WHO: Processed meat linked to cancer; red meat is risky too

[attrayant]

Always comes down to getting the source as natural as possible, be it veges or meat.

An appeal to the naturalistic fallacy is about as unhelpful as the IARC report in the OP. Maybe even more so.

[robblok]

Always comes down to getting the source as natural as possible, be it veges or meat.

An appeal to the naturalistic fallacy is about as unhelpful as the IARC report in the OP. Maybe even more so.

How is eating as much unprocessed foods as possible unhelpful. Even this report acknowledges that the more processed foods (bacon, sausages) are worse as the unprocessed version (minced meat). Actually almost all unprocessed foods are better as their processed counterparts.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

does pumping toxins and poisons into our air and water have a negative affect as well?

[JHolmesJr]

Impossible to know who to believe….both sides pay lobbyists and PR companies to tell they side of the story.

I eat fish and, occasionally, chicken...in extreme moderation (once every week or two)...and will continue to do so as I figure that is harmless.

One thing I haven't touched in 15 years…sausages, bacon, salami, ham (god I do miss prosciutto) and any other processed meat.

[Merzik]

More deeply flawed junk science from the leftist WHO which would love to put you on a "planet-friendly" vegan diet:

" 1) Where this data comes from

The gold standard of evidence is a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials pooling together studies where an intervention was matched against a control group to see what impact A had on B. As far as I am aware, no intervention studies have ever been done testing the impact of 50 grams of processed meat per day as an isolated intervention, or any amount of processed or red meat as a sole intervention for that matter.

We are thus looking at observational studies. This is where a large group of people (e.g. the Nurses Health Study or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study) are asked loads of questions and given health tests (blood pressure, weight, height, cholesterol ho ho etc) at the start of the study. This is called the baseline. These people are then followed for years to see what conditions they go on to develop.

Researchers then look at the data to try to see patterns. No pattern = no journal article, so look hard! They may observe a pattern between people who consume processed meat and people who go on to develop bowel cancer. This is then reported in a journal article and it is all such articles that have been reviewed by the World Health Organisation.

The first point to make, therefore, is that all of this is based on notoriously unreliable dietary questionnaires. Many ask what you ate yesterday or over the past 7 days. Heres the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer questionnaire, one of the best possible questionnaires, as it asks for food intake over the past year. How accurate do you think yours would be?

2) Ones diet vs. one food

By singling out red meat/processed meat in this way, the whole diet and lifestyle of a person is not taken into account. There is a world of difference between the health of a burger/hot-dog/ketchup/white bun/fizzy drink guzzling couch potato and a grass-fed-steak eating/CrossFit/six-pack Paleo specimen.

As I showed in this blog, the baseline for the processed meat eaters showed that they were far less active, had a higher BMI, were THREE TIMES more likely to smoke and almost TWICE as likely to have diabetes. This makes processed meat a MARKER of an unhealthy person, not a MAKER of an unhealthy person.

Even if all the smoking/exercise/other conditions baseline factors are adjusted for, there is no possibility of adjusting for all the dietary factors that make up the couch potato vs. the Paleo buff. The whole diet is not adjusted for when the one line (meat) is targeted.

3) Real food vs. processed food

Im a real foodie. I pretty much spend my life writing and talking about real food and the nutrition it contains. I am the first to say Do eat real food; dont eat processed food and I include processed meat as processed food something to avoid. However, this WHO report describes processed meat as meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.

As Peter Cleave, Surgeon Captain, (1906-1983) said: For a modern disease to be related to an old fashioned food is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard in my life. To think that real meat, or meat preserved in natural ways, is bad for us is ludicrous. 1) Youd have to explain how we survived the past 3.5 million years, since Australopithecus Lucy first walked upright; especially how we survived the ice age(s). 2) Youd have to explain why all the nutrients we need to live (essential fats, complete protein, vitamins and minerals) are found in meat if it were trying to kill us at the same time.

