Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

13

Comments

  • #102
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    jh79 wrote: »
    Never said you need meat in a balanced diet. I said that no study has shown that a plant based diet is better than a balanced diet with an appropriate amount of red meat.

    If i am wrong put up a link to the study that says otherwise.

    Considering red meat is a 2A rated probable carcinogen, what amount is an appropriate amount?

    Also:
    Red meat[edit]
    A 2016 literature review reported that for 100g or more per day of red meat consumed, the risk increased 11% for each of stroke and for breast cancer, 15% for cardiovascular mortality, 17% for colorectal cancer, and 19% for advanced prostate cancer.[16]

    In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that red meat is probably (Group 2A) carcinogenic to humans,[17] reported that for each additional 100g (up to a maximum of approximately 140g)[18] of red meat consumed per day, the risk of colorectal cancer increased by 17%; there also appeared to be increased risk of pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer but the association was not as clear.[19] Put in perspective, in the UK, 56 out of 1000 people who eat the lowest amount of red meat will develop colorectal cancer (5.6%) while 66 out of 1000 high-red meat eaters will develop colorectal cancer (6.6%) (1.17 x 5.6 = 6.6).[20]

    A 2013 meta-analysis found an increased risk of gastric cancer with higher consumption of red or processed meat.[21] Red meat itself contains certain factors that, under certain conditions, produce carcinogens like N-nitroso compounds (NOCs).[22]

    The consensus on the role of red meat consumption to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases has changed in recent years. Studies that differentiate between processed and fresh red meat have failed to find a link between unprocessed red meat consumption and heart disease. A major Harvard University meta-study in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease (CHD).[23][24] The study suggests that the "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats." Some mechanisms that have been suggested for why red meat consumption might be risk factor for cardiovascular disease include: its impact on serum cholesterol,[25] that red meat contains arachidonic acid,[26] heme iron,[27] homocysteine,[28] and its high saturated fat content.

    Several studies have found a correlation between unprocessed red meat and the occurrence of CHD and certain types of stroke and have controlled for various confounding risk factors.[29] A study of 84,000 women, over a period of 26 years, finds that those with the highest intake of unprocessed red meat, have a 13% increased risk of CHD.[29] Likewise a Harvard study published in 2012, studying mortality as a result of processed and unprocessed red meat consumption finds that one serving of either type of meat a day results in an increased risk of mortality of 13%,[30] while this ratio is indicative of cancer and cardiovascular (CVD) disease, the study indicates that of the 23,926 deaths[30] investigated during the course of the study, 5910 of them were related to CVD[30] and there was no statistical significance between the risk of unprocessed and processed red meats factors in the occurrence of CVD.[30] The disparity between metadata studies definitely need to be addressed, because while one points toward unprocessed red meat being insignificant in certain health risks, there are still correlations to be found in focused large cohort studies.[30][29]

    Unprocessed red meat intake is tentatively associated with an increased risk of type II diabetes, but the link is weaker and less certain than the link between processed red meat and diabetes.[31] Other findings have suggested that the association may be due to saturated fat, trans fat and dietary cholesterol, rather than red meat per se.[32] One study estimated that “substitutions of one serving of nuts, low-fat dairy, and whole grains per day for one serving of red meat per day were associated with a 16–35% lower risk of type 2 diabetes”.[33]


  • #103
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    Considering red meat is a 2A rated probable carcinogen, what amount is an appropriate amount?

    Also:

    The link between red meat and cancer and other illnesses is well established. But the quantities in the studies you referenced are quite large. A quick google brings up an NHS recommendation of 70g in total of red and processed meat per day.

    Are there any studies that show this amount in a balanced diet carries more risks than a balanced whole plant based diet?

    I don't think there are.


  • #104
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    jh79 wrote: »
    The link between red meat and cancer and other illnesses is well established. But the quantities in the studies you referenced are quite large. A quick google brings up an NHS recommendation of 70g in total of red and processed meat per day.

    Are there any studies that show this amount in a balanced diet carries more risks than a balanced whole plant based diet?

    I don't think there are.

    The established risk for processed meat is an increase of 18% for colon cancer per 50g consumed daily, the NHS are literally recommending something carcinogenic as it takes time to change governmental systems. It's only recently you are seeing medical conferences mentioning that hospitals need to stop serving processed meat. Red meat is harder to quantify as there needs to be quite long, complex studies.


  • #105
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    The established risk for processed meat is an increase of 18% for colon cancer per 50g consumed daily, the NHS are literally recommending something carcinogenic as it takes time to change governmental systems. It's only recently you are seeing medical conferences mentioning that hospitals need to stop serving processed meat. Red meat is harder to quantify as there needs to be quite long, complex studies.

