Joining today's show are Mike Barnicle, Mark Halperin, Eugene Robinson, Mark McKinnon, Jonathan Capehart, Donald Trump, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Katy Tur, Joseph Stiglitz, Rep. Sean Duffy, Sgt. Matt Eversmann, Sara Eisen, Irin Carmon, Shana Khizhnik and more...
Poll: Carson opens up 14-point lead over Trump in Iowa. Ben Carson has overtaken Donald Trump in Iowa, surging to a 14-point lead, according to a new poll.
A Monmouth University survey released on Monday found Carson taking 32 percent support in Iowa, followed by Trump at 18 percent.
That’s a 9-point gain for Carson from the same poll in late August, while Trump has fallen five points in that time.
The poll found Carson with the best favorability rating in the field, with an astounding 84 percent of Iowa Republicans having a positive view of him, compared to only 7 percent who view him negatively.
Trump’s favorability rating is at 53 percent positive and 38 percent negative. His favorability rating is essentially unchanged from late August, although the percentage of those who view him unfavorably has increased by 5 points in that time. Trump has led in nearly every poll of Iowa since early August, but the Monmouth survey is the third recent poll to show Carson with a healthy lead over the field in the Hawkeye State.
A Des Moines Register-Bloomberg poll released last week showed Carson with a 9 point lead, and a Quinnipiac University survey found Carson ahead by 8.
Carson is ahead among all demographic groups in Iowa, according to Monmouth. He leads among Republicans who describe themselves as "somewhat" and "very conservative," as well as self-described moderates.
Carson also leads among evangelicals, non-evangelicals, men and women in the poll.
“Trump’s support has eroded in a number of key areas, with the beneficiary being another outside candidate,” said Monmouth pollster Patrick Murray. “One question is how secure Carson’s new found support really is.”
Only 19 percent of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers said they have made up their minds on whom to support, giving hope to lower polling candidates.
Rounding out the field are Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), at 10 percent each, and Jeb Bush at 8 percent.
Businesswoman Carly Fiorina take 5 percent support in the poll. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is at 3 percent, while Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and John Kasich each take 2 percent support.
Outsider candidates such as Trump and Carson, though, appear to have the advantage based on the deep anti-establishment sentiment among likely caucus-goers. Fifty-seven percent said the Republican Party has done a bad job representing their views.
“While the leader board positions have changed, the outsider candidates still dominate this race,” said Murray. “The GOP’s leadership may hope that an establishment figure will emerge, but that may not happen while their voters remain dissatisfied with the party as a whole.”
Bush, Kasich, Paul and Christie are the only candidates with negative favorability ratings in Iowa, according to the poll.
The Monmouth University survey of 400 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted Oct. 22-25 and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.
Polling Data
| Poll | Date | Carson | Trump | Rubio | Cruz | Bush | Fiorina | Paul | Jindal | Huckabee | Kasich | Santorum | Christie | Pataki | Graham | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/14 - 10/25 | 29.2 | 20.6 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 6.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Carson +8.6 |
| Monmouth | 10/22 - 10/25 | 32 | 18 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +14 |
| Loras College | 10/19 - 10/22 | 31 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Carson +12 |
| CBS/YouGov | 10/15 - 10/22 | 27 | 27 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Tie |
| DMR/Bloomberg | 10/16 - 10/19 | 28 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +9 |
| Quinnipiac | 10/14 - 10/20 | 28 | 20 | 13 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +8 |
Polling Data
| Poll | Date | Carson | Trump | Rubio | Cruz | Bush | Fiorina | Paul | Jindal | Huckabee | Kasich | Santorum | Christie | Pataki | Graham | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 10/14 - 10/25 | 29.2 | 20.6 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 6.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Carson +8.6 |
| Monmouth | 10/22 - 10/25 | 32 | 18 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +14 |
| Loras College | 10/19 - 10/22 | 31 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Carson +12 |
| CBS/YouGov | 10/15 - 10/22 | 27 | 27 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Tie |
| DMR/Bloomberg | 10/16 - 10/19 | 28 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +9 |
| Quinnipiac | 10/14 - 10/20 | 28 | 20 | 13 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Carson +8 |
| NBC/WSJ | 9/23 - 9/30 | 19 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Trump +5 |
| Gravis | 9/25 - 9/27 | 14 | 19 | 9 | 11 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | Trump +5 |
| PPP (D) | 9/18 - 9/20 | 17 | 24 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Trump +7 |
| CBS/YouGov | 9/3 - 9/10 | 25 | 29 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Trump +4 |