Meat needed to be naturally preserved with salting, curing, drying, smoking etc or we would have needed to binge on the kill and risk dying of starvation before the next kill. The WHO report should have separated traditional ways of preserving meat from modern manufactured processing (where sugars and chemicals are added just read the label). Similarly if there is any harm in red meat, it will be because manufacturers have got involved and fed the poor animals grains, which they cannot digest and then pumped them with drugs to medicate the resulting illness. (Chris Kresser presents the view on nitrates here, if youre interested).

This should be a call to action to get back to your butcher, know him/her by name, know where your meat comes from, know how s/he prepares bacon & hand-made sausages and enjoy the health benefits of real food while supporting the grafters who provide it.

4) Association vs. causation...."

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Edited October 27, 2015 by Merzik

[Jingthing]

I didn't find this news very fresh. We've known about the health risks of red meat especially processed red meat for many years now. Good idea to limit consumption of them.

[Berkshire]

What I don't get is this: We live much longer today than our ancestors centuries ago and there were no processed foods back then. Why is that???

[robblok]

What I don't get is this: We live much longer today than our ancestors centuries ago and there were no processed foods back then. Why is that???

Healthcare advances, plus abundance in food less wars and other stuff.

[Jingthing]

What I don't get is this: We live much longer today than our ancestors centuries ago and there were no processed foods back then. Why is that???

Mostly because of running water.

[MaeJoMTB]

Does anyone really believe these jokers?

These guys have an AGENDA!

[Merzik]

Red meat is not bad for your health; especially if it is traditionally raised grass-fed meat. It is higher in healthy omega 3 fats than white meat ( even grain-fed is; but especially grass-fed) and meat contains many important nutients you can't get from a vegan diet. Humans evolved over billions of years as omnivores which included meat and animal products in their diets. Avoiding red meat makes no sense at all.

http://paleoleap.com/vegetarianism-bad-emnvironment/

[h90]

Newsflash: Being alive can cause cancer

breathing can cause cancer

[attrayant]

Always comes down to getting the source as natural as possible, be it veges or meat.

An appeal to the naturalistic fallacy is about as unhelpful as the IARC report in the OP. Maybe even more so.

How is eating as much unprocessed foods as possible unhelpful. Even this report acknowledges that the more processed foods (bacon, sausages) are worse as the unprocessed version (minced meat). Actually almost all unprocessed foods are better as their processed counterparts.

Had you phrased it with those qualifiers, it would not have raised my hackles. The current popular use of the phrase "all natural" has become something of a marketing gimmick and it gets on my nerves. "As natural as possible" is perhaps a sloppy way to phrase it, and it does not necessarily equal "as unprocessed as possible". Some amount of processing is beneficial (cooking, sterilizing, canning, using modern techniques to reduce carcass waste, etc.), while there are plenty of "all natural" things that are inedible or downright lethal. "Processed" is a loaded term and often comes with a lot of undeserved baggage. It smacks of that crazy "paleo" fad that's been going around lately.

An occasional wander to the dark side isn't going to kill anyone.

Edited October 27, 2015 by attrayant

[robblok]

Always comes down to getting the source as natural as possible, be it veges or meat.

An appeal to the naturalistic fallacy is about as unhelpful as the IARC report in the OP. Maybe even more so.

How is eating as much unprocessed foods as possible unhelpful. Even this report acknowledges that the more processed foods (bacon, sausages) are worse as the unprocessed version (minced meat). Actually almost all unprocessed foods are better as their processed counterparts.

Had you phrased it with those qualifiers, it would not have raised my hackles. The current popular use of the phrase "all natural" has become something of a marketing gimmick and it gets on my nerves. "As natural as possible" is perhaps a sloppy way to phrase it, and it does not necessarily equal "as unprocessed as possible". Some amount of processing is beneficial (cooking, sterilizing, canning, using modern techniques to reduce carcass waste, etc.), while there are plenty of "all natural" things that are inedible or downright lethal. "Processed" is a loaded term and often comes with a lot of undeserved baggage.