    I doubt that 18% risk per 50g is from a starting point of zero. An increase of 50g from an average daily intake of 70g is a massive increase.

    From what you posted earlier if 100,000 people practically doubled their intake daily there would be 10 extra incidences of cancer.

    Also that 70g is an average daily intake. So over a week I could safely have 1 8oz steak, 1 Pork Chop, 8 sausages and 4 slices of ham. And the rest of the week i could eat chicken for my meat fix.

    To increase my risk of bowel cancer by 18% i would need to eat double that! Even if that 70g figure is revised downwards (if new research says it is necessary), I can just fill that gap with chicken.

    As i previously stated there is no evidence (that i am aware of) that a balanced diet that includes 70g of red or processed meat per day carries any extra health risks than a balanced whole plant based diet.


  • #106
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    jh79 wrote: »
    I doubt that 18% risk per 50g is from a starting point of zero. An increase of 50g from an average daily intake of 70g is a massive increase.

    From what you posted earlier if 100,000 people practically doubled their intake daily there would be 10 extra incidences of cancer.

    Also that 70g is an average daily intake. So over a week I could safely have 1 8oz steak, 1 Pork Chop, 8 sausages and 4 slices of ham. And the rest of the week i could eat chicken for my meat fix.

    To increase my risk of bowel cancer by 18% i would need to eat double that! Even if that 70g figure is revised downwards (if new research says it is necessary), I can just fill that gap with chicken.

    As i previously stated there is no evidence (that i am aware of) that a balanced diet that includes 70g of red or processed meat per day carries any extra health risks than a balanced whole plant based diet.

    It did not have a base of 70g, it increases linearly from 0g to 140g so yes, any amount increases risk of several cancers. Directly from the research:
    Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR for 100 g/day increase  = 1.17, 95% CI  = 1.05−1.31) and processed meat (RR for 50 g/day increase  = 1.18, 95% CI  = 1.10−1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.

    For instance for colon cancer @ 50g processed meat you ahve an increase of 18%, @ 100g you have an increase of 36%.


  • #107
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    It did not have a base of 70g, it increases linearly from 0g to 140g so yes, any amount increases risk of several cancers. Directly from the research:



    For instance for colon cancer @ 50g processed meat you ahve an increase of 18%, @ 100g you have an increase of 36%.

    Could you link to the study or name the authours so i can have a read of it?


  • #108
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Sure, this is a meta analysis of all teh studies done in the last 10 years https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/
    Background

    The evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.

    More information on the IARC and WHO sites.


  • #109
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    It did not have a base of 70g, it increases linearly from 0g to 140g so yes, any amount increases risk of several cancers. Directly from the research:



    For instance for colon cancer @ 50g processed meat you ahve an increase of 18%, @ 100g you have an increase of 36%.

    Just read it now and it does not start from 0g. Even the graph in the paper does not go through the origin.

    It is a big assumption to make that it is linear beyond the data analysed which is what you are doing.

    Toxicity is never linear from 0 up you will have a plateau at both the lowest and highest concentration. It this case a plateau is observed at the highest concentrations.

    While i'm not a clinical scientist the authours conclusion suggests i may be correct in my interpretation. They say red meat intake should be limited not removed completely ,this not the conclusion you would make if the data supported an increased risk for consumption levels above 0g.


  • #110
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    Just read it now and it does not start from 0g. Even the graph in the paper does not go through the origin.

    It is a big assumption to make that it is linear beyond the data analysed which is what you are doing.

    Toxicity is never linear from 0 up you will have a plateau at both the lowest and highest concentration. It this case a plateau is observed at the highest concentrations.

    While i'm not a clinical scientist the authours conclusion suggests i may be correct in my interpretation. They say red meat intake should be limited not removed completely ,this not the conclusion you would make if the data supported an increased risk for consumption levels above 0g.

    Also if we take the lowest data point and the 100 g above that equates to an 18% increase, is this even a clinically significant increase. An increase of 18% of a small number could fall within error limits. At the lower levels the risk is obviously smaller.


  • #111
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldion, this study was covered by the movie What the Health and debunked by Science Based Medicine.

    The study didn't take into account base rates for cancer. The 18% is calculated against a cancer incidence rate of zero! Crazy stuff.

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-health-a-movie-with-an-agenda/

    "He cites a summary of epidemiologic studies showing that eating a single serving of processed meat a day increases colon cancer risk by 18%. In the first place, epidemiologic studies can only show correlation, not causation. In the second place, that 18% increase is in relative risk, not absolute risk. In the third place, it doesn’t take the baseline rate of colon cancer into account. By one estimate, your risk of developing colon cancer by age 65 is 2.9% if you eat no processed meat, and 3.4% if you eat one serving a day. So out of 100 people who avoid processed meat, 2.9 will develop colon cancer, and out of 100 people who eat one serving a day, 3.4 will develop colon cancer: the difference in absolute risk is one more case of cancer out of every 200 people, which sounds much less alarming than the 18% figure. And there could be many confounding factors that would influence a person’s actual risk like genetics, salt consumption (processed meats like bacon have a high salt content), smoking, other lifestyle factors that might happen to be more common in people who eat a lot of processed meats, etc."


