Latest update April 20th, 2026 4:49 AM
Latest News
- Gas-to-Energy contractor sourcing materials, services at inflated costs from shell companies
- Guyana paid US$264.6M in debt servicing for 2025
- Iran vows retaliation after U.S. seizes ship near Strait of Hormuz
- Fire leaves family homeless after morning prayer
- Man kills drinking buddy in scuffle over $1000
Food for thought
We are in the middle of the Christmas holidays and, in this society, it is more than a day, it is a whole month of unending celebrations. As in consuming to the point of gorging, having one’s fill (and refill) of rich, mouthwatering, gastronomic local delights, which could mean danger. It usually means a lot of meat, the red meats that are the full-bodies’ fare; that can thrill the palate while filling the arteries, and killing the unheeding listener and partaker.
What a time it is! Which meat eater can think of pepper-pot (the real thing) and not swoon into a fit of drooling? The real thing is about those high-octane ingredients.
For what is a real pepper-pot without the inflaming (and clogging) powerhouse presences of trotters, oxtails, and that array of other heavy duty protein animal contributors that undo all the yearlong weight loss and dietary discipline, the doctor’s orders, and leave the sybaritic gasping for breaths that are in short supply?
But that is not all, since there is mutton curry (and sinful enriching sheep’s liver), along with closing out the year in fine traditional style with that pot of cook-up, with its pigtails and pork and beef (now heavily salted).
For many Guyanese, this is the life that should be year-round. At these points in the calendar, poultry is a distant cousin, a lost and losing one, to a good degree.
Now comes the hard part, the spoilsport of a restraining hand, a warning voice. In fact, when recent research is looked at, there is much for those who pay keen attention to such comforts, to fall back upon. It can be helpful but contradictory, disarming but dangerous, and definitely food for thought.
The challenges for those who are meat connoisseurs are what to take, what to discard, who to believe and how to react.
It was all captured in a news report from the Associated Press (AP) dated September 30, and captioned, “How risky is eating red meat? New papers provoke controversy.” It is now common knowledge and accepted wisdom that eating red meat is linked to cancer and heart disease, among other chronic diseases. Now here is the million-dollar, life-significant question and consideration, as asked by AP: but are the risks big enough to give up burgers and steak?
A team of international researchers says probably not, contradicting established advice. In a series of published papers, the researchers say the increased risks are small and uncertain, and that cutting back likely wouldn’t be worth it for people who enjoy meat.
Their conclusions were swiftly attacked by a group of prominent U.S. scientists who took the unusual step of trying to stop publication until their criticisms were addressed.
The new work does not say red meat and processed meats like hot dogs and bacon are healthy or that people should eat more of them. The reviews of past studies generally support the ties to cancer, heart disease and other bad health outcomes. But the authors say the evidence is weak, and that there’s not much certainty meat is really the culprit, since other diet and lifestyle factors could be at play.
It’s the latest example of how divisive nutrition research has become, with its uncertainties leaving the door open for conflicting advice. Critics say findings often aren’t backed by strong evidence. Defenders counter that nutrition studies can rarely be conclusive because of the difficulty of measuring the effects of any single food, but that methods have improved.
“What we need to do is look at the weight of evidence — that’s what courts of law use,” said Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at Harvard University who was among those calling for the papers’ publication to be postponed.
Willett, who has led studies tying meat to bad health outcomes, also said the reviews do not consider the particularly pronounced benefits of switching from red meat to vegetarian options.
In the papers, the authors sought to gauge the potential impact of eating less meat, noting the average of two to four servings a week eaten in North America and Western Europe. They said the evidence for cutting back wasn’t compelling. For example, they found that cutting three servings of red meat a week would result in seven fewer cancer deaths per 1,000 people.
Based on the analyses, a panel of the international researchers said people do not have to cut back for health reasons. But they note their own advice is weak, and that they didn’t take into account other factors, such as animal welfare and the toll meat production has on the environment.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
