4 answers

Don't be lazy and google it for you: A large study by a group of physiologists from the Harvard School of Public Health, working under the direction of En Pan, M.D., showed that the fears of vegetarians are absolutely justified: consumption of red meat is clearly correlated with a higher risk of death from cardiovascular diseases, certain types of cancer and metabolic diseases, and the replacement of mammalian meat with fish and poultry dishes, on the contrary, significantly reduces this risk. In analyzing the long-term effects of a meat-based diet, En Pan and his colleagues relied on a statistical study whose scale is impressive: a total of 37,698 men and 83,644 women took part, whose health status was monitored along with the diet for 28 years in the second group. and 22 years - in the first. During this time, 23,926 deaths were recorded in the two surveyed groups, of which 5,910 were from cardiovascular diseases and 9,464 from cancer.

The study found that, in total, life expectancy drops by 13% with a daily serving of freshly cooked meat that is just the size of the palm of your hand, and by as much as 20% with a daily serving of pre-cooked meat - one hot dog or two strips of bacon. For diseases that caused death in both groups, the dependence of risks on consumption of red meat was as follows: the risk of cardiovascular diseases increased by 18% and 21% for fresh and processed meat, respectively, cancer - by 10% and 16%.

Lyon, France, October 2015.









www.thelancet.com
sci-hub.cc
monographs.iarc.fr
www.facebook.com
www.facebook.com





www.wcrf.org

WHO/IARC. Estimated consumption of red meat and meat products: www.who.int
WHO/IARC. Questions and answers about the carcinogenicity of red meat and meat products: www.who.int

Virtually none. However, do not rush to put minuses, but first read to the end. You can also express your thoughts on this matter, I will discuss it with pleasure.

Briefly: the article that Leska is talking about is doubtful, the WHO does not recommend becoming vegetarians, and the harm of meat specifically is poorly understood.

The "Chinese study" is what deservedly can be called complete nonsense. Extended scientific criticism: https://youtu.be/TKD5XEm1TtA

There is a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf, where we read: "red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans" - "red meat, possibly carcinogenic to humans." We pay attention to the word "maybe", i.e. is not a fact.

It also mentions the carcinogenicity of processed meat. Processed meats include bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef and ham jerky, as well as canned meats and sauce-based meats. Now tell me, how many of you did not know that hot dogs are harmful? There is no problem to exclude them from your diet. True, here you can cite studies on how positive emotions affect life expectancy. Here's a new challenge for you, vegans: measure the harm of processed meat against the positive vibes it brings. Of course, it doesn’t bring everyone, there are exceptions everywhere, but that’s another question.

But The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer) has it. Since when is it the same? Another substitution of concepts?

It is worth noting here an interesting WHO quote from the page on the carcinogenicity of meat: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

"22. Should we be vegetarians?

Vegetarian diets and diets that include meat have different advantages and disadvantages for health. However, this evaluation did not directly compare health risks in vegetarians and people who eat meat. That type of comparison is difficult because these groups can be different in other ways besides their consumption of meat".

My translation is as follows, feel free to suggest your own:

"22. Should we be vegetarians?

Vegetarian and meat-based diets have various health benefits and drawbacks. However, this estimate does not directly compare health risks among vegetarians and people who eat meat. This type of comparison is difficult, as these groups may be different in other ways than their meat consumption."

In other words, in order to assess the risk of cancer from meat directly, one must take into account not only nutrition, but also ecology, genetics, lifestyle, even the rhythm of life (for example, nervous tension), etc. In any case, WHO does not say that we need to become vegetarians.

