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

31–40 of 106 posts

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

#31

Post by gglitch »

zeveb wrote: post #27

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.…

I wouldn't advocate for abstinence over education, and I usually feel like our understanding of human health and nutrition is comparable in sophistication to alchemy; but to add some nuance to the counterargument to what you said, I'll suggest that whether we will live before we die is only one of the important questions, that (a) how long we'll live, and (b) the total number of happy, easy, healthy years we'll have before we die, are also important questions. Until the science is more reliable, moderation seems like the safe bet.

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

#32

Post by zeveb »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #15
csours wrote: post #7

I wonder where roasted marshmallows rank?

Well, apparently wood fires aren't great for you, so unless you're roasting it over a gas flame, probably fairly high: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

I remember when that article first came out. As I note elsewhere, the fundamental flaw in his logic is thinking, 'if something is worse than tobacco smoke, then it must be banned!' My own thought is, 'if tobacco smoke is less bad than wood smoke, then it must not be banned!'

A world without wood smoke would be a poorer, sadder, less pleasant-smelling world. Yes, it's a pollutant. Yes, it's carcinogenic. But it's one of the things which makes life worth living.

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

#33

Post by federico3 »

zeveb wrote: post #27

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.…

> The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned.

Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal.

> 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.

Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars.

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

#34

Post by sp332 »

"No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos... but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk."

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q... <- link seems to be down at the moment

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

#35

Post by INTPnerd »

GordonS wrote: post #22
bluedino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Correct, but most of them do use it as a preservative. I agree the article should address this instead of just saying processed meats are bad. Also, high quality vitamin C can block the nitrosamine formation if you consume it with your processed meat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI

http://store.naturalnews.com/NanoNutra-Liposomal-Vitamin-C-1...

http://store.naturalnews.com/Optimal-Liposomal-Vitamin-C--5-...

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

#36

Post by NikolaeVarius »

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.

Nope. The nitrates themselves aren't the issue.

It's the cooking that's the issue because the nitrates convert to nitrosomenes under high heat.

If nitrates were the issue, then we should stop eating celery because that's where the nitrates in processed meats come from, celery juice.

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

#37

Post by myth_buster »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #19
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #6

This seems pretty misleading. The WHO put these meats in the same class in terms of certainty of being a carcinogen in humans, but I don't see any claim about the rates of cancer caused by each being comparable. That is, they're convinced that it causes some nonzero amount of cancer, but how many cancers it causes is a separate issue. Also, the picture at the top shows a cheeseburger, but ground beef is never actuall…

Maybe it's the Guardian's fault. The BBC article ( http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617 ) does mention some numbers: > Is meat as bad as smoking? > No. > Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. > That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.

  600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.
That number is a bit misleading. Does that include the deaths say due to DUI,, liver damage, poisoning?

It ideally shouldn't as we are discussing carcinogens.

Edit: Added additional alcohol related deaths.

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

#38

Post by boothead »

thomasfl wrote: post #26

This confirms the findings described in the book "The China Study". It describes a massive long term survey done in china. Animal proteins is harming.

The China Study has been very thoroughly debunked. I think this article is probably the most highly thought of http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...

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

#40

Post by scholia »

thomasfl wrote: post #26

This confirms the findings described in the book "The China Study". It describes a massive long term survey done in china. Animal proteins is harming.

Horribly flawed at best, and "more a work of fiction than a nutritional holy grail".

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/...

Post reply on HN