what none of these studies show is how eating grass-fed, that is, meat from pastured animals leads to very different outcomes. The meat/chicken is leaner and has no antibiotics or hormones. The authors never look into the differences in animals raised in confined feed lots versus those animals that roam freely and eat mostly grass.
8
Dozens of studies have shown that red and processed meat is also linked to increased risk of heart disease, type II diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. Will you be ignoring those studies as well?
8
It appears that all the studies used by WHO have placed individual genetic predisposition to colon cancer in the back seat. To assign an elevated risk of colon cancer to any food they must examine enough data to show that the intake of subject food results in a significant increase in colon cancer rates over the background rate of the population. Any prediction of increased colon cancer is muddied by the individual's genome. Better counsel on food will identify the level of processing/treatment which the manufacturer used, and the amount of added sugar.
A good diet is all food in moderation, including meats and processed meats is a rational diet. If we limit diet to foods that have no affect we would starve or have a unbalanced diet.
1
Certainly diet plays a part many diseases. And certainly a disease involving your digestive system seems to favor Dietary influence. But not always. For example, ulcers were believed to be caused by spicy foods and stress. We now know there caused by a bacteria.
Colorectal cancer seems to be influenced by diet; that seems to be more influenced by genetics. I am curious as to whether prophylactic colostomies would be more in order. It seems extreme but many women are opting for prophylactic mastectomies. Cancer and a painful death seem even more extreme.
Colorectal cancer seems to be influenced by diet; that seems to be more influenced by genetics. I am curious as to whether prophylactic colostomies would be more in order. It seems extreme but many women are opting for prophylactic mastectomies. Cancer and a painful death seem even more extreme.
3
All the poisons used to grown plants that are ffed to animals can cause lowered immunity. And processed meats can killed. Nitrates can kill. Why kill animals and eat them when you can buy organically grown vegetables and eat those?
Heredity is important, as is exposure to poisons in the air and soil and water. But stuffing poisons into your mouth with processed meat is tempting fate.
Heredity is important, as is exposure to poisons in the air and soil and water. But stuffing poisons into your mouth with processed meat is tempting fate.
3
How about eating Organic Meat? I would say a vegetarian eating conventional produce is more at risk than an omnivore on a completely organic diet. I know someone who was extremely health-conscious and would consume (conventional) "healthy" green smoothies everyday who died horribly from colon cancer.
4
Pesticides and several other chemicals that are pervasive in our environment are known carcinogens. Is the WHO going to recommend against eating conventionally grown produce? Who is going to protect us from all the harmful chemicals pumped into our bodies constantly?
7
Simply living puts you at risk for something. Even undergoing a colonoscopy has some, albeit small, risk. We're fortunate to be even reading (or carrying) about these risks in our privileged first world.
1
Comparing a colonoscopy to eating bacon or a juicy steak, the colonoscopy better be worth it because I know which one I'd rather partake in. According to CDC data (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/age.htm), the highest risk category for colon cancer is the 30 year chance of getting the disease, starting at age 60. It's 4.20% or 1 person in 24. That's not insignificant odds but neither are the comorbidities that arise from the colonoscopy procedure itself which increases with the aging process (as does colon cancer).
My concern is that most of us do not know how to convert probabilities into actions reflecting our risk tolerance unless the odds are exceedingly high or low or unless they can be related to something we know like the odds of being dealt a full house (0.17%).
My concern is that most of us do not know how to convert probabilities into actions reflecting our risk tolerance unless the odds are exceedingly high or low or unless they can be related to something we know like the odds of being dealt a full house (0.17%).
3
The WHO report is a study of studies, so second order evidence. That doesn't make it useless, but does warrant the added caution about the reliability of the methodologies deployed in the 800 studies comprising the review. In particular, there are two major statistical issues that are at best unclear from the reports about the WHO report, and raised in this article: (1) cause and effect: how well did the underlying 800 studies do at isolating the particular impacts of processed meats from all the other cancer-inducing factors that may be operating simultaneously? As a corollary of this problem, even if the risk were somehow greater eating processed meat, there is no indication of what offsetting behaviours may mitigate this risk.
(2) Relative magnitudes: it is indeed scary to read that your risk of contracting bowel cancer increases by 18%, but of that is an increase to 6% from 5% (1/5 = 20%), it has much less total importance than if the denominator were much higher to begin with and the rate of increased risk the same. For example, 20% of 20% represents multiples more potential cancers than 20% of 5%.
One would need to explore the science underlying this report rather carefully and knowledgeably to better appreciate the potential importance - or not - of adjusting one's eating habits.
(2) Relative magnitudes: it is indeed scary to read that your risk of contracting bowel cancer increases by 18%, but of that is an increase to 6% from 5% (1/5 = 20%), it has much less total importance than if the denominator were much higher to begin with and the rate of increased risk the same. For example, 20% of 20% represents multiples more potential cancers than 20% of 5%.
One would need to explore the science underlying this report rather carefully and knowledgeably to better appreciate the potential importance - or not - of adjusting one's eating habits.
4
Not at all impressed with this writer. The Times newspaper needs to get a new health reporter. After saying that meat can be a detriment to overall health, raising farm animals contributes to environmental woes, and the way we raise and slaughter our animals is cruel, I believe he or she sees no reason not to eat meat. Of course, I plead guilty to not wanting to read the whole post which turned me off, but I doubt that anything valuable and compassionate was contained therein. I am an ethical vegan because I see no need whatsoever to raise living creatures for food in this day and age. If we were living in pioneer times and killing animals was the only alternative to starving, I would not object. Even people living in the very cold regions who have no access to fruits and vegetables have a justifiable reason for killing animals and fish for food. But for the majority of us today who have access to so many healthful and compassionate alternatives- there is no need to kill animals for food. I became vegetarian in 1976 because I looked into my dog's eyes and saw her soul. I believe all living creatures have a soul and before you slam me on this - the late Pope John Paul II said the same thing although he was not vegetarian. In 1983 when I found out that cheese was made with an enzyme from a calf or pig's stomach - I became vegan on the spot. I thank God every day for giving me a compassionate heart.
4
The key figure in all of these reports is what is the actual before and after risk of cancer. For example, eating a couple of strips of bacon every day may raise the risk by 18% (about 1/6th), but 18% of what? Thank goodness the consequence of consuming processed meats has raised my risk only from 5% to 6% because I had a baloney or salami (often both) sandwich every day through all four years of high school--and not infrequently since.
In short, the real risk of eating processed meats, and probably red meats, is an increase of only about one chance in 100 (in 100 years, a person is likely to die of something anyway). That's not nearly as scary as all those headlines.
In short, the real risk of eating processed meats, and probably red meats, is an increase of only about one chance in 100 (in 100 years, a person is likely to die of something anyway). That's not nearly as scary as all those headlines.
3
To play a bit of devil's advocate, what about the food industry in the US at large? When do we start pointing serious fingers at modern restaurants, meat processors, and the USDA? The hallmarks of these industries in the past century and a quarter are unsafe working conditions, disastrous environmental impacts, and now potentially carcinogenic levels of meat consumption.
Granted, I believe that the WHO is guilty once again of poor correlative work. But the list of hazards associated with modern US food consumption keep growing. When do we societally decide to call a halt to this?
Granted, I believe that the WHO is guilty once again of poor correlative work. But the list of hazards associated with modern US food consumption keep growing. When do we societally decide to call a halt to this?
5
If the politicos have their way, thinking will be promoted as bad for your health. "If you think, you have a 33% greater chance of getting brain cancer." Please remember, humans evolved a great brain by EATING MEAT!
1
You can't argue that the results are weakened by not providing product-specific risks and then LATER argue that the elevation in population risk from 5 to 6 percent somehow applies to an individual person and is therefore not that significant.
It's much more likely that people are eating more than 2 strips of bacon per day. And it's also possible that the baseline risk for a specific person is higher than 5%.
It's easy to not be convinced, if you use reverse inference, cherry pick certain data and dilute the main findings.
It's much more likely that people are eating more than 2 strips of bacon per day. And it's also possible that the baseline risk for a specific person is higher than 5%.
It's easy to not be convinced, if you use reverse inference, cherry pick certain data and dilute the main findings.
1
Living has a 100% probability of being fatal. Is longevity the only goal?
4
I have been a vegetarian since 1969, so I'm not exactly a tool of the meat industry.
That said, this type of research is useless and misleading. The correlations are weak, and many announcements based on correlations turn out to be incorrect or even damaging. When the best that Ioannidas--for whom I have the greatest respect--can say is "there's probably something there," it is not a result that should be widely covered in the news media and certainly not a basis for public health policy.
The WHO does good work in trying to control contagious disease. But they should stick to what they are good at. As a scientific research organization, they are strictly third-rate.
That said, this type of research is useless and misleading. The correlations are weak, and many announcements based on correlations turn out to be incorrect or even damaging. When the best that Ioannidas--for whom I have the greatest respect--can say is "there's probably something there," it is not a result that should be widely covered in the news media and certainly not a basis for public health policy.
The WHO does good work in trying to control contagious disease. But they should stick to what they are good at. As a scientific research organization, they are strictly third-rate.
5
What people need to know is the effect on overall mortality, and perhaps other aspects of general health, of a particular food, treatment or other intervention or life style. A given food may increase the risk of cancer but it may have other beneficial effects, or the substitutes may have harmful effects. The effect on mortality was clearly established in the case of cigarette smoking, but I have not seen mention of this for any of the supposed carcinogen foods.
O'Conner says that a screening protects against colorectal cancer, but the effect on mortality has not been established:
http://www.cancer.gov/types/colorectal/hp/colorectal-screening-pdq
The popular media and the specialized health media are generally irresponsible in reporting these studies. Even the recommendations of medical authorities are mostly questionable, a fact which is demonstrated by the way they keep changing.
O'Conner says that a screening protects against colorectal cancer, but the effect on mortality has not been established:
http://www.cancer.gov/types/colorectal/hp/colorectal-screening-pdq
The popular media and the specialized health media are generally irresponsible in reporting these studies. Even the recommendations of medical authorities are mostly questionable, a fact which is demonstrated by the way they keep changing.