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    jh79 wrote: »
    Just read it now and it does not start from 0g. Even the graph in the paper does not go through the origin.

    It is a big assumption to make that it is linear beyond the data analysed which is what you are doing.

    Toxicity is never linear from 0 up you will have a plateau at both the lowest and highest concentration. It this case a plateau is observed at the highest concentrations.

    While i'm not a clinical scientist the authours conclusion suggests i may be correct in my interpretation. They say red meat intake should be limited not removed completely ,this not the conclusion you would make if the data supported an increased risk for consumption levels above 0g.
    jh79 wrote: »
    Also if we take the lowest data point and the 100 g above that equates to an 18% increase, is this even a clinically significant increase. An increase of 18% of a small number could fall within error limits. At the lower levels the risk is obviously smaller.

    When thinking about statistics here that there was 1100 studies used in studying processed and red meat, and that paper talks about 10 of them. This study was merely backing up previous research which had even higher percentages:

    Our estimates are consistent with those reported in the 2007 WCRF/AICR expert report [15], where the risk increase of colon cancer was 37% for every 100 g/day increase in red and processed meats, and the risk increase of colorectal cancer was 29% for every 100 g/day increase in red meat, and 21% for every 50 g/day increase in processed meat.

    When i said from 0 it was because neither the WHO nor IARC mentioned that the linear graph did not start at 0 and merely said every 50g until 140g is linear. Looking now, the graph indeed only goes down to around 5g of processed and red meat and I'm sure a case could me made that it's ok to eat 1-4 grams per day, be interesting to get that research group together :pac:



    They studied this for decades to be sure. 22 experts are on the team and WHO/IARC announced this to the world as a definite, not with a maybe. Even questioning that it is falling within error limits and that The biggest cancer and Health institutes in the world got it wrong sounds like trying to justify a wanted belief over science. It also doesn't really make sense as it's not taking into account confidence intervals or p values, sample size and so forth which are the actual indicators not the percentage.

    Some stuff from the WHO site:
    An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

    The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.


    What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating processed meat?
    The IARC Working Group concluded that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer. An association with stomach cancer was also seen, but the evidence is not conclusive.


    From the paper:
    The accumulated evidence from prospective studies supports that red and processed meats intake is associated with increased risk of colorectal, colon, and rectal cancers. The risk increase in colorectal cancer estimated in linear dose-response models was 14% for every 100 g/day increase of total red and processed meats, 25% in colon cancer, and 31% in rectal cancer. These results are consistent with those of the highest versus lowest meta-analyses. In non-linear models, colorectal cancer risk appears to increase almost linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day. Above this level, the risk increase is less pronounced.

    Red meat intake (assessed separately from processed meat) was associated with increased risk of colorectal and colon cancers, but the association with rectal cancer was not statistically significant. Similarly, processed meat intake was related with risk of colorectal and colon cancers, but not with rectal cancer. The lack of association with rectal cancer is in contrast with the results observed when red and processed meats were combined into a single food item, where similar associations with colon and rectal cancers were observed. This may be due to a lower number of studies in the analyses of rectal cancer than in those of colorectal and colon cancers.


    As for that website, who do we believe has the right of it, the foremost experts on the subject in the world or that website?

    It's also not really arguing against the paper anyway, it's arguing against people misunderstanding it. IARC do not discuss the rates at which people get the cancers, they work on the increased risk over the base rate and proving something causes cancer. For instance they will prove that frying food causes cancer, and alcohol and processed meat do too but will not be discussing which is more dangerous of the three, or the base rate. It's to assess the relative risk, ie that in this case processed meat is a definite carcinogen. (Group 1 carcinogen, red meat being the second highest level 2A, probably causes cancer) and that doing certain thing increases cancer rates by X%. They are right that that particular film has a lot of crap in it though.


  • #113
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    When thinking about statistics here that there was 1100 studies used in studying processed and red meat, and that paper talks about 10 of them. This study was merely backing up previous research which had even higher percentages:




    When i said from 0 it was because neither the WHO nor IARC mentioned that the linear graph did not start at 0 and merely said every 50g until 140g is linear. Looking now, the graph indeed only goes down to around 5g of processed and red meat and I'm sure a case could me made that it's ok to eat 1-4 grams per day, be interesting to get that research group together :pac:



    They studied this for decades to be sure. 22 experts are on the team and WHO/IARC announced this to the world as a definite, not with a maybe. Even questioning that it is falling within error limits and that The biggest cancer and Health institutes in the world got it wrong sounds like trying to justify a wanted belief over science. It also doesn't really make sense as it's not taking into account confidence intervals or p values, sample size and so forth which are the actual indicators not the percentage.