And now about Leska's answer

Lifestyle and nutrition guidelines from the World Cancer Research Foundation and the American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR):
Products of animal origin.
Limit your intake of red meat, avoid canned meat:
- The average consumption of red meat among the population should not exceed 300g (11 oz) per week, and much less if it has been cured/processed.
- People who eat red meat (beef, pork, lamb) should eat no more than 500g (18 ounces) per week, and much less if it has been canned (smoked, salted, dried, adding chemicals to preserve it).
www.wcrf.org

Published by The Lancet Oncology on October 26, 2015.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)/World Health Organization (WHO) has assessed the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat consumption.
Lyon, France, October 2015.
“The task force classified the consumption of processed meats as a “human carcinogen” and listed as a Group 1 carcinogen based on sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer. In addition, positive associations with consumption of meat products have been found for gastric cancer. Also, the task force classified red meat consumption as a "probable human carcinogen" and listed as a group 2A carcinogen. In reviewing, the task force took into account all known relevant data, including significant epidemiological studies showing a positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, with strong mechanistic evidence. Red meat consumption is also positively associated with pancreatic and prostate cancer."
A working group of 22 scientists from 10 countries evaluated more than 800 epidemiological studies that have investigated the association of cancer with the consumption of red meat or meat products.
Red meat refers to the muscles of mammals, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, horse meat, goat or minced meat, including frozen, consumed cooked. Processed meat includes meat that has been salted, smoked, cured (cured meat) or subjected to other processing processes to improve taste or increase shelf life, conservation. Meat products containing pork or beef, but also containing other red meat, poultry, organ meats (such as liver), or organ meats such as blood.
Red meat contains a large amount of proteins of biological importance, important trace elements such as B vitamins, iron (free iron and heme iron), zinc. The fat content of red meat varies by species, animal nutrition, age, sex, and breed. Meat processing, such as curing (cured meat) and smoking, leads to the formation of carcinogenic chemicals, including N-nitroso compounds (NOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA). High temperature cooking of meat, such as frying, grilling, barbecuing, produces the highest amounts of these chemicals.
Depending on the country, the share of the population consuming red meat in the world ranges from less than 5%, up to 100%, and for processed meat, from less than 2% to 65%. For those who consume red meat in the world, the average consumption is approximately 50 - 100g per person per day, with higher consumption levels of over 200g per person per day.
Of great concern are data from 14 large epidemiological cohort studies showing a positive association of red meat consumption with colorectal cancer. Positive associations were seen in groups with high versus low red meat consumption in half of these studies, including cohorts from 10 European countries covering a wide range of meat consumption and other large cohorts in Sweden and Australia. Of 15 informative case-control studies, seven reported positive associations of colorectal cancer with high red meat consumption. Positive associations of colorectal cancer with meat consumption were reported in 12 of 18 cohort studies from Europe, Japan, and the United States. Supporting evidence came from 69 informative case-control studies. Meta-analyses of studies on colorectal cancer in 10 cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose-response relationship, with a 17% increase in risk per 100g per day of red meat and with an 18% increase in risk of colorectal cancer with consumption of 50g per day of processed meat.
Positive association data were also available for more than 15 other cancers. Positive associations have been seen in cohort and case-control studies, between red meat consumption and pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and between meat consumption and stomach cancer.
Based on a large body of data, supported by studies in various populations, combining the finding of a positive association of meat consumption with colorectal cancer, make the chance of bias unlikely. Most of the task force researchers concluded that there is sufficient evidence of the carcinogenicity of processed meat consumption. The chance of error cannot be ruled out with the same degree of certainty for data on red meat consumption alone, as no clear association was seen in several high-quality studies in which it is difficult to rule out confounding with other diets and lifestyle risks. The Working Group ruled that there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat alone. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat. In rats fed colon cancer initiators and a low calcium diet containing either red meat or processed meat, the occurrence of colon precancerous lesions is increased. Evidence for carcinogenicity was assessed as moderate to strong for red meat and processed meats, mainly for the gastrointestinal tract. A meta-analysis published in 2013 reported a modest but statistically significant association between consumption of red or processed meat and adenomas (precancerous lesions) in the colon and rectum, which was consistent across studies. For genotoxicity and oxidative stress, the evidence was moderate for consumption of red or processed meats. In humans, observational data showed small but statistically significant associations with APC gene mutation or promoter methylation, which were identified in 75 (43%) and 41 (23%) of 185 archival colorectal cancer samples, respectively. In three human intervention studies, changes in markers of oxidative stress were associated with consumption of red meat or meat products. Substantial support for mechanistic evidence was available for several meat components such as, N-nitroso compounds (NOC), heme iron, and heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA). The consumption of red meat and processed meat in humans induces the formation of NOC in the colon. High consumption of red meat (300 or 420 g/day) increased levels of DNA adducts presumed to be derived from NOCs in desquamated colonocytes or rectal biopsies in two intervention studies. Heme iron mediates the formation of NOC and lipid oxidation products in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and rodents. High temperature processed meat contains heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA). GAAs are genotoxic, the degree of genotoxicity is greater in humans than in rodents. Smoked or cooked over a heated surface or open flame, meat contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These chemicals cause DNA damage, but there is currently little direct evidence that this occurs as a result of meat consumption.
Overall, the task force classified processed meat consumption as a "human carcinogen" and listed as a Group 1 carcinogen based on sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer. In addition, positive associations with consumption of meat products were found for gastric cancer. group classified red meat consumption as a "probable human carcinogen" and listed as a carcinogen in group 2A. In the process of reviewing, the working group took into account all relevant data, including significant epidemiological studies showing a positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer and strong mechanistic evidence Red meat consumption is also positively associated with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

