Red meat linked to higher risk of premature death

By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

Hamburgers and hot dogs are getting even more grilling.

A new study indicates that eating unprocessed red meat (hamburger, pork, roast beef, lamb) and processed meats (bacon, hot dogs, bologna, sausage) may increase a person's risk of premature death and raise their risk of death from heart disease and cancer.

Conversely, substituting other foods such as fish, poultry, nuts and beans for red meat may lower their risk of premature death, the analysis suggests.

Other studies have linked eating red meat and processed meat to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, and premature death.

"This new study provides further compelling evidence that high amounts of red meat may boost the risk of premature death," says the study's lead author, An Pan of the Harvard School of Public Health. But, he adds, this type of study shows association, which doesn't necessarily mean causation.

Pan and colleagues analyzed the diet, health and death data on 37,698 men and 83,644 women. Participants completed questionnaires about their diets every four years. During the study follow-up period of more than two decades, almost 24,000 of the participants died, including 5,910 from heart disease and 9,464 from cancer.

To determine the risk of eating unprocessed red meat or processed meat, the researchers factored out other lifestyle factors, including age, weight, physical activity and family history of heart disease, and dietary factors, such as intake of whole grains, fruit and vegetables, nuts, legumes, dairy products, fish and poultry.

Among the findings published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine: Eating one serving a day of unprocessed red meat (about the size of a deck of cards) was associated with a 13% increased risk in premature death; eating one serving a day of processed red meat (one hot dog or two slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased risk of premature death.

Using a statistic model, the researchers estimated that replacing one serving a day of red meat with one serving of fish would decrease premature death by 7%; replacing it with poultry would decrease the risk by 14%; nuts, 19%; beans, 10%; low-fat dairy, 10%; whole grains, 14%.

"The message we want to communicate is it would be great if you could reduce your intake of red meat consumption to half a serving a day or two to three servings a week, and severely limit processed red meat intake," Pan says.

He says the sodium and nitrites in processed red meat might explain the relatively higher risk found in processed compared with unprocessed red meat.

But the beef industry says this study doesn't prove red meat is the dietary villain. "Once again, what we are seeing here is an observational study that's limited because it can't establish cause and effect," says registered dietitian Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition research for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "The most striking thing about this study is those who were eating higher intakes of red meat also were eating more calories, were less physically active, were more likely to smoke and ate fewer fruits, vegetables and whole grains."

Pan says those factors were taken into consideration in the statistical analysis to try to eliminate their impact, "but certainly, it is possible that other unmeasured or residual confounding effects from lifestyle exist."

McNeill says, "We have a recent randomized controlled trial that showed eating 4 to 5 ounces of lean beef daily as a part of a heart-healthy diet improved heart health, including lowering bad (LDL) cholesterol levels, as effectively as several other heart-healthy diets. There are many ways to build a healthy diet with lean beef that also includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes."

Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association, says the group does not set a limit on consumption of lean red meat but promotes an overall heart-healthy diet. "A small serving (about 3 ounces) of lean red meat several times a week can be added to an overall heart-healthy dietary pattern without concern. This amount is substantially below the level of risk reported by the Harvard group."

Marji McCullough, a nutrition epidemiologist for the American Cancer Society, says, "We've known for a long time that eating high amounts of red meat or processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer and possibly other cancers. This study is important because it shows that consuming red meat and processed meat increases the risk of death from all causes."

She says there is no magic number in terms of amount of red meat that you can safely consume, but "eating it no more than a few times a week would be a place to start."

Soda-drinking men at higher risk for heart attack

By Linda Carroll

Men who drink sugar-sweetened beverages, including sodas and non-carbonated fruit drinks, may have a higher risk of heart attack, a new study shows.

Harvard researchers found that men who drank one sugar-sweetened beverage per day had a 20 percent increased risk of heart attack compared to those who eschewed the sugary drinks, according to the study published in the journal Circulation.

And the risk rose with increasing consumption: Two sugary drinks a day was linked to a 42 percent increase in risk, while three was associated with a 69 percent increase.