    Some stuff from the WHO site:




    From the paper:




    As for that website, who do we believe has the right of it, the foremost experts on the subject in the world or that website?

    I'm not critising the above i'm critising your hypothesis that this data says that a plant based diet is better than a meat eaters at 70g per day. Nothing you have posted supports that theory.


  • #114
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Any commemt to make on the fact that the study compared cancer rates to zero rather the the base rates?


  • #115
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Your also forgeting that the organisation above only recommend reducing intake obviously because the data doesn't support complete removal.


  • #116
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    jh79 wrote: »
    I'm not critising the above i'm critising your hypothesis that this data says that a plant based diet is better than a meat eaters at 70g per day. Nothing you have posted supports that theory.
    How do you mean? If one food is proven carcinogenic (in this case processed meat) then that's it proven already?
    jh79 wrote: »
    Any commemt to make on the fact that the study compared cancer rates to zero rather the the base rates?

    Show where it did that? That doesn't even make sense, you can't have an increase of 18% on 0.


  • #117
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    What is a processed meat? Ham, Steak, Chops?


  • #118
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Water John wrote: »
    What is a processed meat? Ham, Steak, Chops?

    1. What do you consider as red meat?
    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    2. What do you consider as processed meat?
    Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

    Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.


  • #119
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    ...
    As for that website, who do we believe has the right of it, the foremost experts on the subject in the world or that website?.

    The problem I have found with various interest backed research is that experts and / or critics end up playing a game of snap as each attempts to out prove the other in an escalating war of attrition.

    The following article from scientific American and highlights this issue relative to this debate
    Why Almost Everything Dean Ornish Says about Nutrition Is Wrong. Updated: With Dean Ornish's Response

    A critique of the diet guru's views on high-protein diets, followed by a response from Ornish and a reply from the author

    I'm not going to copy and paste the article as it is quite lengthy

    See:
    [Url]ttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-almost-everything-dean-ornish-says-about-nutrition-is-wrong/[/url]


  • #120
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    How do you mean? If one food is proven carcinogenic (in this case processed meat) then that's it proven already?



    Show where it did that? That doesn't even make sense, you can't have an increase of 18% on 0.

    Question 1;
    Toxicity is dose dependant there is a safe concentration for all toxins , good real world examples are cigs and booze. One cig doesn't cause lung cancer one drink doesn't cause breast cancer in women for example.

    Question 2;
    The study doesn't provide a figure for the base rate and the required reference to show where they got it from.They just took the incidence rate and never substrated the base rate. The only person who has a 0 risk for cancer is a dead one. Check the methodology for the study. These things have to be documented for a peer reviewed paper.

    This artifically inflated the numbers and gave the impression that the % increase was of clinical / real world significance. We are dealing with extemely small numbers here.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    The problem here isn't the study, the conclusion was resonable , it's films like What the Health misrepresenting these studies to push their agenda.


  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Apt Op Username is apt


  • #123
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    1. What do you consider as red meat?
    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    2. What do you consider as processed meat?
    Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

    Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

    Just to add its the curing process not chemicals used in the food industry. An artisan salami ( made by hand with free range pork etc etc) still falls into this category


  • #124
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The good Doctor O'Sullivan has posted a further letter on the Vegetarian Society of Ireland's page. This one directed to Darina Allen.
    I have issue with someone signing off a letter sent in their capacity as chairman of an Organisation unrelated to N.U.I.G, as being directed from them in their "professional" capacity.
    Any communication sent as Chair, should be addressed from the Society's registered address and from her position as chair without reference to her position at N.U.I.G.

    The Doctor's professional position has no bearing or merit on any communication she forwards in her capacity as Chair of the Vegetarian Society.
    Indeed in conjunction with her misplaced belief that RTE have breached the ECHR, its inclusion is a patently obvious tactic intended to bully the recipient into a retraction or apology.

    As such I would very much look forward to N.U.I.G's opinion as to whether the Doctor's choice to address her correspondence as being from N.U.I.G, is in breach of their communications policy? Or if indeed it now constitutes N.U.I.G's stated position on this matter?
    School of Law, National Universisty of Ireland, Galway
    I do wonder if her position allows her the authority to communicate on behalf of, or to imply such communication originates feom N.U.I.G without clearing it with their communications/PR department/officer?

