Do Health Articles Really Make a Difference?

Meat and Cancer

Kristina Canary, Chance Meeks, Dr. Mountjoy
Life Science Academy, Apollo High School, Daviess County High School

INTRODUCTION
The question of Do the foods I eat cause cancer? has been around for
ages; and has recently resurfaced. The world has been fighting a long
and hard battle with cancer, with many individuals who have been hurt
by its effects. That is why it is important that scientists and researchers
discover what can cause cancer, that way the effects of the disease may
be better understood and a cure be found. We as uninformed citizens
turn towards scientists to figure out these links and provide the proof to
the entire population. Recently the World Health Organization (WHO)
found a link between consuming red meat and an increase risk of
developing cancer (BBC, 2015).
Red meat (e.g., pork and beef) is one of the most consumed products in
America today (Figure 1). In todays society, we live in a world
dominated by fast food often containing red meat. In 2012, the average
American consumed 71.2 pounds of red meat (beef, veal, pork, and
lamb) and 54.1 pounds of poultry (chicken and turkey), according to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (The Wall Street Journal, 2014).
Especially in our local area of Owensboro, Kentucky, which at one time
was the fast food capitol of the world (KET 2015).
WHO reported this information on red meat and cancer link under the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a committee of
22 public health, and cancer experts from 10 different countries
(NYTimes, 2015). This group, an advisor to the World Health
Organization, reviewed over 800 studies on cancer in humans, focusing
on environmental and lifestyle factors that may have contributed to the
disease. The panel defined processed meat at transformed through
salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance
flavor or improve preservation and stated that there were sufficient
evidence based on human research that processed meat could be added
to Category 1 classification. Category 1 is basically being put under the
classification of being carcinogenic to humans (NYTimes, 2015).

These three questions asked how often and how many servings of red
meat that person may have consumed the previous week.
Next, individuals were given a brief summary of WHOs article relating
red meat to several various types of cancer. Then we instructed them to
read the scientific article written by the World Health Organization
(WHO) about them connecting red meat to a cause of cancer (found at
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancerworld-health-organization/).
Then finally, the subjects were given a chart listing all seven days of one
week with columns containing various versions of red meat products.
This included food items such as canned meats, meat-based sauces, and
even beef jerky. The subjects filled in the survey on the appropriate day
containing the various red meat products they consumed and then at the
end of that week, the survey was given back.
Lastly they were asked to answer the following question: Did the
WHO article have any influence on how much red meat you consumed
over the past week? Why or why not.
We tabulated the data into number of servings of red meat in the week
before vs. the week after reading the WHO article. We completed a ttest to analyze if there was a significant difference in meat-consumption
before vs. after reading the article. The independent variable in this
situation would be the WHO article, and it is being tested to see if it
created a significant difference in peoples red meat consumption.

RESULTS
We had twenty participants and only two were not able to be a part of
the experiment due to lack of communication. Our results were the
exact opposite of what we expected.

OUR STUDY
Our study is centered on the question, do scientific articles/journals
have an effect on the diets of ordinary individuals? We hypothesized
that after reading about the recent WHO recommendations, a person
would more carefully watch their red meat intake.

METHODS
In order to determine if the World Health Organizations (WHO) article
made a difference in meat consumption based on its links to cancer, we
had to gather pre and post information. To start our experiment we
randomly selected 18 students (10 from DCHS/8 from Apollo) and
asked them to participate in our experiment. We then presented them
with a questionnaire containing three questions related to their regular
meat-eating habits.

Meat consumption appears to have drastically increased in the week

after reading the article.

The mean consumption rates were significantly higher after reading the
WHO article (t= , p< , df= ).

DISCUSSION
Resulting from the experiment, it can be concluded that the WHO
article made no impact on the participants eating habits. However,
because of the drastic increase for every single person involved in the
study, we believe there may be something else affecting these results.
It was discovered that from the survey taken at the beginning of the
experiment, where the subjects were to write how often and how
much they ate before the article, they were drastically reduced in
comparison to what had been written on the week-long chart. This
indicated a possible lack in knowledge of serving sizes amongst
teenagers, as well as a narrowed view of how many servings were
actually in certain foods they consumed. The numbers located in the
methods column lists the 18 recorded participants of the study along
with two before and after columns. The first before column
shows the amount of servings the subjects figured they ate within a
week, while the after column shows how much they really ate.
The numbers when compared side by side are mostly very far apart.
This helped in generating the question of whether or not the
experimented teens seriously ever took any thought into how much
red meat they were consuming. The hypothesis originally made was
that the article would make a significant impact on the participants
diet by reducing the amount of red meat consumed, however, this
was not the case. Generally, if a p-value is extremely low, then the
data is significant, so the hypothesis would be accepted. However,
because of the outlying variable presented with the experiment, the
hypothesis should be rejected. The studys hypothesis could have
been accepted had it been over individuals disregard of other food
options, or their lack of knowledge of portion sizes and servings.
Adolescents are more susceptible to increased portion sizing...
individuals with a lower education represents key concerns for public
health policies (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2011).
Not only is it proven by research and other separate studies, but the
follow up questions helped in discovering these outside factors.

There were five participants who were given the follow up questions,
which listed : Did the WHO article have any influence on how much
red meat they consumed over the past week? Why or why not. and
Did they pay extra attention to their eating habits the week of the
experiment.. The resounding answer was that they treated it as any
other week, and that neither the experiment nor the article made a
difference. This helped to show how teens in the present know of the
health risks with eating certain foods, yet are completely compliable in
ignoring these facts and continuing their lifestyle choices. being
warned of the possible health risks associated with their eating. Even
when a credited health organization, like WHO, has come out with the
proclamation of meat causing cancer, these teens ignored the message
completely. This brings up the question of how to inform the public.
With the constant study of medicine and health, there needs to be a
way to transfer findings from researchers to the public. Other various
ways of communication, such as direct contact with health
professionals, could be tested as well to find their effects on peoples
decision making when it comes to healthy eating. Although this
experiment didnt agree with the hypothesis, it opened the door to
better problem solving and health research.

REFERENCES
BBC News. (2015). Processed meats do cause cancer- WHO. [accessed
November 17, 2015] retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/health34615621
KET. The Common Health of Kentucky. (2015). Health Lifestyles/Fit
for Life. [accessed November 17, 2015] retrieved from
https://www.ket.org/commonhealth/models/healthylifestyles.htm
CNN. (26 October 2015). Processed Meat Causes Cancer, Says WHO.
[accessed November 4, 2015]. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancerworld-health-organization/
The American Journal of Clinical Nutriton. (14 September 2011).
Increased portion sizes from energy-dense foods affect total energy
intake in eating occasions in US children and adolescents: patterns and
trends by age group and sociodemographic characteristics, 1977-2006.
[accessed November 19, 2015]. Retrieved from
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/5/1324.full
The Wall Street Journal. (2 October 2014). How Much Meat Do
Americans Eat? Then and Now. [accessed November 23, 2015].
Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-meat-doamericans-eat-then-and-now-1792/
The New York Times. (26 October 2015). Meat Is Liked to Higher
Cancer Risk, W.H.O. Report Finds. [accessed November 30, 2015].
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/reportlinks-some-types-of-cancer-with-processed-or-red-meat.html?_r=0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all the citizens who dedicated their time to
participate in our experiment. Without their contributions the study
would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the Dart
Foundation, Owensboro Health, the Life Science Academy, Apollo
High School, and Daviess County High School for their contributions
in helping us in our experiment.