7 ms·

Processed meats as bad as cigarettes: bad reporting on good science

131 points by zsupalla 11y ago

dspillett 11y ago
My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving while only counting uni-cyclists. So the reporting is massively misleading, the inference that the risks caused by smoking and those caused by eating processed meats are even of the same order of magnitude is simply wrong. I shall have to read the actual report to get any real meaning from it.
- zsupalla 11y ago
  Exactly! I'm always disappointed by reporting on scientific research; reading the research helps, but how many people are going to do that? A lot of people will probably change their diets based on this research, assuming that eating meat is as bad as smoking.
  - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
    why stop eating meat? sounds like i should start smoking.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  No, the article draws an analogy between the impact of meats on colon cancer and the impacts of cigarettes on lung cancer. They are not talking about the impact of smoking on colon cancer.
- debacle 11y ago
  From what I've read on /r/science eating 100g of the specified meats daily increases your risk of certain cancers by ~20%. Compare with smoking, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 1,000-1,500%
  - tkyjonathan 11y ago
    Here are some actual studies (impact factor between 7.5 to 17) showing the connection between meat and cancer. This was probably part of the 800 studies that the WHO used to make its decision. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422422 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422422 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/high-fat-dairy-products-linked-to-poorer-breast-cancer-survival/ http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/high-fat-dairy-pro... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082
- tkyjonathan 11y ago
  Sorry, guys, but you are all wrong. WHO is a huge and difficult body to get agreements from. After years and 800 studies, they decided today to label processed meats as carcinogens. Btw, 15% of lifelong smokers get lung cancer whereas 15-19% of meat-eaters get some sort of cancer (mainly, colorectal, prostate and breast). I can appreciate that this is a surprise, but the data has been there for more than a decade.
  - AlisdairO 11y ago
    You haven't established that cancer in meat eaters is largely caused by eating meat, whereas it is quite clear that overall cancer rate drastically increases in smokers. In fact, while vegetarian diets do reduce the risk of cancer, the difference is by comparison modest - the overall risk of cancer in vegetarians is ~10% lower.
    - tkyjonathan 11y ago
      That isn't true. There are causal links between meat and cancer. You have: IGF1, saturated fat, sulphar-based animo acids like methionine, mycobacterial load, oxidative stress, purification in the intestine and more recently, that nuXX sugar found in protein.
      - AlisdairO 11y ago
        Did you read my comment? I didn't deny causal links between meat and cancer. I denied that the causal links between meat and cancer caused anything close to as much additional total cancer risk as smoking does. That's a viewpoint that is supported by any credible source you care to name.
    - tkyjonathan 11y ago
      Vegetarians still consume proteins from animals like casein and cholesterol from eggs. There have been a lot of studies connecting casein to cancer as well (when protein intake is over 7% from calories).
  - zsupalla 11y ago
cperciva 11y ago
Also worth noting: The same "known carcinogens" list also includes birth control pills and sunlight. Not all carcinogens should be avoided.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  If I'm not mistaken even sunscreen is carcinogenic Living has a 100% mortality rate.
  - mcintyre1994 11y ago
    According to the always wonderful reporting at the Daily Mail, sunscreen is responsible for causing and avoiding cancer :) http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/s#term262 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/s#term262
  - klodolph 11y ago
    You are mistaken. Certain kinds of sunscreen used in the past were carcinogenic, they've been banned.
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      You are right, my information was old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminobenzoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminobenzoic_acid
- JorgeGT 11y ago
  And alcoholic beverages! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens#Mixtures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...
- Chlorus 11y ago
  And sure enough, the formally-respectable tabloid known as Ars takes the bait: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/its-official-bacon-hot-dogs-other-processed-red-meat-cause-cancer/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/its-official-bacon-ho...
anunderachiever 11y ago
Kinda funny how hard some people try to reject a finding which is as well supported as it is obvious ... red meat is bad. Same logic applies here as with cigarettes - you decide if you want to take the risk. Beyond your personal consequences - meat and dairy industry is also directly destructive to the environment and society on a global level (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/). http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anature.com+%22red+meat%22 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anature.com+%22red+meat%22
- morley 11y ago
  That has little to do with the linked article, which is only rejecting the bombastic headlines comparing the two.
  - anunderachiever 11y ago
    Is it really that bombastic? Lot of people are smoking and will readily justify it with anecdotal evidance proving that smoking isn't really that bad at all - "you know there was this 105 year old Japanese guy and they asked him how he got that old and he said he stopped smoking at the age of 99 ..." Furthermore - people need those "comparisons" - only few will change their behavior based on purely statistical reasoning.
    - Laaw 11y ago
      The comparison is inaccurate, though. You're supporting being factually incorrect to scare people?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The WHO report tells us that the quality of the evidence is very good, which is why red meat and processed red meat have this new classification. It doesn't talk about how strong the cancer-causing effects of red meat and processed meat are. They are nothing like as risky as cigarettes. We know that cigarettes are very harmful.
      - 11y ago
batbomb 11y ago
For processed (cured) meats, they must assuredly mean sodium nitrite (which sodium nitrate turns in to) and/or salt is known carcinogens. In which case, it should be "sodium nitrite known to cause cancer". Also, people should know that even "no nitrates/nitrites added" doesn't mean devoid of nitrates or nitrites, because most companies add tons of celery salt, and, for the most part, you end up with an equivalent amount of sodium nitrite in your processed/cured meats. http://ruhlman.com/2011/05/the-no-nitrites-added-hoax/ http://ruhlman.com/2011/05/the-no-nitrites-added-hoax/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- johansch 11y ago
  The term "processed food" seems so overloaded that it's largely pointless. Nevertheless, this page seems to explain its popular usage well, while adding some much needed sanity: http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/goodfood/pages/what-are-processed-foods.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/goodfood/pages/what-are-processed...
debacle 11y ago
Bad reporting but good traffic.
moskie 11y ago
The first line of the Guardian's article is: "Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco." Is that correct? If the WHO did indeed put these all into the same category, then I'm not sure this article is at fault. Should the author of this post instead take issue with how the WHO categorized these things?
XzetaU8 11y ago
"The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason Not To Fear Bacon" http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/ http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another...
dang 11y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451259.
anunderachiever 11y ago
"Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer." http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf and here you find tobacco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge... So processed meat IS ranking next to tobacco according to IARC.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The groups have nothing to do with "ranking", they're based on the amount of evidence that we have for the link. From the IARC's FAQ: > The classification indicates the weight of the evidence as to whether an agent is capable of causing cancer (technically called “hazard”), but it does not measure the likelihood that cancer will occur (technically called “risk”) as a result of exposure to the agent. (Emphasis theirs) http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf
- DanBC 11y ago
  So this tells us how certain we are that they cause cancer. And we are certain that red meat causes cancer, and we are certain that smoking causes cancer. This ranking does not tell us how much cancer is caused. We know that there is a low risk of colon cancer, and that eating red meat will increase that risk by about 15 to 20%. This ends up at a very low risk. Cigarettes massively increase the risk of lung cancer. (And other cancers).
6t6t6 11y ago
What apparently a lot of people fails to understand is that the IARC list reflects is how sure we are that a substance is carcinogenic, but not how much it raises the risk of cancer. So we can equally be sure that plutonium and bacon are a risk for health. But we also know that eating plutonium is more dangerous than bacon.
vldr 11y ago
Any thoughts on http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation... ?