2
Thanks, Anahad, for pointing out the obvious; something totally missed in the first Times article. In this area, risk, as well as in many others, either authors or editors believe that their readers cannot understand arithmetic, or else said authors and editors do not understand it either.
What should be most important to readers is what the absolute risk is, not only how much it might be modified. For something like smoking, high in the double digits for very specific disease, a ten percent increase is important. Not so much for a disease with low numbers. A responsible article would show the absolute, or total incidence of a disease when startling us with some putative change. Hot dogs vs. plutonium! Moreover, the lower the absolute risk, causation by specific factors becomes harder to understand.
My risk of getting smashed by a falling satellite might be provably higher for some latitudes where more of them orbit, but I would hardly move because of it.
What should be most important to readers is what the absolute risk is, not only how much it might be modified. For something like smoking, high in the double digits for very specific disease, a ten percent increase is important. Not so much for a disease with low numbers. A responsible article would show the absolute, or total incidence of a disease when startling us with some putative change. Hot dogs vs. plutonium! Moreover, the lower the absolute risk, causation by specific factors becomes harder to understand.
My risk of getting smashed by a falling satellite might be provably higher for some latitudes where more of them orbit, but I would hardly move because of it.
2
I'm afraid this article is one of many that try to minimize the scientific findings regarding red and processed meat by pointing to the "messy" nature of scientific research. Like scietific research, this article presents a number of conflicting and confusing results, and the goal of research is to ultimately make sense of those conflicts through careful and systematic analyses. But unfortunately, the author does not attempt to organize or syrhesize these findings, instead, he provides strong support of the WHO conclusions even though the tone of the article is critical of them. And the analogy that eating processed meat is like driving a car in the rain is badly misrepresented - any repsonsible driver would admit that driving in the rain is simply more risky than driving on a clear day. The point applies to processed meat in the same simple way.
Please get it eight. The message which this and many other articles ignore is that processed meat is NOT in the same category as red meat. Stop conflating the two.
2
No, they are not. The commercial sausage in the photo is quite different from red meat.
Really wish NYTimes would do a story on the CamPill, & the conflict of interest that exist with it. Doctors prefer not to use it as it cuts into that labor time as it frees them from the traditional colonoscopy procedure. Expand the use of the CamPill we can get more people screened & for cheaper. Of course the traditional procedure is necessary too but if we're talking about bulk screens the CamPill I believe is the way to go. I have ulcerative colitis, once a year I take a CamPill, every 5 years I do the traditional screen.
As for meat and all that stuff. It's nothing new. Just its a new report published at a time when vegans/vegetarians/environmentalist etc are trying to curve meat usage for a number of reasons; health care costs which I'd suspect the savings would be minimum, and water savings which there are other solutions too. Desalination for one, Saudi Arabia does it with solar..we can too. As for health care, a new cause of cancer will always replace a previous cause. While I agree to an extent of treating underlying issues, I think this can get carried away at times. To me I rather we focus on things like CRISPR & trying to find treatments & cures while also finding a pro-free-market based form of government run single payer health care.
I will keep eating meat, process meat but as I already do in moderation. I will keep getting screened too. Hopefully the CamPill issue is brought up, as I think expanding its use will be a lifesaver, not just the meat eaters.
As for meat and all that stuff. It's nothing new. Just its a new report published at a time when vegans/vegetarians/environmentalist etc are trying to curve meat usage for a number of reasons; health care costs which I'd suspect the savings would be minimum, and water savings which there are other solutions too. Desalination for one, Saudi Arabia does it with solar..we can too. As for health care, a new cause of cancer will always replace a previous cause. While I agree to an extent of treating underlying issues, I think this can get carried away at times. To me I rather we focus on things like CRISPR & trying to find treatments & cures while also finding a pro-free-market based form of government run single payer health care.
I will keep eating meat, process meat but as I already do in moderation. I will keep getting screened too. Hopefully the CamPill issue is brought up, as I think expanding its use will be a lifesaver, not just the meat eaters.
These studies may be more harmful than helpful. It seems as though everything we eat is going to cause us to be stricken down by some debilitating disease or chronic illness. But the truth is that the interaction between our diets, lifestyle, activity levels, environment, and the crap shoot that is genetics is far too individual and complex to be so manipulated by adding or eliminating any singular food from our diets.
My great grandmother ate bacon and eggs everyday and died at 103, but had dementia for the last 20 years of her life. My maternal grandfather ate like a bird and drank like a fish, dead in his 60s from stomach cancer. My maternal grandmother was very active and health conscious about food, but smoked cigarettes for 40 years. She quit smoking about 10 years before dying from a heart attack at 78. My paternal grandmother, a full-figured, robust woman who shares her granddaughters sweet tooth, but has never smoked and rarely, if ever drinks has survived tuberculosis, and breast and cervical cancer. I have a friend who never eats bad food and exercised all the time. He got prostate cancer followed by a knee replacement.
How about the study that acknowledges that no matter what we do, we are all going to die from something sooner or later? Enjoy life and food in moderation rather than agonize over what is going to give you cancer or kill you.
My great grandmother ate bacon and eggs everyday and died at 103, but had dementia for the last 20 years of her life. My maternal grandfather ate like a bird and drank like a fish, dead in his 60s from stomach cancer. My maternal grandmother was very active and health conscious about food, but smoked cigarettes for 40 years. She quit smoking about 10 years before dying from a heart attack at 78. My paternal grandmother, a full-figured, robust woman who shares her granddaughters sweet tooth, but has never smoked and rarely, if ever drinks has survived tuberculosis, and breast and cervical cancer. I have a friend who never eats bad food and exercised all the time. He got prostate cancer followed by a knee replacement.
How about the study that acknowledges that no matter what we do, we are all going to die from something sooner or later? Enjoy life and food in moderation rather than agonize over what is going to give you cancer or kill you.
4
From all the studies I have read on health and food, I can state two findings with confidence:
1. If you eat too much of any food it will not likely be good for you.
2. All edible food has properties that are healthy for you and keep you alive and properties that are unhealthy for you and may kill you.
There is no such food, as far as I know, that will keep you alive forever. The only question is where on the sliding scale between healthy and poison the food ranks. However, even the so-called healthy foods have qualities that can harm you in the long run and be downright dangerous to some.
In other words I fully expect when one study comes out praising a food, I expect one questioning it a few years later and vice-versa. Sorry to be such a cynic.
1. If you eat too much of any food it will not likely be good for you.
2. All edible food has properties that are healthy for you and keep you alive and properties that are unhealthy for you and may kill you.
There is no such food, as far as I know, that will keep you alive forever. The only question is where on the sliding scale between healthy and poison the food ranks. However, even the so-called healthy foods have qualities that can harm you in the long run and be downright dangerous to some.
In other words I fully expect when one study comes out praising a food, I expect one questioning it a few years later and vice-versa. Sorry to be such a cynic.
It has long been known that nitrite in meats is carcinogenic.
Nitrite is used because all processed meats (like hot dogs) contain hard-to-kill, spore-forming Clostridium bacteria, a very dangerous group of pathogens, and nitrite is the most effective way to control Clostridium (both in all mammal large intestines, but usually inactive unless something, antibiotics, alter the balance of power among the bacteria that inhabit the large intestine).
Nitrite is a general, not a specific, carcinogen, that can alter any gene, a probabilistic process; the probability of cancer is determined by exposure, but no amount of exposure is guaranteed to cause cancer.
I only eat processed meats containing nitrites occasionally, so my cancer risk is small. If you consume a lot of such products, your cancer risk is higher. However, that doesn't mean your cancer risk is high.
The worst things about meat production are that beef production is much more ineffective and wasteful and polluting than any other meat production. But beef is about status, not just about taste. Eating beef indicates wealth, as does the ability to waste.
Nitrite is used because all processed meats (like hot dogs) contain hard-to-kill, spore-forming Clostridium bacteria, a very dangerous group of pathogens, and nitrite is the most effective way to control Clostridium (both in all mammal large intestines, but usually inactive unless something, antibiotics, alter the balance of power among the bacteria that inhabit the large intestine).
Nitrite is a general, not a specific, carcinogen, that can alter any gene, a probabilistic process; the probability of cancer is determined by exposure, but no amount of exposure is guaranteed to cause cancer.
I only eat processed meats containing nitrites occasionally, so my cancer risk is small. If you consume a lot of such products, your cancer risk is higher. However, that doesn't mean your cancer risk is high.
The worst things about meat production are that beef production is much more ineffective and wasteful and polluting than any other meat production. But beef is about status, not just about taste. Eating beef indicates wealth, as does the ability to waste.
@Jon:
Nitrites are added to some _processed meats_, not to meat in general.
Nitrites are added to some _processed meats_, not to meat in general.
1
Another example the author could have noted was cholesterol. When it was found that high cholesterol in the blood was associated with increased atherosclerosis, the medical community recommended severely limiting dietary cholesterol. The link between cholesterol intake and blood levels is now recognized as complex, and dietary cholesterol in no longer considered as problematic. The impact on egg producers was significant, recovery has occurred over the past few years as dietary recommendations have changed. It is irresponsible of the media to disseminate incomplete and poorly explained reports in order to ring up hits.
4
Not sure about what red meat causes, but if you have prostate cancer, red meat fat and dairy fat contain a particularly fat compound that is very attractive to prostate cancer cells, as a nutritional source. They will find it, and absorb it, 9 times faster than normal, non-cancerous cells will. This is both a scientific fact proven in laboratories and also confirmed by the relative scarcity of prostate cancer in populations that eat little or no dairy or red meat.
3
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is the media which uses the scariest headlines to call attention to what is minimal risk.
2
just wondering if the cancer rate for Germans is higher, considering there intake in processed meats probably is 2-3 times more than that of Americans
4
"An estimated 20 percent of all greenhouse gases are attributable to raising animals for food. A vast majority of the meat we consume comes from factory farms, where animals are fattened with hormones and antibiotics and routinely subjected to inhumane conditions that breed disease. These are all compelling reasons to cut back on meat consumption — and part of the reason, even though I’m no longer a strict vegetarian, I rarely eat red meat."
Enough reasons to not eat red meat. The above is true, so who cares about cancer? Eating red meat is bad for the environment, us and for our children in ways that we can't even imagine today.