In the US, many do not know what their food consists of or where raw foods come from. The same trend can be seen here in Denmark. Although not to the same extent.

A couple of years ago, British chef Jamie Oliver went to the USA with the television program Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. His goal was to improve food in American schools. In one of the programs, he attends a preschool class and tests how well they are familiar with fresh vegetables.

Jamie Oliver holds up a branch of tomatoes and shows it to the class. "Who can tell me what it is?" he asks.

Everyone freezes. Finally, one brave boy raises his hand.

"Potato!" he announces.

None of his classmates make a more informed guess.

When Jamie Oliver asks if they know about tomato ketchup, all the students immediately throw up their hands. Much to the dismay of the chef.

Context

Embargo and Russian gastronomic renaissance

The Atlantic 09.06.2017

Expensive food, cheap vodka

Expressen 04.06.2016

Food is a drug and we must learn to say no to it.

The Guardian 07/19/2014

New Yorker: Russian pancakes try their luck in America

The New Yorker 04/14/2017 Many American adults, like preschoolers, have trouble understanding what their food is made of and where raw foods come from. This is evidenced by a new survey commissioned by the US Dairy Innovation Center, which involved approximately one thousand respondents, writes the American magazine Food & Wine.

The survey showed that 7% of American adults believe that brown cows give chocolate milk - as opposed to white ones. So answered 16.4 million people in the United States.

In the early 1990s, the Department of Agriculture conducted a similar study that showed that nearly one in five Americans did not know that hamburger patties were made from beef.

Since then, the statistics have not improved much. As part of a local research project, a group of scientists and educators visited a California elementary school. There, 50% of the students did not know that pickles could be made from cucumbers. And almost every third student had no idea that cheese is made from milk.

FoodCorps is working, like Jamie Oliver, to improve nutrition in American schools, as well as increase schoolchildren's knowledge of raw foods. Cecily Upton, one of the women FoodCorps organizers, told The Washington Post:

“Now we are used to the fact that if we need food, we just go to the supermarket. Our educational programs do not include the requirement to teach children where food comes from and where it was before it hit the store.”

Multimedia

Mashable 15.05.2015 In Denmark, the statistics look a little better. In a survey conducted by Madkulturen (Food Culture) at the Ministry of the Environment and Food last year, almost one in two Danes answered that "it's important to know where raw food comes from." And almost every third Dane buys locally produced food at least once a week.

But. There is a trend among Danish children and youth.

Their knowledge of the origin of raw foods is getting poorer and poorer. This is what Jydith Kyst, director of Madkulturen, says.

“We are not yet at the same stage as the United States, where, for example, in New York they began to build apartments without a kitchen, since people do not cook their own food at all. But there is such a trend. Especially young people now believe that a full-fledged homemade food is, for example, the basis for a Netto pizza with some kind of topping, and we also hear questions from children who are wondering if carrots grow on trees,” she says.

The newspaper Berlingske asked Judith Kist if a significant portion of Danes, like Americans, believe that chocolate milk flows from the udders of brown cows. Here is what she replied:

“I still think not. The Danes have become much more ignorant in this sense, but there are many initiatives now being taken to help us not end up in the same situation as in the US.”

