This CEOs Broken As Well, Can We Have Another?

November 23, 2004 6:17 PM

McDonalds CEO "Flipping Burgers at 15" Quits Due To Colorectal CancerYou know, losing one CEO to coronary heart disease is unfortunate. However, losing another to colorectal cancer just seems careless. An increased occurrence of both diseases is linked with the consumption of red meat, especially processed red meat cooked or seared at high temperatures. Not exactly a good advertisement for McDonalds. Maybe it's time to recruit some people who haven't been enjoying the free employee meals quite so much?
posted by meehawl (64 comments total)

Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, COLORECTAL CANCER on a sesame-seed bun.

Catchy.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:24 PM on November 23, 2004

EET MOR CHIKUN. ORE DOANT. ETS YOR FEWERUL.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:31 PM on November 23, 2004

Do all the CEO's of R.J. Reynolds smoke?
posted by Balisong at 6:33 PM on November 23, 2004

meehawl gets major, major points for the Wilde reference.

I once read an autobiography of someone who had worked at a tobacco firm and didn't smoke, and he recounted the odd peer pressure around that. Of course, the name of the person in question is long forgotten--yet I can remember every word of Peaches & Herb's "Reunited".

How can it be that my brain is so inefficient?
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:43 PM on November 23, 2004

"just seems careless"

Oh, zing! :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 6:45 PM on November 23, 2004

Good advertising?

There are too many McDonald's haters. Their irrational hatred blinds them from seeing this fast food chain as truly and pants-creamingly sexy. Oh God, somebody throw a McFlurry on my lap.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 7:34 PM on November 23, 2004

*puzzled look*

Oh, I get it... he has CANCER!
And I hate the McDonalds corp, so...

*puzzled look*
posted by squirrel at 7:57 PM on November 23, 2004

Wow, rejoicing in someone getting cancer...

Thats sooo awesome...


I fucking hate people.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 8:04 PM on November 23, 2004

Yeah... heart disease is clearly linked to diet, but cancer... living causes cancer. That's about it.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:05 PM on November 23, 2004

dagnyscott, surely you jest. You're familiar with smoking, yes? And the reason it's banned in public places in California, NYC, and Boston? Hint: not cuz it smells bad.

Search google for "colorectal cancer meat". You'll find research from such wacky, crunchy leftist think tanks as Oxford University confirming the link.

At the moment they're only sure it's a correlation, but it's definitely a cause for concern.
posted by rkent at 8:17 PM on November 23, 2004

Mmmm... schadenfreude and a side of fries... I'm lovin' it...
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:57 PM on November 23, 2004

anyone else find the female mcronald looks a little wendyish?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 PM on November 23, 2004

PissOnYourParade, who exactly is rejoicing here? Except for one brief mention of schadenfreude, which was made after your comment, I'm not really seeing anyone shouting hooray here.

Surely it's legitimate to point out the links between high-meat diets and certain diseases when prominent purveyors of those diets fall prey to those diseases, isn't it?

I will admit to being amused that the original Ronald McDonald is now a vegetarian.
posted by kyrademon at 9:32 PM on November 23, 2004

The Japanese have an extremely high incidence of stomach cancer, and most researchers think it's diet, too.

There's a lot of carcinogens in the environment. Many more natural ones than artificial.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:00 PM on November 23, 2004

Surely it's legitimate to point out the links between high-meat diets and certain diseases when prominent purveyors of those diets fall prey to those diseases, isn't it?

Sure. In the manner delivered it is about as legitimate as Supersize Me or Fahrenheit 9/11. Which is to say not very legitimate. Damn fine propaganda though.

Imagine a post saying some SF bathhouse owners got AIDS and died with a similar spin. Something tells me that would be deservedly flamed out as a low quality rhetorical ploy even if there was a legitimate link between bathhouses and
AIDS (I have no data on this).

Diet is the new all purpose target of the righteous.