No red meat for me, cancer risk or no cancer risk.
Enough reasons to not eat red meat. The above is true, so who cares about cancer? Eating red meat is bad for the environment, us and for our children in ways that we can't even imagine today.
No red meat for me, cancer risk or no cancer risk.
11
Despite the World Health Organization's conclusion that processed meats significantly increase your risk for cancer, I keep seeing apologists for meat and pundits throwing out that tired cliche... moderation. Should we also smoke in moderation? Should we also take heroin in moderation? The truth is: we live in a carnist society, where the baseline assumption is: we should eat meat. That is a false assumption. I have been a vegan for 19 years. I am healthy. I am one of millions of vegans out there who are living, breathing proof that meat-eating is unnecessary. Indeed, as this article admits, it is a leading cause of climate change and inflicts unimaginable cruelty of billions of animals who are as smart and as sensitive as our dogs and cats. And, it has negative health consequences for us. When are we, as a society, going to face the truth about how destructive America's meat habit is for us, for the animals and for our planet? Taste buds and tradition do not trump all other considerations. We could all give up meat tomorrow and the world would be a much better place. Indeed, we could take all the grain and soy we use to fatten up America's 9 billion farm animals and distribute it to starving people and end world hunger. Perhaps meat eaters should chew on that possibility.
27
@Jane Velez-Mitchell:
Humans are omnivores, and have been since before we were even human. This is biological adaptation, not some sort of social convention. Strictly vegan diets are fatal without modern supplementation because a strictly vegan diet is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species.
Humans are omnivores, and have been since before we were even human. This is biological adaptation, not some sort of social convention. Strictly vegan diets are fatal without modern supplementation because a strictly vegan diet is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species.
1
Another reason for the "apologists" is that - since the diabolical Citizens' United Supreme Court 5-4 decision, by uber-conservative fanatic justices, installed by Republican presidents - declaring corporations as "persons" under the Constitution, is legal.
Since that ruling, giant corporations and trade groups, are pursuing law suits more aggressively, to silence their opponents and watchdog organizations, invoking "economic damage" to their industry.
When successful, these lawsuits are de facto "gag laws" that prevent serious critical review of any corporate product - if an watchdog organization does criticize a product, they better have a wealth of research/studies to defend their findings in a lawsuit court, and the cost of going to litigation weakens their overall watchdog efforts.
Since that ruling, giant corporations and trade groups, are pursuing law suits more aggressively, to silence their opponents and watchdog organizations, invoking "economic damage" to their industry.
When successful, these lawsuits are de facto "gag laws" that prevent serious critical review of any corporate product - if an watchdog organization does criticize a product, they better have a wealth of research/studies to defend their findings in a lawsuit court, and the cost of going to litigation weakens their overall watchdog efforts.
1
Nonsense. A plant-based diet is a boon to good health. I suggest you read John Robbins' Diet for a New America, Food Revolution and Dr Neal Barnard's Power Foods for the Brain. All these books explain the wonders of a vegan diet. America's SAD diet (standard American diet) habit is causing heart disease, obesity and cancer. The world is in the midst of a vegan revolution. We have vegan weight lifters and triathletes. There are numerous plant-based sources of protein, calcium and all the other nutrients one needs. My great niece has never tasted meat or dairy and is taller than average, healthier than average and doing very well starting college. The truth is meat eating for an exploding human population estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050 is unsustaintable. We are going to have to change.
3
I find it interesting that the New York Times story about the WHO announcement about red meat did not discuss the weaknesses of the WHO cancer-ranking system. I read some other versions of this story that were clear about these weaknesses. Nonetheless, as a long-time vegan, and as someone who is fully convinced that avoiding meat can reduce cancer risk, I chose to share the NYT version of the story with my friends on Facebook. The WHO cancer-ranking system may be flawed, but I think other studies are clear when it comes to the connection between red meat and cancer.
I also believe in screening. In fact, I stopped by the clinic today (before I read this article) to get my screening kit. But screening is almost useless compared to lifestyle changes (including diet). Screening does nothing to prevent disease. Screening does not cure anything. Screening just tells you if you are sick, or showing indicators that you might be on your way to getting sick. For screening to save your life, it must detect a problem early, and you must follow up with timely and appropriate treatment.
Though there is some evidence that eating certain plant-based foods can reverse some types of early-stage cancer, for most people, treatment will involve radiation or chemotherapy, and possibly surgery.
I don't know about you, but I would rather avoid getting cancer in the first place. Screening is a good idea, but the first line of defense should be lifestyle changes, including avoiding meat.
I also believe in screening. In fact, I stopped by the clinic today (before I read this article) to get my screening kit. But screening is almost useless compared to lifestyle changes (including diet). Screening does nothing to prevent disease. Screening does not cure anything. Screening just tells you if you are sick, or showing indicators that you might be on your way to getting sick. For screening to save your life, it must detect a problem early, and you must follow up with timely and appropriate treatment.
Though there is some evidence that eating certain plant-based foods can reverse some types of early-stage cancer, for most people, treatment will involve radiation or chemotherapy, and possibly surgery.
I don't know about you, but I would rather avoid getting cancer in the first place. Screening is a good idea, but the first line of defense should be lifestyle changes, including avoiding meat.
2
@Dan Frazier:
Except we have very little evidence that avoiding meat will prevent cancer, and avoiding all animal foods may well lead to other problems.
Except we have very little evidence that avoiding meat will prevent cancer, and avoiding all animal foods may well lead to other problems.
4
And saliva, if swallowed frequently, may cause cancer!
If you like the results, then it is "settled science." If you don't like the results, then "the jury is still out."
One thing to remember is that tobacco is a weak carcinogen. You don't see many 20 or 30-somethings dying of lung cancer regardless of how much they smoke. It takes at least 40 or 50 years of smoking to give you cancer. In fact smoking probably kills more people through heart attacks than through cancer.
One thing to remember is that tobacco is a weak carcinogen. You don't see many 20 or 30-somethings dying of lung cancer regardless of how much they smoke. It takes at least 40 or 50 years of smoking to give you cancer. In fact smoking probably kills more people through heart attacks than through cancer.
2
Here's what I know to be true for me:
1st colonoscopy = 6 large adenomatous polyps. Told to eat more fiber, more fruits & vegetables and less red meat. Check, check and check. Diligent.
2nd colonoscopy, 3 yrs later = EIGHT large adenomatous polyp!!!!Plus labeled high risk for colon cancer
3rd colonoscopy, 3 yrs later. Eating vegetarian for 2+ years. = 1 polyp, benign. Next colonoscopy in 5 years. Easy lifestyle change and well worth it to me.
1st colonoscopy = 6 large adenomatous polyps. Told to eat more fiber, more fruits & vegetables and less red meat. Check, check and check. Diligent.
2nd colonoscopy, 3 yrs later = EIGHT large adenomatous polyp!!!!Plus labeled high risk for colon cancer
3rd colonoscopy, 3 yrs later. Eating vegetarian for 2+ years. = 1 polyp, benign. Next colonoscopy in 5 years. Easy lifestyle change and well worth it to me.
30
A big part of the problem is the difficulty human beings have understanding probabilistic information and using it in their daily decision-making, and this often applies not just to the general public but to the researchers themselves and to the journalists and headline writers. For example, if eating a lot of something is found to raise cancer risk from 1% to 1.3%, headlines will scream that the thing raises cancer risk by 30% (true but misleading), and many will read it to say if they consume even a small quantity of it they will have a 30% chance of getting cancer (100x more than the actual impact, which is 3/10th of 1% and even then only after eatings lots of it). Clearer understanding, and clearer writing, would help.
7
While it is true that humans have systems that rely on compounds that are essential in small amounts but deadly at higher concentrations, and mechanisms to handle small amounts of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals, limiting exposure to the polyaromatics and other carcinogens formed in high temperature cooking methods is more than sensible.
A factor commonly overlooked in the 'meat causes cancer' scare is that at least some of the risk is not the meat itself, or the preservatives and hormones present in far too many types of supermarket flesh, but the preparation. Many foods, and most red meats are much tastier if they are browned or grilled - the process alters proteins and caramelizes sugars and brings out rich flavors in foods, but generates compounds that are carcinogenic. We are about as likely to switch to boiled burgers and steamed steaks as we are to give them up altogether, so perhaps research can be brought to bear on elucidating the cooking methods and recipes that are safest?
A factor commonly overlooked in the 'meat causes cancer' scare is that at least some of the risk is not the meat itself, or the preservatives and hormones present in far too many types of supermarket flesh, but the preparation. Many foods, and most red meats are much tastier if they are browned or grilled - the process alters proteins and caramelizes sugars and brings out rich flavors in foods, but generates compounds that are carcinogenic. We are about as likely to switch to boiled burgers and steamed steaks as we are to give them up altogether, so perhaps research can be brought to bear on elucidating the cooking methods and recipes that are safest?
5
The amount of self-delusion masquerading as wishful thinking, in the comments section and the article is astonishing. I would recommend folks take a look at the documentary FORKS OVER KNIVES (the "knives" in the title being surgical scalpels) to truly understand the actual cellular effects of meat and dairy products on the human body. The obvious function of the meat and dairy industries, in collaboration with passive governmental oversight, is to blind citizens to the toxic effects of their products. The obesity, diabetes and heart disease epidemics that are coursing through our population are directly linked to our ever increasing consumption of processed foods, primarily meat and cheese. The kind of denial prevalent in people's reaction to the news about meat reminds me of my father's reaction to the 1964 report regarding the link between cigarettes and cancer: "Maybe the price of my Marlboros will go down". We are addicted to meat and dairy the same way we are addicted to caffeine and nicotine.
1
@Stephanie Wood:
Most people _improve_ health, including weight loss and normalizing blood sugar, when they ditch refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty animal foods.
A different view of Forks Over Knives:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-...
Most people _improve_ health, including weight loss and normalizing blood sugar, when they ditch refined carbs and eat more naturally fatty animal foods.
A different view of Forks Over Knives:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-...
2
Thank you for a very insightful and sensible article. I was very concerned and now, while still planning to adjust our diet even further, I will still allow the occasional hot dog and bacon into the house.