    This is the text of the letter I am sending off to Darina Allen tomorrow. The more I thought about what she said about vegans needing a steak, the more concerned I became about how restaurants would interpret that and maybe have a laugh at our expense. There has been a case of spiking already in the UK a few months ago. Here's my letter:
    School of Law,
    National University of Ireland,
    Galway.

    March 12, 2018

    RE: Philip Boucher-Hayes Documentary on Veganism

    Dear Ms. Allen,

    My name is Maureen O’Sullivan and I am a lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland in Galway. I have long admired aspects of your work on food and remember in particular your successful resistance to the planting of genetic modified test sites in Co. Cork nearly 20 years ago. Whilst I am Chairperson of the Vegetarian Society of Ireland, a fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and a vegan for 31 years and therefore do not agree with killing animals, I still value very much your empowerment of the food sector in Cork (where I’m from) and East Cork. This has indirectly encouraged vegan businesses to bring their products to market, enhancing the food available for the growing number of non-meat eaters in the country. None of what I am going to say below detracts from what I have said here.

    RTE has violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and a number of different legal instruments in the broadcast of the above documentary. The Vegetarian Society of Ireland has lodged a formal complaint which we intend to pursue if an apology and some redress is not forthcoming. If you had gone on air and made comments about “cranky” Muslims or Jews needing a piece of pork, I imagine you can appreciate that you would now be facing a not inconsiderable backlash. The protection of freedom of conscience under the aforementioned Article 9 of the European Convention applies equally to those who chose secular ethical lifestyles and there is a maxim that “scienter” or “ignorance of the law” is no excuse to wrongdoing in this regard. Your unfortunate remark about “cranky” vegans needing a steak has caused deep offence across the country and beyond and also is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. How dare you! The Vegetarian Society of Ireland believe that you should at very least retract that comment publicly and apologise for it, failing which we will consider pursuing the matter. Moreover, under equality legislation you are prohibited from discriminating against minorities on grounds such as religious or ethical belief. You are one of the most, if not the most important figure in food in this country and such position bears concomitant duties.

    Let me highlight some of the problems emanating from your comments that various charities, NGOs and civil society groups in the sector will have to deal with in the fallout: vegans will get bullied at work and will risk having their food spiked in restaurants and in private locations by people who take their cue from you. Vegans will be verbally attacked and then “treated” with dietary “cures” recommended by you. I must say, I am quite astounded at your comments which were made with a total disrespect for a growing community and a total disregard for your duty not to use your position to abuse minorities that you do not like.

    It has not been lost on us that Cully and Sully have brought out a number of vegan soups and your extended family businesses cannot simultaneously court us and think that it’s appropriate to utter discriminatory remarks in a public broadcast which our taxes fund. Of course, RTE should have edited out the comments in line with its duties under the Broadcasting Acts and also the aforementioned Convention but that does not take away from the fact that you made those comments and were very wrong to have done so. To whom did you think you were talking – to an audience that would slavishly agree with you and then engage in low-grade bullying of their workmates because you had given them the say-so? Perhaps the next time you have an urge to make snide remarks, you should endeavour to take the higher rather than the lower road. People look up to you and admire you so kindly, in the future, we request that you measure your words. If some vegans are cranky, it may because they encounter people like you who have no reason to utter such comments but do so anyhow just because you can. Many other vegans endeavour to treat other beings with loving kindness and we would hope that you, at some point in the not too distant future, would take a leaf out of our book.

    I look forward to hearing your response to the Society.

    Yours sincerely,

    ____________________________
    Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan,
    Lecturer (Above the Bar) in Law,
    School of Law,
    National University of Ireland,
    Galway,
    Ireland.

    E-mail: maureen.osullivan@nuigalway.ie
    Tel: +353 91 495627

    Fellow, Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/; Consultant Editor, Journal of Animal Ethics;
    Chair, Vegetarian Society of Ireland: www.vegetarian.ie


  • #125
    UsedToWait
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭UsedToWait


    Dr O'Sullivan (now Professor Doctor, I understand) needs to be seriously questioned as to what clearly appears to be an abuse of her position as a law lecturer.
    Again she repeats her vague and almost certainly insubstantial legal threats.
    Your unfortunate remark about “cranky” vegans needing a steak has caused deep offence across the country and beyond and also is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. How dare you!

    From a quick look at their Facebook, she seems to speak for the Society without any consultation.

    If I was a member, I'd be looking for her to be able to substantiate her assertions.

    Otherwise, on the face of it, it's a hysterical zealot abusing her position.


  • #126
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    banie01 wrote: »
    The good Doctor O'Sullivan has posted a further letter on the Vegetarian Society of Ireland's page. This one directed to Darina Allen.
    I have issue with someone signing off a letter sent in their capacity as chairman of an Organisation unrelated to N.U.I.G, as being directed from them in their "professional" capacity.
    Any communication sent as Chair, should be addressed from the Society's registered address and from her position as chair without reference to her position at N.U.I.G.

