Processed meats do cause cancer

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Average chance of getting colorectal cancer is 5%, and most people who get it are over 50.

If you eat excessive amounts of processed meats, the risk increases by 18% (of 5%), which means the risk is approx. 6% - not a huge increase in the risk factor....

Oh whoopee! A one percent increase in risk. A whole load of ho ha about nothing.

Whilst I'm not suddenly going to stuff my face with processed meat as some of the stuff is simply revolting ( See How it's made.) The increase in risk is swamped in the statistical noise IMHO.

[Osem]

I think that the stats needs to be put into perspective. Doubling a risk, say, might sound like a big deal but if that means if the odds go from 1:1000000 to 1:500000 it's really not such a big deal is it.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Oh whoopee! A one percent increase in risk. A whole load of ho ha about nothing.

Whilst I'm not suddenly going to stuff my face with processed meat as some of the stuff is simply revolting ( See How it's made.) The increase in risk is swamped in the statistical noise IMHO.

Even smaller...

From Twitter

@AnneGlover_EU: A bit misleading. A 50y man has 0.68% risk colorectal cancer in next 10y. Eating processed meat increases it to 0.8%

https://t.co/6WNgv3CJAm

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Osem

I think that the stats needs to be put into perspective. Doubling a risk, say, might sound like a big deal but if that means if the odds go from a 1:1000000 to a 1:500000 it's really not such a big deal is it.

I'm sure the researchers have to justify the money spent on such a project by getting a "correct" result.

I wonder what the proportion of researchers were veggies or vegans?

It is well known that if a research team sets out to find if X influences Y then that's what they will find.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I'm sure the researchers have to justify the money spent on such a project by getting a "correct" result.

I wonder what the proportion of researchers were veggies or vegans?

It is well known that if a research team sets out to find if X influences Y then that's what they will find.

If this were the case then the WHO would be finding a lot more things that cause cancer. As I mentioned above there are a lot of things which are generally assumed to be linked to higher risks of cancer that they are still refraining from listing as carcinogenic as they're unsure. As it happens relatively few things are labelled as a category 1 carcinogenic.

[Osem]

I'd rather take my chances with red/processed meat every day than smoke.

Originally Posted by Osem

I'd rather take my chances with red/processed meat every day than smoke.

Yup me too. I will still eat processed meat too. Bacon, Sausages, Ham. I am not going to stop eating them but now we know more about any possible heath effects from it and can decide for ourselves.

This kind of information would be especially useful for people with a family history of these cancers who may decide to cut it off entirely as they already have an increased risk. The actual study might go into more depth on that.

I don't see the harm in people knowing more about the food we eat and the resistance today to the announcement as if the WHO have decided to do this just to spite bacon lovers.

[Osem]

The problem is that we're constantly being told one thing only to have that advice changed a few years down the line. Even now you can always find persuasive evidence to support both sides of any argument so who do we believe?

As Den said above, the simplest and most sensible general approach is to have a reasonably balanced diet with everything in moderation. There's not much money in purveying such simple advice however...

Originally Posted by Osem

The problem is that we're constantly being told one thing only to have that advice changed a few years down the line. Even now you can always find persuasive evidence to support both sides of any argument so who do we believe?

Well as mentioned this is a significant measure for the WHO to take. It's not another one of those Daily Express headlines where they have taken the results of an inconclusive study and misrepresented it.

Generally I would trust the World Heath Organisation and the NHS over newspapers or industry spokesmen. The NHS also do this site which explains what is going on behind the headlines and it's usually more measured than the papers suggest (i.e not everything gives you cancer and miracle diets don't work): http://www.nhs.uk/news/pages/newsindex.aspx

As Den said above, the simplest and most sensible general approach is to have a reasonably balanced diet with everything in moderation. There's not much money in purveying such simple advice however...

This is usually the advice people would give though, including the WHO. I mean even here they're not saying cut out processed meat altogether.

[Taf]

Evidence has accumulated implicating that atmospheric oxygen can be considered as an important environmental mutagen, whose action can be potentiated by a variety of environmental factors. Under normal conditions oxygen genotoxicity is largely prevented by a cellular antioxygenic defense system, which must be extremely efficient, but might not be entirely safe. A better understanding of this defense system may help to suggest how the incidence of carcinogenesis can be minimized.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6646012

For every 1000 meter rise in elevation, lung cancer incidence decreased by 7.23 [99% CI: 5.18–9.29] cases per 100,000 individuals, equivalent to 12.7% of the mean incidence, 56.8. As a predictor of lung cancer incidence, elevation was second only to smoking prevalence in terms of significance and effect size.

https://peerj.com/preprints/587/

Hold your breath or live up a mountain?

[Pierre]

How is Bacon " processed "?

It's thinly sliced ham.

How does thinly slicing meat, make it more carcinogenic?

[Osem]

@ Damien - Yes but, as we know, not everyone out there is quite as discerning as you in their choice of reading matter. IMHO studies like this are pointless when it comes to the majority of people and will do nothing to alter their eating habits. If anything, the plethora of conflicting official advice we've seen over the years has resulted in many people now dismissing it all on the basis that "they'll probably tell us the opposite next year..."

All that'll happen as a result of this is that a raft of celebrity 'nutrition experts' will jump on the bandwagon producing books, DVDs, diets and detox products/programmes they can flog to those who've bought into the scary headline news as they do every time something or other is highlighted as a potential health risk.

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6646012



https://peerj.com/preprints/587/

Hold your breath or live up a mountain?

You're just linking to random studies. The oxygen one is from 1983(!) and was cited only once in 1988. I don't think that's gone anywhere.
That's not the same thing as a collection of peer reviewed work which all points in the same direction. It's not at all the same thing as what has happened today.

Originally Posted by Pierre

How is Bacon " processed "?

It's thinly sliced ham.

How does thinly slicing meat, make it more carcinogenic?

They're treated with nitrates to increase it's shelf-life. Also depending on the type of meat there are other additives too.

---------- Post added at 21:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

@ Damien - Yes but, as we know, not everyone out there is quite as discerning as you in their choice of reading matter.

This isn't really just a study though it's a combination of work that has got this far. The debate over processed meats has been going a long, long time.

I agree with you that it's hard for us to work out what is right which is why I typically don't bother reading the newspapers' reports on these things and follow medical advice from the likes of the NHS. I don't have the scientific knowledge to work out what is valid and what isn't so I will just go with whatever is the dietary/medical consensus. I could attempt to research myself but I don't understand the underlying science, the articles are too long and third party information on the internet is woeful and largely populated by quacks.

IMHO studies like this are pointless when it comes to the majority of people and will do nothing to alter their eating habits. If anything, the plethora of conflicting official advice we've seen over the years has resulted in many people now dismissing it all on the basis that "they'll probably tell us the opposite next year..."

Well I wouldn't say they're pointless. They will help inform medical advice and we have learned something new, which is the point of these people in the first place, and from what we may learn more still.

That said nothing will change because avoiding processed meats has been the advice for a while now. As I said above this link has long been suspected and the official designation of it is more symbolic than revelatory. I don't think anyone is surprised by this just as they won't be surprised if and when red meat is upgraded.

All that'll happen as a result of this is that a raft of celebrity 'nutrition experts' will jump on the bandwagon producing books, DVDs, diets and detox products/programmes they can flog to those who've bought into the scary headline news as they do every time something or other is highlighted as a potential health risk.

Well yes, people will always abuse things unfortunately.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Joy of bacon sandwich overrides cancer risk, says everyone

[Gary L]

They're focussing more on bacon.

can you see where we're going with this. wanting us to stop eating bacon?