I don't care if people still want to eat animals, but they should not support massive animal abuse and push their meat on others, especially the youth. We're suppose to educate for them to make their own decisions.
We were created to be plant-based eaters. If we didn't go down the slippery slope of eating animal products there would be less pollution, a healthier society, more water and grain to feed all of the starving people in the world and of course billions of animals won't be tortured and ground up alive as in the egg industry. Calves won't be taken from their mothers so we can drink their milk. Please do some research to learn about what we support and don't support. Our government doesn't care. Jan, God's Creatures Ministry
We were created to be plant-based eaters. If we didn't go down the slippery slope of eating animal products there would be less pollution, a healthier society, more water and grain to feed all of the starving people in the world and of course billions of animals won't be tortured and ground up alive as in the egg industry. Calves won't be taken from their mothers so we can drink their milk. Please do some research to learn about what we support and don't support. Our government doesn't care. Jan, God's Creatures Ministry
4
@Jan Fredericks:
Humans are _adapted_ to be omnivores, since before we were even human.
Humans are _adapted_ to be omnivores, since before we were even human.
2
Watch this:
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/colon-cancer/
Like it or not, dietary choices are one of the biggest risk factors for colon, breast prostate, and many other cancers. Diet, however is not the only factor. That's the reason why despite these changes, we Americans won't live as long as Sardinians. We need to change our stressful lives.
I agree with moderation, but there is no question that greens, beans and fresh fruits and veggies should be what predominate in your healthy diet.
Start to think of meat as the ice-cream of your main meal each day. If you are eating a 24 oz steak, is the last bite as interesting as your first few? All those additional bites are just filler, and high cholesterol/fat filler at that.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/colon-cancer/
Like it or not, dietary choices are one of the biggest risk factors for colon, breast prostate, and many other cancers. Diet, however is not the only factor. That's the reason why despite these changes, we Americans won't live as long as Sardinians. We need to change our stressful lives.
I agree with moderation, but there is no question that greens, beans and fresh fruits and veggies should be what predominate in your healthy diet.
Start to think of meat as the ice-cream of your main meal each day. If you are eating a 24 oz steak, is the last bite as interesting as your first few? All those additional bites are just filler, and high cholesterol/fat filler at that.
3
Thanks Mr. O'Connor for a welcome dose of sanity to the discussion. Further reading on the subject:
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mean-for-your-me...
http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mean-for-your-me...
http://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/
2
So the media, which hyped the story, may now blame their hysterical and bad reporting on the W.H.O.? I read the original release in the NYTimes and it was perfectly obvious to me that the risk was negligible.
2
Good to read an article in the Times on a social/behavioral issue where the author understands research.
I haven't read the research the WHO reviewed and do not intend to. However, any rational person would immediately question the research simply based on how they attained measures of processed meat consumption. With cigarettes, it's an all or nothing event and people know how long and how much the smoked. But with dietary factors you must rely on self report of people over a long period of time.
Do I have any idea how many hot dogs I've eaten over my life time? No idea. How many sausages? Same. Bologna, salami -- how could you possibly know? Ditto with things like salt.
So how could researchers assess the degree of risk unless you've got solid consumption data from subjects?
But let's suppose researchers obtained good information about intake of processed meats. Then what about other life style and dietary factors that may covary with processed meat intake -- beer (and brats), obesity, low exercise level, fatty foods in general, etc.
As I'm sure the author knows, unless you control for those variables, you really can't make the case against processed meats.
As noted, smoking is all or nothing and the effect so powerful that other life style factors are irrelevant. But a minor effect with something difficult to measure, WHO are they kidding? Maybe this was just a disguised numeracy or gullibility test to see how dumb the public might be.
I haven't read the research the WHO reviewed and do not intend to. However, any rational person would immediately question the research simply based on how they attained measures of processed meat consumption. With cigarettes, it's an all or nothing event and people know how long and how much the smoked. But with dietary factors you must rely on self report of people over a long period of time.
Do I have any idea how many hot dogs I've eaten over my life time? No idea. How many sausages? Same. Bologna, salami -- how could you possibly know? Ditto with things like salt.
So how could researchers assess the degree of risk unless you've got solid consumption data from subjects?
But let's suppose researchers obtained good information about intake of processed meats. Then what about other life style and dietary factors that may covary with processed meat intake -- beer (and brats), obesity, low exercise level, fatty foods in general, etc.
As I'm sure the author knows, unless you control for those variables, you really can't make the case against processed meats.
As noted, smoking is all or nothing and the effect so powerful that other life style factors are irrelevant. But a minor effect with something difficult to measure, WHO are they kidding? Maybe this was just a disguised numeracy or gullibility test to see how dumb the public might be.
2
Leave it to the Times to once again be on the wrong side of nutrition. Whenever a report is released on unhealthful foods, the Times finds someone to dispute it – in an opinion piece. Most recently, they found a doctor to defend giving sugar sodas to children. Next, they'll find someone to defend artificial sweeteners. Meanwhile, our nation's incidence of obesity and related diseases continues to climb. Instead of defending harmful foods and food producers – and doctors and pharmaceutical companies that benefit financially from disease – maybe the Times could report the truth: that what we eat matters quite a lot.
1
In thinking about what causes cancer, remember what George Carlin reported: "Scientists have discovered that saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time."
2
If hot dogs raise the risk of cancer to any degree, should parents
still allow their children to eat them?
still allow their children to eat them?
1
So, bottom line is we all die from something.
3
Sheesh, ingest whatever you want--just don't make me pay for your expensive health care; take your death sentence with a side of ham and hashbrowns. We should probably eradicate most government health care programs, as it seems we're not really keeping productive members of society alive--just the weak and old, who don't really create much value. Brutal survival of the fittest.
A citation for your 2500% increase in cancer risk: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/tobacco-related-...
A citation for your 2500% increase in cancer risk: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/tobacco-related-...
Mr. O'Connor - you are in denial, like most of America who eats tons of processed foods. Your philosophy is - The best thing I can do is to get screened. Mess your health up, and hope for the best.
Alot of America eats meat and junk food, and then expects to get sick and be on medications, and see doctors and get operations.
It's all unnecessary. You should read your own newspaper - The Island where people forget to die.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-forge...
Have a good DIET (most important) and exercise - and guess what? - you can live a healthy long life without disease, arthritis, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. It's all unnecessary.
Your choice - Pay for it now, or pay for it later.
Alot of America eats meat and junk food, and then expects to get sick and be on medications, and see doctors and get operations.
It's all unnecessary. You should read your own newspaper - The Island where people forget to die.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-forge...
Have a good DIET (most important) and exercise - and guess what? - you can live a healthy long life without disease, arthritis, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. It's all unnecessary.
Your choice - Pay for it now, or pay for it later.
1
The crucial issue as I see it is the difference between strength of evidence and potency. The original Times article noted that “The I.A.R.C. classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.” So while processed and fried meats have clear connections to cancer (including a mechanistic understanding of how they cause this disease), they are less potent than say, cigarette smoking. The WHO study found that 50 grams daily of processed meat (1/4 of a brat) or 100 grams daily of red meat (1/3 of a steak) might increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively.
1
I was just diagnosed with colorectal cancer last week, at age 31. So I find the timing of this study and subsequent news with a mild sense of surreal coincidence.
I am not entirely persuaded that red meat alone is the cause of my affliction, but perhaps a small part of a bigger plot, as I ate steak and burgers voraciously in my twenties. I also smoke, too much, and will have to quit soon. Frankly I will admit I do not know much about cancer and am truly afraid to find out.
I wanted to emphasize, after reading your article, that this is not just a disease of the elderly, but can form in folks within my age group as well, although rarely. Had I not been screened last week, I would be oblivious to the fact that there is a deadly cancer within me, as I exert no obvious symptoms. Save for one, a bit of blood during nature's duty.
I was told, and believed for two years, that this was nothing but hemorrhoids by physician and peer alike, because what 29 year old has colon cancer?
I do not yet know the stage of the cancer, how far it has spread within my body, because my CAT Scan was just yesterday, and a few more tests are needed before I get the big picture of what I need to do to treat this.
I do wish, however, there was elevated awareness about this type of cancer and more aggressive screening for it. But given the body area is a bit taboo, I can understand the reluctance.
For my three month old son, and my wife who loves me, I will pull through.
I am not entirely persuaded that red meat alone is the cause of my affliction, but perhaps a small part of a bigger plot, as I ate steak and burgers voraciously in my twenties. I also smoke, too much, and will have to quit soon. Frankly I will admit I do not know much about cancer and am truly afraid to find out.
I wanted to emphasize, after reading your article, that this is not just a disease of the elderly, but can form in folks within my age group as well, although rarely. Had I not been screened last week, I would be oblivious to the fact that there is a deadly cancer within me, as I exert no obvious symptoms. Save for one, a bit of blood during nature's duty.
I was told, and believed for two years, that this was nothing but hemorrhoids by physician and peer alike, because what 29 year old has colon cancer?
I do not yet know the stage of the cancer, how far it has spread within my body, because my CAT Scan was just yesterday, and a few more tests are needed before I get the big picture of what I need to do to treat this.
I do wish, however, there was elevated awareness about this type of cancer and more aggressive screening for it. But given the body area is a bit taboo, I can understand the reluctance.
For my three month old son, and my wife who loves me, I will pull through.
36
Hi! My husband has just finished his treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer - 36yo. If you would like to read about our experience, please do a google search for katyadoula slideshare. Good luck, and let me know if you ever want to talk, especially because we chose a very successful clinical trial at Hopkins. I will check this thread every so often for replies. Good luck.
2
Best of luck to you, Neil. Here's hoping you have a 100% successful treatment. Thanks for sharing.
2
The ideas in this excellent piece should ldeally be contained in the statements by the authors of the WHO report and developed by those who reported on the WHO statement not moved off separately to "News Analysis".
Misleading readers by excessively reporting on minor increases in the risk for relatively common problems and conversely over emphasizing statistically significant increases in the risk for extremely rare but scary conditions is counterproductive to actually helping readers to develop a healthy lifestyle.