The researchers also found that sugary drinks were associated with higher levels of inflammatory factors, such as CRP, that are thought to be involved in the development of heart disease.

The bottom line is that Americans need to pay more attention to what they’re drinking, said the study’s lead author, Lawrence de Koning, a research fellow in the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “The first thing to do is to reduce the intake of sodas and then eventually eliminate them,” de Koning said.

Related story: 5 great reasons to kick the soda habit

The new research found no connection between artificially sweetened drinks -- in other words, diet sodas -- and heart disease risk. “But there are probably better choices, such as water, coffee and tea,” de Koning said. Besides, another recently published study did indeed find a link between a daily diet soda and heightened heart attack risks.

This study adds to the accumulating evidence that sugary beverages hurt your health, said Dr. Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor of health policy and management at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

The new report looked at data gathered as part of the Health Professionals Follow-up study, which has been gathering information on 42,883 men for the last 22 years. During that time there were 3,683 heart attacks in the men, some fatal and some not. And although this data set focused solely on men, past research has linked women's soda habits with heart disease, too.

When de Koning and his colleagues looked at sugar-sweetened beverages, they found a strong correlation between sugary drinks and heart attack risk. And that link stayed strong even after the researchers accounted for factors such as smoking, physical activity, alcohol intake, vitamin use, family history and BMI.

And while link doesn’t absolutely prove that sugary drinks increase the risk of heart disease, there is evidence from other studies showing that these beverages have an impact on risk factors, de Koning said. In one study, for example, volunteers who decreased sugary soda consumption experienced a reduction in blood pressure levels, he added.

“At the end of the day,” Wang said, “the best thing to drink is still water.

Iran rattles sabers: ’11,000 missiles ready to launch’ at Israel, US targets

By Reza Kahlili

The Iranian newspaper Kayhan reported Thursday that in the first minutes of any American conflict with Iran, “Israel and all U.S. interests around the world will be targeted.”

The newspaper, which is under the supervision of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ran the story under the headline “11,000 Missiles Ready to Launch.”

And on Saturday, Tehran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, confirmed during a public roundtable event that the Islamic regime is prepared to attack both Israel and U.S. bases in the region if its nuclear facilities are attacked.

Citing comments from Gen. Zakaraia Hossein, the former head of the superior academy of Egypt, the Kayhan report added that “America fully knows that Iran is not Iraq” and that “a war with Iran would jeopardize all its interests in the region.”

The Kayhan report emphasized that the leaders of the Islamic regime have successfully thwarted American and Israeli threats over its illicit nuclear program. But given Iran’s missile capabilities, it said, any aggression on its soil will be met with the launch of 11,000 missiles against Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

The report said Iran had successfully launched three intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) during recent war games exercises. Though this has not been reported by other sources, such capability could drastically change the balance of power in the region and further escalate existing tensions.

In December it emerged that China sold Iran, for $11 billion, advanced DF-31 ICBMs which are capable of reaching U.S. soil with nuclear warheads. North Korean engineers are helping to get the missile system up and running.

While addressing supporters in Alborz province on Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran stands firm against military threats. “The Iranian nation is not afraid of your bombs, warships and airplanes,” Ahmadinejad said, ”and does not care about such military weapons.”

“You say all options are on the table, leave them there until they rot.”

Ahmadinejad’s statement came days after the so-called “5+1″ group — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, plus Germany – announced plans for fresh talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

In Beirut, Roknabadi dismissed the idea of an Israeli first-strike, saying that “the Zionist regime is not able to stage military attack against Iran,” according to the Fars News Agency.

At the same event, the Mehr News Agency reported that Roknabadi repeated the Kayhan report’s claim that Iran has thousands of missiles at the ready.

“If the Zionist regime makes such a mistake with military aggression against Iran, it will face Iran’s crushing response,” he warned. “We have prepared ourselves and currently have 11,000 missiles ready to launch at the U.S. and Israel and their interests in the world.”