    The Doctor's professional position has no bearing or merit on any communication she forwards in her capacity as Chair of the Vegetarian Society.
    Indeed in conjunction with her misplaced belief that RTE have breached the ECHR, its inclusion is a patently obvious tactic intended to bully the recipient into a retraction or apology.

    As such I would very much look forward to N.U.I.G's opinion as to whether the Doctor's choice to address her correspondence as being from N.U.I.G, is in breach of their communications policy? Or if indeed it now constitutes N.U.I.G's stated position on this matter?

    I do wonder if her position allows her the authority to communicate on behalf of, or to imply such communication originates feom N.U.I.G without clearing it with their communications/PR department/officer?

    Considering what Darina et family have had to weather in terms of negative news coverage in the past - I reckon she'll have a good laugh at that and deposit same in the nearest bio-compost unit.

    What is your one like? And how the hell...
    "how dare you" lol.
    A Universal mule, no?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    UsedToWait
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭UsedToWait


    banie01 wrote: »
    As such I would very much look forward to N.U.I.G's opinion as to whether the Doctor's choice to address her correspondence as being from N.U.I.G, is in breach of their communications policy? Or if indeed it now constitutes N.U.I.G's stated position on this matter?

    I do wonder if her position allows her the authority to communicate on behalf of, or to imply such communication originates from N.U.I.G without clearing it with their communications/PR department/officer?

    I was interested in this too, so I've asked them - will update if they respond.


  • #128
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    gozunda wrote: »
    Considering what Darina et family have had to weather in terms of negative news coverage in the past - I reckon she'll have a good laugh at that and deposit same in the nearest bio-compost unit.

    What is your one like? And how the hell...
    "how dare you" lol.

    It actually is descending into farce at this stage.
    If I didn't know better I'd nearly believe that the Dr was a parody intent on hitting every Vegan Stereotype possible!


  • #129
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    UsedToWait wrote: »
    I was interested in this too, so I've asked them - will update if they respond.

    Funnily enough, so did I.
    Will keep you updated if I hear back.


  • #130
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Mentalmiss wrote: »
    It is a European law

    That you don't appear to have much knowledge of. Can you detail the violations?


  • #131
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

    When i said from 0 it was because neither the WHO nor IARC mentioned that the linear graph did not start at 0 and merely said every 50g until 140g is linear. Looking now, the graph indeed only goes down to around 5g of processed and red meat and I'm sure a case could me made that it's ok to eat 1-4 grams per day, be interesting to get that research group together :pac:

    Again you are not paying attention to what the y axis data is. In this case it is relative risk not actual risk. The data does not suggest that 1-4 grams is ok and anything above will lead to more incidences of cancer of any clinical significance.

    Obviously you can't have a bit of cancer, so you would have to increase the size of the cohort until you have a large enough sample size to get one extra incidence of cancer to determine the actual risk. The numbers are so small that that you wouldn't have a linear trend anymore.

    It's safe to say if a linear trend was observed for the actual risk (authors could of easily done this -they had the necessary data) they would of reported it.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    UsedToWait wrote: »
    Your unfortunate remark about “cranky” vegans needing a steak has caused deep offence across the country and beyond and also is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. How dare you!
    .

    Irony is not the good Dr. strong suit, is it!


  • #133
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,542 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Watched the show as someone who isn't vegan but would eat a probably 60% vegetarian diet (paneer being the main thing that means its not 60% vegan at that).

    The OP is such an over-reaction I'm not sure they actually watched it; or just heard some snippets about it before flying off the handle.

    The refusing to take B12 against advice was stroppy but you don't make TV to do things easily. The amateur 'advice' he found online is easily found by the uninitiated and is nonsense as I imagine everyone here knows.

    Once you get passed the few comments in the opening section, it was pretty balanced. The OP goes off about the animal slaughter scenes - sourced from a vegan campaigning group so you'd need to ask them about whether they meet safety standards (and can assume they don't - that was the point)

    As an aside, I wonder if the black pudding in Sova was the Real Lancashire one - it does taste better than pretty much all the pig-based ones. Would buy it in preference if it was more commonly sold.


  • #134
    Greentopia
    Registered Users Posts: 3,221 ✭✭✭Greentopia


    Anywhere I can watch the programme for those of us outside the country? I missed it when shown on RTE and it's not on the international version of the Player. :(


  • #135
    SinSim2
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭SinSim2


    Greentopia wrote: »
    Anywhere I can watch the programme for those of us outside the country? I missed it when shown on RTE and it's not on the international version of the Player. :(



    I have a copy. Is there a way to private message?


