'We're not alarmist." WHO defends meat cancer report

[webfact]

"We're not alarmist." WHO defends meat cancer report
By Adrian Lancashire | With SANDRINE DELORME

GENEVA: -- A gust of panic over the food we eat blew across Europe with the release on Monday of a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The agency placed red meat officially in the category of substances that probably cause cancers in people, and processed meats as cancer-causing.

We asked the World Health Organisation’s Doctor Kurt Straif about the report. In Lyon, France, working with around 20 colleagues, Straif’s research focus is on occupational and environmental risk factors for cancer.

Sandrine Delorme, euronews: “In what way do red meat and processed meats raise cancer risks? And which cancers are we talking about?”

Straif: “Processed meats were evaluated as belonging in Group 1, where we know there is a link with cancer in humans, especially colorectal cancer. In the case of red meat, its evaluation puts it in Group 2A, meaning a cancer-causing probability. Its indications were not as strong although there were clear indications that there is a link to colon cancer.”

The IARC identifies health hazards in five groups: carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, not classifiable, and probably not carcinogenic.

euronews: “What level of meat consumption will raise our risk of getting cancer?”

Straif: “There was an approximately 18% increase in risk for every 50 gram portion of processed meats eaten daily. The risk is not as strong as from tobacco. Smoking is clearly linked to around 20 different cancers. Other risks are from exposure to asbestos or air pollution, for example.”

euronews: “France’s Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Fol has said, “I don’t want a report like this spreading panic among people.” Hasn’t the Cancer Research Agency (IARC) been quite alarmist with this report?”

Straif: “No, I don’t believe we are alarmist at all. We [the IARC research scientists] state clearly what we have evaluated and of course we have also quantified the risk. From that, it’s up the government [policy makers] or individuals to decide what to do with the information. It’s rather others that are alarmist, but we’re not.”

Hazard Group 1 includes cigarettes, alcohol and even sunlight. Risks involve multiple factors.

At a market in Lyon, we asked some shoppers if they feel what they eat is dangerous.

One woman told us: “No, and to prove it I’m still here. I’m 88!”

So for salted, cured or smoked meat lovers, what to do?

euronews: “Dr Straif, what’s your expert advice to avoid getting cancer?”

Straif: “It really depends on context. If it’s about environmental exposure, such as to air pollution, it’s really up to the government to do something. But if you’re looking at the habits of daily exposure, I think the most important thing really is to quit smoking, drink less alcohol, be physically active, avoid excess weight and maybe to eat less processed meat.”

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon evaluated more than 800 meat and cancer studies from several continents.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-28

[ezzra]

It all a hogwash and scare mongering.. while one can accept that cured or smoked meat has a limited danger

in consuming them due to the nitrates and other preservatives put in them to keep them consumable for

long period of time, red meet however is no such category, our ancestors ate tones of the stuff, so

what, they all died of cancer related to meet consumptions?

Edited October 27, 2015 by ezzra

[bdenner]

People and organizations donating to the WHO must be shaking their heads in amazement at the total waste of their badly needed funds!

Doesn't the good Doctor Kurt Straif have anything better to do?

[smedly]

It all a hogwash and scare mongering.. while one can accept that cured or smoked meat has a limited danger

in consuming them due to the nitrates and other preservatives put in them to keep them consumable for

long period of time, red meet however is no such category, our ancestors ate tones of the stuff, so

what, they all died of cancer related to meet consumptions?

the WHO didn't go far enough, they should have revealed exactly what chemicals are so dangerous and engaged in a program to have them banned, I for one do not trust these food manufacturers, they will take shortcuts and attempt to save money having no regard for the effects on health whatsoever, it's all about the "bottom line"

[Skeptic7]

It all a hogwash and scare mongering.. while one can accept that cured or smoked meat has a limited danger

in consuming them due to the nitrates and other preservatives put in them to keep them consumable for

long period of time, red meet however is no such category, our ancestors ate tones of the stuff, so

what, they all died of cancer related to meet consumptions?

So...we have the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION...WORLD...which consists of over 7000 people in 150 countries, telling us that red meat and specifically processed red meat can increase cancer risk and you...Ezzra...telling us it's "hogwash". Wow...whom to believe here??? The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, coordinating with mainly doctors, scientists and researchers...or the TV conspiracy theorist? Side note...you're not alone. FOX News Channel's very own resident bimbo (one of many) Dana Perino said this study was a conspiracy too.

Also, this is not really news. The World Cancer Research Fund International had previously said the very same thing. Also Harvard Medical School, Cancer Research Institute, many Departments Of Health around the globe and on and on.

Furthermore, the WHO is not trying to force anyone to stop eating anything. Nor did they say, or even insinuate, that all of our ancestors died of cancer from red meat consumption. They did a scientific study on a topic which is of great interest to many all over the world and released their findings. That's it...

...so down another pound of shredded swine flesh and relax.

[Najinsky]

It's very simple, animal protein promotes rapid tissue growth, that's why it's a staple for athletes and body builders. It's likely wrong to say it causes cancer, but it's virtually certain that it can help a cancer grow and become life threatening.

Eat more green and red vegetables (preferably raw) and less meat and you help change your bodies chemistry from cancer promoting to cancer fighting.

The hardest part is finding the veg that you find tasty and satisfying, but with a little effort it can be done and you'll feel much healthier after only a few weeks.

I still eat meat because I love it, but I use it in small quantities, almost as the seasoning/garnish

[beammeup]

An excuse to tax the shiit out of it.

[silent]

The situation of meat eating has to be given the utmost consideration among leading causes of cancer death next to smoking. Confirming that suicide is by far the best means of reducing risks that everyday living present in order to avoid these continually contentious issues that might lead to death, or mental health issues like mine.

Edited October 28, 2015 by silent

[farangmick]

I'm with Ezzra on this. Eventually another study will come along saying the exact opposite to the WHO. Happens all the time. I shall continue to eat what I enjoy, and wait for a doctor or scientist looking for grant money to write a paper agreeing with my choices.

[spidermike007]

It is really quite simple. Cancer thrives within a toxic and acidic state, in the body. Most meat creates this state. Alot of meat gets lodged within the intestines, and stays there for extended periods. Fruits and raw vegetables are the perfect counter balance along with small amounts of meat, fish, whole grains, nuts and legumes, and high quality chicken, not the supermarket variety. Free range or organic meats have to be a better choice, one would think, and less toxic.

Edited October 31, 2015 by spidermike007