Misleading readers by excessively reporting on minor increases in the risk for relatively common problems and conversely over emphasizing statistically significant increases in the risk for extremely rare but scary conditions is counterproductive to actually helping readers to develop a healthy lifestyle.
3
In a market based economy, the input factors in a product, such as water and energy, are reflected in the price. They have to be.
It makes no sense for individuals to think that it they stop using a product, they are thereby "preserving" water and energy for other purposes or future generations. It doesn't work that way.
If we stopped using water and energy to raise cattle, it would to some extent reduce the price of water and energy for everyone else, and encourage its use for other products. Nothing gets preserved. It just gets used in the way that people prefer it to be used as expressed in the price they are willing to pay for the products that make their life better.
It makes no sense for individuals to think that it they stop using a product, they are thereby "preserving" water and energy for other purposes or future generations. It doesn't work that way.
If we stopped using water and energy to raise cattle, it would to some extent reduce the price of water and energy for everyone else, and encourage its use for other products. Nothing gets preserved. It just gets used in the way that people prefer it to be used as expressed in the price they are willing to pay for the products that make their life better.
I'm not a vegan but I hardly ever eat meat. When I want a change, I go for Chinese take-out, where meat is more like a spice. I used to be the typical meat eater; but now when I go by the meat department, it all seems kind of gross. The other big reason is I saw the film, "Food Inc." which show the deplorable filth associated with beef. Basically the they're fattened up with corn in a corral where they just live 24/7 knee-deep in their own manure.
If I ever buy a steak again, it will be the newly available "grass fed."
If I ever buy a steak again, it will be the newly available "grass fed."
Apparently the meat industry has gotten to the NYT.
Evolution has suited each animal to its natural environment. Look at a cat's teeth or a dog's teeth. Their canine teeth are much bigger (relative to the size of the cat or dog) and much sharper than ours. Their teeth evolved to kill. Our teeth evolved to bite fruit and chew vegetables. Also, our bodies hoard sodium but secrete potassium, which seems odd since our cells hoard potassium and pump out sodium. The explanation is that we evolved eating fruits and vegetables which are loaded with potassium. Eating meat is asking for trouble, as is living without exercise.
Evolution has suited each animal to its natural environment. Look at a cat's teeth or a dog's teeth. Their canine teeth are much bigger (relative to the size of the cat or dog) and much sharper than ours. Their teeth evolved to kill. Our teeth evolved to bite fruit and chew vegetables. Also, our bodies hoard sodium but secrete potassium, which seems odd since our cells hoard potassium and pump out sodium. The explanation is that we evolved eating fruits and vegetables which are loaded with potassium. Eating meat is asking for trouble, as is living without exercise.
1
@Kevin Cahill:
You might note that we don't have large teeth or claws, but we did evolve the use of _tools_ that take the place of those structures in other predators. Humans have been omnivorous (evolved eating plants _and_ animals) since before we were even human. The animal foods were hunted/fished and butchered with the use of our tools.
Not eating any animal foods is asking for nutritional deficiencies.
You might note that we don't have large teeth or claws, but we did evolve the use of _tools_ that take the place of those structures in other predators. Humans have been omnivorous (evolved eating plants _and_ animals) since before we were even human. The animal foods were hunted/fished and butchered with the use of our tools.
Not eating any animal foods is asking for nutritional deficiencies.
4
This report is a scientific guess, nothing more. If the W.H.O. reviews the
literature on prostate cancer and breast cancer, the conclusions would be just
as murky as this report on prevention. What was not mentioned in this report is
a genetic factor as a causative problem. This is certainly the beginning of
a long medical search. One report is only the start.
literature on prostate cancer and breast cancer, the conclusions would be just
as murky as this report on prevention. What was not mentioned in this report is
a genetic factor as a causative problem. This is certainly the beginning of
a long medical search. One report is only the start.
Thanks for that common sense explanation about the difference between a a reasonable and an unreasonable conclusion.
Authors have a conflict of interest when making conclusions and recommendations: they need catchy headlines. Readers always need to hear whether experts consider those conclusions and recommendations to be reasonable responses to the numbers.
Authors have a conflict of interest when making conclusions and recommendations: they need catchy headlines. Readers always need to hear whether experts consider those conclusions and recommendations to be reasonable responses to the numbers.
The WHO said 34,000 people would die from eating red and processed meats this year. To put that in perspective, about 240,000 people a year are struck by lightning. In our field we call ths WHO's conclusion "confusing absolute risk with relative risk." I have struggled for years to explain the difference, but the WHO just did it for me with the meat-and-lightning comparison. One misinformed statistic is worth 1000 words.
5
It's only a tiny amount of cancer
Salted fish? That and salted meat were the principal sources of animal protein for most Americans until the advent of refrigeration. What do they think people ate for protein throughout history?
4
Organizations such as the WHO may actually cause harm with their frequent health alerts. A confusing aspect of these warnings is that they sometimes contradict each other. One study will determine that consumption of coffee fends off certain maladies, while another will focus on its harmful effects. These studies resemble raw data that require careful analysis and comparison with other information before their true meaning emerges.
Inundated by such conflicting messages, some people may lose confidence in the capacity of scientific research to offer useful guidance. That would be a truly unfortunate consequence of a process that has the potential to improve our lives greatly. The old adage remains valid: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Inundated by such conflicting messages, some people may lose confidence in the capacity of scientific research to offer useful guidance. That would be a truly unfortunate consequence of a process that has the potential to improve our lives greatly. The old adage remains valid: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
19
If the World Health Organization wants to make a case for less red meat consumption on the basis that it increases the probability of global warming because it is resource intensive, let it make that case. To allege that beef is a likely cause of cancer and processed meat is an absolute cause of cancer destroys their scientific credibility.
This belongs in the same category as their recent allegation that the herbicide in Roundup is a likely carcinogen. They have a hidden agenda.
The third world would be far better off if they were allowed to plant disease and drought resistant plants. The WHO is governed by commercial interests that are more comfortable with keeping the poor countries in poverty if it means that wealthy farming interests in the first world can maximize their profits.
This belongs in the same category as their recent allegation that the herbicide in Roundup is a likely carcinogen. They have a hidden agenda.
The third world would be far better off if they were allowed to plant disease and drought resistant plants. The WHO is governed by commercial interests that are more comfortable with keeping the poor countries in poverty if it means that wealthy farming interests in the first world can maximize their profits.
Excellent piece. Unquestioning reports of the WHO press release were shameful. The decision to pass simplistic conclusions explains why so many people now doubt "science" reports. Thank you for setting the record straight. When are editors going to *wait* before passing along every press release they get? Virtually every media outlet fell for this one.
4
I'll continue to follow the advice many of us learned as children, "everything in moderation."
3
Was turkey bacon also tested? I would like to see this done, to see if this is an alternative to bacon from pork. I would also like to know if the hot dogs tested were kosher or non-kosher, and if there is a difference in what is contained in them, and if one is better than the other.
All things in moderation, including reliance on medical studies and Dr. New York Times.
1
If the author of this opinion piece actually read the summary of the report on Lancet (the full report still hasn’t been published), she realized that for the assessment of colorectal cancer only 15 prior cohort studies were part of who's analysis of which 8 were excluded. Thus the 800 number bantered about is quite meaningless. Not all 800 studies demonstrated correlation. Not even the 15 pertinent cohorts did. There also weren't any animal or interventional studies to support WHO'S conclusions so all the WHO'S has really is a hypothesis which is what cohorts are only supposed to generate.
4
Whatever the risks associated with red meat, let's all agree that consuming animal protein in modern society is entirely unnecessary. Unless you're living in rural Alaska, a vegetarian diet is easy to maintain and nutritionally complete.
1
@Robert Bradley:
Animal foods are more than just protein, there are also essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals in there. Animal protein is more easily digested and absorbed than plant protein, and contains the right proportion of essential amino acids.
A strictly vegan diet requires careful planning and supplementation to be nutritionally complete, even then it might not produce health, because it is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species.
Animal foods are more than just protein, there are also essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals in there. Animal protein is more easily digested and absorbed than plant protein, and contains the right proportion of essential amino acids.
A strictly vegan diet requires careful planning and supplementation to be nutritionally complete, even then it might not produce health, because it is evolutionarily inappropriate to our species.
4
A vegetarian diet is NOT easy to maintain for those of us who often (say, 6 nights per week) eat in restaurants. Most restaurants have either no vegetarian option, or their sole vegetarian offering is a version of pasta. A huge pile of starch on my plate is tasty but not nutritionally an improvement on my diet compared to, say, fish. I am a failed vegetarian a few times due to the restaurant conundrum. Even here in NYC the vegetarian options at moderate price restaurants are few and far between.
3
Well written, intelligent, and needed!
I was disturbed to read articles and headlines that appeared to equate the risk of eating cured meats with smoking. How absurd. And bothered to hear many not question this. Indeed, I even incurred the wrath of a number of vegetarian friends when I questioned the reporting on this research.
While I am not an advocate of increasing meat consumption--quite the opposite and for many reasons--it is imperative that health and science reporting be fair, unbiased, and honest.
I was disturbed to read articles and headlines that appeared to equate the risk of eating cured meats with smoking. How absurd. And bothered to hear many not question this. Indeed, I even incurred the wrath of a number of vegetarian friends when I questioned the reporting on this research.
While I am not an advocate of increasing meat consumption--quite the opposite and for many reasons--it is imperative that health and science reporting be fair, unbiased, and honest.
3
Anahad O'Connor wrote: "Perhaps the single most important measure you can take to protect yourself from colorectal cancer, experts say, is to get a screening between the ages of 50 and 75." What facts support this statement? There hasn't yet been a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of colonoscopy -- though there is one underway now. So is the author relying on the same type of observational data that is discredited earlier in the article — such as the beneficial effects of hormone treatments after menopause which were supposed to decrease heart attacks, but in fact increased them?
1
Mr. O'Connor, when the World Health Organization cites 800 studies supporting an association between eating processed meat and cancer risk, we can assume that many of those studies factored out the secondary "risky behaviors". I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the science is good. You seem to follow the path of tobacco executives who obfuscate the issue by crying, "link, what link? There is no link to cancer." But of course we know there is. Tobacco causes cancer. The China study of 6,500 people identified a link between meat and a variety of cancers. The W.H.O is yet another major agency to confirm it: red and processed meats cause cancer. It is not that difficult to untangle if you simply look at it statistically. The numbers prove it.
