James Ingram AO surely has his heart in the right place; but are there matters in his mind that he dare not mention? If there are, the world might become a better place if he did.

He is probably aware of the ecological restraints within which the human mammal resides, and of statements regarding it by people of eminence within that field. People such as:

Charles Fenner at the BAAS 1937 meeting in Nottingham – “If lands are productive, population increases, and the pressure becomes as great as ever.”

David Davis, employed during the 1940s to do the science for the USA’s attempts at uban rat minimisation . He noted that poisoning and trapping will not achieve the aims; only deprivation of food will do that. He noted the similarities of behavior between human and rodent populations.

Ecologist Alan Newsome in a personal comment in the 1990s regarding the fundamentals driving mammalian populations – “food and sex”.

If James Ingram is aware of the above, as might be expected, then why does he not incorporate it into his work? His field would have at least some prospect of eventual success if he were to call publicly and loudly for more, and successful, effort towards population minimization in the less-developed world? The appropriate direction was agreed upon at the UN conference on population and development at Cairo in 1994. If Ingram agrees with that (as he should), why not give it a plug at every opportunity

Alas with the onset of the global economic recession and continued resistence to global warming initiatives, the future world will certainly be a place far worse off. Can humanity continue to denude the planet and expect Mother Nature to be non-responsive. Food vs population growth: a recipe for disaster. Mythical gods can't help us, maybe science and technology can rise to the challenge, but it better be sooner rather than later.

Colin -

Interesting, in the main report they recommend:

"Education, especially of women and girls, is pivotal to success in developing countries, and should be addressed in all aspects of aid delivery,"

This is the first step in every country for reducing growth rates. When women have the power to decide, they usually get pregnant less often.

In Ingram's article he says:

"The value of Australia’s exported food and fibre is some four times as much as the value of our consumption. Our goal should at least be to maintain that ratio."

The easy way to maintain the ratio is to keep our consumption down which means keep population down. That way all the increases in productivity on the farms, will increase the produce available for export.

To me, these are two thinly veiled requests for more attention to population. I think somebody at the Crawford Fund's World Food Crisis Task Force knows very well that population is a critical issue, but they don't want to step too far. There may be an unwritten code within the UN and other NGO's that says "Don't step on our policy areas and we won't step on yours." That keeps people like Ingram from really nailing population even if it seems so obvious for food.

Unbelievable!

I think that the posters so far have been way too gentle with James Ingram. There can be NO EXCUSE for the population growth factor being effectively left out of an article like this.

Addressing population growth HEAD ON with at least as much effort as food provision, is of the utmost importance. Without an almighty effort in that direction, all efforts at better feeding the world’s poor would simply be feeding the grossly unsustainable continuance of rapid population growth, which would take us directly away from a more equitable and sustainable world.

Obviously Mr Ingram knows this. So how on earth can he sleep at night after writing an article in which he omits any mention of the need to directly address population growth, and espouses the only approach as being continuously increasing food supplies?

This is just awful.

The piece is wrong in a number of respects - not just in the failure to discuss population. It implicitly adopts the 'we'll find a technological solution' to the problems of hunger and food production. It incorrectly assumes that the price of food reflects technological advances and not the corporatisation of the food chain and the subsequent externalising of the costs of food production - particularly the environmental and health costs. The piece assumes that treating food as an export commodity is actually sane - the priority must be food security and food sovereignty - not forcing countries to grow food for export, particularly exports that support our obscenely excessive meat eating habits. Finally, any discussion of food production systems must also discuss climate change and peak oil - fundamental changes are coming and Australia is incredibly ill-prepared.

In 2006/7 Australia imported about 2 million tonnes of food, mainly
soymeal which we called feed. This was used in addition to another
11 or so million tonnes to feed livestock. Roughly half goes
to grainfed beef and the rest to chickens and pigs. The former enables
us to export both colon cancer and heart disease to keep rich
overseas cancer and heart disease experts in business. We also
export plenty of dairy food, this is so that the prostate cancer
experts won't feel left out of our beneficence. The Dairy Industry
uses far more of the Murray Darling Basin water than any other
industry.

