7 ms·
WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes
- GordonS 11y agoBut what specifically is it about processed meat that makes it more of a risk than fresh cuts of meat?
- bluedino 11y agoThe nitrates used to preserve the meat. Although, your risk is elevated only a tiny fraction compared to say, smoking cigarettes.
- GordonS 11y agoBut surely not all processed meat uses nitrates?
- INTPnerd 11y agoCorrect, but most of them do use it as a preservative. I agree the article should address this instead of just saying processed meats are bad. Also, high quality vitamin C can block the nitrosamine formation if you consume it with your processed meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI http://store.naturalnews.com/NanoNutra-Liposomal-Vitamin-C-1015oz-300ml_p_707.html http://store.naturalnews.com/NanoNutra-Liposomal-Vitamin-C-1... http://store.naturalnews.com/Optimal-Liposomal-Vitamin-C--5-ounce_p_381.html http://store.naturalnews.com/Optimal-Liposomal-Vitamin-C--5-...
- mazatta 11y agoThis might not necessarily refute your argument, but I wouldn't rely on Natural News as a source. They're a known source of pseudoscientific drivel.
- INTPnerd 11y agoI don't know of any modern source of health information that I trust completely. That goes for the articles in Natural News and even the things Mike Adams himself publishes. I will admit that it is not uncommon for his reasoning to be biased and one-dimensional. However, I think overall he is really knowledgeable about health and is one of the best sources to learn from. He seems to be really trying to find out the truth about health, and I trust his opinions more than most others. Go back and listen to his earliest radio show episodes. Then look at some of the recent stuff he has done with doing his own independent scientific testing. He is a great source of information about health, but definitely question the reasoning of his arguments and do other research.
- NikolaeVarius 11y agoNope. The nitrates themselves aren't the issue. It's the cooking that's the issue because the nitrates convert to nitrosomenes under high heat. If nitrates were the issue, then we should stop eating celery because that's where the nitrates in processed meats come from, celery juice.
- matwood 11y agoWhat about cooked celery? Celery, onions, and garlic is pretty much the base of any vegetable mix for a meal I make.
- AlexeyBrin 11y agoI'm pretty sure the concentration of nitrates is way smaller in a raw celery (as in taken from your garden) than what they actually put on meat.
- aroch 11y agoMany (most?) supermarket brand bacon (and many other cured meats) are cured in celery juice. So I'm not so sure that's true.
- ssmoot 11y agoI feel like this would be much more informative if they were more specific then. It's fairly easy to avoid pink-salt. Hebrew National hot dogs don't have it. "Uncured" bacon doesn't have it. Problem solved without much compromise (IMO all-beef, nitrate/nitrite free hot dogs taste much better Oscar Mayer or Ballpark anyways but I love my high(er) quality meat-in-tube-form). Does celery seed fall under this? BTW, "traditionally" cured bacon tastes better than "uncured" IMO, but it's pretty much impossible to find IME outside of boutique butchers. The "uncured" stuff is pretty easy to find these days. A few years ago it was hit & miss but now even the Fiesta (a lower-income anglophied Supermercado) around the corner carries it. I guess there's just a lot of economic incentive to use the pink-salt shortcut.
- bluedino 11y ago"Nitrate-free" means cured with celery salt which is still a nitrate, just not a bad "chemical one".
- dalacv 11y agoBasically: Don't eat anything because it will give you cancer. I've been living by that rule for about 15 minutes now, but I'm starting to get hungry.
- TillE 11y agoI keep seeing this ridiculous (if jokey) strawman, but it makes no sense. Processed meat has been a known risk for a long time. Need a list? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...
- illumen 11y agoI agree. It's a legitimate concern though. People are bombarded with what is healthy or not. With fad diets and such. Who do you believe? ED: oops... I should learn to read good. It says _avoid_ processed meats. I think it would be clearer to leave stuff off the plate which we are supposed to leave off our plate.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago> ps. Lol. That page lists processed meats. Yes, as a thing to avoid: Limit red meat, and avoid processed meats such as bacon and sausage.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hugozap 11y agoCheck again. It says "avoid processed meats"
- goodJobWalrus 11y agoNo, basically, that is not what the article (or WHO) says.
