact proteins (or at least amino acids), so please.

I'm not here to provoke, but to relate to our (collective) biased way of thinking, freaking out whenever we stumble upon any diversion from our extreme artificial behaviour, whilst forgetting we are all still under evolutionary, selective pressures, regarding diet, resistance to bugs and toxicity, using only our genetic heritage, as formed over millennia of selective adaptation, as written in our current DNA as a collective human genome - with all it's diversity.

I appreciate your comment. Thank you.

You will, no doubt, think this post mostly irrelevant, too. Humor me. It is probably the last post I will make in this thread, unless further discussion seems warranted.

I don't consider the issue of cooking food, being associated with inducing cancer, as explosive as you do. Certainly not as explosive as raising the question of animal protein, cooked or not, being linked to cancer. That is more explosive in my view. And I did not raise the idea for that reason. I'm sorry it elicited such a negative response from Zilbeng and you. My comments are derived from statements made in the articles linked. HCAs and PAHs are the true topic of the links. Cooking is just one means of creating them. True, it is a very common method.

Cancer is an extremely loaded word. Again, cooking is just one of many factors associated with its development in the body -- and that is all my OP was saying. The article at the first link refers several times to the fact that HCAs and PAHs exist in other sources (also see PDF book below). To be strict about keeping the discussion only to "cooking," would mean one should black out references to other sources of them in the article. If other sources are mentioned there then they should be open for discussion. The article itself mentions intake of meat as well as its cooking as a, still, possible cancer risk:

Ongoing studies are investigating the associations between meat intake, meat cooking methods, and cancer risk.

Proteins, structurally, are formed from amino acids. (As erroneously stated, not all bio-matter is; see paragraph below.)The issue is, strictly speaking, not the structure of the proteins themselves, but the environment, they are nestled in. It is the surrounding fat and other "left-over" chemicals in the muscle and other tissue in meat that is the main distinguishing factor of HCA and PAH formation from cooking. The proteins (and/or amino acids) themselves act no differently from plant proteins, in the body, other than it is considered "complete" from animal sources, vs. incomplete in plant sources. The environment of the proteins makes the source of proteins relevant to the discussion of "inducing cancer." Cooked meat has a higher incidence of HCAs because of environment. The relevance of this "environment" is stated in the article:

HCAs are formed when amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), sugars, and creatine (a substance found in muscle) react at high temperatures. PAHs are formed when fat and juices from meat grilled directly over an open fire drip onto the fire, causing flames. These flames contain PAHs that then adhere to the surface of the meat. PAHs can also be formed during other food preparation processes, such as smoking of meats (1).

I did post links to 2 very critical articles regarding The China Study, which raises the issue of animal protein being linked to cancer activity. I did so to present the counter view, like yours, that it is "nonsense." Most likely that would discourage people from reading the book. So I wasn't promoting it. I only raised the question because, as I quoted from your first link in my last post, HCA's only occur in cooked "meat" in significant amounts. Therefore selecting meat as one issue connected with cooked foods doesn't seem irrelevant to me, to the subject of "inducing cancer."

I think a clarification is in order regarding the statement that all bio-matter is formed from amino acids. That it is not, is basic biochemistry. All bio-matter is not formed from amino acids. Food constituents are separated into the the three basic categories of protein, carbohydrates and fats. They are quite different. The constituents of each is, proteins/amino acids, fats/fatty acids, and carbohydrates/sugars Carbohydrates and fats are different and are not reduced to amino acids. A clear question and answer to this is here. Plants are largely carbohydrates.

A complicating factor is that heated fats can become trans-fatty acids, as well as HCAs and PAHs. Note the section of this extraction from the book, on "Routes of Exposure." Cooked meat is only one source for exposure. Smoking cigarettes is probably a more concentrated source of exposure. At any rate, the incidence of and exposure to PHAs is put in context. This informative book is available free here.

"Inducing cancer" is the key phrase in your thread topic, to me. Cooking is just one implicated causative factor. Asking the question of how it might rank with other factors isn't irrelevant. At least in my view.

