World Health Organization: Eating Processed Meat is Just as Cancerous as Smoking

onenerdykid

Active member
The World Health Organization just announced today that processed meat now falls into "Group 1" carcinogens placing it in the same category as smoking tobacco and asbestos exposure.

Red meat lands in "Group 2A" which is the same as inorganic lead exposure.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/red-meat-bacon-hot-dogs-processed-meats-cause-cancer-dangerous-smoking/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour

While I've never thought of a hot dog as being good for anyone, that is some crazy news.
 
Seriously though, the evidence is undeniable and the data is staggering. People think eating meat is good for you. It really isn't. I just shake my head.
 
I thought it was pretty well known that eating meat isn't good for you. That said I am still eat cause it tastes good.
 
Not entirely surprised either. I would like to know more about it though, especially in comparison to the meat that fast food chains use
 
meh. we all die some day.

name one thing that doesn't cause cancer. you can't.

every day you live is degenerating your body no matter what you do. I don't smoke cigarettes cause I think they're gross but I quite enjoy meat so I'm probably not going to think twice about eating it when my physiological needs kick in.
 
If you consume 100 grams a day your risk goes up by 17%

im not that worried, because the base rate is low enough for this not to matter much
 
The real problem is eating too much meat. Just like everything I guess, not in excess.

People just need to try and reduce their meat consumption a bit, that would be a good thing for their health just as much as the planet's.
 
13530968:FROGGINBULLFISH said:
meh. we all die some day.

name one thing that doesn't cause cancer. you can't.

every day you live is degenerating your body no matter what you do. I don't smoke cigarettes cause I think they're gross but I quite enjoy meat so I'm probably not going to think twice about eating it when my physiological needs kick in.

Seriously there's a study for every single thing in the world today. Apparently if the food coloring "yellow 5" gets a above a certain temperature you can get cancer. But it doesn't mean you will.

I do think we should be cautious tho. Just make sure you're buying better meat. Better and lest processed meat is tastier anyways.
 
13530968:FROGGINBULLFISH said:
meh. we all die some day.

name one thing that doesn't cause cancer. you can't.

every day you live is degenerating your body no matter what you do. I don't smoke cigarettes cause I think they're gross but I quite enjoy meat so I'm probably not going to think twice about eating it when my physiological needs kick in.

Which I totally get, and I doubt people will stop eating processed meat because of it.

But, it is pretty crazy to think that it is on the same level as smoking tobacco or asbestos exposure. I doubt many people would walk into an old building that had asbestos warnings with the same carefree attitude about eating processed meat, or allowing a baby to be around inorganic lead the same way as red meat. That the W.H.O. equates them as such is pretty alarming I would think.
 
13531075:onenerdykid said:
Which I totally get, and I doubt people will stop eating processed meat because of it.

But, it is pretty crazy to think that it is on the same level as smoking tobacco or asbestos exposure. I doubt many people would walk into an old building that had asbestos warnings with the same carefree attitude about eating processed meat, or allowing a baby to be around inorganic lead the same way as red meat. That the W.H.O. equates them as such is pretty alarming I would think.

yeah but frequency is important to note here.

having a cigarette once or twice a month isn't likely to affect your health too much. same with processed meat. this should really only make a difference to the people eating processed meat every day. and if you're eating that shit every day you shouldn't be surprised when you start dying from it.

I'd have no fear walking into a building with asbestos warnings but I sure as hell wouldn't move in.
 
Everything gives you cancer. On that note i'm gonna go suck down a marb red then marinate some backstraps off the elk my best friend shot yesterday.
 
13530968:FROGGINBULLFISH said:
meh. we all die some day.

name one thing that doesn't cause cancer. you can't.

every day you live is degenerating your body no matter what you do. I don't smoke cigarettes cause I think they're gross but I quite enjoy meat so I'm probably not going to think twice about eating it when my physiological needs kick in.

Newschoolers doesnt cause cancer.
 
13531114:YoungDaph said:
Everything gives you cancer. On that note i'm gonna go suck down a marb red then marinate some backstraps off the elk my best friend shot yesterday.

flirt-anim-8885e.gif
 
13530968:FROGGINBULLFISH said:
meh. we all die some day.

name one thing that doesn't cause cancer. you can't.

every day you live is degenerating your body no matter what you do.

so that means we shouldn't make an attempt to reduce the number or amount of carcinogens we voluntarily expose ourselves to? Great logic.
 
You realize this "study" puts red meat at the same danger level of:

-Sunlight

-Breathing Air

-Alcohol

-Wood Dust

-Working Nights

Also, there's a difference between "as hazardous as" and "in the same category". You probably want to learn the difference between the two before becoming a red meat social media activist.
 
13531114:YoungDaph said:
Everything gives you cancer. On that note i'm gonna go suck down a marb red then marinate some backstraps off the elk my best friend shot yesterday.

hang the backstraps in your fridge for a week or so first. makes the meat way tastier and way less stringy and tough.
 
topic:onenerdykid said:
processed meat now falls into "Group 1" carcinogens placing it in the same category as smoking tobacco and asbestos exposure.

