Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
[WHO says hot dogs, bacon cause cancer. Does this mean we should all become vegetarians?]
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.
[95 percent of the world's people may be wrong about salt]
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?"
[Another food to worry about? Honey not as healthy as we think.]
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.”
[Why the Bureau of Prisons stripped pork from the menu for federal inmates]
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.”
Eh, Carcinogens are fairly common in modern society. Just practice moderation and you should be fine.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Meh, studies seem to find everything causes it from water, to air. Food, sunlight, the list goes on.
Live ye life, and enjoy it in moderation.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Then we have the abomination that is vegan fake bacon.
Dark forces insdeed stalk the supermarkets of the free world.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Crazy Dave: YOU FOUND MY BACON!!!!
Me: I'm glad I did. It causes cancer.
Crazy Dave: I'll still eat it. Why? Because I'm CRAAAAZY!!!!
My personal reaction: As I rarely eat bacon, I have very little positive nor negative reaction to this. Bacon lovers, however, need to watch out.
INSANE army lists still available!!!! Now being written in 8th edition format! I have Index Imperium 1, Index Imperium 2, Index Xenos 2, Codex Orks Codex Tyranids, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Marines!
PM me for an INSANE (100K+ points) if you desire.
Yeah, there's some downright dodgy reporting going on over this.
They haven't said that bacon causes cancer. They've said that people who eat bacon are at increased risk of cancer.
Those two things are not synonymous.
People who own convertibles have an increased risk of skin cnacer on their heads compared to people who own a car with a roof. That doesn't mean that convertibles cause cancer.
Plus, it's likely not the bacon, but the perservatives that food companies tend to load up on when they make bacon. Same thing with the other highly processed meats they mention. It's not the fact that it's meat, it's the fact that the preperation process puts tons of crap into the food, and that crap is bad for you.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, there's some downright dodgy reporting going on over this.
They haven't said that bacon causes cancer. They've said that people who eat bacon are at increased risk of cancer.
Those two things are not synonymous.
People who own convertibles have an increased risk of skin cnacer on their heads compared to people who own a car with a roof. That doesn't mean that convertibles cause cancer.
Most of science is pretty boring when you realize that the vast majority of studies are really just "if x, then sometimes y, but sometimes z, and we don't know why either one happens, but sometimes it does, but we can't say that x has anything to do with it."
Everything increases the risk of cancer. I eat bacon about once or twice a month. I have no desire to stop completely. I think my Kickstart Mt. Dew is more likely to increase cancer chances.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
I only get to live once. I will willingly die a delicious death. That includes occasionally eating things like beacon, red meat, chicken wings, more red meat, baby back ribs, excessive amounts of chocolate, still more red meat, all my favourite Italian cold cuts, pizza, and yes, yet more red meat!
Oh, and beaver tails, but those can actually kill you if you're not careful...
DarkLink wrote: Plus, it's likely not the bacon, but the perservatives that food companies tend to load up on when they make bacon. Same thing with the other highly processed meats they mention. It's not the fact that it's meat, it's the fact that the preperation process puts tons of crap into the food, and that crap is bad for you.
Yes and no. Eating red meat is also listed as an increased risk factor.
It only makes sense think about it water has cancer causing ele's in it. Food drinks water weather it is grass or meat. So they get it in them and we eat them. One day people will see if you piss in the bush some day when you eat the bush you get piss in your mouth.
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
We know what causes cancer; a failure to remove free radicals from cells, resulting in mutation. We know that antioxidants are necessary to assist the body in removing said free radicals. Processed meats have a high salt content, and therefore the diuretic effect reduces the bodies ability to remove them. So, if you want a bacon sandwich, but don't want to increase the likelihood of cancer, just drink an extra glass of water to counter this effect. Or have some dark chocolate.
DarkLink wrote: Plus, it's likely not the bacon, but the perservatives that food companies tend to load up on when they make bacon. Same thing with the other highly processed meats they mention. It's not the fact that it's meat, it's the fact that the preperation process puts tons of crap into the food, and that crap is bad for you.
Yes and no. Eating red meat is also listed as an increased risk factor.