How HCAs and PAHs "induce" cancer isn't understood. We would probably be closer to unraveling the whole cancer phenomena if it was. There are multiple triggers. Do they act in concert? Likely. But the specific cause, meaning the exact process, for any one cell to become cancerous (tipping it over the edge) could be due to any one of these "factors" associated by both research and epidemiological studies.

The OP and links are good and informative. I wasn't being critical of their information. But it shouldn't preclude discussion of other factors intertwined with cooking -- especially if referenced in the articles linked. (What one cooks or burns is relevant to HCAs and PAHs formation.) These "implications," of research, do make people feel flustered, like they are drowning in a pool of warnings about common habits. I was only trying to place the information in the context of "one of many," which your ending statement about diversity and "selective pressures" endorses.

To me, the gist of your OP and links, is, that grilling, as a cooking method, has a higher risk factor of creating HCAs and PAHs than other methods. But it isn't the only source of exposure. And if one only grills vegetables, much less HCAs and PAHs, in combination, likely get produced.

In the end we are all going to die. Avoiding or limiting suffering from disease, in between birth and death, is why we care about and pay attention to these possible causes leading to diseases such as cancer -- and what, if any, are the ways to reduce our risk.

Thanks for a good post with 1 or 2 qualifications.

it [protein] is considered "complete" from animal sources, vs. incomplete in plant sources.

A meal with beans and rice contains all essential amino acids (a complete protein). I doubt that it is necessary to eat them both in the same meal to be healthy. There are plants such as quinoa that have a complete protein all by themselves. It is considered a "superfood". It is one of the top 10 protein rich plants. The point is that you don't need to eat meat to get all the protein you need. Since even lean meat can be over 50% fat, going vegi may help you lose weight.

I completely concur. They do not have to be eaten at the same meal. Since my post wasn't to convince anyone to eliminate animal protein from their diet, I didn't focus on the idea of complete protein being easily available by proper protein source combining. Technically speaking, most plant sources do not supply the 8 essential amino acids and are, therefore, considered incomplete. As you point out, combining works well -- even across meals. So, thank you for making it clear.

I appreciate the links about amino acids and protein. While protein doesn't have to be an issue for those experimenting with eliminating animal protein from their diet, you'd be surprised how often people dive into it, winging it, and then giving up the whole idea, saying it can't work (at least for them) when a little research and education regarding protein and healthy eating, in general, would prevent a stark failure. I recently had a casual conversation with a guy in a "cooking/kitchen" store I went into and he learned I was a vegetarian. (Oops. Now people will think I do have an agenda. While I have said elsewhere, that I would advocate a plant-based diet, I don't think it proper to "proselytize.") He said he had tried it but kept getting headaches and he thought (winging it) it was a protein issue. So I asked him how he was trying to get his protein. His reply? Peanut butter. Studying nutrition has the potential to make one a better "eater."

As long as I'm posting again, I should also clarify, for those who didn't read the articles about The China Study, that Dr. Campbell's research was more about the "casein effect," than the data from the epidemiological study, which was referenced in only 1 chapter, but which, became the title of the book. How this happened, to his chagrin, is explained in his rebuttal to Denise Minger's criticisms.

Casein is a specific form of protein "structure" of amino acids, that does not exist in plants (AFAICT) -- thus the implications of his research were about plant-based protein structures vs. this particular form, which only appears in animal substances -- mainly milk, cheese, etc. I would liken it to an effect similar to an allergen, but with, potentially more deadly consequences. There is a "synonym," "plant casein," but it is not equatable to the more proper form found in milk, cheese, etc.

I am not a vegetarian myself, but I have a son who is. It is by his own choice (no religious pressure involved).

He said he had tried it but kept getting headaches and he thought (winging it) it was a protein issue. So I asked him how he was trying to get his protein. His reply? Peanut butter.

Nuts are highly nutritious, but they can cause headaches. I doubt that peanut butter is any better than meat since it has a lot of fat which may not be the best kind. There is some concern that afflatoxin in peanuts may cause cancer, but they are also listed in the 10 best foods for cancer prevention, so each person can decide for themselves.

As far as the topic of the thread, cooking meat may be the cause of the cancer, but not many people eat meat raw. I doubt that a study would be possible. Meat is cooked for a reason - to kill bad biological infestations. I would not recommend eating any meat raw.