  • #136
    Greentopia
    Registered Users Posts: 3,221 ✭✭✭Greentopia


    SinSim2 wrote: »
    I have a copy. Is there a way to private message?

    Great, is it an online link? Yes you can PM me in your control panel page under the 'private messages' tab on the left. Ta :)


  • #137
    UsedToWait
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭UsedToWait


    banie01 wrote: »
    Will keep you updated if I hear back.

    Any response from NUIG?
    Nothing here..

    Anyone on twitter care to point them to this thread, particularly this succinct explanation of why they should comment on Dr O'Sullivan's complaints?


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106419756&postcount=124


    https://twitter.com/nuigalway


  • #138
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    UsedToWait wrote: »
    Any response from NUIG?
    Nothing here..

    Anyone on twitter care to point them to this thread, particularly this succinct explanation of why they should comment on Dr O'Sullivan's complaints?


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106419756&postcount=124


    https://twitter.com/nuigalway

    I've had no response as yet either.
    So I have taken the liberty of directly contacting their comms staff as listed on the N.U.I.G website.

    I have particular concerns regarding breaches of N.U.I.G communications and Ethics policy regarding the originating address and title of the complainant, and the complaints purporting to be from the N.U.I.G school of law, rather than from her mandated and personal position as Chair of the vegetarian society.
    It does seem contrived to give the impression that this is the official position of a University, rather than a personal opinion.

    If I get no satisfactory reply, from reading over the complaints protocol it would seem that any unresolved issue can be raised to the office of the Ombudsman.


  • #139
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    banie01 wrote: »
    So I have taken the liberty of directly contacting their comms staff as listed on the N.U.I.G website.

    So within 10 minutes of the above, I've received a reply confirming my emails have been forwarded to the "Person in question".
    So I have replied seeking confirmation of whom that is.


  • #140
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    oh dear


  • #141
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    N.U.I.G have responded to confirm that they have forwarded the query to Dr O'Sullivan as she is the person in question.

    I have sought confirmation that a complaint regarding a possible breach of N.U.I.G's communication and ethics policy should be reviewed by the person likely responsible?
    Rather than by the Communications/Ethics officer with regard to the actual policy in place!

    The have point blank ignored the question asked as to wheter the good Doctor's missive is now N.U.I.G policy and are letting her review herself!
    I do wonder if Dr O'Sullivans position allows her the authority to communicate on behalf of, or to imply such communication originates from N.U.I.G without clearing it with your communications/PR department/officer?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    banie01 wrote: »
    I have sought confirmation that a complaint regarding a possible breach of N.U.I.G's communication and ethics policy should be reviewed by the person likely responsible?
    Rather than by the Communications/Ethics officer with regard to the actual policy in place!

    The have point blank ignored the question asked as to wheter the good Doctor's missive is now N.U.I.G policy and are letting her review herself!

    I have to ask..

    Why do you care :confused:


  • #143
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Swanner wrote: »
    I have to ask..

    Why do you care :confused:

    Because I do not see how it is fair for someone to seek to bully any person by dint of their position, particularly when that person chooses to sign off their personal correspondence as purporting to be directly from a state funded institute.

    Thats ignoring the actual legalese being spouted in support of the complaint being patently wrong.


  • #144
    SinSim2
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭SinSim2


    banie01 wrote: »
    Swanner wrote: »
    I have to ask..

    Why do you care :confused:

    Because I do not see how it is fair for someone to seek to bully any person by dint of their position, particularly when that person chooses to sign off their personal correspondence as purporting to be directly from a state funded institute.

    Thats ignoring the actual legalese being spouted in support of the complaint being patently wrong.

    Are you referring to RTÉ as a "person"? Do you think there would be any bases for a complaint regarding the program? - putting aside the letter of the Dr.


  • #145
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim2 wrote: »
    Are you referring to RTÉ as a "person"? Do you think there would be any bases for a complaint regarding the program? - putting aside the letter of the Dr.

    A body corporate is treated as a "person" in law.
    Further to that whilst RTÈ would be liable to any action that managed to be successful in pursuit of the complaint, the buck always stops at an actual person.
    So yes.

    Actually it ties in well with my main issue with the manner of the actions the Dr has taken to date.
    The Dr has submitted her complaints as originating fromThe School of Law in N.U.I.G.
    This gives the impression that the Dr has authority to formulate policy for N.U.I.G and that they as a body corporate have taken the Doctor's position and that this is now the institutional position on the matter.

    Signing off or presenting as a body corporate without actually being authorised amounts to misrepresentation at very least, and fraud at the worst.

    As for grounds for complaint I've addressed that in previous posts on the matter.


  • #146
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim2 wrote: »
    Are you referring to RTÉ as a "person"? Do you think there would be any bases for a complaint regarding the program? - putting aside the letter of the Dr.

