WHO says processed meat causes cancer

[Fire Me Boy!]

http://www.aicr.org/press/press-rele...nd-Cancer.html

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), the nation’s leading cancer research organization focusing on the role of diet, weight and physical activity on cancer risk and survival, welcomes a new report from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Today’s report supports AICR’s analysis of the research on red and processed meat’s role in increasing colorectal cancer risk.

The new IARC report places processed meats (hot dogs, bacon, ham, sausage, cold cuts) in Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans, the same category as cigarettes. Red meat (beef, pork, lamb) is assigned to Group 2A: Probably Carcinogenic to Humans.

AICR strongly supports the International Agency for Research on Cancer's report classifying red and processed meats as carcinogens, and we hope it will spread the message that what we eat plays a role in cancer risk.

More at the link.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I think the "shocking" (if you can call it that) thing here is that they classified it on par with cigarettes. That's a pretty substantial move.

When does the USDA start packing cold cuts with a cancer warning?

That's incorrect.

The classification of processed meat as a carcinogen indicates that such a product is capable of causing cancer, but it does not measure the likelihood, or risk, that one will develop cancer after being exposed to processed meat.

It also does not mean that processed meat consumption carries the same level of risk as smoking or asbestos, which are both in the same category as that of processed meat. Rather, it means that both are regarded as cancer-causing substances.

"The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk," the IARC said in an online FAQ document.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I've never heard about red meat causing cancer.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's incorrect.

YOU'RE incorrect.

I misspoke, I shouldn't have said "on par." But they did classify it at the same level of cigarettes, Group 1.

The new IARC report places processed meats (hot dogs, bacon, ham, sausage, cold cuts) in Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans, the same category as cigarettes.

But the classification doesn't mean they're as bad as cigarettes.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

YOU'RE incorrect.

I misspoke, I shouldn't have said "on par." But they did classify it at the same level of cigarettes, Group 1.



But the classification doesn't mean they're as bad as cigarettes.

What you said was incorrect. That's why you admit you shouldn't have said what you did. You shouldn't have said "On par", because it's actually not "On par." The group classification is meaningless with regards to any type of comparison with others in the group. Because it doesn't assess any level of risk at all.

[Archie F. Swin]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

What doesn't cause cancer.

Wade Davis

[Just Passin' By]

**** the WHO

[Eleazar]

This isn't really 'new' news. The case has been built for a long time about processed meats like bacon and hot dogs and sausage. The red meat part is mostly the same, nobody really seems to doubt anymore that red meat is carcinogenic, but the risks associated to it is made worse when grilled or smoked.

For myself, I rarely eat red meat anymore except for some occasion or as an exception. I mostly eat poultry and fish now, which has been hard for me since I really don't like fish at all.

I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation. Marketing has a lot to do with it, look what the viral marketing around bacon has done in the last several years. Maybe we should just find better hobbies than eating..?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

But to be fair, you pretty consistently ignore science.

No I don't ignore science. Not to mention your stating it as a sweeping generality.* I just follow natural science over govt associated science that protects vested interests. Scientists disagree on things especially nutrition.

WHO is govt related. Govt screws things up more than they don't.

* I recall you defended my not putting stuffing inside a turkey to cook for scientific reasons. So yes, you are over generalizing.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

**** the WHO

Yep!

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cochise

This isn't really 'new' news. The case has been built for a long time about processed meats like bacon and hot dogs and sausage. The red meat part is mostly the same, nobody really seems to doubt anymore that red meat is carcinogenic, but the risks associated to it is made worse when grilled or smoked.

For myself, I rarely eat red meat anymore except for some occasion or as an exception. I mostly eat poultry and fish now, which has been hard for me since I really don't like fish at all.

I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation. Marketing has a lot to do with it, look what the viral marketing around bacon has done in the last several years. Maybe we should just find better hobbies than eating..?

Red meat is not carcinogenic in and of itself. It is actually good for you and contains B12. Not all metabolic types do well on it as a key part of their diet but many do, particularly Type O blood.

Wehn I have gone on a no red meat kick I wound up with B12 anemia. It was fatiguing me.

[ptlyon]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=295616

[Eleazar]

I think another problem is that most of the healthy eating information on the web tends toward cranky conspiracy theory nonsense. You have too much of the GMO kookery and anti vaccination kookery and idiots like the food babe out there confusing people. You have to dig to find well curated, sensible information.

If you are interested in reading something level headed and well grounded, a friend of mine in the medical profession recommended http://www.drweil.com to me. I've been reading it for a year or two and it's a good resource from someone who's qualified and without all the tripe you usually find on healthy eating sites

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Fish

What you said was incorrect. That's why you admit you shouldn't have said what you did. You shouldn't have said "On par", because it's actually not "On par." The group classification is meaningless with regards to any type of comparison with others in the group. Because it doesn't assess any level of risk at all.

When I said "on par" the intention was that it was the same level, which it is.

Stop being an ass.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I think another problem is that most of the healthy eating information on the web tends toward cranky conspiracy theory nonsense. You have too much of the GMO kookery and anti vaccination kookery and idiots like the food babe out there confusing people. You have to dig to find well curated, sensible information.

As if that material has only ever been on the web. It's been out there long before. The rest is just your uninformed opinion using your usual shilling device of "conspiracy theory" when crony capitalism is known to exist and it's not a BIG secret combined with the commission of a crime. Learn the definition of "conspiracy." It's not different that the idea that ACA benefits the insurance industry by creating a gauranteed larger market for them.

If you are interested in reading something level headed and well grounded, a friend of mine in the medical profession recommended http://www.drweil.com to me. I've been reading it for a year or two and it's a good resource from someone who's qualified and without all the tripe you usually find on healthy eating sites

The medical profession for nutrition? You've got to be kidding me. They're barely trained in it. They're role is to treat pathology more.


Such a radical idea to eat a balance of good proteins, carbs and fats with lots of colored fruits and veggies with a good portion being raw and using good healthy oils. I also do not buy that saturated fat is bad for you. You need some. The theories on cholesterol being related to heart disease is currently being updated too. Only the medical profession is usually behind.