@Samuel:
These studies are all observational, based on self-reported food recall surveys. The increased risks are statistically significant but miniscule, and the observational studies have never successfully separated eating red meat from other dietary and lifestyle factors.
These studies are all observational, based on self-reported food recall surveys. The increased risks are statistically significant but miniscule, and the observational studies have never successfully separated eating red meat from other dietary and lifestyle factors.
5
As a health scientist I found the WHO headline simply absurd. Another example of how health science data is misused. So I went out an bought some sausages for dinner.
4
The take away here is consistency. I do not worry about a one off study that claims X is bad or good. But a series of studies that claim X is bad definitely gets my attention. I have found a vegetarian sub for bacon so I can satisfy the craving safely and plan to keep doing it. Too many studies have found bacon to be linked to bad things.
For sure, it's not certain, but what makes me think it might be true is that when I went to look at India's colorectal cancer rate, it was about one ninth of ours. I looked up India's because there's a widespread prohibition about eating beef. I also noticed on the charts, that in general, the countries that don't eat much beef had much lower colorectal cancer rates than the countries that do. Proves nothing, but makes you wonder. Smoking probably caused cancwr before we proved it.
1
Great explanation! I also want add that life itself is carcinogenic base on WHO criteria since cancer risks always increase with age.
3
All this agonizing over the risks when this is the perfect opportunity to stop participating in the vast torture & genocide of pigs, who are among the most intelligent of fellow sentient mammals.
Bacon doesn't exactly grow on trees or get spit out of a machine all sliced ready for you to fry. If you're even slightly concerned about hazards of eating smoked, nitrate-saturated pig corpses, I can assure you, the pigs have it worse.
Bacon doesn't exactly grow on trees or get spit out of a machine all sliced ready for you to fry. If you're even slightly concerned about hazards of eating smoked, nitrate-saturated pig corpses, I can assure you, the pigs have it worse.
1
In the very early 1800's Sioux indians diet consisted of mostly bison. Could not modern science create an unbiased study from already examined DNA. Free range without hormones or antibiotics just as most bison are raised today.
I know I feel better when I limit processed foods. Will you feel better if you start your day with a pile of bacon and carbs or whole grains,fruit and a protein source like eggs or beans. You are what you eat.
@Harry:
"Whole grains" are a pile of carbs. Why not have bacon, eggs, and veggies, and skip the insulin-spiking portion of the breakfast?
"Whole grains" are a pile of carbs. Why not have bacon, eggs, and veggies, and skip the insulin-spiking portion of the breakfast?
3
"But bacon tastes goooood. Pork chops taste gooood." ~ Vincent Vega
ditto.
ditto.
Hey, don't forget sitting--which is the new smoking.
2
My mother died from colon cancer. Did she eat a lot of red and processed meats? No. But she developed colon cancer at a time when women weren't supposed to get screened as often as men because women weren't supposed to be at risk. Hah!
She was 63 when she died and they estimate she had colon cancer for 10+ years. I had my first colonoscopy at age 37. Thank you, medical screening! May you be available to all.
She was 63 when she died and they estimate she had colon cancer for 10+ years. I had my first colonoscopy at age 37. Thank you, medical screening! May you be available to all.
18
My daughter died of colorectal cancer at age 48. It enrages me to see recommendations to wait until 50 to be screened.
1
Thanks for explaining.
I wasn't about to give up some of my favorite foods, not a chance.
I was about to worry in an unnecessary way, an unpleasant way, for no good reason at all except poorly written prior reporting.
I wasn't about to give up some of my favorite foods, not a chance.
I was about to worry in an unnecessary way, an unpleasant way, for no good reason at all except poorly written prior reporting.
26
Sensible advice - these never ending "food alerts" need to be kept in perspective.
16
I've come to the conclusion that everything causes cancer. I guess the key is moderation, healthier eating habits and light exercise. If that doesn't work, then it's just in the cards and we're gonna have to deal with it if and when the time comes. In the meantime, stay gratefully happy, mediate, reflect- be positive [be nice to people by returning shopping carts instead of leaving them in the parking lot] and try not to think too much.
54
Absolutely! I think if you eat or are exposed to 'too much of anything' it will probably cause some type of cancer. Hey, Too much of the 'cure for cancer' will cause cancer.
Being alive causes cancer. Being dead prevents cancer. Which would you rather be?
The press are credulously reporting a World Health Organisation report: "Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said.”
They add: “"Its report says each 50g of processed meat a day - the equivalent of one sausage, or less than two slices of bacon - increases the chance of developing bowel cancer by 18 per cent.”
An increase of 18% sounds very bad, almost as if your lifespan will be reduced by 18%
I know that sensible people would not touch a WHO report with a very long stick for fear of catching something, but this is very silly, even by their standards. They have ranked bacon sandwiches in that category not on their risk, but on the strength of the evidence that there is a very high probability of there being some risk, even if if it is very slight. That is, if WHO are certain that the risk is trivial, it goes into the top category of evidence based statements!
"Global health experts listed processed meat as a cancer-causing substance - the highest of five possible rankings, shared with alcohol, asbestos, arsenic and cigarettes.”
This is stupid, stupid, stupid.
It is part of a mendacious habit in which charities and health groups propagandise relative risks without mentioning ABSOLUTE RISKS.
They add: “"Its report says each 50g of processed meat a day - the equivalent of one sausage, or less than two slices of bacon - increases the chance of developing bowel cancer by 18 per cent.”
An increase of 18% sounds very bad, almost as if your lifespan will be reduced by 18%
I know that sensible people would not touch a WHO report with a very long stick for fear of catching something, but this is very silly, even by their standards. They have ranked bacon sandwiches in that category not on their risk, but on the strength of the evidence that there is a very high probability of there being some risk, even if if it is very slight. That is, if WHO are certain that the risk is trivial, it goes into the top category of evidence based statements!
"Global health experts listed processed meat as a cancer-causing substance - the highest of five possible rankings, shared with alcohol, asbestos, arsenic and cigarettes.”
This is stupid, stupid, stupid.
It is part of a mendacious habit in which charities and health groups propagandise relative risks without mentioning ABSOLUTE RISKS.
27
I simply don't trust the motivations of the WHO in issuing this report. They clearly want to influence people to eat less red meat, but I suspect that the reason lies in their desire to create a more egalitarian distribution of limited food resources. I plan to continue to eat the sort of meat-based diet that my ancestors did, and as a reasonably-well-employed American I am free, and can afford, to do just that. If I die of colorectal cancer, you can call it "justice" and donate the contents of my freezer to some starving African.
10
How about some starving Americans? Don't they exist?
1
Perhaps the author should be at least as sceptical about screening as he is about nutritional links to colon cancer. Other things equal, more screening will increase, not reduce, the incidence of colon cancer, since it adds to the number of cases detected. If you say that it detects polyps as a pre-cancerous condition, not the cancer itself, then you should concede that you don't know how many actual cases are "averted". As for the death rate, it may be that deaths from colon cancer are reduced, but the all-cause mortality rate for those screened does not change at all. For those who will die anyway from something, as all of us will, pick your poison.
9
My husband had a clean colonoscopy 14 months before he was diagnosed
with stage 4 inoperable colon cancer. It was not his first colonoscopy. He eats moderately, all categories, and exercises regularly. It did no good. The diagnosis came as the result of an almost total blockage that caused him great pain. He's now been in treatment since July and has an 8% chance of survival. If he wants bacon, he can have it.
with stage 4 inoperable colon cancer. It was not his first colonoscopy. He eats moderately, all categories, and exercises regularly. It did no good. The diagnosis came as the result of an almost total blockage that caused him great pain. He's now been in treatment since July and has an 8% chance of survival. If he wants bacon, he can have it.
29
A friend from college had a "normal" colonoscopy at age 50. One year later
she had colon cancer that had spread to her brain. Her daughter had to move up
her planned marriage date so her mother could witness it before she died.
Colonoscopy is not 100% reliable at detecting or preventing cancer.
she had colon cancer that had spread to her brain. Her daughter had to move up
her planned marriage date so her mother could witness it before she died.
Colonoscopy is not 100% reliable at detecting or preventing cancer.
1
Good to your brother, getting his insurance company to pay for a colonoscopy BEFORE his 50th birthday -- chances are they will not cover it, and the cost can exceed $2500.
7
I had one recently (Medicare) and the EOB showed a $6K cost.
I think this is an irresponsible article in general. The author seeks to destroy the WHO claims like a ninja. And if the risks are real, she pushes them aside in a manner not unlike the early deniers of climate change using similar strategies -- the jury is out etc...We need more study etc. In the same vein I found it irresponsible of her to point to the handful of studies that used similar methodologies that turned out to be wrong. One could point to any number of studies with the same methodologies that turned out to be right. What we do know is that meat and its impact on health is a highly complicated issue and for what it is worth, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume it causes cancer based on this study. But what do I know? And indeed using her own logic, Americans cited studies for years that said cigarettes did not cause cancer. What we do know that meat is associated with a host of other health issues and she gives them short shrift in her buried little summary of meats' ills. She also points to bacon. Traditionally pork has fewer issues than beef. Finally her mentioning that she is a former vegetarian is presented as if to lend credibility to her claim -- it suggests she truly gets both side of the coin and is thus impartial. This is nonsense. She biased herself -- she eats meat. Eat at your own peril. I suspect we will all regret it in the end but again, what do I know? Hand me a smoke.
22
Excellent points. The author writes as if cancer is a well-understood phenomena. And of course, her defense of commercial concerns that generate billions of dollars of business each year increased the statistical likelihood that her report would be published - there's no question about cause and effect in this correlation.
@Andrew:
The increased risk factor for lung cancer from smoking is something like 15-20x, which means a 1500-2000% increase. Two orders of magnitude higher than was found for processed meats and cancer. The WHO report authors are playing games with relative vs. absolute risk to make the numbers sound more scary. Processed meat is in no way as bad as smoking, and observational studies have never successfully separated meat consumption from other dietary and lifestyle factors.