- INTPnerd 11y agoI hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, not everything gives you cancer. Only things that give you cancer, give you cancer. Lots of foods have anti-cancer properties. Basically, the more natural the food is, the more likely it will be to prevent or even treat cancer. Now when I say treat cancer, I am not saying it is guaranteed to get rid of all your cancer, or you should not seek help from a trusted smart cancer fighting person (notice I did not say doctor or oncologist?). Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI. Basically if you eat vegetables and fruit, these are anti-cancer. But if you already have cancer, you have to be careful with fruit because of the sugar. But vegetables are good. However, even with fruits and vegetables, the more natural their state the better. If you juice them instead of blending the whole thing, you lose a lot of the nutrition. You are no longer eating it in the original state it was intended to be consumed. They were designed to be a complete package, the nutrients complement each other and enable your body to deal with and use the other things in the food. If they were grown with pesticides or herbicides, these can contribute to cancer. If the ground they are grown in is nutritionally depleted, the food will be also. If the ground or water used is polluted, the food will be also. The best thing is to buy a water distiller, to clean your own water. Then grow your own fruits and vegetables using that water and using high quality, clean, plant superfood. From http://www.foodrising.org/ http://www.foodrising.org/, you can even purchase a very low maintenance, small hydroponic system that allows you to easily grow very nutritious, better than organic fruits and vegetables.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoThis seems pretty misleading. The WHO put these meats in the same class in terms of certainty of being a carcinogen in humans, but I don't see any claim about the rates of cancer caused by each being comparable. That is, they're convinced that it causes some nonzero amount of cancer, but how many cancers it causes is a separate issue. Also, the picture at the top shows a cheeseburger, but ground beef is never actually mentioned in the article as an example of "processed meats". It represents an older consensus (seemingly unrelated to the current topic apart from the shared theme of "meat bad") that excessive red meat intake contributes to health problems.
- pilsetnieks 11y agoMaybe it's the Guardian's fault. The BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617) does mention some numbers: > Is meat as bad as smoking? > No. > Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. > That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.
- myth_buster 11y ago600,000 attributed to alcohol each year. That number is a bit misleading. Does that include the deaths say due to DUI,, liver damage, poisoning? It ideally shouldn't as we are discussing carcinogens. Edit: Added additional alcohol related deaths.
- andy_ppp 11y agoThere are only about 30000 fatalities from all car driving per year.
- myth_buster 11y agoThe report indicates that worldwide the total number of road traffic deaths remains unacceptably high at 1.24 million per year. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/ http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...
- csours 11y agoI wonder where roasted marshmallows rank?
- pavel_lishin 11y agoWell, apparently wood fires aren't great for you, so unless you're roasting it over a gas flame, probably fairly high: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion
- zeveb 11y agoI remember when that article first came out. As I note elsewhere, the fundamental flaw in his logic is thinking, 'if something is worse than tobacco smoke, then it must be banned!' My own thought is, 'if tobacco smoke is less bad than wood smoke, then it must not be banned!' A world without wood smoke would be a poorer, sadder, less pleasant-smelling world. Yes, it's a pollutant. Yes, it's carcinogenic. But it's one of the things which makes life worth living.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago> A world without wood smoke would be a poorer, sadder, less pleasant-smelling world. It would also be a world without trees, because that's the only way to avoid ever breathing wood smoke. Forest fires are a natural phenomenon and there is no known way of entirely preventing them.
- RankingMember 11y agoConsidering how most of the people I know like to consume them, probably around the same ranking as taking charcoal briquettes internally.
- goatforce5 11y agoDr Karl (hugely respected media personality scientist guy from Australia) likes to point out that candles are bad for your lungs, but on the other hand they can be relaxing and peaceful so it's kinda six of one, half dozen of the other. And as he also is fond of saying: "everything is a poison... what matters is the dose."
- at-fates-hands 11y ago"and if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both class 2A), you should seek a new career." This line at the end of the article irked me. A friend of mine who was a hair stylist for 20 years is dying of brain cancer and her doctor's are pretty sure her exposure to chemicals on a daily basis had a role in her cancer. While I understand the comment's attempt at humor, the risk these people have with their exposure to harmful chemicals is very real.
- just_curioussss 11y agoNever though about it that way. There are many other jobs that expose their workers to airborne chemicals. One that comes to mind immediately is anything near urban traffic. Could society adapt for those workers to start wearing masks or similar protection. Doctors do that all the time, why not hairdressers?
- pageld 11y agoBecause doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. They wear them to protect the patients and avoid spreading diseases.
- just_curioussss 11y agoBecause doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. Of course they do, because they are also humans vulnerable to diseases. Even more so because they are exposed daily and are usually not the ones introducing diseases into the environment. The masks protect both the patient and the doctor. Mask can also protect doctors from chemicals they might be routinely exposed to. In any case, they wear masks. Your comment is a red herring. The important part is the social stigma of (not) wearing masks and how to prevent it.
- mathgeek 11y agoAnyone have a good source for articles that eschew the political commentary in favor of just presenting the study findings in a concise summary? Does anyone actually care that the global lobbyists for meat don't agree that meat is a carcinogen (or that any lobbyists against meat would care that it is)?
- josho 11y agoThis is the plight of today's journalism. Students are taught to find both sides of the issue and treat them equally, despite the fact that one side has a clear conflict of interest.
