Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Not to mention the fact that these sorts of studies are often conducted in isolation and rarely consider the knock-on effect of cutting out certain foods, and whether that effect might be more damaging than the risk they are trying to mitigate.
|
This wasn't one study, it's a combination of several studies over many years which have in turn been analysed by the WHO over several years. They are aware of the problems with correlation being confused with causation. Look at red meat which most studies suggest has have a link with cancer but the WHO are still wary of classing it was a carcinogen. We're not dealing with a crackpot organisation here or a knee-jerk reaction to one study.
I ask again that if now the WHO are a discredited organisation who we can't take seriously then what else is left?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
It's just this ridiculous shock horror "discovery" that turns out to be a possible minute change of risk that just makes me very dismissive of ANY of these results and organisations.  |
It's not a 'discovery'. This isn't telling us anything that new. Also the main detail from the report isn't the minor change in risk but the fact that risk is now considered proven thereby classing processed meat as a carcinogen. The list is a ranking of how carcinogenic is but simply if it is carcinogenic at all.
The end result is people can more more informed decisions about their diet. Especially those at high risk of the mentioned cancers.