GD, I'm sorry if I'm not expressing my idea very clearly.
The idea I'm trying to get across is that I'd like to know which data they analyzed. I'm use to hearing reports following a particular study, rather than a report saying they looked at the results of all of the studies. That had me confused at first, because the report simply said they wanted to list bacon and processed meats on this list and didn't even have the words "after reviewing the studies" in it. I get that they didn't just come up with this out of the blue, and I blame the media for not being real clear.
I work in a scientific field, and I read reports and analyze data all day long. And I wanted to know which studies and what the results were. However, after reading what the Nerdist made clear in the link above- that over 800 studies were looked at, I see why they didn't list them. But a little more information like the fact that they looked at 800 studies would have helped.
This is the result I was looking for (from the Nurdist):
"According to a study in 2003, the breakdown products of heme, part of the substance that makes blood red, hemoglobin, may be to blame. When the heme in red meat is digested, it produces carcinogenic chemicals called “N-nitroso” compounds. The same compounds can form when the nitrogen-based preservatives in processed meats make their way into the gut." [My question here is - did they not study the effects of heme in chicken and fish, or does that heme not cause cancer?]
"The new study is the summation of over 800 studies — by looking at a large number of studies as a whole, scientists can identify larger trends or results. The strongest link is between those with the highest meat consumption and colorectal cancers."
"....a quote from carcinogen expert Professor David Phillips that puts the findings in perspective. “To take an analogy, think of banana skins,” Phillips says, “They definitely can cause accidents, but in practice this doesn’t happen very often. And the sort of harm you can come to from slipping on a banana skin isn’t generally as severe as, say, being in a car accident.”
“But under a hazard identification system like IARC’s, ‘banana skins’ and ‘cars’ would come under the same category.”
The bottom line is that while processed meats do cause cancer like smoking does (and red meats probably do), they doe not cause nearly as many cases. According to the stats of another meta-analysis by cancer researchers in 2011, the increase in all cancer cases that come from a red and processed meat-heavy diet is three percent. Which is to say, if everyone stopped eating red and processed meats altogether, it may prevent three percent of cancer cases. If everyone stopped smoking it would prevent almost 20 percent of all cancer cases."
Now THAT puts it in a perspective that I can understand!
Thank you, SzczerbiakManiac!