- mfoy_ 11y agoOr that lip service is paid to conflicting points of view (even if one side is nonsensical) in order to create a sense of false equivalence and therefore controversy.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoAll sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis
- fredkbloggs 11y agoJust replace "meat" with "________" and you can supplant an entire shelf of political science tomes with a clear and concise summary of the 21st century political universe.
- mrdrozdov 11y agoI guess this is important since we might start seeing class action law suits citing processed meats as a cause of cancer? The question is can you tell that the type of cancer was causing by the consumption of processed meat? When tobacco or asbestos is the cause, it seems to be fairly easy to tell what was the cause of cancer. Will we see warning labels pop up on our meat products?
- myth_buster 11y agoa member of the Meat Advisory Panel... said "“The top priorities for cancer prevention remain smoking cessation, maintenance of normal body weight and avoidance of high alcohol intakes.”" emeritus fellow at the Institute of Food Research, also said the effect was small. The North American Meat Institute said defining red meat as a cancer hazard defied common sense. Due to economies of McDonald's, Burger King et al, there appears to be an intense lobbying group which would go against any attempt to bring forth discussion on this topic. I won't be surprised if a decade or two from now we see the issue in the same light as Lead poisoning primarily due to someone's[1] fight against the status quo. On a related topic, there is an interesting documentary Cowspiracy [0] (available on Netflix) which talks about the carbon footprint caused by the animal husbandry. Although it's feature length, I think the first two acts are compelling. [0] http://www.cowspiracy.com/ http://www.cowspiracy.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson Edit: Flow.
- ascorbic 11y ago"McDonald's, Burger King et al" aren't really affected by this. This is about smoked, salted or otherwise preserved meats. "Processed" doesn't covered mincing/grinding. They may be covered by the weaker claims about red meat in general.
- myth_buster 11y agoI don't think they would make that distinction and let it by. They wouldn't let any kind of meat be cast in bad light as it would affect them by association.
- tkyjonathan 11y agoBurgers count towards processed meats. Especially when it comes ready made from a factory for the staff in the restaurant to heat up.
- PerfectElement 11y agoCowspiracy and Earthlings are documentaries that most people prefer to ignore. Hopefully, now that DiCaprio is behind Cowspiracy, and got it into Netflix, it will be noticed by a wider audience. I doubt it will be very popular here though, given the strong cognitive bias I noticed in HN when the subject is diet.
- mephi5t0 11y agoIn other news: reading books causes rectal cancer too. All tested groups that got cancer were reading books at least 1 cubic centimeter in volume per week
- thomasfl 11y agoThis confirms the findings described in the book "The China Study". It describes a massive long term survey done in china. Animal proteins is harming.
- boothead 11y agoThe China Study has been very thoroughly debunked. I think this article is probably the most highly thought of http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...
- PerfectElement 11y agoIt seems Denise Minger has changed her mind: http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/#modern http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-cal...
- scholia 11y agoUp to a point: "Though in case you’re wondering, I stand by my criticisms of the China Study and Campbell’s rat studies. Nothing in this post supports the idea that animal protein is uniquely harmful, and acknowledging when some parts of the plant-based movement are legit doesn’t give a free pass to the ones that aren’t!"
- scholia 11y agoHorribly flawed at best, and "more a work of fiction than a nutritional holy grail". http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/the-china-study-myth/ http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/...
- zeveb 11y agoAnd wood smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. So what? I don't want to live in a world without bacon, sausages, roast beef, pipes and cigars! The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Tobacco's dangerous. Cigarettes are a really bad idea. Eating meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner is a pretty bad idea. Don't do that so much. But you, I and everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something: whether it's cancer, congestive heart failure or something else entirely, we all die. The question is, will we live before we die?
- gglitch 11y agoI wouldn't advocate for abstinence over education, and I usually feel like our understanding of human health and nutrition is comparable in sophistication to alchemy; but to add some nuance to the counterargument to what you said, I'll suggest that whether we will live before we die is only one of the important questions, that (a) how long we'll live, and (b) the total number of happy, easy, healthy years we'll have before we die, are also important questions. Until the science is more reliable, moderation seems like the safe bet.
- federico3 11y ago> The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal. > But you, I and everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something: whether it's cancer, congestive heart failure or something else entirely, we all die. Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rnovak 11y ago>Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal. There ya go[1]. It would have taken you 5 seconds to google this. The Country is Bhutan. https://www.google.com/search?q=country+cigarettes+illegal&oq=country+cigaret&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.4281j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=country+cigarettes+illegal&o... > Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars. No, it's really not. Are you trying to say that we won't all die at some point? That's also the argument a lot of people give for having dangerous hobbies, so it's not a strawman in the least.
- cruise02 11y agoIt's important to understand what "increased risk" means. From the linked article: > The IARC’s experts concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. From a related article: > To put this in perspective, the lifetime risk of colon cancer is 5 percent. If you have a hot dog every day, your risk goes to 6 percent. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-sausage-red-meat-world-health-organization/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-sausage-red-meat-world-he...