| Quinnipiac | 8/27 - 9/8 | 21 | 27 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Trump +6 |
| NBC/Marist | 8/26 - 9/2 | 22 | 29 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +7 |
| Gravis | 8/29 - 8/31 | 16 | 32 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +16 |
| Monmouth | 8/27 - 8/30 | 23 | 23 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Tie |
| DM Register | 8/23 - 8/26 | 18 | 23 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +5 |
| Loras College | 8/24 - 8/27 | 18 | 25 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +7 |
| CNN/ORC | 8/7 - 8/11 | 14 | 22 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | Trump +8 |
| Suffolk | 8/7 - 8/10 | 9 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +5 |
| PPP (D) | 8/7 - 8/9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Trump +7 |
| Gravis | 7/29 - 7/29 | 5 | 31 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Trump +16 |
| NBC/Marist | 7/14 - 7/21 | 8 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | Walker +2 |
| Monmouth | 7/16 - 7/19 | 8 | 13 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | -- | 0 | Walker +9 |
| KBUR/WAA | 6/27 - 6/29 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -- | -- | Walker +6 |
| Quinnipiac | 6/20 - 6/29 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | -- | 1 | Walker +8 |
| DM Register | 5/25 - 5/29 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 4 | -- | 1 | Walker +7 |
| Mrng Consult | 5/31 - 6/8 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 10 | -- | 10 | -- | -- | 6 | -- | -- | Walker +8 |
| Gravis | 5/28 - 5/29 | 12 | -- | 13 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 4 | -- | 8 | -- | 6 | 4 | -- | -- | Walker +4 |
| Quinnipiac | 4/25 - 5/4 | 7 | -- | 13 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 3 | -- | 0 | Walker +8 |
| PPP (D) | 4/23 - 4/26 | 7 | -- | 13 | 8 | 12 | -- | 10 | -- | 10 | -- | -- | 5 | -- | -- | Walker +10 |
| Loras College | 4/21 - 4/23 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -- | 0 | Walker +3 |
| Gravis | 4/13 - 4/13 | 9 | -- | 12 | 6 | 16 | 3 | 9 | -- | 8 | -- | 2 | 5 | -- | -- | Bush +3 |
| Quinnipiac | 2/16 - 2/23 | 11 | -- | 4 | 5 | 10 | -- | 13 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 4 | -- | -- | Walker +12 |
| Gravis | 2/12 - 2/13 | 5 | -- | 7 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 10 | -- | 7 | -- | 6 | 9 | -- | -- | Walker +14 |
| NBC/Marist | 2/3 - 2/10 | 6 | -- | 6 | 2 | 16 | -- | 7 | -- | 17 | -- | 5 | 9 | -- | 1 | Huckabee +1 |
| DM Register | 1/26 - 1/29 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 5 | 6 | -- | -- | Walker +1 |
| Loras College | 1/21 - 1/26 | 13 | -- | 4 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -- | 1 | Huckabee +1 |
| FOX News | 10/28 - 10/30 | 12 | -- | 5 | 7 | 8 | -- | 8 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 7 | -- | -- | Huckabee +1 |
| CNN/ORC | 9/8 - 9/10 | -- | -- | 5 | 4 | 6 | -- | 7 | 4 | 21 | -- | 3 | 6 | -- | -- | Huckabee +14 |
| USAT/Suffolk | 8/23 - 8/26 | -- | -- | 5 | 5 | 7 | -- | 7 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 11 | -- | -- | Huckabee +2 |
| NBC/Marist | 7/7 - 7/13 | -- | -- | 7 | 7 | 12 | -- | 12 | 1 | -- | -- | 9 | 8 | -- | -- | Tie |
| PPP (D) | 5/15 - 5/19 | -- | -- | 4 | 15 | 12 | -- | 10 | -- | 20 | -- | 3 | 9 | -- | -- | Huckabee +5 |
| Vox Populi (R) | 4/22 - 4/24 | -- | -- | 9 | 9 | 18 | -- | 8 | -- | 20 | -- | -- | 7 | -- | -- | Huckabee +2 |
| Magellan (R) | 4/14 - 4/15 | -- | -- | 2 | 10 | 17 | -- | 11 | -- | 17 | 5 | -- | 14 | -- | -- | Tie |
| Loras College | 4/7 - 4/8 | -- | -- | 5 | 6 | 11 | -- | 9 | -- | 15 | 1 | 5 | 8 | -- | -- | Huckabee +4 |
| Suffolk* | 4/3 - 4/8 | 9 | -- | 6 | 9 | 10 | -- | 10 | 3 | 11 | -- | 6 | 7 | -- | -- | Huckabee +1 |
| WPA (R) | 3/30 - 3/30 | -- | -- | 3 | 7 | 7 | -- | 10 | 2 | 14 | -- | 5 | 6 | -- | -- | Huckabee +4 |
| PPP (D) | 2/20 - 2/23 | -- | -- | 3 | 10 | 13 | -- | 14 | 7 | 17 | -- | -- | 10 | -- | -- | Huckabee +3 |
| PPP (D) | 7/5 - 7/7 | -- | -- | 11 | 10 | 14 | -- | 18 | 2 | -- | -- | 6 | 16 | -- | -- | Paul +2 |
| Harper (R) | 11/23 - 11/24 | -- | -- | 6 | 16 | -- | -- | 13 | 3 | -- | -- | 11 | 17 | -- | -- | Christie +1 |
| PPP (D) | 2/1 - 2/3 | -- | -- | 16 | -- | 14 | -- | 15 | 3 | 16 | -- | -- | 12 | -- | -- | Tie |
| Harper (R) | 1/29 - 1/29 | -- | -- | 27 | -- | -- | -- | 13 | -- | -- | -- | 14 | 12 | -- | -- | Rubio +13 |
| PPP (D) | 7/12 - 7/15 | -- | -- | 10 | -- | 8 | -- | 11 | -- | 17 | -- | 17 | 16 | -- | -- | Tie |
| PPP (D) | 5/3 - 5/6 | -- | -- | 7 | -- | 10 | -- | 9 | -- | 16 | -- | 16 | 15 | -- | -- | Tie |
Ben Carson Makes Case for Outsider Candidacy in New TV Ad
Like Donald J. Trump, Ben Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate, has defied the pundits and establishment prognosticators by unapologetically running as a political outsider.
A new television ad by the Carson campaign aims to capitalize on his unusual experience and style of campaigning.
The 30-second spot, which is airing in the Greenville, S.C., market, features Mr. Carson, in a suit, standing next to an empty cardboard box that says “Washington political class” on one side and a sketch of the Capitol on another.
“I’m Ben Carson and I’m running for president,” he says. “The political class and their pundit buddies say: ‘Impossible. He’s too outside the box.’ Well, they do know impossible. Impossible to balance the budget, impossible to get border security, impossible to put aside partisanship.”