The US places cannabis in the same category as heroin and cocaine. Doesn't mean it's anywhere near as harmful.

And if you read up on it then you'll realize it really isn't anywhere near as harmful.
 
So forgive my ignorance, but I assume this finding excludes poultry and fish? At least as the source term - the article also mentions that BBQing and pan frying and even just heating up meat can add carcinogens, but I was already aware of that.
 
Is this not processed meat? as In cows pigs and chickens that have been pumped full of hormones and vaccinations and grow under heat lamps? Pretty sure it's not the red meat itself.

Can't wait to eat some elk yumm!!!
 
Yes, this is a copy/paste. But it answers A LOT of questions:

Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat

Q. What do you consider as red meat?

A. Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

Q. What do you consider as processed meat?

A. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood. Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

Q. Why did IARC choose to evaluate red meat and processed meat?

A. An international advisory committee that met in 2014 recommended red meat and processed meat as high priorities for evaluation by the IARC Monographs Programme. This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat.

Q. Do methods of cooking meat change the risk?

A. High-temperature cooking methods generate compounds that may contribute to carcinogenic risk, but their role is not yet fully understood.

Q. What are the safest methods of cooking meat (e.g. sautéing, boiling, broiling, or barbecuing)?

A. Cooking at high temperatures or with the food in direct contact with a flame or a hot surface, as in barbecuing or pan-frying, produces more of certain types of carcinogenic chemicals (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines). However, there were not enough data for the IARC Working Group to reach a conclusion about whether the way meat is cooked affects the risk of cancer.

Q. Is eating raw meat safer?

A. There were no data to address this question in relation to cancer risk. However, the separate question of risk of infection from consumption of raw meat needs to be kept in mind.

Q. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?

A. In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

Q. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?

A. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans. In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

Q. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?

A. No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), 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.

Q. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating red meat?

A. The strongest, but still limited, evidence for an association with eating red meat is for colorectal cancer. There is also evidence of links with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

Q. What types of cancers are linked or associated with eating processed meat?

A. The IARC Working Group concluded that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer. An association with stomach cancer was also seen, but the evidence is not conclusive.

Q. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

A. According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat. Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide. These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

Q. Could you quantify the risk of eating red meat and processed meat?

A. The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%. The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

Q. Is the risk higher in children, in elderly people, in women, or in men? Are some people more at risk?

A. The available data did not allow conclusions about whether the risks differ in different groups of people.

Q. What about people who have had colon cancer? Should they stop eating red meat?

A. The available data did not allow conclusions about risks to people who have already had cancer.

Q. Should I stop eating meat?

A. Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.

Q. How much meat is it safe to eat?

A. The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.

Q. What makes red meat and processed meat increase the risk of cancer?

A. Meat consists of multiple components, such as haem iron. Meat can also contain chemicals that form during meat processing or cooking. For instance, carcinogenic chemicals that form during meat processing include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Cooking of red meat or processed meat also produces heterocyclic aromatic amines as well as other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are also found in other foods and in air pollution. Some of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens, but despite this knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat.

Q. Can you compare the risk of eating red meat with the risk of eating processed meat?

A. Similar risks have been estimated for a typical portion, which is smaller on average for processed meat than for red meat. However, consumption of red meat has not been established as a cause of cancer.

Q. What is WHO’s health recommendation to prevent cancer risk associated with eating red meat and processed meat?

A. IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence available on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. National governments and WHO are responsible for developing nutritional guidelines. This evaluation by IARC reinforces a 2002 recommendation from WHO that people who eat meat should moderate the consumption of processed meat to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Some other dietary guidelines also recommend limiting consumption of red meat or processed meat, but these are focused mainly on reducing the intake of fat and sodium, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and obesity. Individuals who are concerned about cancer could consider reducing their consumption of red meat or processed meat until updated guidelines related specifically to cancer have been developed.

Q. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

A. The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated.

Sources:
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
 
i'm not going to get into this. ill just say a few things. nutrition is an extremely opinionated subject. i personally believe that red meat is very healthy to eat, assuming it is of good quality. organ meats are some of the most nutrient dense foods in the world, providing some nutrients not found in plant foods.

there are a lot of other reasons for the WHO to tell people to not eat red meat. If more people were vegetarians, we would probably be able to feed the world better. does that mean i think a vegetarian diet is ideal? no not at all.

so what should i do? eat what is best for me? or be a martyr through vegetarianism? i suppose i land somewhere in the middle, all pasture raised sustainable meat, and lots of organic vegetables.
 
13531133:Sparta said:
so that means we shouldn't make an attempt to reduce the number or amount of carcinogens we voluntarily expose ourselves to? Great logic.

well you could live in a clean room and eat ice cubes and meal suppliments your whole life but that wouldn't be very fun would it
 
The problem with this is that they classify all this in a pretty odd manner. It's by evidence for causing cancer, not your risk of developing cancer. So once again, scientists have confused the general public. What the news is failing to report or explain is that the being in the same category doesn't imply the same risk. Aka meat=/=cigs.