An occasional wander to the dark side isn't going to kill anyone.

Of course things need to be processed a bit cooking and stuff but the moment you let the big companies prepare your good often bad stuff is in there. Anyway I feel preparing your own food is better and or course eating bad does not kill you. Its all about the balance.

[partington]

The whole point of this study is that the absolute risks of processed meat and red meat for cancer are very small. They always quote relative risk, which is misleading and does not help the general public at all.

For example, a relative risk would be: "eating an ice cream doubles your risk of being attacked by a shark." The evidence could be very strong indeed, but if your absolute lifetime risk of being attacked by a shark is 1 in 100,000, and eating an ice cream doubles that risk to 1 in 50,000, it does not matter at all even if the evidence is ironclad, because your risk is still so low that it is not worth bothering about.

Absolute risk is how likely you are to get the disease; obviously for, say, bowel cancer your risk is going to vary according to age , geographical area, lifestyle and so on. The BBC site has a very good analysis of this for UK residents.

The lifetime risk for bowel cancer in the UK is 6 people in every 100 (this is higher than I thought actually!). The evidence quoted in the study says that eating 50g of processed meat a day or above increases your relative risk by 18%. 18% of 6 is approximately 1, so what this means is that if you are an eater of processed meat, your absolute risk of getting bowel cancer rises to 7 in 100 from 6 in 100.

Even if this is absolutely correct, and the evidence is watertight, you can still decide that this increase in absolute risk is too small to matter to you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

Edited October 27, 2015 by partington

[Berkshire]

What I don't get is this: We live much longer today than our ancestors centuries ago and there were no processed foods back then. Why is that???

Healthcare advances, plus abundance in food less wars and other stuff.

I get that (and the running water that JT pointed out). But if these evil processed foods are as bad as some people say, you would think it would have a major impact on our life expectancy. But it hasn't. As for healthcare advances, I never go to the doctor (well, rarely), not taking any medication, not getting any sort of treatment....so I'm not getting any of that. And I eat some of the most unhealthy foods known to man. Yet, I'm as fit as can be....mostly through exercise I think. And perhaps a healthy sex life. 55555, that must be it!

[nidieunimaitre]

What I don't get is this: We live much longer today than our ancestors centuries ago and there were no processed foods back then. Why is that???

Healthcare advances, plus abundance in food less wars and other stuff.

I get that (and the running water that JT pointed out). But if these evil processed foods are as bad as some people say, you would think it would have a major impact on our life expectancy. But it hasn't. As for healthcare advances, I never go to the doctor (well, rarely), not taking any medication, not getting any sort of treatment....so I'm not getting any of that. And I eat some of the most unhealthy foods known to man. Yet, I'm as fit as can be....mostly through exercise I think. And perhaps a healthy sex life. 55555, that must be it!

From a very recent & very scientific study:

"Rosy glasses affect mental and physical wellbeing of wearer but do not reduce wearer's life expectancy enough to satisfy regular TV posters."

[attrayant]

Here's a great short but succinct video that explains how the IARC arrives at their carcinogen classifications, and what those classifications really mean. (hint: standing alone, not much)

http://grist.org/science/watch-stick-figures-explain-what-probably-causes-cancer-even-means/

Also available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/CbBkB81ySxQ

Edited October 27, 2015 by attrayant

[phuketruski]

typical fear mongering western crap telling us we should and shouldnt do.

[nidieunimaitre]

typical fear mongering western crap telling us we should and shouldnt do.

Yeah, 300 baht should do the trick.

[manarak]

What's especially interesting are the paranoid chemiphobes

"paranoid chemiphobes"

with your permission, i'll re-use that, maybe I'll make it "chemiophobes"

[MaeJoMTB]

Where there you have it; virtually everything a human can consume can now cause cancer.

I think we should all give up, stop eating and just die and get it over with.

No, more so foods that big agriculture modifies or poisons in one way or another. Paleo diets include meat but not modified or full of glycophosphate & hormones etc.