He continues: “I’m Ben Carson, I’m running for president, and I’m very much outside the box.”
Then, turning to the box, Mr. Carson concludes, “There must be a good idea in there somewhere.”
Reached for comment, the Carson campaign said the spot had aired mistakenly a few times, and was not officially scheduled to hit the airwaves for another week or two.
But on Friday, Mr. Carson broadcast his first television ad in the first four early nominating states. The “Outside the Box” spot also captures Mr. Carson’s low-key demeanor, which has helped him appeal to voters in Iowa.
Sanders campaign: Clinton started it. Bernie Sanders went negative on Hillary Clinton Saturday night — but only because she started it. That's what the Vermont senator's chief strategist told POLITICO on Monday after the high-stakes Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa where Sanders, without explicitly naming Clinton, launched into an extended attack on her record and character. There, he reached as far back as her 2002 Iraq War vote to paint the front-runner as a politician often late to the game on key Democratic issues and one who changes position with the political winds.
“What people saw from Bernie on Saturday night is his willingness to engage in a dialogue about these differences,” Tad Devine said, doubling down on the new attack strategy that included calling out her positions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Keystone XL pipeline. “It’s been decided that we’re going to talk about differences between the candidates. But [Clinton] did so aggressively on the gun issue and by implying that somehow Bernie is engaging in implicit sexism.”
Since the first debate, Clinton, also without naming Sanders, has pushed back on his assertion there that “all the shouting in the world” would not fix the country’s problem with gun violence.
“I’ve been told to stop shouting about guns,” Clinton said at a rally in Virginia on Friday, a line she repeated Saturday during her remarks at the J-J dinner. “Actually I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman talks, some people think it’s shouting.”
Sanders' team bristled at the suggestion that the self-described democratic socialist’s comment in the debate was inherently sexist and implied it served as the motivation for Saturday night's attacks.
“We’d be very happy to have a straight-out debate on issues that matter to people and confine it to that,” Devine said. “But if they’re going to have a campaign that attacks Bernie on gun safety and implies he engages in sexism, that’s unacceptable. We’re not going to stand for that. We’re not going to sit here and let her attack him. We’re going to have to talk about other things if they do that. If they’re going to engage in this kind of attack, they need to understand we’re not going to stand there and take it.”
The Sanders camp for weeks has been aggressively pushing back on Clinton’s attempt to highlight gun control as an issue where she can run to the left of Sanders. At the debate, Clinton said Sanders' positions on gun control don't go far enough. “For someone from a rural state, it's fair to say Bernie Sanders has one of the best records on guns," Devine said, comparing his record with that of Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who has a C- rating from the NRA. Sanders, in contrast, has a D- grade from the pro-gun rights group.
Devine seemed to issue a threat to camp Clinton about the tone of the debate in Iowa next month. “I hope they understand this can be an elevating debate for the Democratic Party,” Devine added.
Attacking Clinton on her 2002 vote to support the Iraq War — one that she has admitted was wrong and apologized for — is “a very legitimate issue,” Devine said. “But [the campaign] doesn’t have to dwell on that. It can be about tomorrow. Sanders would prefer that election. But we will not accept what they’ve been doing for weeks now, which is trying to get to the left of Bernie Sanders” on the issue of guns. “That is not acceptable,” he said.
When asked whether Sanders would continue on offense against Clinton, Devine said: “What Bernie’s going to do is continue to deliver a message — that the economy is rigged right now. That’s what he’s going to talk about. We would like a debate about that.”
The new tone of the race on the Democratic side is notable, especially for a candidate like Sanders, who has long prided himself for staying relentlessly on message and never having run a negative campaign ad in his life. “I believe in serious debates on serious issues,” he said in a CNN interview last May. “I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. Maybe I shouldn’t say this. I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton.”
In an interview Sunday with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said Sanders' new tactic of painting Clinton as calculating — one that worked for Barack Obama — would backfire. "Hillary has been consistent in the fight she has fought her entire career," Podesta said. "She's out listening to people, talking to them about the problems that keep them up at night and she's providing affirmative solutions. She's looking to the future." When asked if Sanders had peaked, he said: "Sanders seemed to have a course correction in the J-J dinner, from one in which he said he wasn't going to go negative to — to obviously focusing his fire on her."
The Clinton campaign added that Sanders’ new tack last weekend was an unfortunate turn.
“Hillary Clinton has spent this campaign talking about who she'll fight for and what she'll do as president to move America forward,” said spokeswoman Christina Reynolds. “You saw this clearly on Saturday night, when Hillary offered a positive vision on how to help American families get ahead. In contrast, Sen. Sanders spent much of his speech looking to the past and attacking her. That's surprising and disappointing from a candidate who has said he was running a different kind of campaign and wouldn't go negative."
Jeb Bush advisers call Marco Rubio a 'GOP Obama'. Jeb Bush's campaign advisers, who see Marco Rubio as an increasing threat in the GOP presidential primary, devoted special attention to the Florida senator and Bush's former protégé in a presentation to donors on Monday.
In a PowerPoint presentation, delivered at a donor retreat in Houston, Bush advisers sought to calm concerns about his campaign by highlighting his advantages in money, endorsements and data over his GOP rivals.
It highlighted polls making the electability argument for Bush, showing him ahead of Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical match-up, and it gave details on the strength of his ground game in the early states.
But a big goal of the presentation was to compare Bush's campaign to his primary opponents, and it was no happenstance that Rubio specifically was the subject of several bullet points.
Despite the current voter fervor for anti-establishment candidates, Bush's team believes it's important to focus on Bush's record as a two-term governor of Florida, arguing that his tenure shows an aptitude of "fixing" things in government.
In a slide titled "Experience Matters," one bullet point reads:"Marco is a GOP Obama."