I'm not really seeing anyone shouting hooray here

I didn't see hoorays either. But it sure did seem a bit ghoulishly smug (it reminds me of the public dissection following Dr. Atkins demise). I wonder if there will be a FPP if a prominent vegan manifests the permanent neurological symptoms associated with prolonged B12 deficiency?
posted by srboisvert at 10:10 PM on November 23, 2004

This story is certainly not for the faint of butt...
posted by jimmythefish at 10:14 PM on November 23, 2004

I wonder if there will be a FPP if a prominent vegan manifests the permanent neurological symptoms associated with prolonged B12 deficiency?

If it's a vegan CEO of one of the most prominent commercial and cultural institutions of the past half-century, which helped to shift a majority of consumers' eating patterns toward veganism... yeah, I'm sure there will be.
posted by soyjoy at 10:36 PM on November 23, 2004

Yes, soyjoy, Americans would never have known the true deliciousness and nutritiousness of that wonder-animal, the cow, had it not been for McDonald's. Were it not for McDonalds, many of us would never have even heard of this strange "beef," much less have tasted such a fine and rare delicacy from lands far away. McDonalds brought cow and later chicken - chicken! - to the masses. Some consider this latter addition to have been unnecessary - after all, with the daring all-cow, all-the-time menu of the first McDonald's (as well as potatoes, but we'll chalk that up to McDonald being an awfully Irish name), it hardly needed to push the envelope to bring us yet another unheard of delicacy. Yet they triumphed again, once again making every man in America a king, able to eat of beast and fowl without being required to sell his children into sex slavery.
posted by u.n. owen at 11:14 PM on November 23, 2004

third time is the charm! meehawl , I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the news. You and I must be weird, I guess.
posted by dabitch at 11:25 PM on November 23, 2004

Well considering that colorectal cancer is second only to lung cancer (ie one in seventeen americans will develop it) there's a good chance it could hit anyone.
posted by PenDevil at 11:28 PM on November 23, 2004

I had a nut tell me once I would get colorectal cancer from anal sex. I wonder now what would happen if I mixed that with a Happy Meal? Would these two forces of evil cancel each other out?
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 PM on November 23, 2004 [1 favorite]

srboisvert, I've seen the connection between unsafe sex and AIDS pointed out on numerous occasion, including times when it's been in connection with an prominent HIV+ figure who chose to live dangerously in that particular way. Andrew Sullivan springs immediately to mind. Magic Johnson, too, for that matter.

You're right that this is being used as propaganda. It's also propaganda when it's pointed out that a famous person who smokes dies of lung cancer. Is that such a bad thing? Stories about individuals can often make the cold statistics more real and present.

And you'd better believe it'll be news, and show up here, if, say, Jerome Robbins dies of something that could be considered vegan-related. And, quite frankly, if that ends up saving some of my fellow vegans from a similar fate, I'd be all for it.

And, u. n. owen, McDonald's didn't introduce the world to beef, but its certainly arguable that its popularity and menu choices have changed American eating habits. By which I mean no comment, for the moment, on whether that's good, bad, or neither, merely pointing out that soyjoy certainly isn't insane for thinking it.
posted by kyrademon at 11:53 PM on November 23, 2004

Let's be clear: even people who eat cheap meat every day of their lives don't deserve colorectal cancer. Even if they're cramming that meat into their mouths with both hands.

Cancer's bad, mmkay?
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:45 AM on November 24, 2004

>even people who eat cheap meat every day of their lives don't deserve colorectal cancer.

Here's a thought, perhaps the companies make mass-produce and mass-advertise these unhealthy and arguably carcinogen foods are to blame. Hell, they market directly to kids.

This is simple cause and effect, not gloating. The anti-coal movement had a similiar history. Using the fact thats coal industry employees were dying helped minimize coal usage.

>Cancer's bad, mmkay?

Yeah, its real bad. But do you think for one second that your average McDonald's employee eating those free meals can get the same level of healthcare Charlie Bell can get? Or any healthcare.

