Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#21

Post by pageld »

just_curioussss wrote: post #17
at-fates-hands wrote: post #9

" 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…

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?

Because doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. They wear them to protect the patients and avoid spreading diseases.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#22

Post by GordonS »

bluedino wrote: post #4
GordonS wrote: post #2

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

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

But surely not all processed meat uses nitrates?

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#23

Post by 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/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

Edit: Flow.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#24

Post by just_curioussss »

pageld wrote: post #21
just_curioussss wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. They wear them to protect the patients and avoid spreading diseases.

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.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#27

Post by 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?

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#28

Post by INTPnerd »

dalacv wrote: post #3

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.

I hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, not everything gives you cancer. Only things that give you cancer, give you cancer. Lots of foods have anti-cancer properties. Basically, the more natural the food is, the more likely it will be to prevent or even treat cancer. Now when I say treat cancer, I am not saying it is guaranteed to get rid of all your cancer, or you should not seek help from a trusted smart cancer fighting person (notice I did not say doctor or oncologist?). Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI. Basically if you eat vegetables and fruit, these are anti-cancer. But if you already have cancer, you have to be careful with fruit because of the sugar. But vegetables are good. However, even with fruits and vegetables, the more natural their state the better. If you juice them instead of blending the whole thing, you lose a lot of the nutrition. You are no longer eating it in the original state it was intended to be consumed. They were designed to be a complete package, the nutrients complement each other and enable your body to deal with and use the other things in the food. If they were grown with pesticides or herbicides, these can contribute to cancer. If the ground they are grown in is nutritionally depleted, the food will be also. If the ground or water used is polluted, the food will be also. The best thing is to buy a water distiller, to clean your own water. Then grow your own fruits and vegetables using that water and using high quality, clean, plant superfood. From http://www.foodrising.org/, you can even purchase a very low maintenance, small hydroponic system that allows you to easily grow very nutritious, better than organic fruits and vegetables.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#29

Post by 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...

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#30

Post by josho »

mathgeek wrote: post #14

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)?

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.
Post reply on HN