Both ran for president as first-term senators, were lawyers and university lecturers, had served part time in state legislatures for eight years, and had "few legislative accomplishments," the slide said.
Another slide is entirely dedicated to pointing out the advantage Bush holds in endorsements over Rubio (Bush has 11 endorsements from Florida's congressional delegation, Rubio has one), while another compares the campaigns' cash-on-hand numbers, with Bush having slightly more in the bank.
Later Monday, Bush himself took a swipe at Rubio. In an on-stage conversation with his brother, former President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush boasted about how he "vetoed a couple of projects for one of the presidential candidates," referring to when Rubio was in the Florida House of Representatives when Bush was the governor.
Tensions between the two candidates have been escalating for weeks. With reports of Rubio missing nearly one-third of his votes in the Senate this year, Bush has been hammering lawmakers who aren't doing their jobs, and late last month he started comparing Rubio to Obama's lack of experience before becoming president.
In 2012, however, Bush told Charlie Rose that he thought Rubio would be the best running mate pick for Mitt Romney.
"He has more experience than Barack Obama had when he ran," Bush had said.
Pressed on those comments earlier this month in Iowa, Bush stuck by them.
"Yeah, he did (have more experience than Obama). He still does, that's for sure," Bush said. "That's a low bar, though."
For his part, Rubio hasn't been quite as direct in his comments about Bush on the campaign trail, but he regularly calls for a "new generation" of leadership, a subtle dig that many see as an attack against Bush and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Despite the thickening competition, the two candidates publicly maintain that they've stayed friends.
As for the rest of the presentation, which came just days after the campaign announced it was downsizing its staff and slashing salaries, Bush advisers believe that the "press obsession with process" won't determine the outcome of the primary. They're laser-focused on the idea that as long as Bush has the cash, discipline and organization, he can push through.
In single digits, and frustrated by the Trump phenomenon, Bush's campaign is "tearing up the script" and going to "Let Jeb be Jeb." Sources close to the campaign say the campaign has realized they have "nothing to lose" and they are going to take a new tack of letting Bush relax and speak his mind.
In the presentation, they included a breakdown of the number of staffers and offices the campaign has in each early state: South Carolina: seven paid staffers and three offices; Nevada: eight paid staffers and two offices; New Hampshire: 12 paid staffers and one office; Iowa: 10 paid staffers and two offices.
Video Shows Cop Body Slamming High School Girl in S.C. Classroom. The FBI has been asked to investigate an incident at a South Carolina high school Monday in which a police officer appeared to body slam a female student and drag her across a classroom.
The confrontation, captured on cellphone camera at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, S.C., has drawn intense criticism on social media, from the school district's Black Parents Association — the student is African-American — and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, which called the deputy's actions "egregious."
"There is no justification whatsoever for treating a child like this," the ACLU said in a statement.
In a news conference, a spokesman for the Richland County Sheriff's Department, Curtis Wilson, identified the deputy in the video as Ben Fields, one of two school resource officers assigned to Spring Valley. Fields had been placed on administrative duty pending an internal investigation, Wilson said, adding that the officer was declining interview requests.
Fields, who is white, is named as a defendant in a 2013 federal lawsuit that claims he "unfairly and recklessly targets African-American students with allegations of gang membership and criminal gang activity."
The plaintiff in the suit, Ashton James Reese, was expelled from Spring Valley after Fields said that he was a gang member who had taken part in a "huge gang fight."
In the lawsuit, Reese denied that he had ever been involved in a gang.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott did not attend the news conference — he was out of town, Wilson said — but Lott had watched the video and was "disturbed."
Lott "has questions like everybody else," Wilson told reporters. "He wants answers to those questions."
Wilson confirmed that Lott placed to a call Monday to Dave Thomas, the Special Agent in charge of the FBI for South Carolina, to request an independent investigation of the incident. Lott followed up Tuesday morning with a formal written request to Thomas and U.S. Attorney William Nettles.
A male student at Spring Valley told NBC News that the girl had ignored requests by the teacher to go to a "discipline office." The officer then entered the classroom and asked if she would go on her own or if he had to make her, according to the student.
When the student refused to leave, Lott told NBC affiliate WIS earlier Monday, the officer "was requested to take action."
She was told that she was under arrest, but again refused to leave the classroom, Lott told the station. "The video then shows the student resisting and being arrested."
In a statement, school district superintendent Debbie Hamm said the district "is deeply concerned" about the confrontation.
"Student safety is and always will be the District's top priority," Hamm said. "The District will not tolerate any actions that jeopardize the safety of our students."
Hamm added that the district is working "closely" with the sheriff's department to "conduct a thorough and complete investigation."
"Pending the outcome of the investigation, the District has directed that the school resource officer not return to any school in the District," Hamm said.
In a statement, the Richland Black Parents Association said they were "heartbroken as this is just another example of the intolerance that continues to be of issue in Richland School District Two particularly with families and children of color."
What I love is how the police want people to boycott Quentin Tarantino films because he spoke up against police violence. After Oscar-winning director Quentin Tarantino marched against police shootings in Manhattan this weekend, the New York police union called for a boycott of his movies Sunday.
Tarantino joined hundreds of demonstrators on Saturday in Greenwich Village's Washington Square to march a few miles along Sixth Avenue as part of a series of demonstrations organized by the New York group RiseUpOctober over the past week. Speakers at the protest said they want justice for people killed by police.
According to the Associated Press, the protesters walked past lines of police officers who had cordoned off a lane of traffic for them. As they moved, those with megaphones shouted stories of the slain as others waved signs with photos of the dead, mostly young black men, and the dates and places of their deaths.
Tarantino told reporters he flew in from California for the protest to stand up for the victims of police shootings.