    Just to add, are you saying Darina Allen is not a person?

    As a further "complaint" again repeating the error regarding the breach of ECHR and going so far as to insinuate a vicarious liabilty should any restaurant staff anywhere, who heard her "Cranky Vegans need steak" comment decide to start "spiking" vegans!

    Should the good doctor wish to issue complaints from her position as Chair of the Vegetarian Society, and actually addressed as originating as such, I have no issue whatsoever!

    But, she chose to present her ramblings as being directed from a state funded institute and furthermore presented them as a definitive legal position supported by her actual job title.
    That is an attempt to both bully and mislead.
    That I have serious issue with.

    Should the Dr believe her interpretation of any protection owed to her under the ECHR is correct, I would be very happy to see her submit a formal complaint to the equality commission.


  • #147
    UsedToWait
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭UsedToWait


    banie01 wrote: »

    Should the good doctor wish to issue complaints from her position as Chair of the Vegetarian Society, and actually addressed as originating as such, I have no issue whatsoever!

    But, she chose to present her ramblings as being directed from a state funded institute and furthermore presented them as a definitive legal position supported by her actual job title.
    That is an attempt to both bully and mislead.
    That I have serious issue with.

    Should the Dr believe her interpretation of any protection owed to her under the ECHR is correct, I would be very happy to see her submit a formal complaint to the equality commission.

    Well the response from the good Dr is:
    I wrote to RTE in my capacity as Chairperson of the Vegetarian Society of Ireland only

    No mention of her mail to Darina Allen, but presumably it was the same.

    So avoiding the issue completely imo, but hopefully she will consider in future if she should be sending these complaints from her NUIG address, and passing off dubious legal opinions as being backed up by her position as a law lecturer.


  • #148
    SinSim2
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭SinSim2


    banie01 wrote: »
    Just to add, are you saying Darina Allen is not a person?

    As a further "complaint" again repeating the error regarding the breach of ECHR and going so far as to insinuate a vicarious liabilty should any restaurant staff anywhere, who heard her "Cranky Vegans need steak" comment decide to start "spiking" vegans!

    Should the good doctor wish to issue complaints from her position as Chair of the Vegetarian Society, and actually addressed as originating as such, I have no issue whatsoever!

    But, she chose to present her ramblings as being directed from a state funded institute and furthermore presented them as a definitive legal position supported by her actual job title.
    That is an attempt to both bully and mislead.
    That I have serious issue with.

    Should the Dr believe her interpretation of any protection owed to her under the ECHR is correct, I would be very happy to see her submit a formal complaint to the equality commission.

    I never mentioned Darina Allen, let alone say she wasn't a person. I think my question was very clear and obviously looking for clarification. The OP is a complaint to RTÉ.

    So are you saying that you used "person" to refer to both RTÉ and Darina Allen in the same sentence?


  • #149
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim2 wrote: »
    I never mentioned Darina Allen, let alone say she wasn't a person. I think my question was very clear and obviously looking for clarification. The OP is a complaint to RTÉ.

    So are you saying that you used "person" to refer to both RTÉ and Darina Allen in the same sentence?

    In the context of the entire thread the OP made 2 complaints.
    As for the use of person to refer to 2 entities, does it matter?
    If in case it does, the reasoning behind it is as both are "people" before the law it makes little difference what term of reference is used in a general discussion, unless you have an alternative opinion?

    In any case my response to your is RTE a person question is above but you seem to have ignored it.
    .


  • #150
    SinSim2
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭SinSim2


    banie01 wrote: »
    SinSim2 wrote: »
    I never mentioned Darina Allen, let alone say she wasn't a person. I think my question was very clear and obviously looking for clarification. The OP is a complaint to RTÉ.

    So are you saying that you used "person" to refer to both RTÉ and Darina Allen in the same sentence?

    In the context of the entire thread the OP made 2 complaints.
    As for the use of person to refer to 2 entities, does it matter?
    If in case it does, the reasoning behind it is as both are "people" before the law it makes little difference what term of reference is used in a general discussion, unless you have an alternative opinion?

    It mattered because it wasn't clear. When I read a sentence I like to know what any particular word is representing. Are you bothered by the fact that I asked? You're coming off as being "cranky" :-D It's the weekend - have some fun ;-)


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,932 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim2 wrote: »
    It mattered because it wasn't clear. When I read a sentence I like to know what any particular word is representing. Are you bothered by the fact that I asked? You're coming off as being "cranky" :-D It's the weekend - have some fun ;-)

    The answer to your question was laid out in my 1st reply to you, whilst my second was extending a slightly absurdist logical argument based on that reply ;)
    You seemed to pointedly ignore the answer you were given is all.
    That said I'm far from cranky, enjoy your weelend too.


Advertisement