When I grew up I shared James Ingram's rosy picture of Australia
as a food bowl of the world. I think it was even true at some stage.
But as our meat production has grown, we have less and less food
to export and more of what we do simply makes people as sick
as we are. But it's worse than that. By exporting heart disease
and cancer to rich people in other countries we require them
to establish world class medical facilities for dealing with diseases
that they didn't used to have, this robs the poor of vital resources.
The best stats on this come from Japan where a massive rise in
colon cancer with the introduction of more meat and dairy changed the
nature of the health system. But the same is happening in countries
which can ill afford it. E.g., Egypt, to which we export red meat and
live animals has rich people getting triple bypasses while many
are in destitute poverty. Hell, the CSIRO even does research on
how to increase meat marbling to make export meat even better
at clogging arteries. So we now would much rather withhold grain
from the global market and use it to make beef for Japan.

Yes, James, Australia is still a player in the problem of global
hunger, but we are now playing for the devil.

James Ingram. “The nub of the long-term problem is that demand for food will double within the next 50 years.”

And the only solution apparently is to keep producing more food and better quality food…and to not make any attempt to stop the continuously increasing demand for food that is being wrought first and foremost by untempered population growth.

Ohmygoodness!

Yeah ok, so I’m just repeating the message I presented in my last post. Well…I feel that it needs to be repeated. Constant pandering to ever-increasing population is one of the gravest mistakes being made on the planet.

Alright, so the great opportunity for Australian leadership is this:

Go directly into sustainability mode, by striving to balance the demand placed on our resource base and environment with the ability for said resource base to cater to that demand and for said environment to hold its own and not suffer continued degradation.

This necessitates quick progress towards a stable population.

Once we have got this happening (once the methodology has been set in place, not once we have achieved sustainability), we need to spread the practise to the rest of the world as best we can. We need to uphold sustainability as being the most important parameter of all.

We need to increase our international aid effort to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GPD annually, directed predominantly at sustainability / population stabilisation efforts. We could increase our refugee intake a little, while at the same time lowering immigration to net zero.

continued

We desperately need to separate the continuous expansion part of economic growth from the innovation, technology and improved efficiency part of it, and put an end to the former.

What we absolute should NOT be doing is boosting our food output. We should indeed be reducing it in line with the need to regain environmental health in this country, while working towards greater production efficiency from considerably reduced water and land usage.

It’s very straightforward really. And very different to your philosophy so it seems, James.

If Kevvie can achieve this, he will be remembered throughout history as one of the greatest PMs. If he fails to even try, and continues to go down the road of untempered economic expansionism and rapid population growth at a point in time when the conversion to sustainable practices is critically important, thus taking us into an economic and ecological crash event, he will be remembered as the kruddiest PM of all time.

geoff, you really shoudn't get all your info from Animal Liberation and peta, they have little regard for the truth at the best of times. While their intent is generally honourable, ie animal welfare, I don't see why they have to lie so much.

http://www.prostatehealth.org.au/newsitem.html?notice_id=563

"In an overall analysis of food groups, the consumption of dairy products and milk were not associated with prostate cancer risk, the authors found. Further analysis, however, suggested that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk."

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1861
"Some research has suggested that diets high in red meat are associated with a slight risk of bowel cancer; processed meat seems to be of most concern."

"High intake" and "slight increase in risk" - makes moderate consumption look ok to me. Easy on the spam.

As with all things moderation is best for animal and non-animal products. We need to keep an eye on things like our sugar intake, and vegetable oil use. And don't smoke!

rojo: With rare exceptions, animal rights groups don't do research, so
I don't get any information from them. I've been associated with Animal
Liberation for over 20 years and while I've seen fairly normal
amounts of exageration and "chinese whispers", I've not
known anybody to lie. I don't appreciate unsupported allegations
to the contrary.

I'll just deal with bowel cancer as an example of how I
get information. The World Cancer Research Fund works a bit
like the IPCC, they review research and publish reports
every decade on the state of research. The latest is:

http://www.wcrf.org/research/fnatpoc.lasso

Their finding is quite clear that the evidence for
red meat and processed meat causing bowel cancer is
convincing. If you know epidemiologists, you will understand
that they would rather swallow molten lead than use the word
"cause", so when they use it in this report, you'd better
believe it. They also find that there are no foods which
convincingly prevent bowel cancer.