"I'm a human being with a conscience," he said. "And if you believe there's murder going on then you need to rise up and stand up against it. I'm here to say I'm on the side of the murdered."
The protest was peaceful and there were no arrests. But the demonstration happened in the wake of another shooting of a New York police officer: Randolph Holder was shot to death last week while chasing a bicycle thief. A suspect has been charged with murder and robbery in the case.
It was only the latest flashpoint in the tally of shootings all over the country (of citizens by police and police by citizens), and the increasingly bitter exchanges between police and African American activists over who is more victimized by the other.
Patrick Lynch, the volatile head of the cop union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, lashed out against Tarantino on Sunday, calling him a "purveyor of degeneracy" and his remarks "slanderous 'Cop Fiction.'"
"It's no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too," Lynch said in a statement posted on the union's website. "The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls 'murderers' aren't living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies — they're risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem.
"New Yorkers need to send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy that he has no business coming to our city to peddle his slanderous 'Cop Fiction.' It's time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films."
A response from Tarantino was not immediately available.
But the city's top cop, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who doesn't fly off the handle as easily as Lynch, said Monday he feels as much contempt as Lynch about Tarantino suggesting cops are "murderers."
“Shame on him, particularly at this time, where we’re grieving the murder of a New York City police officer,” Bratton said during an interview on WNYM radio. “Basically, there are no words to describe the contempt I have for him and his comments.”
Although many of Tarantino's biggest hits — Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained — are indeed startlingly violent, he is considered an influential cinema auteur in Hollywood: He won Oscars for Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained.
His latest movie, The Hateful Eight, about bounty hunters in Wild West-era Wyoming, is due to open Christmas Day.
One of New York's pro-police tabloids, the New York Post, did not mince words about how it feels about Tarantino. Its front-page headline screamed "Disgrace" and featured a picture of a protester (not Tarantino) directing a rude gesture at a nearby police officer.
Donald Trump describes father's 'small loan': $1 million.
And, he evidently took a course at Wharton School of Business on 'Polling'. That is what he said today in the interview he did with the panel. I assume there are no classes that teach you polling but anyway, Donald Trump on Monday said his climb to the top of the business world hasn't been an easy one and depicted a $1 million loan from his father as "small."
"My whole life really has been a 'no' and I fought through it," Trump said Monday at an NBC-sponsored town hall here. "It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars."
Trump was answering a question from a Republican voter who asked him "with the exception of your family, have you ever been told no?"
Pressed further, Trump conceded that getting a million dollar loan from his father might seem easy to most people, but said "a million dollars isn't very much compared to what I've built."
Trump has built up a multi-billion dollar net worth, expanding his father's lucrative real estate business to new heights.
But while much of Trump's success is a credit to his work, he was born into a successful, wealthy family, inheriting part of his father's more than $200 million net worth.
Trump said even his father told him his plans to delve into the Manhattan real estate business -- away from the Trump family's projects mostly in Queens and Brooklyn -- were a bad idea.
Opinion: How much help Trump really got
"Even my father he said you don't want to go to Manhattan. That's not our territory," Trump said. Trump's campaign didn't respond to CNN's question about when his father gave him the $1 million loan -- though it appears to have happened before Trump entered the Manhattan real estate market in the early 1970s.
If Trump's father made the loan in 1968, the year his son graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, that $1 million would be worth $6.8 million in today's dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.
The median household income in 1968 was $7,700; today it's $53,675. The median home price then was $25,000; today it's $269,000.
Trump took questions from a dozen voters Monday in a basement room at the Atkinson Resort & Country Club. Trump explained his positions on everything from the war with ISIS and how he would handle Russia to illegal immigration and the economy.
Attendees -- a mix of Trump supporters and undecided voters -- appeared to approve of most of Trump's answers. Two voters pressed Trump further with follow-up questions, telling him that he had not answered their questions which asked about his specific plans to deal with undocumented immigrants and the economy.
On illegal immigration, Trump didn't explain exactly how he would deport the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S., simply pointing to his managerial skills.
Another voter pressed him on whether voters should simply believe that he will revive the economy based on his last name, or whether he has any specific plans to address economic challenges.
"I think they should," Trump said of voters electing him based on his name, adding that he would renegotiate trade deals involving the U.S. and bring jobs back.
"But how?" the 21-year-old college student and entrepreneur asked again.
Trump didn't get more specific beyond explaining that he plans to lower taxes and renegotiate trade deals.
Instead, Trump stressed the importance of "flexibility in dealmaking" and said there was no need for multi-point plans.
"It doesn't work that way because point two gets loused up and you have to go to a different point two," Trump said. "It doesn't mean anything."
There's a debate tomorrow? Did I hear that correctly just now? I guess there is one tomorrow night in Boulder (CO). The economy will be the prime topic when Republican presidential candidates gather for their latest debate Wednesday night.
The CNBC debate will happen in Boulder, Colorado. The main debate stage will be filled by Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
An earlier debate will feature four GOP candidates who are not polling high enough to make it onto the main stage.
They are Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats cause cancer, World Health Organization declares. A research division of the World Health Organization announced Monday that bacon, sausage and other processed meats cause cancer and that red meat probably does, too.
The report by the influential group stakes out one of the most aggressive stances against meat taken by a major health organization, and it is expected to face stiff criticism in the United States.
The WHO findings were drafted by a panel of 22 international experts who reviewed decades of research on the link between red meat, processed meats and cancer. The panel reviewed animal experiments, studies of human diet and health, and cell processes that could explain how red meat might cause cancer.
But the panel’s decision was not unanimous, and by raising lethal concerns about a food that anchors countless American meals, it will be controversial.