- mfoy_ 11y agoI'll take those odds.
- abandonliberty 11y agoGood point, many of the health scares we have can be appropriately rationalized by examining it this way. The impact on socialized medicine is still significant when you consider an additional 1% of colon cancer cases in the population.
- cruise02 11y agoYes, the impact of a 1 percentage point increase is significant, but it's nowhere near the bloodbath that an increase of 18 percentage points would be, which is how I think most people would read "increased risk by 18%."
- mvanvoorden 11y ago/me thinks of English breakfast. Sausage and bacon. Combined with ham sandwiches for lunch, and some 200g piece of processed meat with dinner. Plus pesticide-laden, nutrition-lacking supermarket veggies and, deep fried (>180C) crisps as an evening snack, high fructose corn syrup soft drinks in the daytime. And mouldy coffee and spice mixes. Inflammation galore. How does it all add up?
- Someone1234 11y agoThe way the 18% figure is used in THIS article is extremely misleading/unhelpful. Thank you for clarifying exactly what they mean by that (the 5-6% thing puts it into perspective).
- sp332 11y ago"No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos... but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. 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." http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q... <- link seems to be down at the moment
- monochromatic 11y agoOk, so "processed" meats are bad... but what's the "processing" that makes them bad?
- howlin 11y agoIt's from nitrate curing. Ham, bacon, mamy sausages, and most lunch meats go through this process. Sometimes the chemical is added directly via saltpeter, and sometimes indirectly via stuff like celery juice.
- _of 11y agoFrom the statement in Lancet Oncology, "Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat": "Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation"
- chockablock 11y agoWhat about smoked fish?
- sethd 11y agoThe article mentions bacon but doesn't differentiate between cured and uncured varieties. I was under the impression that uncured bacon avoided some of these issues mentioned in the article. Edit: Assuming you don't have any issues with animal fats and regular salt (I don't).
- mvanvoorden 11y agoIndustrial farms feed their animals soy and corn, which is stored and therefore contains molds, including Ochratoxin A. 'Uncured' bacon is usually treated with celery salt and a bacteria culture. The bacteria transform the nitrates from celery salt into nitrites, and end up containing up to twice the amount of nitrites than their cured counterpart. Obligatory links: http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factsheets/ochratoxins/ http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factsheets/ochratoxins/ http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy-alert/save-your-bacon-sizzling-bits-about-nitrites-dirty-little-secrets-about-celery-salt-and-other-aporkalyptic-news/ http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy-alert/save-you...
- cowpig 11y agoAll I want is a quick summary of the data (and methodology) the people mentioned are using to come to their conclusions.
- thebouv 11y agoThe same site in the "Related Content" section show articles saying processed meats are bad in 2009, 2010, 2011 as well. Then another related article says increase of eating fruits and vegetables does not significantly help reduce risk of cancer either. No meat. No fruits. No vegetables. Good thing the air we breath and water we drink is clean and doesn't cause ... hmm, nevermind. We're all screwed.
- nacs 11y agoYou realize there are meats that aren't processed? Fish, poultry and such are healthy and recommended. Not sure how "fruits and vegetables does not significantly help reduce risk of cancer" is relevant. Do you only eat things if they reduce the risk of cancer? Vegetables are healthy and will help you live longer (fruits are also good but are a bit high in sugar if you consume a lot).
- thebouv 11y agoI merely pointed out the same site's "related content" area had a few more articles on same subject for a few years and then one about vegetables not reducing risk was "funny". It may have been intended as a dark joke. We're all screwed. Har har har. I do realize there are meats that aren't processed. I do realize that fruits and vegetables are good for you. How did you not .. I don't know .. get it? Instead of picking it a part literally?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Someone1234 11y agoIt is extremely odd that this article has a burger at the top of it. As far as I know burger patties aren't normally processed, someone correct me if I am wrong? A lot of people find it surprising that aside from the veggies the patty is the next healthiest part of a burger. It is the bun and sauce which will kill you (both have a lot of sugar/complex carbs), and then maybe the cheese in third worst. Just for an example, a Big Mac has three layers of bun (2x patties), while a McDouble has only two layers of bun (2x patties also). The McDouble has 7g of sugar, while the Big mac has 9g of sugar. Now, yes, the sauce will account for some of the delta here, but my point is those buns are extremely unhealthy. As a strange result, it is often healthier to get smaller but stacked patties rather than a single patty that is larger since the buns, sauce, and cheese will be smaller also. That's why if you look at the Quarter Pounder (1x patty) at McDonald's it is much more unhealthy than the McDouble (more so than you'd expect), the McDouble (2x patties) is 7g of sugar, the single layer Quarter Pounder is 10g(!) of sugar.