Processed meats as bad as cigarettes: bad reporting on good science

Post by pg_is_a_butt » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

zsupalla wrote: post #4

dspillett wrote: post #2

My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving…

Exactly! I'm always disappointed by reporting on scientific research; reading the research helps, but how many people are going to do that? A lot of people will probably change their diets based on this research, assuming that eating meat is as bad as smoking.

Post by tkyjonathan » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #25

DanBC wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame you trivialise the risk. :-/ Skin cancer is very common, and kills many people. People absolutely should be careful about the amount of sunlight they expose themselves to.

Sunscreen is also carcinogenic. Vitamin D deficiency is also harmful. And staying indoors with little exercise leads to a whole host of other conditions.

Post by AlisdairO » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

tkyjonathan wrote: post #32

dspillett wrote: post #2

My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving…

Sorry, guys, but you are all wrong. WHO is a huge and difficult body to get agreements from. After years and 800 studies, they decided today to label processed meats as carcinogens. Btw, 15% of lifelong smokers get lung cancer whereas 15-19% of meat-eaters get some sort of cancer (mainly, colorectal, prostate and breast). I can appreciate that this is a surprise, but the data has been there for more than a decade.

Post by moskie » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

Post by anunderachiever » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 8:45 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #23

anunderachiever wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that bombastic? Lot of people are smoking and will readily justify it with anecdotal evidance proving that smoking isn't really that bad at all - "you know there was this 105 year old Japanese guy and they asked him how he got that old and he said he stopped smoking at the age of 99 ..." Furthermore - people need those "comparisons" - only few will change their behavior based on purely statistical reason…

The WHO report tells us that the quality of the evidence is very good, which is why red meat and processed red meat have this new classification. It doesn't talk about how strong the cancer-causing effects of red meat and processed meat are. They are nothing like as risky as cigarettes. We know that cigarettes are very harmful.