The Cancer Council of Australia statement you cited is simply
not consistent
with the state of research. In fact it isn't even consistent with
its own findings from the biggest research cohort in Australia.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/9/1509

Subsequent to this published paper, Professor Giles and team has
calculated that reducing red meat intake to 1 serve per week would
eliminate 6,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in
Australia. This calculation is based on the presumption of
causality -- very clearly supported by the WCRF report. Giles
put this in an email to me after Rosemary Stanton told
me that he was using the
figure during seminars. As far as I know it isn't published.

I don't think 6,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in
a population of just 21 million constitutes a "slight risk".

geoff, you know full well that red meat does not "cause" colorectal cancer, but it is a risk factor. The risk profile is of someone that can afford large amounts of meat is also likely to have a diet of processed- low fibre - food, a sedentary lifestyle. and most likely can add alcohol and the like to the mix. They drive to work, sit at a computer all day, head to the pub, have a pizza on the way home etc etc.

That lifestyle is not what I would call natural, and will indeed cause health problems. Humans once had to chase their meat. A weekly trip pushing a shopping trolley just isn't the same.

Age is by far the biggest factor, and wouldn't you know it, were getting older as a nation. Tends to skew results.

Poultry(lean) and fish actually reduce the risk, so vary your diet and it may just cancel out.

http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/publications/pdfs/em-2007-02_bowel-cancer-in-nsw.pdf

rojo: The 150+ scientific
authors of last years World Cancer Research Fund
report stated clearly that red and processed meat CAUSE colorectal cancer.
There are multiple causal pathways, but the one with the
best evidence is that the n-nitroso compounds formed when you
eat the stuff damages your DNA -- this has been confirmed in human
studies and the type of damage is the same as that
found in cancer patients. The n-nitroso compounds are the same
class of things that give cigarette smokers lung cancer.

Some people have good DNA repair mechanisms and their
DNA is repaired. Other causal mechanisms have only been confirmed in
animal studies and are, therefore, less certain.

The NSW report you link to is pretty sparse on epidemiology, I
suggest you go to the WCRF report to get a more detailed account. I
gave the link earlier. The WCRF define pretty precisely what
they mean by "cause" and it involves evidence at both the mechanism
level and the body count

geoff, oh please!

No they didn't say that at all. Here is a direct quote from WCRF:
"There is “convincing” evidence that processed meats, including ham and bacon, increase the risk of colorectal cancer"

Their own quote marks on convincing. I'll point out the word risk.

They go on to say:

"The evidence that red meat is a cause of colorectal cancer is stronger than ever before. People should not eat any more than 500g of red meat a week.
This figure is for cooked meat, and is the equivalent of between 700 and 750g of non-cooked meat."

1, how strong was it before?
2, Who eats 7 quarter pounders worth of red meat a week? Hardly bastions of health. Is it mince or lean beef, charcoaled or otherwise.

The WCRF clearly indicate obesity as the greatest link to cancer, and overconsumption of high energy dense foods like meat products will help one get there.

I too would advise less processed meat.

didn't include this in last post.

"The study from England showed that large amounts of red meat can produce genetic damage to colon cells in just a few weeks, but it does not prove that red meat causes cancer. None of the cells were malignant, and the body has a series of mechanisms to repair damaged DNA."

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml

rojo: The WCRF report does indeed sometimes talk about
red and processed meat increasing cancer risk. This
is because anything which causes cancer increases its
risk. They clearly state that red and processed meat
is a cause of cancer on pages 116,117,121,280,284,382
--- but I may have missed some.

You seem to assume that A can only be said to
cause B if whenever you do A, B follows. This is
simply wrong. Think about me shooting basketball
hoops. I'd miss most of the time, but what do you
say about the ones that score? Was my action the
cause? Absolutely. Did my attempts increase the risk
of a basket? Absolutely. In the case of cancer, there
are multiple links in the DNA damage chain leading to
cancer. Red and processed meat gets you to (at least)
stage 1. This is what makes cancer and antioxidants
tricky. Beta carotene seems to protect a cell from
getting to stage 1, but accelerate its movement
between later stages. There is lab evidence that
other anti-oxidants are similar.

geoff, what does WCRF say are the mechanics that "cause" colorectal cancer, in relation to red meat. Harvard says the nitroso compounds were not causing dna damaged cells to become malignant. Nor do studies suggest that meat causes the polyps that do become cancerous - although compounds derived from meat seems to help them grow once they are established.

