MrG, its simple stats from the US anti-cancer society, Harvard medical school, a monumental six-year study called the "China Project," conducted by universities in America, China, and Great Britain, etc etc,
Well I can't really argue with that (not without reading the study myself, at least).
However - I will make a point about confusing Correlation with Causation. You can make the results of a medical study show whatever you want to, given enough jigery pokery with the stats. As far as I'm aware, eating red meat hasn't yet been proven to be a
cause of cancer (not like smoking). Even if it has, it must be taken into consideration the lifestyles of those who eat red meat, and in all liklihood you would have to eat an unhealthy amount of red-meat (or drink, or smoke, or bread, or crisps, whatever) in order to
cause a cancer (Red wine is a good example: Drink a little and it's good for you, drink 2 bottles a day over 40 years and you're at greater risk of getting liver cancer).
I mean, you can say that 100% of cancer sufferers in the UK drive on the left hand side of the road, doesn't mean that is causes cancer, does it? I stand by my original point: all this "No meat, don't burn it, etc..." diet stuff is very fashionable (like organic, non-GM etc... - and a little extremist IMO), but I don't attribute any genuine health-value to it.
A
healthy diet is a
balanced diet. Include in it what you want, from Red meat to Ryveta: the "all or nothing" approach is decidedly
unhealthy.