Yeah, because red meats tend to be processed (hamburger and sausage is often grouped together with steak and the like, even though they are very, very different nutritionally due to additives and preperation), and because red meats have a false social stigma of being unhealthy so you have an unintended bias where health conscious people avoid red meats, but the guy who guzzles beer and smokes cigars eats nothing but hamburgers and steak. Plus, because of the way a lot of farm animals are raised (corn fed and very seditary lives), their body fat becomes highly concentrated with omega-6 fatty acids and lack the usual ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids. This contributes to the general widespread lack of omega 3 fatty acids in western diets, and is also linked to increased cancer rates.
Basically, nutrition gets kinda complicated. That's why, as you yourself said earlier, "causes" and "increased risk" are not the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 01:24:54
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
To answer the question everyone is thinking: I don't like meat. I've got nothing against meat eaters, or the practice of animal slaughter. I just don't like how it tastes. Or the texture. Or really anything except the smell. There all done
I've yet to see a study that shows being vegan makes you immortal, no matter what we eat we all still die. I'd rather enjoy my food and die a few years younger than eat stuff everyday that tastes like cardboard.
However I do agree that moderation is probably a good idea, as all things done in excess tend to bring on problems.
Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
paulson games wrote: I've yet to see a study that shows being vegan makes you immortal.
Indeed. It also just doesn't make sense. You're basically deciding to voluntarily ditch the best source of one of the most vital nutrients. Its really a symptom of an overly privileged society.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It's a shame to find that something so simple and enjoyable as food could potentially be harmful. Also that costs mean a lot of people cannot pick to avoid processed meats.
I am mostly vegetarian. But I can't hack it 100%, made a balanced meal plan (all the vitals accounted for and replaced) dropped meat, and I was very very ill within days. Headaches, cramps, sensation of impending doom/death. I don't know what I was having withdrawal from, but it was vile. So kudos to those who manage.
Though honestly, I am not against people eating meat, I was against the type of meat I could afford. Little white lumps and pink lumps that may as well not have been animal to begin with by the time they were ingested. Well raised and well respected meat, I'm okay with.
These days I mostly live on fish, because it's cheap, delicious, and I can get a lot more of it than the equivalent cost in meat. No doubt there's a billion things that causes too.
If it no longer tastes, feels or is in any other way recognisable as meat, I figure it's both a rip off and I shouldn't be paying that company, and probably a direct product of cheaper farming methods. It's a fair indication of the care that went into the rest of the product...
I have seen pet food more recognisable in content than some ready meals or frozen ones. I've eaten modern Quorn with better texture. So it's also about the respect of the consumer.
I guess I'm not a militant vegetarian, I'm more of a fairness appreciator.
Buttery Commissar wrote: If it no longer tastes, feels or is in any other way recognisable as meat, I figure it's both a rip off and I shouldn't be paying that company, and probably a direct product of cheaper farming methods. It's a fair indication of the care that went into the rest of the product...
I have seen pet food more recognisable in content than some ready meals or frozen ones. I've eaten modern Quorn with better texture. So it's also about the respect of the consumer.
I guess I'm not a militant vegetarian, I'm more of a fairness appreciator.
Steady there buddy! The existence of processed meat has nothing to do with farmers or the methods they employ. Farmers breed animals for whole cuts of meat, all their efforts are focused on this. There is no money in producing poor carcasses smothered in fat. All animals are graded within the EU to make sure they achieve carcass muscle to fat ratios. Processed meat appears as a time honoured tradition on behalf of the processor who buys the animal and extracts the maximum amount from it. In days gone by after the whole cuts had been removed the remainder was removed with boning knives and the rest literally grown to the dogs. Now processes have improved and the processors can remove pretty much everything. Here lies part of your problem. Some bits just shouldn't be eaten.
If you are suggesting that there are somehow contaminants in the animal as a result of some farming process I would love to know what they are? The UK has some of the strictest farming guidelines in the world, something many UK farmers are rightly proud of. Yet we import cheap meat from around the world which weakens the overall integrity of the food industry. Practices such as routine steroid implantation in cattle has been outlawed in the UK for decades but remains common practice in the USA amoungst others. Steriods as we know have health risks. If in doubt buy British, look out for that little red tractor logo!
I have thought for years that processed and red meat was a cancer risk, but it didn't stop me eating it.
The report said that eating some red meat with lots of veggies actually reduced the risk of cancer. Also no-one has been able to find a causative mechanism.
Frankly, you have to die of something, and there are many lifestyle factors that affect health, as well as genetic factors being very important for cancer.