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

Allergies are a common problem, especially allergies to certain foods. According to statistics, the number of those who are forced to give up nuts, dairy products, eggs, soy, and many other ingredients of the traditional diet is constantly growing. It is extremely important for them to avoid eating even small amounts of allergens.

And if, for example, everything is clear with peanut milk - it is made to a large extent from this type of nut, and it is definitely not necessary for people with a peanut allergy to drink, then what is wrong with dozens of products, on the packaging of which it is indicated: “may contain traces of peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts? We understand the requirements of the law and the labeling of allergens.

Allergens as they are

Allergens are food components that can cause allergic reactions in people who are sensitive to them or are contraindicated in certain diseases (celiac disease, phenylketonuria).

Allergens currently include 15 types of components, we quote the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union 022/2011:

1. peanuts and products of its processing;
2. aspartame and aspartame-acesulfame salt;
3. mustard and products of its processing;
4. sulfur dioxide and sulfites, if their total content is more than 10 milligrams per kilogram or 10 milligrams per liter in terms of sulfur dioxide;
5. cereals containing gluten and products of their processing;
6. sesame and products of its processing;
7. lupine and products of its processing;
8. shellfish and products of their processing;
9. milk and products of its processing (including lactose);
10. nuts and products of their processing;
11. crustaceans and products of their processing;
12. fish and products of its processing (except for fish gelatin used as a base in preparations containing vitamins and carotenoids);
13. celery and products of its processing;
14. soy and products of its processing;
15. eggs and their products

So why "may contain"?

The law obliges the manufacturer to indicate on the label all established allergens, regardless of their quantity in the product formulation. Moreover, this must be done even in the case when the formulation does not include the allergen, but it is impossible to exclude its presence in the composition. In such a situation, manufacturers indicate the possibility of containing a component or its traces.

For example, we store ingredients for soy milk and vegan cheese in the same warehouse. By itself, our cheese does not contain the allergen - soy, but there is a small possibility of crossing with it.

Naturally, any manufacturer (and VolkoMolko is no exception) tries to ensure that allergens do not intersect. But sometimes it is impossible to avoid the presence of allergen traces in the product from another product or raw material, even if the production is spread over time, dry cleaning, washing and disinfection are carried out. After all, even a hundredth of a gram is already legally considered the presence of an allergen!

In addition, the presence of allergens in a product is difficult to measure and detect, often even in a research laboratory.

What should producers and consumers do?

An unscrupulous manufacturer may not indicate the alleged presence of traces of allergens at all, referring to ignorance or insufficient information in the legislation. At the same time, completely allergen-free food production in the world is the rarest exception.

And the manufacturer, who does not hide information about the possible presence of allergens in the product, is more open to the consumer and complies with the requirements of the current legislation. His honesty in other matters can be counted more confidently.

Should I be afraid of mentioning traces of allergens? If you suffer from allergies, it depends entirely on individual sensitivity. In some people, the reaction occurs when using a few milligrams of an allergenic substance, some need tens of grams or several days of systematic use. If you are one of the latter, then most often you can purchase products with “traces” of unwanted substances without fear.

An interesting fact: the same goes for specialized certification for the production of products for vegans. It is impossible to obtain such a certificate if, at some stage between the cultivation (synthesis) of the component and the release of the finished product, it comes into contact with ingredients of animal origin. Warehouse and production VolkoMolko rule out this possibility: we have specifically chosen a platform that will allow us to make truly ethical products.

Cheapness always attracts with the opportunity to save money and spend money on something else. But goods at low prices do not always meet all safety standards, and it is better not to spare money on your health. Therefore, you should find out in advance where the goods in the “all for 39” store come from before buying there. No one wants to bring toxic items into the house, especially when there are children in the family and taking care of their health comes to the fore.

Fixed Price Stores

Chains with a fixed price for all goods appeared in Russia a long time ago and will continue to exist for a long time:

• For some items, prices may exceed the average market prices, especially when it comes to food.
• But in terms of tools and other household trifles, such shops have no equal, the prices for these goods are always much lower.
• Originality and low price can attract enough buyers.
• That's just economic instability makes too often change the price tag and, unfortunately, only upwards.