131 points by zsupalla 11y ago

My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving while only counting uni-cyclists. So the reporting is massively misleading, the inference that the risks caused by smoking and those caused by eating processed meats are even of the same order of magnitude is simply wrong. I shall have to read the actual report to get any real meaning from it.

zsupalla 11y ago
Exactly! I'm always disappointed by reporting on scientific research; reading the research helps, but how many people are going to do that? A lot of people will probably change their diets based on this research, assuming that eating meat is as bad as smoking.
- pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
  why stop eating meat? sounds like i should start smoking.
URSpider94 11y ago
No, the article draws an analogy between the impact of meats on colon cancer and the impacts of cigarettes on lung cancer. They are not talking about the impact of smoking on colon cancer.
debacle 11y ago
From what I've read on /r/science eating 100g of the specified meats daily increases your risk of certain cancers by ~20%. Compare with smoking, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 1,000-1,500%
- tkyjonathan 11y ago
  Here are some actual studies (impact factor between 7.5 to 17) showing the connection between meat and cancer. This was probably part of the 800 studies that the WHO used to make its decision. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422422 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422422 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/high-fat-dairy-products-linked-to-poorer-breast-cancer-survival/ http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/high-fat-dairy-pro... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082
tkyjonathan 11y ago
Sorry, guys, but you are all wrong. WHO is a huge and difficult body to get agreements from. After years and 800 studies, they decided today to label processed meats as carcinogens. Btw, 15% of lifelong smokers get lung cancer whereas 15-19% of meat-eaters get some sort of cancer (mainly, colorectal, prostate and breast). I can appreciate that this is a surprise, but the data has been there for more than a decade.
- AlisdairO 11y ago
  You haven't established that cancer in meat eaters is largely caused by eating meat, whereas it is quite clear that overall cancer rate drastically increases in smokers. In fact, while vegetarian diets do reduce the risk of cancer, the difference is by comparison modest - the overall risk of cancer in vegetarians is ~10% lower.
  - tkyjonathan 11y ago
    That isn't true. There are causal links between meat and cancer. You have: IGF1, saturated fat, sulphar-based animo acids like methionine, mycobacterial load, oxidative stress, purification in the intestine and more recently, that nuXX sugar found in protein.
    - AlisdairO 11y ago
      Did you read my comment? I didn't deny causal links between meat and cancer. I denied that the causal links between meat and cancer caused anything close to as much additional total cancer risk as smoking does. That's a viewpoint that is supported by any credible source you care to name.
  - tkyjonathan 11y ago
    Vegetarians still consume proteins from animals like casein and cholesterol from eggs. There have been a lot of studies connecting casein to cancer as well (when protein intake is over 7% from calories).
- zsupalla 11y ago

cperciva 11y ago

Also worth noting: The same "known carcinogens" list also includes birth control pills and sunlight. Not all carcinogens should be avoided.

