Bacon is cancer candy, evidently....

[RStar]

Ok, I know processed meats are not healthy. I know that nitrates and nitrites are not so good for you (but food borne illness from spoilage is life threatening also). And I know when you cook certain foods about a gazillion chemical reactions occur, and some are possibly carcinogenic.

But these new claims that bacon and burgers should be classified in the same category as smoking has one glaring plot hole. Where are the clinical studies to support these claims? I keep hearing that "they are bad for us" and that they "may lead to cancer" but nothing about studies that prove it. I'm sure it would be fairly difficult but to make bold claims with out definitive proof seems odd to me.

In the mean time, our air is full of pollutants that cause cancer. So shall we not breathe?

Our water passes through the air picking up contaminants. We have been polluting our water ways for centuries. Shall we not drink?

The sun has been proven to cause skin damage, aging, and skin cancer, as well as eye problems with cataracts. Shall we not bask in it's rays?

Most of life has consequences. Shall we not live it?

One word- balance.

Ok, two words. Balance & choices. Evidently.

[alphabassettgrrl]

So long as that "balance" includes bacon, we can talk.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There are plenty of clinical studies. They didn't just make this up.

HOWEVER what is usually missed is exactly what WHO means by classifying something as a Group 1 carcinogen.

What it DOES mean is that they are SURE it causes cancer. By classifying it with cigarettes they are saying, "We are just as convinced that processed meat causes cancer as we are the cigarettes cause cancer."

What it DOES NOT mean is that they are equally LIKELY to cause cancer. Or that you are equally likely to die of a cancer that they cause. You are still far more likely to damage yourself by smoking than by eating salami.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I found these reports discussing the study very informative:

• Kyle Hill from Nerdist: Don’t Panic! Understanding the Link Between Processed Meat and Cancer
• Steven Novella from Neurologica WHO Report on Red and Processed Meat (and also The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe)

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

There are plenty of clinical studies. They didn't just make this up.

HOWEVER what is usually missed is exactly what WHO means by classifying something as a Group 1 carcinogen.

What it DOES mean is that they are SURE it causes cancer. By classifying it with cigarettes they are saying, "We are just as convinced that processed meat causes cancer as we are the cigarettes cause cancer."

What it DOES NOT mean is that they are equally LIKELY to cause cancer. Or that you are equally likely to die of a cancer that they cause. You are still far more likely to damage yourself by smoking than by eating salami.

But what if you smoke the salami?

I understand that there have been studies, but I'm use to reports including the studies in them. Perhaps I have misunderstood this whole thing. It's not a report saying that they have just found this out, rather a request to include them in the category as a carcinogen. This is what has stirred the ire of meat lovers.

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

I found these reports discussing the study very informative:

• Kyle Hill from Nerdist: Don’t Panic! Understanding the Link Between Processed Meat and Cancer
• Steven Novella from Neurologica WHO Report on Red and Processed Meat (and also The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe)

Thank you! I'll read them later when I have time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by RStar

But what if you smoke the salami?
It's not a report saying that they have just found this out, rather a request to include them in the category as a carcinogen. This is what has stirred the ire of meat lovers.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction.

The announcement was that they analyzed the available data and concluded that there is convincing evidence that consumption of these foods definitely increases cancer risk. Before now there wasn't enough evidence to make that conclusion. Now there is. That's how it works.

[RStar]

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!