I haven't read the paper, or they papers the WHO cites. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it's related to PAH and incomplete combustion products that are found on foods that are smoked, barbecued or whichever method you prefer, since that's what people are talking about. Unsurprisingly, some of these compounds are known to cause cancer, and thus fall into the same category as shit from cigs. But that doesn't imply the same level of risk is shared between meat and smoking.
 
13531145:VinnieF said:
The US places cannabis in the same category as heroin and cocaine. Doesn't mean it's anywhere near as harmful.

And if you read up on it then you'll realize it really isn't anywhere near as harmful.

Actually, the US (DEA) places marijuana in a worse category than cocaine, which is completely retarded.

But, this study was a global effort. If it were conducted solely by the US, then I think it would hold less water.
 
13531259:theBearJew said:
I could argue that using NS can give you cancer from being talked into eating a WI-FI router.

My counter to that would be root cause is not in fact NS, but the eating of the router, but Im interested now who ate the router.
 
13531273:onenerdykid said:
Actually, the US (DEA) places marijuana in a worse category than cocaine, which is completely retarded.

But, this study was a global effort. If it were conducted solely by the US, then I think it would hold less water.

Apparently the data states that 50g of processed meat a day is equivalent to about 1/10th the risk of smoking cigarettes regularly.

It also states red meats are a 'probable carcinogen' with no direct evidence to support they are a carcinogen (although I'm sure they are along with everything else you interact with).

Another large point from this study, and possibly the most important, is that it's not necessarily the meat itself but compounds that accumulate in/on the meat from the method of preparation. For example burning your meat will make it much more carcinogenic than eating a low-temperature cooked meat.
 
There is the same STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE that eating a diet heavy in red meat causes cancer as smoking causing cancer.

That does NOT mean that red meat consumption increases your risk of cancer as much as smoking increases the risk (in fact, there is very good evidence that it does not increase risk nearly as much)... Eating red meat is definitely NOT as bad as smoking.

This has been mentioned in some of the posts of this thread... but I feel like it should be plastered in all capital letters as the first sentence in each of these news stories. This story has the most misleading headlines I can remember reading recently. So, so bad.
 
Also, this study "determined" that 50,000 deaths per year MIGHT be related to red meat, although no direct link was determined.

The world population in roughly 7.3 billion. According to this study, .0000068% of the world's population MIGHT die each year from the supposed link.

Are you really going to change your habits for something that poses a 7/100,000 of 1% chance of affecting you?
 
So no-one is thinking of eating a bit less meat? I have been eating less and less recently and I feel good about it, one it's cheaper, two it's healthier, and three it's better for the world. No need to go full veggie, I am still going to love having a steak every now and again, but why not just reduce the amount if an excess is clearly bad for you?
 
What's next, do sleep and laughter give you cancer?

I should probably cut back on the amount of coldcuts and sausages I eat
 
OP work for his dad selling tofu, so I wouldn't trust his information. Ha told me about it when we were up in the mountains drifting.
 
Title of this thread is wrong, smoked meat is NOT as cancerous as cigarettes.

12049547_1699003623666687_8236978784856414898_n.png


Read the bottom, it doesn't say how mutagenic something is, only how strong the evidence to support the fact that it is mutagenic enough to create cancer. The increased risk is small and isn't because of the meat but because of the stuff on the meat from cooking it, i.e. polyaromatic hydrocarbons and spices.

Plus loads of shit causes cancer, being outside in the sun does, sunburn is even worse.

I think this study was published in the lancet oncology and was probably a meta analysis. I'm gonna go read it/I'm a grad student studying lung cancer.
 
Anyone who's gone to an organic chemistry lab has done the red meat experiment. the meat is burnt and the polycyclic hydrocarbons (benzene) collected. Benzene oxidizes in the body and becomes carcinogenic. Causing DNA mutation.

Pretty funny to read the responses from the meat industry. Gotta feel for them.

I'm still pro red meat.
 
13530929:ianrich511 said:
Seriously though, the evidence is undeniable and the data is staggering. People think eating meat is good for you. It really isn't. I just shake my head.

And anyone who knows anything is shaking their head at you.

There are other types of meat out there besides spam and beef, you know? Lol.
 
13531280:ianrich511 said:
My counter to that would be root cause is not in fact NS, but the eating of the router, but Im interested now who ate the router.

The kid would have tossed it in the trash like a normal person if not for NS suggesting and voting that he eat it. Then he ate it. Thus NS gives you cancer.
 
im eating a hamburger while reading this, I just had a cigarette and I'm about to go watch a microwave for a few minutes.

Honestly, so many people who live straight edge lives end up with cancer, what the fuck is the point to, if you dont like it at least? The risk? lol the risk of cancer is there for everyone, all the time.
 
13531747:Mod_Dane said:
im eating a hamburger while reading this, I just had a cigarette and I'm about to go watch a microwave for a few minutes.

Honestly, so many people who live straight edge lives end up with cancer, what the fuck is the point to, if you dont like it at least? The risk? lol the risk of cancer is there for everyone, all the time.

although if you continue smoking cigarettes your chance of dying prematurely from lung cancer is quite high.

some things just aren't worth the risks
 
Back
Top