Thankfully, this seems like another sign that McDonalds and the fast food industry are a sinking ship or at the very least need to stop selling over-processed 3,000+ calorie "meals,"
posted by skallas at 2:34 AM on November 24, 2004

I was talking to a beef farmer a couple of weeks ago, and he pointed out that 100% beef can include not only every last fragment of the animal at the moment of death, but anything inside it at the point of death, ie anything on the way to the anus at the time.
posted by biffa at 3:07 AM on November 24, 2004

Just wanted to remind folks, before everyone starts using this person's illness to point fingers at the evil that is McDonald's ... Linda McCartney, prominent vegetarian who built a multi-million dollar business selling vegetarian products and promoting vegetarian diets ... which are said to lower the risk for breast cancer ... died from breast cancer.

Just saying, you can do everything you are "supposed" to do and still get cancer, just like you can do everything you aren't "supposed" to do and not get it. Cancer is sneaky that way.
posted by Orb at 3:14 AM on November 24, 2004

biffa, at least in the UK, spinal material is included in the term Specified Risk Material, and is not included in the beef for human consumption. I would have thought that slaughterhouses also remove the poo, but havent yet found gov't regs on that.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:04 AM on November 24, 2004

Also to be extra careful, parts of apparently normal animals are being kept from human consumption. These are the brain, spinal cord, intestines, tonsils, thymus and spleen. They are covered by new regulations and are stained or sterilised.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:14 AM on November 24, 2004

Not fast food. Good food served quickly.
posted by veedubya at 5:12 AM on November 24, 2004

I see a lot of people commenting such bonmots as "well everyone gets cancer" and "living is cancer" who obviously did not take the time to examine the references I linked to. There is a distinct linear correlation between red meat consumption and an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the general population. This correlation becomes much more pronounced when controlled for types of red meat consumed and in this case, processed meat with nitrates cooked at high temperatures seems to be especially suspect. Why? Processing and cooking meat this way simply produces increased quantites of known carcinogenic agents called heterocyclic amines and N-nitroso compounds.

High consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of colorectal cancer in various ways, including the formation of carcinogenic agents. Heterocyclic amines are formed on the surface of meat when it is cooked in direct flame or at high temperatures. N-nitroso compounds are found in foods containing nitrates, or which have been exposed to nitrogen oxides, such as processed meats.

There is probably an increased susceptability to toxic effects from HCAs due to inherited N-Acetyltransferase polymorphisms (NAT1 and NAT2) on chromosome 8p21.3-23.1.
posted by meehawl at 5:55 AM on November 24, 2004

I was talking to a beef farmer a couple of weeks ago, and he pointed out that 100% beef can include not only every last fragment of the animal at the moment of death, but anything inside it at the point of death, ie anything on the way to the anus at the time.

That's just Bullshit.
posted by srboisvert at 6:05 AM on November 24, 2004

I hate meat. I don't eat it. I hate McDonald's. I hate big corporations. I hate CEOs. And I really hate colorectal cancer. But the tone of this post doesn't do anyone any good.

I will admit to being amused that the original Ronald McDonald is now a vegetarian.

This is, of course, not true. The original Ronald McDonald was Willard Scott (the Today show weatherman). He's, as far as I know, not a vegetarian. The Ronald McDonald you're referring to is Geoffrey Giuliano, who played Ronald McDonald for two years in the early 80s.
posted by jpoulos at 6:23 AM on November 24, 2004

meehawl: The article you linked to did not say, "Don't ever eat red meat cooked at high temperatures, or you'll get cancer." It instead urged a limited or greatly reduced red meat intake. But anyone who eats red meat every single day or five times a week or so is crazy, I'd think. The only things you can eat that much every day or week are fruit and veggies, and even there you should look for variety and balance. If you have a hamburger every couple of a weeks, or a steak now and then, however, your chances of upping and dying from it wouldn't seem to be very high. It's not like red meat=cigarettes in the death dept. It's rich in protein and iron besides
posted by raysmj at 7:17 AM on November 24, 2004

It's also delicious.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:43 AM on November 24, 2004

Armchair epidemiologist says that she believes it's likely to be the nitrates, etc., rather than the meat itself, because Japan has an astonishingly high rate of cancers of the digestive tract in general, and a very high rate of colorectal cancers in particular, and yet people there eat only a fraction of the red meat that people in the US and Yerp eat.

