Meatheads take on the WHO report...

[Dmakkk]

This is his take on the recent report from WHO... I tend to believe his findings since he continually tests the science of cooking, BBQing and Grilling..

http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/who_is_WHO_kidding.html

Your Thoughts...

[pbj]

You have to remember that W.H.O. is the group that screwed up the Ebola response in Africa over the last year. Bacon is one of the basic food groups, right?

[jimstocks53]

"The sad part is that the WHO has damaged its reputation." Meathead, Really? Actually his article is very well written and easily understandable to the non-statistician. But to suggest WHO has anything but a soiled reputation is laughable. They and most all of the mainstream media used up their quota of 'benefit of the doubt' years ago. Now let's all sing a rousing chorus of 'Dirty Laundry" and have some BBQ.

[Randy3269]

I'll have my bacon sprinkled with light brown sugar and a little HDD please. :-D

[MisterChrister]

I like reading Meathead for another viewpoint, and sometimes he's right, sometimes he's not. For all of his science, he gets all scare tactic-y (kinda like the WHO on cured meats!) on cold smoking bacon, with very little/no hard numbers on the risk in his writing. I guess I take him with a grain of salt, like almost anybody else I read. As far as the WHO, what a bunch of self appointed, self aggrandizing arsetards......

[akoda]

meat prices should come down, right :-P

[Porcine Perfection]

That is what I am hoping for. Get some of the chains to get rid of their brisket sammies and things like that.

[Soybomb]

Wow thats a lot of words for what seems to be a pretty simple thing. Over indulgence in smoked food probably does increase your risk of cancer. The media sensationalized a story because "bacon causes cancer" is a silly headline that people want to talk about at the water cooler. I suppose I clicked though so...

[gtr]

I've been enjoying not paying attention to any of this.

[LYU370]

I like reading Meathead for another viewpoint, and sometimes he's right, sometimes he's not. For all of his science, he gets all scare tactic-y (kinda like the WHO on cured meats!) on cold smoking bacon, with very little/no hard numbers on the risk in his writing. I guess I take him with a grain of salt, like almost anybody else I read. As far as the WHO, what a bunch of self appointed, self aggrandizing arsetards......

Yep, have to agree about the cold-smoking part. To paraphrase his reasoning...

Never ever cold smoke.
Why?
You could make someone very ill or die.
But nothing has ever happened before.
You could still die. Don't do it. Just follow my recipe for hot smoking, unless you want to die.
But why?
Do you want to die? Trust me on this....

[Bludawg]

What do ya expect out of a UN backed group they need to do something to be relevant since Global warming was debunked. Pass the anti pasto I need more Salomi

[ladysmokes]

Wow thats a lot of words for what seems to be a pretty simple thing. Over indulgence in smoked food probably does increase your risk of cancer. The media sensationalized a story because "bacon causes cancer" is a silly headline that people want to talk about at the water cooler. I suppose I clicked though so...

Overindulgence in a lot of things MAY increase your risk for cancer. Many people are exposed to carcinogens their whole life and NEVER get cancer. There's the whole genetic component as well. I'm more worried about GMO's messing with our health. I enjoyed Meathead's article and I do like his website. Those of you who have had success with cold smoking, I say yahoo! and go for it. I think Meathead is just erring on the side of caution.
So everyone enjoy their meat and smoked foods and be sure to get yourself screened for colorectal cancer and have your mammograms (or tell your wives). And give up the cig's. Take it from an oncology nurse.

[deepsouth]

Meathead is right. I had posted this below in the other thread here on this particular topic. It's all about the numbers. There isn't anything wacky in the report, just data based on observation and study, facts. The sensationalism without actually breaking down the numbers is where people get sideways.


a good article....

http://nerdist.com/dont-panic-understanding-the-link-between-processed-meat-and-cancer/


You’ve probably seen the breathless headlines today saying that eating meat gives you cancer. While it is true that eating red and processed meats has been definitively linked to an increase in certain cancers, this is no time to panic—or sell the barbecue.

The Evidence

Today, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (http://www.iarc.fr/) published findings in the journal Lancet Oncology (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/abstract) linking the consumption of red — meat that is a deep red color before cooking, such as beef — and processed — meat that is sold preserved, like salami and hotdogs — meats to certain kinds of cancer, notably bowel cancer. (Fish and poultry meat so far have not been linked to increased cancer risks.)
According to a study in 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12750250/), 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.
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. This isn’t news to the scientific community: the link between red and processed meats and cancer is now as clear as the link between smoking and cancer, according to the IARC.