So the main risks for colorectal cancer are age, obesity,smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol, low fibre diet and high meat consumption. My question is is it meat alone, or the fact that many other "lifestyle" vices accompany those in a high meat consumption bracket. We have risks A,B,C,D,E,F and G all combined to one extent or another, it's not logical to conclude G is a cause. definately a risk factor, just like driving a car is a risk factor in car accidents.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/2/172?ck=nck

When we look at your basketball analogy we see that while you are shooting hoops 1 in approx 20 is a score (the life time chance of developing colorectal cancer which is about 1 in 20, or 5% of people ) .
Now getting 5% in isn't particularly good shooting for your average basketballer, but then we effectively widen the basket (study focuses on high meat consumption - couple of snags and bacon daily or 750g of red meat/week- quarter pounder/day.)

With a wider net now the scorer has 6.5% (5% increased by 28%- the higher risk of cancer from high meat consumption). Hardly impressive.

What really throws a spanner in the works is scoring without throwing the ball, as vegetarians would do in such a basketball analogy, having a 4% or so chance of developing colorectal cancer.
Maybe a reduced cancer rate for vegetarians is the number of them that eat fish and chicken which are known to reduce risk.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15674139

rojo: In answer to your question, the most important in
a line of about 10 years worth of research is:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3/1859

This showed red meat didn't just damage DNA, but produced
the "right" kind of damage -- ie. the same as found in
real cancer patients. Were the cells malignant? Of course
not. But denying this evidence because none of the cells
was malignant is like a tobacco company saying, "See,
you had 20 people smoking for a week and not a single one
died! So it isn't causal".

With regard to your claim: "Maybe a reduced cancer rate for
vegetarians is the number of them that eat fish and chicken
which are known to reduce risk." Fish and chicken aren't
"known" to do this at all, even the reference at the link
you cited (yes, I have the full study) didn't say this!

Here is the WCRF assessment regarding fish (you can check
the original which has references to all the studies
involved, p.125):

"Nineteen cohort studies and 55 case-control studies
investigated fish and colorectal cancer. Nine cohort
studies showed decreased risk for the highest intake
group when compared to the lowest, which was statistically
significant in two. Eight studies showed non-significant
increased risk. One study showed no effect on risk and one
study reported that there was no statistically significant
association. Meta-analysis was possible on seven cohort
studies, giving a summary effect estimate of 0.96 (95%
CI 0.92-1.00) per serving/week, with low heterogeneity."

Hardly much evidence for a "known" protective agent!

This shouldn't be surprising, Japanese men have the
highest rate of bowel cancer on the planet and eat plenty
of fish (Japan is 2% of global population and eats 15%
of the fish).

You can't make judgements based on single studies. You can
prove anything with single studies. The WCRF report does
it right --- by assembling all the studies, throwing out
the rubbish and doing the numbers on what is left.

geoff, your study link studies "high (420 g) red meat, vegetarian, and high red meat, high-fiber diets"

Where is the normal red meat consumption? If the high meat-fibre diet has "intermediate" levels, then the normal meat, normal fibre diet can't be that different from vegetarian.

If I can't conclude(and I can't) from a small study that because the cells aren't malignant that cancer is thus not formed in this way, then in my way of thinking one can't conclude that cancer is formed in this way. It would be why "risk" is used instead of "cause". I accept that risk is higher for high meat consumption, but that doesn't say that meat is the cause.

Studies have questioned the risk significance once results were corrected for body mass index, smoking etc. Those with high meat diets presumably are predisposed to obesity through simple calorific intake, less likely to be health conscious with less exercise, less fibre etc etc.
The comparisons invariably look to vegetarians as controls. While some are veg for compassionate reasons others are for their "health", and are not as likely to be obese, smokers or sedentary - and fibre should be no problem. We know that vegetarians aren't immune from colorectal cancer, so meat is not a prerequisite, and the statsitical difference in risk is narrowed greatly by these variables. To the extent that red meat does not cause cancer, but can indeed be a risk factor.

I may have presumptive on the poultry it, unlike fish, may not decrease risk. And I should absolutely not have said "known", sorry genuine error.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26188.php

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14842549

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200624/000020062406A0986824.php

can't explain the japanese men's risk profile, but just think how bad it could be if they didn't eat so much fish.