The $95 billion U.S. beef industry has been preparing for months to mount a response, and some scientists, including some unaffiliated with the meat industry, have questioned whether the evidence is substantial enough to draw the strong conclusions that the WHO panel did.
In reaching its conclusion, the panel sought to quantify the risks, and compared to carcinogens such as cigarettes, the magnitude of the danger appears small, experts said. The WHO panel cited studies suggesting that an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent, according to the research cited.
“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” says Kurt Straif, an official with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which produced the report. “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”
About 34,000 cancer deaths a year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meats, according to figures cited by the panel.
The research into a possible link between eating red meat and cancer has been the subject of scientific debate for decades, with colorectal cancer being a long-standing area of concern. But by concluding that processed meat causes cancer, and that red meat “probably” causes cancer, the WHO findings go well beyond the tentative associations that some other groups have reported.
The American Cancer Society, for example, notes that many studies have found “a link” between eating red meat and heightened risks of colorectal cancer. But it stops short of telling people that the meats cause cancer. Some diets that have lots of vegetables and fruits and lesser amounts of red and processed meats have been associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, the American Cancer Society says, but “it’s not exactly clear” which factors of that diet are important.
Likewise, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the U.S. government’s advice compendium, encourage the consumption of protein-containing foods such as lean meats as part of a healthy diet. Regarding processed meats, though, the Dietary Guidelines offer a tentative warning: “Moderate evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats (e.g., franks, sausage, and bacon) and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.” The Dietary Guidelines do not assert that processed meats cause cancer.
Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is updating the Dietary Guidelines with the USDA, have not yet reviewed the WHO report, a spokesperson said.
For consumers, the WHO announcement offers scant practical advice even while casting aspersions over a wide array of foods. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton and goat. Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef and beef jerky — or any other meat that has been cured, smoked, salted or otherwise changed to enhance flavor or improve preservation.
How much of those is it safe to eat? The group doesn’t offer much guidance: “The data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.”
Should we be vegetarians? Again, the group does not hazard an answer.
And how exactly does red meat and processed meat cause cancer? The group names a handful of chemicals involved in cooking and processing meat, most of them nearly unpronounceable, and some believed to be carcinogenic.
“But despite the knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat,” the group wrote.
Despite the voids in the science, the WHO findings might cast a pall over diners and those who serve them.
At The Pig Restaurant on 14th Street NW in Washington, where the menu includes an array of pork products - kielbasa, prosciutto, pork cheek, etc - a worker sweeping the tables outside encouraged a reporter to look elsewhere for comments about cancer and red meat. Around the corner, outside the Whole Foods grocery, shoppers evinced a weary of fatalism regarding authoritative diet advice.
“It makes some sense,” said Nassrin Farzaneh, a development consultant, carrying a bag out of the store, said of the WHO finding on processed meat. “But they say one thing and then two or three years later they something that contradicts it. It goes on and on.”
“Everything causes cancer,” said Caroline Rourke, an energy policy analyst, also on her way out of the grocery. “Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?"
In recent years, meat consumption has been the target of multi-faceted social criticism, with debates erupting not just over its role on human health, but the impact of feedlots on the environment and on animal welfare. The public debate over the WHO’s findings will probably play out with political lobbying and in marketing messages for consumers.
An industry group, the North American Meat Institute, called the WHO report “dramatic and alarmist overreach,” and it mocked the panel’s previous work for approving a substance found in yoga pants and treating coffee, sunlight and wine as potential cancer hazards.
The WHO panel “says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A),” said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs for the group.
“We simply don’t think the evidence supports any causal link between any red meat and any type of cancer,” said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
But at its core, the issue revolves around science, and in particular the difficulty that arises whenever scientists try to link any food to a chronic disease.
Experiments to test whether a food causes cancer pose a massive logistical challenge: they require controlling the diets of thousands of test subjects over a course of many years. For example, one group might be assigned to eat lots of meat and another less, or none. But for a variety of reasons involving cost and finding test subjects, such experiments are rarely conducted, and scientists instead often use other less direct methods, known as epidemiological or observational studies, to draw their conclusions.
“I understand that people may be skeptical about this report on meat because the experimental data is not terribly strong,” said Paolo Boffetta, a professor of Tisch Cancer Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who has served on similar WHO panels. “But in this case the epidemiological evidence is very strong.”
Some scientists, however, have criticized the epidemiological studies for too often reaching “false positives,” that is, concluding that something causes cancer when it doesn’t.
“Is everything we eat associated with cancer?” asked a much noted 2012 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
That paper reviewed the academic studies conducted on common cookbook ingredients. Of the 50 ingredients considered, 40 had been studied for their relation to cancer. Individually, most of those studies found that consumption of the food was correlated with cancer. But when the research on any given ingredient was considered collectively, those effects typically shrank or disappeared.
“Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak,” the authors concluded.
Although epidemiological studies were critical in proving the dangers of cigarettes, the magnitude of the reported meat risk is much smaller, and it is hard for scientists to rule out statistical confounding as the cause of the apparent danger.
Moreover, some skeptics noted that two experiments that tested diets with reduced meat consumption, the Polyp Prevention Trial and the Women’s Health Initiative, found that people who reduced their meat intake did not appear to have a lower cancer risk. It is possible, though, that the reductions in animal flesh were too small to have an effect.
“It might be a good idea not to be an excessive consumer of meat,” said Jonathan Schoenfeld, the co-author of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article and an assistant professor in radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School. “But the effects of eating meat may be minimal, if anything.”
Regardless of it all on this annoying morning today, please stay in touch.
Tarantino joined hundreds of demonstrators on Saturday in Greenwich Village's Washington Square to march a few miles along Sixth Avenue as part of a series of demonstrations organized by the New York group RiseUpOctober over the past week. Speakers at the protest said they want justice for people killed by police.