It's true that colorectal cancer is much, much more widespread in the industrialized world than it is in the developing world. However, variations among occurrence rates within the industrialized world make it seem unlikely that any one factor can be singled out.

Having said all that, I adore meat of all kinds, and eat it at least three times a week. But I try to make sure that as much of it as possible is organic, range-fed, or grass-fed, additive-free, and antibiotic-free.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:03 AM on November 24, 2004

srboisvert, well then, by your argument, you must be right.

Actually, a doctor once told me that most of the taste in meat is a result of remaining waste in the tissues that haven't been excreted. Meaning, crap and urine. If you soak meat for a while, then cook it, it has no taste.

Before attempting such a WISE argument as "That's just Bullshit", maybe you should do some research? yes? Or do you have an actual informed response?

And Sidhedevil, the current diet in Japan is much much higher in meat and dairy than it was 20 years ago. Why? A proliferation of fast food restaurants like McDonalds. Incidences of cancer are on the rise too...matching the increase in meat consumption.

Look people, eat meat if you want. No one is STOPPING you. But don't stick your head in the sand regarding the unhealthiness of the food you are eating. Maybe your responses should be "Meat is bad but I don't give a rat's ass".
posted by Dantien at 8:07 AM on November 24, 2004

Dantien: I don't give a rat's ass as to what you're saying given that none of the linked articles matched the claims being made by opponents here. It only talked about eating meat all the time, practically, or at least at very high rates. That's a problem not with meat per se, but the way in which it's marketed and consumed.
posted by raysmj at 8:14 AM on November 24, 2004

And a doctor told you this? Well, great. Can you find a link?
posted by raysmj at 8:17 AM on November 24, 2004

jpoulos - thanks for the correction.

Dantien - I think srboisvert was just making a pun. Bullshit = bull shit, yes?
posted by kyrademon at 8:21 AM on November 24, 2004

The article you linked to did not say, "Don't ever eat red meat cooked at high temperatures, or you'll get cancer."

I don't believe I did either. I said that an increase in colorectal cancer was linerarly correlated with an increased incidence of red meat consumption and that this correlation became more pronounced when controlled for the presence of nitrates or of NAT1/NAT2 polymorphisms.

But that's science. The historical fact remains that the last two CEOs of McDonalds have been stricken by diseases now popularly associated with the consumption of processed meat.

And as I mentioned, that really can't be good advertising for McDonalds any way you look at it. Maybe people see a silver lining in these tragic events that I am missing? In that case you should tell the McDonalds PR people, because I am sure they'd love to hear about it.
posted by meehawl at 8:25 AM on November 24, 2004

meehawl: Do you know how often the CEO of McDonald's ate red meat? Did he eat at McDonald's all the time? And you certainly did imply that eating red meat is always bad for you, whether that was your intention or not. I eat red meat at least every week or two, by the way, but only maybe once a year do so at McDonald's - and usually out of desperation (e.g., being on the road and being unable to find anything else). Might there be a difference in the manner in which people consume red meat? My guess would be yes.
posted by raysmj at 8:37 AM on November 24, 2004

By the way, if you are unfortunate enough to be especially genetically susceptible to mutagenic effects from cook red meats, what is the upper recommended limit for a daily meat ration?

For those at higher risk (e.g. with genetic or other lifestyle factors) it may be wise to consider the WCRF's upper limit of 80 g/day

For the metrically challenged 80g is less than three ounces. Another thing to consider is that the studies correlate more strongly with red meat fat. Therefore, eating processed foods that have artificially increased fat levels compared with unprocessed meats will lower this upper limit significantly. The lifestyle factors include the usual suspects: smoking, lack of exercise, high BMI, high soot particulate environment, high radon level terrain, and so on.
posted by meehawl at 8:39 AM on November 24, 2004

Might there be a difference in the manner in which people consume red meat? My guess would be yes.

