Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf
It's all statistics based on statistics. No real science, no causal proof. As with many things "scientific" these days.
|
Well statistics are a form of science, in this case it's Epidemiology, but the World Health Organisation do have different categories to distinguish between a causal link and a proven link. This is why they've put processed meats in the carcinogenic category but have not yet placed red meat there despite the relative acceptance that it is a risk.
It's not as if this is one study or it has come out of the blue based on a random sample. There have been many studies and the link between processed meats and cancer has long been suspected but until now they hadn't been sufficiently sure to upgrade processed to meats to 'can cause cancer' level.
They also have a relatively good idea why:
Quote:
|
Suspected carcinogenic chemicals can form during meat processing. These include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Cooking the meat at high temperatures, especially on a barbecue, can also produce these dangerous chemicals. However, the WHO's experts admit that the cancer risk is "not yet fully understood".
|
Remember they're not saying you cannot eat meat or demanding government intervention but at least people are now informed and can make the decision for themselves. People will still eat processed meat, including me, but now we know that it increases the risk of cancer. As we know drinking does too.
People should be informed about their food and then make their own choices. It's unobjectionable imo.