According to the Associated Press, the protesters walked past lines of police officers who had cordoned off a lane of traffic for them. As they moved, those with megaphones shouted stories of the slain as others waved signs with photos of the dead, mostly young black men, and the dates and places of their deaths.
Tarantino told reporters he flew in from California for the protest to stand up for the victims of police shootings.
"I'm a human being with a conscience," he said. "And if you believe there's murder going on then you need to rise up and stand up against it. I'm here to say I'm on the side of the murdered."
The protest was peaceful and there were no arrests. But the demonstration happened in the wake of another shooting of a New York police officer: Randolph Holder was shot to death last week while chasing a bicycle thief. A suspect has been charged with murder and robbery in the case.
It was only the latest flashpoint in the tally of shootings all over the country (of citizens by police and police by citizens), and the increasingly bitter exchanges between police and African American activists over who is more victimized by the other.
"It's no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too," Lynch said in a statement posted on the union's website. "The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls 'murderers' aren't living in one of his depraved big screen fantasies — they're risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem.
"New Yorkers need to send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy that he has no business coming to our city to peddle his slanderous 'Cop Fiction.' It's time for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films."
A response from Tarantino was not immediately available.
But the city's top cop, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who doesn't fly off the handle as easily as Lynch, said Monday he feels as much contempt as Lynch about Tarantino suggesting cops are "murderers."
“Shame on him, particularly at this time, where we’re grieving the murder of a New York City police officer,” Bratton said during an interview on WNYM radio. “Basically, there are no words to describe the contempt I have for him and his comments.”
Although many of Tarantino's biggest hits — Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained — are indeed startlingly violent, he is considered an influential cinema auteur in Hollywood: He won Oscars for Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained.
His latest movie, The Hateful Eight, about bounty hunters in Wild West-era Wyoming, is due to open Christmas Day.
One of New York's pro-police tabloids, the New York Post, did not mince words about how it feels about Tarantino. Its front-page headline screamed "Disgrace" and featured a picture of a protester (not Tarantino) directing a rude gesture at a nearby police officer.
Donald Trump describes father's 'small loan': $1 million.
And, he evidently took a course at Wharton School of Business on 'Polling'. That is what he said today in the interview he did with the panel. I assume there are no classes that teach you polling but anyway, Donald Trump on Monday said his climb to the top of the business world hasn't been an easy one and depicted a $1 million loan from his father as "small."
"My whole life really has been a 'no' and I fought through it," Trump said Monday at an NBC-sponsored town hall here. "It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars."
Trump was answering a question from a Republican voter who asked him "with the exception of your family, have you ever been told no?"
Pressed further, Trump conceded that getting a million dollar loan from his father might seem easy to most people, but said "a million dollars isn't very much compared to what I've built."
Trump has built up a multi-billion dollar net worth, expanding his father's lucrative real estate business to new heights.
But while much of Trump's success is a credit to his work, he was born into a successful, wealthy family, inheriting part of his father's more than $200 million net worth.
Trump said even his father told him his plans to delve into the Manhattan real estate business -- away from the Trump family's projects mostly in Queens and Brooklyn -- were a bad idea.
Opinion: How much help Trump really got
"Even my father he said you don't want to go to Manhattan. That's not our territory," Trump said. Trump's campaign didn't respond to CNN's question about when his father gave him the $1 million loan -- though it appears to have happened before Trump entered the Manhattan real estate market in the early 1970s.
If Trump's father made the loan in 1968, the year his son graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, that $1 million would be worth $6.8 million in today's dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.
The median household income in 1968 was $7,700; today it's $53,675. The median home price then was $25,000; today it's $269,000.
Trump took questions from a dozen voters Monday in a basement room at the Atkinson Resort & Country Club. Trump explained his positions on everything from the war with ISIS and how he would handle Russia to illegal immigration and the economy.
Attendees -- a mix of Trump supporters and undecided voters -- appeared to approve of most of Trump's answers. Two voters pressed Trump further with follow-up questions, telling him that he had not answered their questions which asked about his specific plans to deal with undocumented immigrants and the economy.
On illegal immigration, Trump didn't explain exactly how he would deport the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S., simply pointing to his managerial skills.
Another voter pressed him on whether voters should simply believe that he will revive the economy based on his last name, or whether he has any specific plans to address economic challenges.
"I think they should," Trump said of voters electing him based on his name, adding that he would renegotiate trade deals involving the U.S. and bring jobs back.
"But how?" the 21-year-old college student and entrepreneur asked again.
Trump didn't get more specific beyond explaining that he plans to lower taxes and renegotiate trade deals.
Instead, Trump stressed the importance of "flexibility in dealmaking" and said there was no need for multi-point plans.
"It doesn't work that way because point two gets loused up and you have to go to a different point two," Trump said. "It doesn't mean anything."
There's a debate tomorrow? Did I hear that correctly just now? I guess there is one tomorrow night in Boulder (CO). The economy will be the prime topic when Republican presidential candidates gather for their latest debate Wednesday night.
The CNBC debate will happen in Boulder, Colorado. The main debate stage will be filled by Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
An earlier debate will feature four GOP candidates who are not polling high enough to make it onto the main stage.
They are Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats cause cancer, World Health Organization declares. A research division of the World Health Organization announced Monday that bacon, sausage and other processed meats cause cancer and that red meat probably does, too.
The report by the influential group stakes out one of the most aggressive stances against meat taken by a major health organization, and it is expected to face stiff criticism in the United States.
The WHO findings were drafted by a panel of 22 international experts who reviewed decades of research on the link between red meat, processed meats and cancer. The panel reviewed animal experiments, studies of human diet and health, and cell processes that could explain how red meat might cause cancer.
