WHO says processed and red meats could increase the risk of several cancers.
After evaluating 800 studies on the subject, twenty two experts from around the world were not able to establish a causal relationship between red meat or processed meats and any type of cancer. What they have is correlation rather than causality. In other words: This happened, then that happened, so maybe this caused that. Pretty weak science. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/ Red meat After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect. This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer. Processed meat Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer. They certainly think there is enough evidence that these meats as a cause of a specific type of cancer. The reason not to worry (well kind of) is because this is not a measure of risk. These things are known causes for certain ailments under certain conditions but many people will be fine. Red meats risks are much lower than smoking risks despite them both rated as carcinogens. "They certainly "THINK" there is enough evidence that these meats can cause cancer. The reason not to worry (well kind of) is because this is not a measure of risk. These things are known causes for certain ailments under certain conditions but many people will be fine. Red meats risks are much lower than smoking risks despite them both rated as carcinogens." Any facts to backup what they "THINK" ? 1
point
Always err on the side of caution. I mean moderation, always err on the side of moderation! There's a lot of talk about cancers, autoimmune disorders, etc in relation to specific foods now a days. I think it would be hard to prove any "diet" to be better than another; It seems that there are far to many "factors". Honestly, it seems everything causes cancer. So what does it matter? However, i personally believe moderation could be an appropriate action for most things in life. Whilst the report on the consumption of red meat was somewhat ambiguous, the findings about the dangers of eating processed meats was clear cut. All that organizations such as the WHO and the IARC can do is place their findings in the public domain and let people make their own choice. If people wish to knowingly take the road to hell and drive like blue blazes that's their choice. When the association between smoking tobacco and lung caner was revealed decades ago there were always those who knew of people who had smoked 1000 cigarettes a day and lived to 150. The same attempts to pooh pooh the validity of this report will be plentiful. But then there is the argument that everyone has the right to choose their own fate. |