The increased risk factor for lung cancer from smoking is something like 15-20x, which means a 1500-2000% increase. Two orders of magnitude higher than was found for processed meats and cancer. The WHO report authors are playing games with relative vs. absolute risk to make the numbers sound more scary. Processed meat is in no way as bad as smoking, and observational studies have never successfully separated meat consumption from other dietary and lifestyle factors.
5
Even if processed meat does not cause cancer, it is not a good idea eating it daily. It does not always use the best of fresh meat as material. Besides chemicals, the seasonings can be heavy and do not agree with the digestive system. Ingredients such as pepper, cinnamon, cardamom can aggravate certain symptoms even when a relatively small amount is used. I do eat processed meant, but only occasionally.
hmmm, this article made me hungry!
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
11
You do have a point that hysteria over cancer is not the right response to this warning. However, I'm not sure a laissez-faire business as usual response to right either. First of all, a lifetime 1% risk of colon cancer is nothing to sneeze at.
Second of all, for those of us like you who are at high risk of colon cancer, I think this is something to take very seriously. My grandmother died of colon cancer in her 60s. My grandfather nearly died of it in his 40s. My aunt and uncle also had life-threatening battles with the disease in their 40s and 50s respectively. I plan to start screening shortly, though I'm in my 30s. However, I have also decided that a 20% increase in risk is unacceptable given my already high baseline risk, and so I won't be consuming preserved meats regularly any more. The risk of red meat appears far less certain, per the report, so I don't plan to make any changes to my already low red meat consumption.
As you point out, it's hard to prove causality. But we have to make decisions based on the limited information we have. That information suggests regular consumption preserved meat may raise your risk of colon cancer 20%. Just as I choose to breastfeed my baby based on inconclusive correlative data, I'm going to choose to do my best to reduce my risk of chemo, colostomy and difficult death.
Second of all, for those of us like you who are at high risk of colon cancer, I think this is something to take very seriously. My grandmother died of colon cancer in her 60s. My grandfather nearly died of it in his 40s. My aunt and uncle also had life-threatening battles with the disease in their 40s and 50s respectively. I plan to start screening shortly, though I'm in my 30s. However, I have also decided that a 20% increase in risk is unacceptable given my already high baseline risk, and so I won't be consuming preserved meats regularly any more. The risk of red meat appears far less certain, per the report, so I don't plan to make any changes to my already low red meat consumption.
As you point out, it's hard to prove causality. But we have to make decisions based on the limited information we have. That information suggests regular consumption preserved meat may raise your risk of colon cancer 20%. Just as I choose to breastfeed my baby based on inconclusive correlative data, I'm going to choose to do my best to reduce my risk of chemo, colostomy and difficult death.
19
Reading study results carefully and O'Connors article you will see that the risk is raised one percent, not twenty percent.
4
Eating mindlessly and hoping that screening will find that your colorectal cancer has not progressed so far that it is inoperable is a pretty dumb idea. Screening is expensive, inconvenient and unpleasant, not to mention that it carries risks from anesthesia, infection, and intestinal perforation. And even if your colon cancer is found in time to save your life, treatment is a nightmare. Why not PREVENT colon cancer by eating meat sparingly, not eating processed meats at all, and most importantly, eating a diet high in vegetables and fruit?
48
@Suzanne:
Except that we have very little data to suggest that those behaviors will, in fact, prevent colon cancer.
Except that we have very little data to suggest that those behaviors will, in fact, prevent colon cancer.
3
Avoiding processed meats does not prevent cancer, it only reduces the risk fractionally (according to the study). The result for meat itself is probably negligible without further confirmation.
6
Excuse me but there is no evidence you can PREVENT colon cancer. Nor is the evidence strong that meat CAUSES colon cancer. You can slightly reduce the risk. A lot of colon cancer, if not most of it, is genetically determined. What is your family history? That is more important than eating meat sparingly.
5
I expect the main effect of the WHO's report will be to make people even more wary and dismissive of such reports in the future. That's too bad, because the next report might be worth paying attention to. But if a study can't be released without being larded with lawyerly weasel words, it's not worth much. This one is laughably non-committal. For one thing, none of the press reports I've read explains what the WHO means by "processed." They leave it to our imaginations. Is it the smoke in bacon? Nitrates? Something else we don't know enough to be concerned about? Soon you realize that virtually every food item we buy is processed in one way or another. What does the WHO mean?
Whatever the suspected cancer-causing culprit is—hormones, additives, preservatives, other chemicals, all of it, or something else entirely—let the WHO name it and explain it or go back to the drawing board and figure it out before releasing a report.
Whatever the suspected cancer-causing culprit is—hormones, additives, preservatives, other chemicals, all of it, or something else entirely—let the WHO name it and explain it or go back to the drawing board and figure it out before releasing a report.
19
AS a Scientist, I find the WHO Methodology & Conclusions Simplistic.
I would rather see them specifying Toxicity Levels for ALL RAW Meats, Fish and Seafood raised on Industrial Farming Scale identifying their Hormone and Anti-biotic Content and Compare them to Naturally Raised Animals without any injections.
THERE should be a Separate Advisory for Wild Fish & Seafood with Mercury and other Hazardous Chemicals that may be dumped into the Natural Environment.
THEY can then perform a Variance Analysis for Processed Foods including Vegetable/Legumes/Drinks that are treated with Chemicals such as Preservatives, Sulphites, Nitrites, MSG et al.
AT the end of the day, even if we eat the healthiest Meats Cooked/Cured with Natural Condiments such as Salt, Pepper and Spices, we need to institute two Dietary Constitutions:
A. Eat A Balanced Diet (1:4 Ratio of Protein vs. Fruits/Vegetables/Legumes);
B. AND REGULARY Eat Substantial Amount Of Detoxifying Vegetables Such As Beets, Cauliflower, Black Turnip et al AS We Need To Discharge The Toxins That Enter Our System As Fast As Possible Before They Do Any Damage.
HOWEVER The Biggest Problem Is The Hormones In Meats That Alter Body's Bio-Chemistry Which All MUST Be Banned As No Detox Diet Will Ever Work.
I would rather see them specifying Toxicity Levels for ALL RAW Meats, Fish and Seafood raised on Industrial Farming Scale identifying their Hormone and Anti-biotic Content and Compare them to Naturally Raised Animals without any injections.
THERE should be a Separate Advisory for Wild Fish & Seafood with Mercury and other Hazardous Chemicals that may be dumped into the Natural Environment.
THEY can then perform a Variance Analysis for Processed Foods including Vegetable/Legumes/Drinks that are treated with Chemicals such as Preservatives, Sulphites, Nitrites, MSG et al.
AT the end of the day, even if we eat the healthiest Meats Cooked/Cured with Natural Condiments such as Salt, Pepper and Spices, we need to institute two Dietary Constitutions:
A. Eat A Balanced Diet (1:4 Ratio of Protein vs. Fruits/Vegetables/Legumes);
B. AND REGULARY Eat Substantial Amount Of Detoxifying Vegetables Such As Beets, Cauliflower, Black Turnip et al AS We Need To Discharge The Toxins That Enter Our System As Fast As Possible Before They Do Any Damage.
HOWEVER The Biggest Problem Is The Hormones In Meats That Alter Body's Bio-Chemistry Which All MUST Be Banned As No Detox Diet Will Ever Work.
5
@Adam Smith:
Your balanced diet in part "A" doesn't contain any fat, and is therefore unbalanced.
Your balanced diet in part "A" doesn't contain any fat, and is therefore unbalanced.
2
Processed or not, the meat we eat is no good for the animals that were tortured and murdered for our indulgence. Moreover, livestock is killing the climate, destroying natural habitat, and draining the world of precious water. Vegetables to animals to humans? Cut out the middle critter and save the planet. If you care.
34
Its not a matter of if I care or not. Eating meat is natural for humans, and I don't buy your idea that we have to be vegetarians to "save the planet".
2
AGREE! Sadly, people don't really care unless it affects them.
The more we learn about carcinogens, the less we know. When EPA was established, it created a target list of believed carcinogenic chemicals. It turned out that almost anything associated with petrochemicals is carcinogenic -- which is a whole lot of what we're exposed to on a daily basis. We can avoid meat and eat a lot of veggies and fish instead -- but the vegetables (even "organic" ones) and fish (even "wild") are exposed to water (like water we drink) that contains some level of potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
The fact is we don't even understand the pathology of most cancer. We sure can't cure, let alone predict, most of it. Heart disease is a different matter. We can now visualize the build-up of arterial plaque (aka "calcification") that can break off and cause a heart attack or stroke. And we probably know by now that eating meat is more likely to cause plaque than broccoli (which former President George H.W. Bush made clear he didn't like and couldn't be forced to eat).
It seems more likely that our genetic heritage -- about which we know even less than cancer -- plays the biggest part in our health risk profile. And we can't choose our parents or totally protect our kids -- unless we want to start breeding genetically "perfect" test-tube babies, and who knows what those test tubes were made of?
The fact is we don't even understand the pathology of most cancer. We sure can't cure, let alone predict, most of it. Heart disease is a different matter. We can now visualize the build-up of arterial plaque (aka "calcification") that can break off and cause a heart attack or stroke. And we probably know by now that eating meat is more likely to cause plaque than broccoli (which former President George H.W. Bush made clear he didn't like and couldn't be forced to eat).
It seems more likely that our genetic heritage -- about which we know even less than cancer -- plays the biggest part in our health risk profile. And we can't choose our parents or totally protect our kids -- unless we want to start breeding genetically "perfect" test-tube babies, and who knows what those test tubes were made of?
8
@Richard:
Agreed about cancer, but arterial plaques are caused by inflammation and an excess of small LDL particles, both of which are caused by high refined carb diets. Ditching refined carbs and eating more quality animal foods reduces heart disease risk.
Agreed about cancer, but arterial plaques are caused by inflammation and an excess of small LDL particles, both of which are caused by high refined carb diets. Ditching refined carbs and eating more quality animal foods reduces heart disease risk.
3
ANAHAD O'CONNOR
In your hysterical rush to publish the breaking news of the WHO's 'findings" earlier this week you and the Times unfortunately failed to point out exactly what you now have belatedly clarified.
