If meat and dairy were so carcinogenic, we'd see high cancer rates in e.g. Mongolians with traditional lifestyles and diets.
"adding that liver, gastric, esophageal and cervical cancers accounted for the majority of all registered cases."
I wonder if people will ever stop rationalizing their red meat addiction, despite the decades of clear evidence of the impact it has on the GI tract in particular. Our ancestors didn't gulp down so much of it because they were so healthy, but because getting calories and dying of cancer after reproduction was a better deal than starving.
> getting calories
It's not the calories. It's the fats, trace nutrients, amino acids, cholesterol, etc. Otherwise we'd all have no trouble being vegetarian.
In any case, it's easy to agree that microplastics and pesticides are probably bad. Even if meat eating does cause cancer, it's harder to characterize it as an "addiction" and more as a biological tradeoff that our bodies made millennia ago.
I daily eat beef that has been cooked by sous-vide at 155F for 48 hours and then crisp up in an air fryer at 400F for 20 minutes. Is this over doing it with regards to carcinogen production?
That doesn't sound like well balanced protein sources and it's certainly not what our ancestors would have had access to. i.e. some days there'd be little to no food available, some days might only be grains/fruit/legumes/veg and then the occasional feast of meat which might last days or weeks after a hunt.
I think that the ease of digestion and my health improvements are evidence that this is an eating pattern that we're well adapted to.