All your questions in this regard are covered comprehensively in the links I posted. Why not read them, especially in relation to the examination of cooking methods and particular types of meat. Simply put: high temperature cooking (searing, BBQ, frying)... Bad. Low-temperature cooking (broiling, microwave)... Better. Also, because colorectal cancer incidence is inversely correlated with vegetable fibre intake, it seems reasonable to assume that a certain increase in fibre intake would prove beneficial for meat eaters. However, so studies (to my knowledge) have yet demonstrated that an increased fibre intake can mitigate the effects of an increased red meat intake.

It's always amazing how much a simple debate over meat nutrition can polarize people. Eating meat, the deliberate killing and consumption of another animal, always provokes strong emotional response in people. The first thing people do when they want to set up a schism or new cult is to come up with a set of dietary restrictions to segregate their population, and the most stringent of the restrictions always revolve around designating certain animals sacred, and others profrane. More rarely, all animals are designated sacred. For more see Durkheim. We are all touchy heterotrophs.
posted by meehawl at 8:51 AM on November 24, 2004

The truly big issue at McDonald's is this: Why don't they just call the Double Quarter Pounder the Half Pounder?

At any rate it's much nicer now that you can order it without onions & pickles.
posted by jonmc at 9:00 AM on November 24, 2004

Colorectal cancer is indirectly linked to meat consumption in the fact that diets low in fiber seem to put one more at risk. High fiber = less risk. The more meat you eat in general (no fiber) the more likely you are getting less fiber than someone who gets more of their protien from plant-based sources (high fiber).

Other lifestyle factors such as exercise and abstaining from excessive drug consumption, good stress management, etc. probably factor in as well, so it's a bit of a stretch to say red meat causes cancer.
posted by wicked sprite at 9:19 AM on November 24, 2004

The truly big issue at McDonald's is this: Why don't they just call the Double Quarter Pounder the Half Pounder?

Because then people would get really confused about what the double Royale with cheese is.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:25 AM on November 24, 2004

Colorectal cancer is indirectly linked to meat consumption in the fact that diets low in fiber seem to put one more at risk. High fiber = less risk. The more meat you eat in general (no fiber) the more likely you are getting less fiber

This is an assumption. Many studies have controlled for equalized fibre intake (basically because large population's eating habits are so heterogeneous) and found a animal direct fat-colorectal correlation. I'd love if you could point me to some studies that have demonstrated a conclusive ameliorating effect from increased fibre intake associated with high red meat intake sufficient to offset the effects from the meat. In fact, most studies have found that increasing fibre within a diet does not lead to a significant reduction in the frequency of colorectal adenomatous polyps (the presumed colorectal cancer precursors) in the generral population. Of course, the effects of increased fibre on genetically susceptible populations has not been studied. It may be, of course, that an increased fibre intake can compensate for heterozygous under-expression of certain enzymes by meat-carcinogen susceptible individuals, but may have no effect on homozygous recessive individuals with gross under-expression.
posted by meehawl at 9:53 AM on November 24, 2004

meehawl: I did read them, meehawl, and asked the question as a rhetorical one. The way in which you presented the links left a lot to be desired. And you still haven't addressed how it is that you *know* that the McDonald's CEO's cancer was caused by eating red meat five times a week in large portions.
posted by raysmj at 9:57 AM on November 24, 2004

Simply put: high temperature cooking (searing, BBQ, frying)... Bad.

The article you linked. didn't say that. It implied that eating large amounts of red meat cooked in this fashion can be bad. Or, rather, high consumption or regularly high consumption can be bad.
posted by raysmj at 10:00 AM on November 24, 2004

McDonald's didn't introduce the world to beef
It was the shake as it was their big seller. Which in a new future form as a follow up to their recently step counter give away will be an exercise program...just shaking it.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:37 AM on November 24, 2004

high temperature cooking (searing, BBQ, frying)... Bad. Low-temperature cooking (broiling, microwave)...