In an interview with Reuters on Saturday, Iran’s ambassador in Paris, Ali Ahani, said that the only way to move out of the current deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program is for the West to recognize Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.

The Islamic regime’s strategists believe that further advancement in their nuclear program and an aggressive policy of responding to threats will finally convince the West to accept its nuclear activities and with that remove the sanctions against the country.

Iran continues with its illicit nuclear enrichment program despite four sets of U.N. sanctions. It has enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs and continues to enrich to the 20 percent level at the nuclear facilities of Natanz and Fordow. The Fordow facility is deep within a mountain and believed to be immune from air strikes. That uranium could become weapons-grade material within weeks if it were further enriched.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced on Friday that Istanbul will host the next round of talks between Iran and the six major powers, which is expected to be held in April.

Update: This story was updated after publication to include Sunday’s comments from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the author of the award winning book, ”A Time to Betray.” He teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy.

Investors plump up their holdings as gold continues its surge upwards

Goldbugs are feeling their most bullish in months, it seems.

By Emma Rowley

Investors have increased their holdings in exchange-traded products backed by gold for seven weeks in a row, leaving them with a record 2,408 tonnes valued at over $130bn (£83bn), according to data from Bloomberg.

Meanwhile 16 out of the 23 analysts surveyed expect the gold price to gain this week, with only one neutral – the most since mid-November. The gold price is already up 9pc so far this year, building on 11 years of increases.

The surge is being driven by speculation that the Federal Reserve could push through further quantitative easing, despite encouraging US jobs data.

"There's not an overwhelming sense that there's going to be great times ahead," said Jeffrey Sica, chief investment officer of SICA Wealth Management. "As long as the 'quantitative easing devaluating the dollar scenario' is present, it will support the price of gold."

In the same vein, the strength of the US dollar – which, historically, often moves in the opposite direction to the gold price – is seen by analysts at Deutsche Bank as representing the main risk for the gold price in the near term.

"However," they add, "the rise in oil prices, if it continues, will threaten to unravel the US labour market recovery which we would view as ultimately bullish [for] gold prices."

Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.

It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.

A poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the country is split on the issue.

Overall, 45 per cent of voters support moves to allow gay marriage, with 36 per cent against, while 19 per cent say they do not know.

However, the Prime Minister is out of step with his own party.
Exactly half of Conservative voters oppose same-sex marriage in principle and only 35 per cent back it.

There is no public appetite to change the law urgently, with more than three quarters of people polled saying it was wrong to fast-track the plan before 2015 and only 14 per cent saying it was right.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work.

Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed breached BA’s uniform code.

The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols.

BA later changed its uniform policy but Mrs Eweida lost her challenge against an earlier employment tribunal decision at the Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court.

Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after she refused to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain, ending 31 years of nursing.

The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.

Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

The Government has also set out its intention to oppose cases brought by two other Christians, including a former registrar who objected to conducting civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples.

Lillian Ladele, who worked as a registrar for Islington council in north London for 17 years, said she was forced to resign in 2007 after being disciplined, and claimed she had been harassed over her beliefs.

Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

Christian groups described the Government’s stance as “extraordinary”.
Lord Carey said: “The reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise.

“The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith.”

The Strasbourg cases brought by Mrs Chaplin and Mr McFarlane are supported by the Christian Legal Centre which has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading human rights barrister.

Judges in Strasbourg will next decide whether all four cases will progress to full hearings.

If they proceed, the cases will test how religious rights are balanced against equality laws designed to prohibit discrimination.

Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognised practice of the Christian faith.

“In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.

"What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”

Growing anger among Christians will be highlighted today by Delia Smith, the television chef and practising Roman Catholic, who will issue a Lent appeal on behalf the Church’s charity, Cafod, accusing “militant neo-atheists and devout secularists” of “busting a gut to drive us off the radar and try to convince us that we hardly exist”.

ICM Research interviewed an online sample of 2,001 adults between March 7 and March 9. Interviews were conducted across the country and results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.