raverbashing 11y ago
If I'm not mistaken even sunscreen is carcinogenic Living has a 100% mortality rate.
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  According to the always wonderful reporting at the Daily Mail, sunscreen is responsible for causing and avoiding cancer :) http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/s#term262 http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/s#term262
- klodolph 11y ago
  You are mistaken. Certain kinds of sunscreen used in the past were carcinogenic, they've been banned.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    You are right, my information was old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminobenzoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminobenzoic_acid
JorgeGT 11y ago
And alcoholic beverages! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens#Mixtures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...
Chlorus 11y ago
And sure enough, the formally-respectable tabloid known as Ars takes the bait: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/its-official-bacon-hot-dogs-other-processed-red-meat-cause-cancer/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/its-official-bacon-ho...

anunderachiever 11y ago

Kinda funny how hard some people try to reject a finding which is as well supported as it is obvious ... red meat is bad. Same logic applies here as with cigarettes - you decide if you want to take the risk. Beyond your personal consequences - meat and dairy industry is also directly destructive to the environment and society on a global level (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/). http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anature.com+%22red+meat%22 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anature.com+%22red+meat%22

morley 11y ago
That has little to do with the linked article, which is only rejecting the bombastic headlines comparing the two.
- anunderachiever 11y ago
  Is it really that bombastic? Lot of people are smoking and will readily justify it with anecdotal evidance proving that smoking isn't really that bad at all - "you know there was this 105 year old Japanese guy and they asked him how he got that old and he said he stopped smoking at the age of 99 ..." Furthermore - people need those "comparisons" - only few will change their behavior based on purely statistical reasoning.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    The comparison is inaccurate, though. You're supporting being factually incorrect to scare people?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The WHO report tells us that the quality of the evidence is very good, which is why red meat and processed red meat have this new classification. It doesn't talk about how strong the cancer-causing effects of red meat and processed meat are. They are nothing like as risky as cigarettes. We know that cigarettes are very harmful.
    - 11y ago

batbomb 11y ago

For processed (cured) meats, they must assuredly mean sodium nitrite (which sodium nitrate turns in to) and/or salt is known carcinogens. In which case, it should be "sodium nitrite known to cause cancer". Also, people should know that even "no nitrates/nitrites added" doesn't mean devoid of nitrates or nitrites, because most companies add tons of celery salt, and, for the most part, you end up with an equivalent amount of sodium nitrite in your processed/cured meats. http://ruhlman.com/2011/05/the-no-nitrites-added-hoax/ http://ruhlman.com/2011/05/the-no-nitrites-added-hoax/

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
johansch 11y ago
The term "processed food" seems so overloaded that it's largely pointless. Nevertheless, this page seems to explain its popular usage well, while adding some much needed sanity: http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/goodfood/pages/what-are-processed-foods.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/goodfood/pages/what-are-processed...

debacle 11y ago

Bad reporting but good traffic.

moskie 11y ago

The first line of the Guardian's article is: "Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco." Is that correct? If the WHO did indeed put these all into the same category, then I'm not sure this article is at fault. Should the author of this post instead take issue with how the WHO categorized these things?

XzetaU8 11y ago

"The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason Not To Fear Bacon" http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/ http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another...

dang 11y ago

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451259.

anunderachiever 11y ago

"Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer." http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf and here you find tobacco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge... So processed meat IS ranking next to tobacco according to IARC.

icebraining 11y ago
The groups have nothing to do with "ranking", they're based on the amount of evidence that we have for the link. From the IARC's FAQ: > The classification indicates the weight of the evidence as to whether an agent is capable of causing cancer (technically called “hazard”), but it does not measure the likelihood that cancer will occur (technically called “risk”) as a result of exposure to the agent. (Emphasis theirs) http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf
DanBC 11y ago
So this tells us how certain we are that they cause cancer. And we are certain that red meat causes cancer, and we are certain that smoking causes cancer. This ranking does not tell us how much cancer is caused. We know that there is a low risk of colon cancer, and that eating red meat will increase that risk by about 15 to 20%. This ends up at a very low risk. Cigarettes massively increase the risk of lung cancer. (And other cancers).

6t6t6 11y ago

What apparently a lot of people fails to understand is that the IARC list reflects is how sure we are that a substance is carcinogenic, but not how much it raises the risk of cancer. So we can equally be sure that plutonium and bacon are a risk for health. But we also know that eating plutonium is more dangerous than bacon.

vldr 11y ago

Any thoughts on http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation... ?