Not exactly. Searing, broiling, and frying are all high-temperature methods. BBQ is a low-temperature method (unless you mean grilling, which is not BBQ, but is high-temperature... and grilling is extra-bad because of compounds formed by food and smoke). Microwave and other types of steaming are low-temperature.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:15 PM on November 24, 2004

eating large amounts of red meat cooked in this fashion can be bad.

What do you define as a "large" amount and, conversely, what do you define as an small amount unlikely to be noticed above background incidence?
posted by meehawl at 12:52 PM on November 24, 2004

The way in which you presented the links left a lot to be desired.

Maybe in your world. Please tell me how you would write a FPP detailing this information.
posted by meehawl at 12:54 PM on November 24, 2004

meehaw, excuse my criticism here. After reading most of the comments was when I realized you were not saying: MkDonalds = the big C. Your wording has some personal sound to it though and being that the post stands speaks for itself. I enjoyed your links because it shows a pattern which one may further study and look into and make a conclusion to live by, thanks.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:48 PM on November 24, 2004

meehawl: For gosh sakes, the articles had a definition of a high amount, large amount, whatever. And there's no reason to play thread moderator or be so defensive. It' not as if you're going to be docked pay for it or something.
posted by raysmj at 1:52 PM on November 24, 2004

McDeath
posted by exlotuseater at 2:08 PM on November 24, 2004

Wow, that was well worth my 5 dollars...

Dance for me, metafilter, dance!
posted by PissOnYourParade at 2:16 PM on November 24, 2004

I was just in Sudbury for a swim meet, and there was this place called "Deluxe Burger" right across the street from McDonald's. Deluxe Burger sports a giant single yellow arch for its sign. So that particular part of the city is dominated by these rival arches. It's really funny.

Also, the McDonald's apparently moved in across the street after single-arched Deluxe Burger had been there for a while.

This comment had no relevance to the topic of cancer being sent by God to kill CEOs, sorry.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 7:16 PM on November 24, 2004

there's no reason to play thread moderator or be so defensive.

Dude, you keep asking directed questions. Are we to understand then that they all rhetorical? That you are merely thinking out loud?
posted by meehawl at 7:48 PM on November 24, 2004

meehawl: Who gives a shit? That was one rhetorical.
posted by raysmj at 8:56 PM on November 24, 2004

Or that one was rhetorical. Jesus, though, who cares? I gotta make some apple sauce for pancakes tomorrow.

Seriously.
posted by raysmj at 8:57 PM on November 24, 2004

But anyone who eats red meat every single day or five times a week or so is crazy

Sometimes I eat red meat twice a day. If pig and goat counts I eat red meat at least a dozen times a week.

And God tells me the CIA is making blueness too salty lately. And it's all your fault.
posted by davy at 10:59 PM on November 24, 2004

Oxford University may not be a leftist think-tank (and I think assumptions like meat=Republican is one of the reasons Kerry lost), but you do realize that when a study is published from a University, it's not a final decree handed down from the gods, it's a scientist submitting his results for peer review. It's something he thinks MIGHT be the case. But then the media realized there was money to make going "Oxford University says McDonald's Causes Cancer, Details at 11". And since the media fails to distinguish between one study being put up for peer review and a scientific concensus FOLLOWING that review, neither do most people. In the end, you have no proof, which is why you resort to arguments like "Smoking causes cancer, therefore McDonald's causes cancer"
posted by dagnyscott at 8:16 PM on November 25, 2004

Sense, logic and garbage in pretty well equal measure from both sides of a discussion. I've had quite a while to examine the issues in some detail but causes and remedies really don't matter. Playing the odds improves your chances but don't for a moment think that immunity comes with fastidious adherence to the "right" way of living.

"If you stop smoking, drinking and hanging around with loose women, you don't live longer but it sure as hell feels like it"
Stercus accidit
posted by Cancergiggles at 7:28 AM on November 26, 2004