Always comes down to getting the source as natural as possible, be it veges or meat.

Unless you grow it yourself ........ how would you know.

[Merzik]

Red and processed meat do cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc. so just eat delicious fruit and vegetables and live longer.

Sound advice.....if you are a bunny rabbit.

Humans evolved as omnivors over billions of years as hunters and gatherers eating meat, eggs, bone marrow as well as veggies, nuts, seeds and fruit. This is primarily what we should be eating. A diet based only on plants is nutrient deficient for humans; as we are not hebivores. Heart disease, cancer and obesity from our diet comes primarily from high sugar diets ( which includes grains) and using the wrong cooking oils. Good quality red meat is a healthy and nutrient dense food.

Red Meat: It Does a Body Good!

by CHRIS KRESSER

http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-it-does-a-body-good/

Edited October 27, 2015 by Merzik

[partington]

Red and processed meat do cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc. so just eat delicious fruit and vegetables and live longer.

Sound advice.....if you are a bunny rabbit.

Humans evolved as omnivors over billions of years as hunters and gatherers eating meat, eggs, bone marrow as well as veggies, nuts, seeds and fruit. This is primarily what we should be eating. A diet based only on plants is nutrient deficient for humans; as we are not hebivores. Heart disease, cancer and obesity from our diet comes primarily from high sugar diets ( which includes grains) and using the wrong cooking oils. Good quality red meat is a healthy and nutrient dense food.

Red Meat: It Does a Body Good!

by CHRIS KRESSER

http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-it-does-a-body-good/

You are mistaken about human evolution: you mean "millions" of years, not "billions", unless you are including trilobites on the your evolutionary path to humans!

Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have had their last common ancestor between 7 and 13 million years ago, and so modern humans are unlikely to have evolved much more than 2 to 4 million years ago, and probably less than that (a 1000-fold less time than you apparently think).

Moreover, quoting that notorious quack ( the non-medically, non-scientifically qualified "diploma in acupuncture" Chris Kresser ) unfortunately shows you do not know how to distinguish real from pseudo- science.

[chiang mai]

Those who quote or reference CHRIS KRESSER should be ignored, simple as that.

[attrayant]

What's especially interesting are the paranoid chemiphobes

"paranoid chemiphobes"

with your permission, i'll re-use that, maybe I'll make it "chemiophobes"

After looking it up, apparently the correct spelling is chemophobia (irrational distrust or fear of chemicals). I initially considered that spelling but rejected it because it sounded too much like fear of chemotherapy. "Chemiophobia" might be the Italian spelling since "chemio" is roughly equal to "medicinal chemical" in Italian. Chemioterapia = chemotherapy.

[Jingthing]

Imagine the reaction here if the study concluded that bacon increases life span.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[puukao]

I am sure they are the smartest of the smart.....they tell me drink coffee, i do...then not, i don't....more water, ok, less water, ok...pomegranates....ok, whatever they say..

i have so much anxiety i now take 2983742389 pills .....

i've run about 5 marathons while eating "bad" and now i get hurt rather easily while only eating carrots and beans...

this life is sooo cruel???

where can i send all my money, as i am sure that is next....

[ronz28]

So many big lies industry publishes to promote their products that its confusing to the public to know what to do. For example, BMJ just retracted one by the author of The Big Fat Surprise... http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/26/9616122/bmj-nina-teicholz-dietary-guidelines-correction-investigation

I just add a little Mesquite BBQ sauce to my Veggies and life is good.

[manarak]

What's especially interesting are the paranoid chemiphobes

"paranoid chemiphobes"

with your permission, i'll re-use that, maybe I'll make it "chemiophobes"

After looking it up, apparently the correct spelling is chemophobia (irrational distrust or fear of chemicals). I initially considered that spelling but rejected it because it sounded too much like fear of chemotherapy. "Chemiophobia" might be the Italian spelling since "chemio" is roughly equal to "medicinal chemical" in Italian. Chemioterapia = chemotherapy.

chemophobe it is, then.