But the panel’s decision was not unanimous, and by raising lethal concerns about a food that anchors countless American meals, it will be controversial.
The $95 billion U.S. beef industry has been preparing for months to mount a response, and some scientists, including some unaffiliated with the meat industry, have questioned whether the evidence is substantial enough to draw the strong conclusions that the WHO panel did.
In reaching its conclusion, the panel sought to quantify the risks, and compared to carcinogens such as cigarettes, the magnitude of the danger appears small, experts said. The WHO panel cited studies suggesting that an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent, according to the research cited.
“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” says Kurt Straif, an official with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which produced the report. “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”
About 34,000 cancer deaths a year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meats, according to figures cited by the panel.
The research into a possible link between eating red meat and cancer has been the subject of scientific debate for decades, with colorectal cancer being a long-standing area of concern. But by concluding that processed meat causes cancer, and that red meat “probably” causes cancer, the WHO findings go well beyond the tentative associations that some other groups have reported.
The American Cancer Society, for example, notes that many studies have found “a link” between eating red meat and heightened risks of colorectal cancer. But it stops short of telling people that the meats cause cancer. Some diets that have lots of vegetables and fruits and lesser amounts of red and processed meats have been associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, the American Cancer Society says, but “it’s not exactly clear” which factors of that diet are important.
Likewise, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the U.S. government’s advice compendium, encourage the consumption of protein-containing foods such as lean meats as part of a healthy diet. Regarding processed meats, though, the Dietary Guidelines offer a tentative warning: “Moderate evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats (e.g., franks, sausage, and bacon) and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.” The Dietary Guidelines do not assert that processed meats cause cancer.
Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is updating the Dietary Guidelines with the USDA, have not yet reviewed the WHO report, a spokesperson said.
For consumers, the WHO announcement offers scant practical advice even while casting aspersions over a wide array of foods. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton and goat. Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef and beef jerky — or any other meat that has been cured, smoked, salted or otherwise changed to enhance flavor or improve preservation.
How much of those is it safe to eat? The group doesn’t offer much guidance: “The data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.”
Should we be vegetarians? Again, the group does not hazard an answer.
And how exactly does red meat and processed meat cause cancer? The group names a handful of chemicals involved in cooking and processing meat, most of them nearly unpronounceable, and some believed to be carcinogenic.
“But despite the knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat,” the group wrote.
Despite the voids in the science, the WHO findings might cast a pall over diners and those who serve them.
At The Pig Restaurant on 14th Street NW in Washington, where the menu includes an array of pork products - kielbasa, prosciutto, pork cheek, etc - a worker sweeping the tables outside encouraged a reporter to look elsewhere for comments about cancer and red meat. Around the corner, outside the Whole Foods grocery, shoppers evinced a weary of fatalism regarding authoritative diet advice.
“It makes some sense,” said Nassrin Farzaneh, a development consultant, carrying a bag out of the store, said of the WHO finding on processed meat. “But they say one thing and then two or three years later they something that contradicts it. It goes on and on.”
“Everything causes cancer,” said Caroline Rourke, an energy policy analyst, also on her way out of the grocery. “Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?"
In recent years, meat consumption has been the target of multi-faceted social criticism, with debates erupting not just over its role on human health, but the impact of feedlots on the environment and on animal welfare. The public debate over the WHO’s findings will probably play out with political lobbying and in marketing messages for consumers.
An industry group, the North American Meat Institute, called the WHO report “dramatic and alarmist overreach,” and it mocked the panel’s previous work for approving a substance found in yoga pants and treating coffee, sunlight and wine as potential cancer hazards.
The WHO panel “says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A),” said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs for the group.
“We simply don’t think the evidence supports any causal link between any red meat and any type of cancer,” said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
But at its core, the issue revolves around science, and in particular the difficulty that arises whenever scientists try to link any food to a chronic disease.
Experiments to test whether a food causes cancer pose a massive logistical challenge: they require controlling the diets of thousands of test subjects over a course of many years. For example, one group might be assigned to eat lots of meat and another less, or none. But for a variety of reasons involving cost and finding test subjects, such experiments are rarely conducted, and scientists instead often use other less direct methods, known as epidemiological or observational studies, to draw their conclusions.
“I understand that people may be skeptical about this report on meat because the experimental data is not terribly strong,” said Paolo Boffetta, a professor of Tisch Cancer Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who has served on similar WHO panels. “But in this case the epidemiological evidence is very strong.”
Some scientists, however, have criticized the epidemiological studies for too often reaching “false positives,” that is, concluding that something causes cancer when it doesn’t.
“Is everything we eat associated with cancer?” asked a much noted 2012 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
That paper reviewed the academic studies conducted on common cookbook ingredients. Of the 50 ingredients considered, 40 had been studied for their relation to cancer. Individually, most of those studies found that consumption of the food was correlated with cancer. But when the research on any given ingredient was considered collectively, those effects typically shrank or disappeared.
“Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak,” the authors concluded.
Although epidemiological studies were critical in proving the dangers of cigarettes, the magnitude of the reported meat risk is much smaller, and it is hard for scientists to rule out statistical confounding as the cause of the apparent danger.
Moreover, some skeptics noted that two experiments that tested diets with reduced meat consumption, the Polyp Prevention Trial and the Women’s Health Initiative, found that people who reduced their meat intake did not appear to have a lower cancer risk. It is possible, though, that the reductions in animal flesh were too small to have an effect.
“It might be a good idea not to be an excessive consumer of meat,” said Jonathan Schoenfeld, the co-author of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article and an assistant professor in radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School. “But the effects of eating meat may be minimal, if anything.”
Regardless of it all on this annoying morning today, please stay in touch.