It is at this moment that the question may arise in inquisitive minds: And what is the cost of all these products, if, even selling everything for 39 rubles, the store makes a profit? ».

At the same time, it should be taken into account that the final price includes advertising, rental of premises, logistics services, payment to hired personnel. It turns out that everything sold in such chains of stores generally costs a penny, but does this indicate a low level of quality?

Where are the goods on store shelves?

According to all modern standards, the country of manufacture must be indicated on any product. So you can get the answer to the question by visiting the nearest store and reading the labels. In most cases in China will be listed as manufacturer, you can stumble upon goods from Russia, and recently - from Brazil:

1. It just so happened that right next to us we have one of the most powerful industrial economies in the world with a multimillion-dollar workforce.
2. The cost of everything that is produced in China is not too high.
3. Even taking into account the cost of shipping and customs duties, the profit is enormous.
4. The only problem is that few people in China are interested in the quality of what is exported.
5. Our dealers are also not always particularly conscientious; for their own benefit, they may well not notice a serious defect.

And although Rospotrebnadzor is trying to keep track of product quality, the organization’s resources are not enough to check everyone and everyone.

And in terms of obtaining compensation and filing claims against the manufacturer, serious problems can arise. So think carefully before taking Chinese-made goods. This country knows how to do quality work, but for good work, it also requires appropriate payment. So far, not the best products are coming to our country.

Export from Latin America

Brazil and South American countries recently among our potential friends and economic partners. So their products at low prices are gradually taking over the shelves of our stores. But the process is going too slowly and so far we can only say that:

• Such crafts are not much different from Chinese goods.
• At most, they can be considered as an alternative in case of interruptions in supplies from China.
• In the technological aspect, the countries of Latin America have never been leaders, so most of their industries are technically and morally obsolete.
• There are even more problems with delivery, because in order to be on our shelves, goods need to cross the ocean.

So the Russians may be interested in Brazil as an alternative resort and importer of grain crops. Otherwise, there is nothing there that could not be found in Russia or any neighboring country.

Problems in the domestic economy

Despite the promoted theme of import substitution, there are not so many high-quality domestic goods in such stores.

Internal causes	External problems
High level of competition in the Russian market, including with foreign manufacturers.	Decline in the level of foreign investment in Russian industry, lack of opportunities for growth.
The absence of new solutions, the use of only old options.	Inability to purchase the necessary equipment due to sanctions.
Capital flight abroad, including from domestic production.	The presence of competitors with billions of dollars of capital.
Distrust of buyers to the "folk" product.	The absence of a monopoly in the market for the sale of products.

All this puts our economy in a difficult situation. It cannot be called hopeless, because there are examples of states that started in much worse conditions and for several decades came to success. But in order to change the economic situation and overcome the crisis, it is necessary paradigm shift in mind- a change in attitude towards domestic products, a willingness to develop something of their own, rather than invest in foreign projects.

Already from such a foundation, you can build on and do something really high-quality.

Where do the cheapest items in stores come from?

Most of the products on the shelves of fixed price stores come from three countries:

• China.
• Russia.
• Brazil.

This uniformity is associated either with a low production cost or no duties and support for the domestic economy. Whose goods to buy is up to you. But when you buy Russian goods, you invest every ruble in your producer, leaving capital in the country.

But this does not mean that it is necessary to abandon quality goods in favor of domestic ones. Healthy competition forces firms to develop, come up with something new and constantly improve the level of quality. Yes, and to sacrifice their own comfort and encourage low-quality products, just out of a sense of patriotism, it would be stupid.

Long gone are the days when it's better not to know where the goods come from in the Vse po 39 store. Everything imported and sold on the territory of the Russian Federation subject to control, varying levels of sophistication. And although there is no 100% guarantee yet, almost everything that you can find on the shelves of the nearest store is absolutely safe.

Video about products from FixPrice: All for 39 rubles

In this video, Alena will talk about her purchases in the FixPrice store, how she bought 8 items for 39 rubles, what quality they are: