WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by sethd » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

The article mentions bacon but doesn't differentiate between cured and uncured varieties. I was under the impression that uncured bacon avoided some of these issues mentioned in the article.

Edit: Assuming you don't have any issues with animal fats and regular salt (I don't).

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

#62

Post by PerfectElement » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

myth_buster wrote: post #23

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, t…

Cowspiracy and Earthlings are documentaries that most people prefer to ignore. Hopefully, now that DiCaprio is behind Cowspiracy, and got it into Netflix, it will be noticed by a wider audience.

I doubt it will be very popular here though, given the strong cognitive bias I noticed in HN when the subject is diet.

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

#63

Post by cowpig » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:20 PM UTC

All I want is a quick summary of the data (and methodology) the people mentioned are using to come to their conclusions.

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

#64

Post by fredkbloggs » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

omegant wrote: post #55

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.…

Regarding that part of "everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something", is there an ideal death graph that we aim to? I mean, do we know were are we trying to go?. Just a curiosity, but it will be interesting if somebody is modeling such an "ideal death statistics" (like 0 car accidents, 0 cancer, 0 murders, 80% age related heart failure, etc...).

Ideal to whom? The state may or may not have its own paternalistic notions about how people ought to die, but so does each individual. Your ideal death is the one you'd prefer; mine is the one I'd prefer.

Side note, ever seen anyone dying of heart failure? Not a way I'd want to go.

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

#65

Post by mvanvoorden » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

cruise02 wrote: post #29

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/new…

/me thinks of English breakfast. Sausage and bacon. Combined with ham sandwiches for lunch, and some 200g piece of processed meat with dinner.

Plus pesticide-laden, nutrition-lacking supermarket veggies and, deep fried (>180C) crisps as an evening snack, high fructose corn syrup soft drinks in the daytime. And mouldy coffee and spice mixes. Inflammation galore.

How does it all add up?

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

#66

Post by Turing_Machine » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #57

josho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C.S. Lewis

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

#67

Post by thebouv » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

The same site in the "Related Content" section show articles saying processed meats are bad in 2009, 2010, 2011 as well.

Then another related article says increase of eating fruits and vegetables does not significantly help reduce risk of cancer either.

No meat. No fruits. No vegetables. Good thing the air we breath and water we drink is clean and doesn't cause ... hmm, nevermind. We're all screwed.

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

#68

Post by fredkbloggs » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #57

josho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.

Just replace "meat" with "________" and you can supplant an entire shelf of political science tomes with a clear and concise summary of the 21st century political universe.

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

#69

Post by mvanvoorden » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

sethd wrote: post #61

The article mentions bacon but doesn't differentiate between cured and uncured varieties. I was under the impression that uncured bacon avoided some of these issues mentioned in the article. Edit: Assuming you don't have any issues with animal fats and regular salt (I don't).

Industrial farms feed their animals soy and corn, which is stored and therefore contains molds, including Ochratoxin A.

'Uncured' bacon is usually treated with celery salt and a bacteria culture. The bacteria transform the nitrates from celery salt into nitrites, and end up containing up to twice the amount of nitrites than their cured counterpart.

Obligatory links:

http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factsheets/ochratoxins/

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy-alert/save-you...

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

#70

Post by myth_buster » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 3:30 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #52

myth_buster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are only about 30000 fatalities from all car driving per year.

  The report indicates that worldwide the total number of road traffic 
  deaths remains unacceptably high at 1.24 million per year.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...