We have all heard about the World Health Organization declaring that processed meat and red meat are carcinogenic. What we haven’t heard is why the study didn’t look at the correlation between cancer and genetically modified organizations (GMO). The call for such a study is very loud.
Below is a transcript of the video followed by the video itself.
Vegans and PETA rejoiced on Monday when the World Health Organization announced that they were placing processed meats like bacon and hot dogs on the list of items that are “carcinogenic to humans,” putting sausage in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos. Their exhaustive study is most likely correct – we have no reason to doubt it – but they missed one big opportunity.
Where do organic meats come into play? Grass-fed, non-rBGH, non-GMO, ethically slaughtered meats have been argued as much healthier alternatives to the the standard meats sold in America and other countries. Many scientists say they are not only healthier when the animals are alive but that the meat that comes from these animals is better for human consumption.
The trigger for us to ask this question is the link to cancer itself. It is rare to find natural items that are carcinogenic. It’s normally in the manipulations made by men that the carcinogenic effects are created. Few would argue that high red meat consumption can contribute to other ailments such as heart disease whether the meat is organic or not, but for them to contribute to cancer makes us believe that there’s more to the story than just the meat itself.
Colorectal cancer rates have been going down pretty steadily since 1989, the peak of bovine somatotropin use. When public awareness started pushing for more organic foods and proper treatment of animals, the consumption of lower quality beef went down even though the overall consumption numbers remained steady until 2008.
We’re not scientists and we’re relying on the internet for data, which is to say that we have nothing. Unfortunately, we also have nothing from the World Health Organization who chose to ignore the numbers and dive into an incomplete research study to declare their claims. If colorectal cancer numbers have been declining in a time period when red meat consumption was steady but rBGH use was declining, one would think that they would explore the correlation between animals chemically or genetically modified and the increased risks of cancer.
It’s in human manipulation of natural substances that nearly all carcinogens are created. The World Health Organization chose to ignore this fact. One would be hard pressed to not see an agenda at play here.