The Real Risk

Putting red and processed meats in the same cancer category as smoking and asbestos is understandably scary (and invites misunderstanding, as Ed Yong points out at The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/)). While most people know that smoking is definitely bad for your health, the general consensus on eating meat feels closer to “probably not great, but pass me another burger.” Though we have enough evidence to say that a diet high in red and processed meat does cause cancer, the evidence also says that it doesn’t cause very many cases.
The IARC places cancer-causing agents or carcinogens into five basic categories: carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3), and finally probably not carcinogenic to humans (Group 4). Red meat has been classified in Group 2A, and processed meat in Group 1.
As you can see, these categories tell us what causes cancer or not, but not how much. In other words, something can be in the same category as cigarettes but not cause a fraction of the cancer cases cigarettes do. This is the case with red and processed meats.


http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MeatCancer_PIC1.png (http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MeatCancer_PIC1.png)Image: Cancer Research UK
In an extremely informative post (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/) on the new meat classification, Casey Dunlop (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/author/caseydunlop/) at Cancer Research UK features a quote from carcinogen expert Professor David Phillips (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerandresearch/ourcurrentresearch/researchbygrantee/prof-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 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/), 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.


http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MeatCancer_PIC2.png (http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MeatCancer_PIC2.png)Image: Cancer Research UK
And while smoking accounts for almost 90 percent of lung cancer cases, a heavy red and processed meat diet only accounts for 20 percent of bowel cancer cases—the cancer most linked to the meats’ consumption.
The difference here is in “absolute” and “relative” risk. The 2011 data that makes up the infographic above says that those with the biggest red and processed meat intake increase their chances of colorectal cancer (compared to those who ate the least amount of meat) by around 17 percent. That sounds scary on its own, but the risk is relative. The absolute risk of bowel cancer for those who ate the least amount of processed meat (at least in the UK) was 56 out of 1,000 people. If those people changed their diet, 66 out of 1,000 in the UK would develop colorectal cancer. Any increase is bad, but it is small when compared to something like smoking.
Another way to think about absolute and relative risk is to imagine the powerball lottery. If you buy one lottery ticket, and then decide to buy one more, you have increased your chances of winning by 100%. Sounds great, right? But if the absolute chances of winning the powerball are 1 in 175,000,000 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-l-wasserstein/chances-of-winning-powerball-lottery_b_3288129.html)—you are 15 times more likely to get attacked by a shark—then you are increasing your chances to 2 in 175,000,000. Still not very likely.

What To Do About It

You don’t have to eliminate red and processed meats from your diet just yet: these findings are established with data from those who have the meatiest meals. If you are worried about cancer and have a very meaty diet, cutting down on the amount of meat you eat is a fine idea. You can substitute red meat for white or fish. Reduce portion sizes while adding in vegetables to round out the meal. And though no amount of cigarette smoke is a “good” amount, red meat is still a valuable source of nutrients. Just enjoy it in moderation and chances are pretty good that an occasional steak won’t do you in.

[The B]

There are other forces driving this article. As long as they don't do anything silly, like ban the people from buying meet, I say we promote this as gospel and drive down the meet prices to a manageable level. I understand people need to make a living, but prices have been getting out of hand.

[Porcine Aviator]

The Meathead article is interesting in that it points out that these studies are flawed.

Although it can't be proved, I believe there is an agenda at WHO that promotes vegan-ism. There have been various demonstrated errors and omissions committed by WHO in the past:

WHO consistently rails against GMO foods although there is no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by them.

WHO denounced DDT for use in the third world which precipitated the loss of countless children in those countries. WHO has now recanted their position and DDT is now in common use again-- saving thousands of children.

WHO has avoided addressing the very real possibility that municipal water systems using Chlorine ( which generates Chloramines and other Chlorine compounds ) are carcinogenic. This may be simply be so because there is no known replacement whose efficacy can be demonstrated as a bactericide. Ozone is effective but cannot provide a residual in water systems.

"Eurocrats", as I call them, stand in the way of progress on many fronts to protect their pet theories-- Most of the time lacking any clinical evidence to defend their stance.

Any of the WHO findings deserve a good dose of skepticism.