It isn't as though the truth of what the WHO's findings really signify weren't avaliable for all to find: The Atlantic published this extremely easy-to-comprehend on-line clarification mere hours after your firstest-with-the-leastest appeared at nytimes.com
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-healt...
Two bits - and a no-charge Get Out of Yale Free card - you'll block publication of this comment.
In your hysterical rush to publish the breaking news of the WHO's 'findings" earlier this week you and the Times unfortunately failed to point out exactly what you now have belatedly clarified.
It isn't as though the truth of what the WHO's findings really signify weren't avaliable for all to find: The Atlantic published this extremely easy-to-comprehend on-line clarification mere hours after your firstest-with-the-leastest appeared at nytimes.com
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-healt...
Two bits - and a no-charge Get Out of Yale Free card - you'll block publication of this comment.
5
In 1979 my Mother, age 62, was diagnosed with colon cancer at New York's Mt Sinai Hospital. Her doctor was a well known and respected oncologist. At that time he told me that there was a direct link between colon cancer and nitrate containing foods and red meat. He also told me to eat cruciferous vegetables. I have followed his advice and have rarely eaten the offending foods. (Ironically, my Mother was very health conscious and lived for 10 more years)
What was most surprising to me was that it has taken 35 years for the same information to be disseminated to the public. I thought everyone knew that nitrates were unhealthy and that a diet high in saturated fat could cause colon cancer. Why was this new news?
What was most surprising to me was that it has taken 35 years for the same information to be disseminated to the public. I thought everyone knew that nitrates were unhealthy and that a diet high in saturated fat could cause colon cancer. Why was this new news?
15
"Why was this new news?"
For the simple reason that - as I read or heard someone say recently - anecdotes do not make data.
For the simple reason that - as I read or heard someone say recently - anecdotes do not make data.
1
@LHS:
Sorry to hear about your mother, but lots of vegetables contain nitrates, and red meat does not contain appreciable nitrates.
Sorry to hear about your mother, but lots of vegetables contain nitrates, and red meat does not contain appreciable nitrates.
3
When I read the original article very carefully I figured out the same thing, but it took very careful reading and knowing what to look for.
Both the study and the press have been irresponsible in the presentation of this material. Headlines and abstracts should have pointed out as Mr. O'Connor did, that the risk of eating processed meat was one percent (and even this was depending on amount consumed, nature of the processed meat, and frequency of consumption).
It shouldn't have taken the NYT this long to make the problem with the study's presentation clear. The original headlnes for the article could have said "Study shows processed meat may increase the risk of colon cancer by as much as one percent." (Yes, I know this is too long for a headline)
Both the study and the press have been irresponsible in the presentation of this material. Headlines and abstracts should have pointed out as Mr. O'Connor did, that the risk of eating processed meat was one percent (and even this was depending on amount consumed, nature of the processed meat, and frequency of consumption).
It shouldn't have taken the NYT this long to make the problem with the study's presentation clear. The original headlnes for the article could have said "Study shows processed meat may increase the risk of colon cancer by as much as one percent." (Yes, I know this is too long for a headline)
13
Actually, the risk would increase by 20%, from 5% to 6% (the original report gives an increase of 18%).
Mr. O'Conner,
The W.H.O. technical review agency for cancer (IARC) report said nothing like the news headlines you quoted - “Processed Meats Rank Alongside Smoking as Cancer Causes — WHO” read a headline in The Guardian.
“Bacon, Hot Dogs as Bad as Cigarettes” read another."
The IARC reported that eating 50 grams of processed meat per day would increase risk of colon cancer by 18%. In other terms, one would have to eat almost a pound of bacon per week to increase their risk of cancer by one-sixth. That doesn't sound nearly as scary or sexy, does it?
The IARC didn't hype findings of their report. Why did The Guardian, "another" source and your article feel the need to hype their findings?
The W.H.O. technical review agency for cancer (IARC) report said nothing like the news headlines you quoted - “Processed Meats Rank Alongside Smoking as Cancer Causes — WHO” read a headline in The Guardian.
“Bacon, Hot Dogs as Bad as Cigarettes” read another."
The IARC reported that eating 50 grams of processed meat per day would increase risk of colon cancer by 18%. In other terms, one would have to eat almost a pound of bacon per week to increase their risk of cancer by one-sixth. That doesn't sound nearly as scary or sexy, does it?
The IARC didn't hype findings of their report. Why did The Guardian, "another" source and your article feel the need to hype their findings?
7
To be fair, Mr. O'Connor stated that "...Meanwhile, two daily strips of bacon, based on the associations identified by the W.H.O., would translate to about a 6 percent lifetime risk for colon cancer, up from the 5 percent risk for people who don’t enjoy bacon or other processed meats." That is an increase of 20%, a rounding up of the 18% statistic reported by the IARC.
2
A few years ago, maybe ten years ago, the government required that nitrates be added to processed or cured meat. I tried to buy organic bacon at the farmer's market without nitrates added and the vendor said the government forces the butcher to use nitrates in the bacon. Years ago salami and sausage without nitrates were allowed, then that changed and we are forced to eat nitrates if we consumed those products. As someone wrote into the Times when the nitrate law was introduced, the Italians have been eating sausage and salamis without nitrates for a thousand years and nobody got sick. It could be that the nitrates are doing more harm that the bacteria that they purportedly protect us from. Wish I could buy bread or cereal without 4 or more synthetic vitamins added to it. You have to go to Europe for that.
8
Buy bread from your local artisan baker. You get what you pay for!
A lot of description of how hard it is to do good diet/health studies, without providing any evidence whatsoever that the study in question is in any way flawed. Pretty clear that Ms. O'Conner is interested in one thing only: colorectal cancer screening. Whatever the merits of this screening, the rest of the piece is a confused mess.
5
Either due to a desire to sell newspapers or to an honest lack of understanding of statistical mathematics. risks gets mis-represented frequently. "If you do X, it will DOUBLE your risk of dying from ". Well, suppose the probability of dying from in the time period they are talking about is .000000000000001. If you do X, it's now .000000000000002.
Having said that, I have been a vegetarian since 1974. Why? Because, after a lot of reading, I became convinced that eating lower on the food chain is better for your health. Toxins, for example, become more concentrated the higher you go. I have never understood why people eat liver, the organ responsible for dealing with the toxins that find their way into an animal's body.
I also learned more about the meat industry than I really wanted to know. It is a horror and remains so. I simply refuse to be a part of the inhumane treatment of animals, whether for food or any other reason.
A veggie diet is also more efficient, environmentally.
As I said, I made the decision in 1974, 41 years ago. I'm 73 now. I was running around on a tennis court last Wednesday evening and will do so tomorrow morning. I'm a healthy 73, though my diet hasn't made me invulnerable to the effects of age. But I"m doing a lot better than most of my old friends. Is it the diet? Statistics again. The sample is too small to say, and causality is very hard to prove. But I can believe what I want.
Having said that, I have been a vegetarian since 1974. Why? Because, after a lot of reading, I became convinced that eating lower on the food chain is better for your health. Toxins, for example, become more concentrated the higher you go. I have never understood why people eat liver, the organ responsible for dealing with the toxins that find their way into an animal's body.
I also learned more about the meat industry than I really wanted to know. It is a horror and remains so. I simply refuse to be a part of the inhumane treatment of animals, whether for food or any other reason.
A veggie diet is also more efficient, environmentally.
As I said, I made the decision in 1974, 41 years ago. I'm 73 now. I was running around on a tennis court last Wednesday evening and will do so tomorrow morning. I'm a healthy 73, though my diet hasn't made me invulnerable to the effects of age. But I"m doing a lot better than most of my old friends. Is it the diet? Statistics again. The sample is too small to say, and causality is very hard to prove. But I can believe what I want.
25
@Grandpa:
The liver _detoxifies_ and _removes_ toxins. They don't hang around in the liver any more than other tissues.
The liver is also the most nutrient dense of the organs, providing large doses of almost all essential vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids. That's why we eat it.
The liver _detoxifies_ and _removes_ toxins. They don't hang around in the liver any more than other tissues.
The liver is also the most nutrient dense of the organs, providing large doses of almost all essential vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids. That's why we eat it.
2
If by "screening" for colorectal cancer you mean colonoscopy, I suggest some caution. Colonoscopy has become a huge profit producer for the medical biz, and it's not always conducted as carefully as it should be. "Push 'em through" seems to be the MO in a lot of colonoscopy shops and the results are not always what the patient/customer might have wanted.
Researching other screening modalities would be a good idea.
Researching other screening modalities would be a good idea.
5
So how did the media get this so wrong??? Even respected media outlets jumped on this red meat bandwagon. Journalists no longer present analysis and information based on its worthiness, but rather its trendiness.
And we're letting the same media report on our democracy?
And we're letting the same media report on our democracy?
8
I'm reminded of the joke where we are told that, on average, vegans live 5 years longer than meat eaters.
Five insufferably long, miserable, bacon-less years.
Five insufferably long, miserable, bacon-less years.
18
Does anyone know how eating meat that is not fed hormones or antibiotics fits into the cancer equation?
5
And thank YOU, Ms. O'connor, an informative balanced piece on this subject.
45
Anahad O'Connor is a man.
1
Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food vs 3,500 liters for a kilogram of chicken meat production.
Beef requires a ratio of 54:1 of fossil energy input to protein output vs 4:1 for chicken.
Eat more chicken and vegetables and go easy on the beef.
Beef requires a ratio of 54:1 of fossil energy input to protein output vs 4:1 for chicken.
Eat more chicken and vegetables and go easy on the beef.
62
Or eat grass-fed beef and support your local farmer who is doing the right thing for animals, human health and the environment.
6
Have you seen the conditions most chickens are raised in in the US? When you add impact on the animals in question to the equation it's eat: least beef, less pork, and fewer chickens. And more vegetables. :)
3
I could care less and will eat beef whenever I feel like it. I don't need the nanny corps telling me what I can and cannot do.
2
Red meat has been associated with cancer for decades based on epidemiological evidence. Although the conclusions are not failsafe as it is in tobacco use, it is a safe bet that consumption of red meat is a low level carcinogen. The less you eat the better for your health and clearly for the environment.