
WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes - dynofuz
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who?src=hn
======
0xcde4c3db
This 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
Maybe 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

      600,000 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
There are only about 30000 fatalities from all car driving per year.

~~~
myth_buster

      The 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_st...](http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/)

~~~
andy_ppp
In America [0] (I thought the other stats were American ones too), it actually
says in [1] 480000 cigarette deaths which disagrees with the previous stats of
1 million, but a million isn't enough for the world surely?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

[1]
[http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/healt...](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/)

------
cruise02
It'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-
he...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-sausage-red-meat-world-health-
organization/)

~~~
Someone1234
The 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).

~~~
tkyjonathan
Meat has been linked with colorectal, prostate and breast cancer not to
mention heart disease. So if you take more of an holistic view.. it is quite
damaging to yourself.

~~~
mvanvoorden
Be aware that this doesn't count for all meat. Grass-fed red meat is actually
healthy, partly because it contains way more Omega-3 compared to Omega-6 and
seems to prevent cancer.

See also here: [http://www.anh-usa.org/you-are-what-your-food-
ate/](http://www.anh-usa.org/you-are-what-your-food-ate/)

~~~
tkyjonathan
You may get more benefits from what the cow ate, but it is still probably a
carcinogen. To avoid eating carcinogens, cut out the middleman and eat
vegetables and leafy greens yourself.

~~~
mvanvoorden
No it's not. It's the opposite of a carcinogen. It becomes carcinogenic
because of the food, grass-fed meat has anti-inflammatory properties, and
therefore helps preventing cancer.

Vegetables and leafy greens are not the holy grail, because for this goes
almost the same as meat. They can be full with pesticides and be nutrition
deficient because of industrial farming.

Whatever you eat, if you want to avoid or lower your risk of getting cancer,
eat only organic, non-processed food, ban sugar, and drastically limit the
intake of fructose-rich fruits.

And for those who don't care, eat whatever you want, nobody stops you from
doing so :)

------
sp332
"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...](http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf) <\- link seems to be down at
the moment

------
at-fates-hands
" _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
Never 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
Because doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. They wear them to
protect the patients and avoid spreading diseases.

~~~
just_curioussss
_Because 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.

------
myth_buster

      a 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
"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.

~~~
tkyjonathan
Burgers count towards processed meats. Especially when it comes ready made
from a factory for the staff in the restaurant to heat up.

------
monochromatic
Ok, so "processed" meats are bad... but what's the "processing" that makes
them bad?

~~~
howlin
It'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.

------
dalacv
Basically: 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
I 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-p...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-
plate/)

~~~
illumen
I 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
> _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._

------
mathgeek
Anyone 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
This 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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
All 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
_Of 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

------
GordonS
But what specifically is it about processed meat that makes it more of a risk
than fresh cuts of meat?

~~~
bluedino
The nitrates used to preserve the meat. Although, your risk is elevated only a
tiny fraction compared to say, smoking cigarettes.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
Nope. 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.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
I'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
Many (most?) supermarket brand bacon (and many other cured meats) are cured in
celery juice. So I'm not so sure that's true.

------
sethd
The 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
Industrial 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-
you...](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/)

------
cowpig
All I want is a quick summary of the data (and methodology) the people
mentioned are using to come to their conclusions.

------
Someone1234
It 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.

------
thebouv
The 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
You 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
I 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?

------
chockablock
What about smoked fish?

------
csours
I wonder where roasted marshmallows rank?

~~~
pavel_lishin
Well, 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
I 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
> 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.

------
zeveb
And 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?

~~~
federico3
> 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.

~~~
mikepurvis
Really, we shouldn't use cars nearly so much as we do. But if we must, then
the very modest inconvenience of having to wear a seatbelt is well worth the
improvement in outcome should a crash occur.

That said, there's still plenty of controversy about all the laws around
graduated carseats for children—that the carseat industry seems much more
interested in emotional appeals than hard data is an obvious red flag.

------
mrdrozdov
I 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?

------
thomasfl
This 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
The 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-fal...](http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-
fact-or-fallac/)

~~~
PerfectElement
It seems Denise Minger has changed her mind:
[http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-
cal...](http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-
some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/#modern)

~~~
scholia
Up 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!"

------
mephi5t0
In 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

