- The conclusion puts processed meats in the same category of cancer risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. But this does not mean that they are equally dangerous, says the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the agency within the WHO that sets the classifications. And it's important to note that even things such as aloe vera are on the list of possible carcinogens.
Uhm... this is kind of a shitty article. Really? Okay, so there's the big NIH cohort study, one of the "800 epidemiological studies" that IARC looked at. But how many did they really look at? So, IARC looked at fourteen studies. How 'bout the NIH? Awright... so ten of fourteen studies were already in the NIH study. What did IARC add? ...they read the same info and came to the same conclusions as the NIH did in 2011. Let's review what the NIH found: So: a burger a day increases your risk of colorectal cancer by 14%. A burger and a half a day increases your risk of colorectal cancer by 21%. Nine burgers a day increases your risk of colorectal cancer by... 21%. Which was put forth four years ago, and which, really, surprised no one. And isn't nuthin': Colorectal cancers are about a quarter of the cancer that's out there. Increasing a quarter by 14% is something I don't want to do, for sure... and since 2008 or so I've limited my red meat consumption to twice per week or less. Remember, there have been any number of (contested) links between red meat and heart disease, too. But what does NPR go with? Can you guys maybe double down on that? What did the WHO actually say about, oh, pork, lamb and veal? So... not so much "zomg everything causes cancer", more of a "the study included the following." That sentence above is literally the only mention of lamb or veal in the entire article. Pork? One of the members of the study comes from the "National Pork Producers Council, USA". Everything causes cancer. Some things more than others. Red meat probably increases your incidence of colorectal cancer if you eat a lot* of it (we're talking seven burgers a week), which surprises no one. Bit of a stretch from that to "bad day for bacon" which NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has ever called healthy. Except, of course, Dr. Pig, whose motives should seriously be questioned.The recommendation, Gapstur tells The Salt, is based on research. For instance, a systematic literature review on colorectal cancer published in 2011 by the World Cancer Research Fund found a statistically significant, 16 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with each 100 grams of red and processed meat consumed. As the ACS points out, this is an amount of meat roughly equivalent in size to a deck of cards.
The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.11−1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI = 1.04−1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau.
The largest body of epidemiological data concerned colorectal cancer. Data on the association of red meat consumption with colorectal cancer were available from 14 cohort studies.
Since then, new results from ten prospective studies [19]–[28] have been published. This included studies in Asian populations [20], [25], [27], [28], a Canadian breast cancer screening cohort [24], a US multi-ethnic cohort [26], and four American cohorts [19], [21]–[23].
On the basis of the large amount of data and the consistent associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat across studies in different populations, which make chance, bias, and confounding unlikely as explanations, a majority of the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of processed meat.
The risk increase in colorectal cancer estimated in linear dose-response models was 14% for every 100 g/day increase of total red and processed meats, 25% in colon cancer, and 31% in rectal cancer. These results are consistent with those of the highest versus lowest meta-analyses. In non-linear models, colorectal cancer risk appears to increase almost linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day. Above this level, the risk increase is less pronounced.
The World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats — such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs — cause cancer.
In addition, the WHO says red meats including beef, pork, veal and lamb are "probably carcinogenic" to people.
Red meat refers to unprocessed mammalian muscle meat—for example, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, or goat meat—including minced or frozen meat; it is usually consumed cooked.
I like my processed meats, and while the headline scared me, the article makes me feel a little better. While I like bacon, the bacon I eat is part of a sandwich with eggs, cheese and spinach; I'm not just eating piles of bacon. While I may make an effort to cut down on processed meat, having my intake somewhat balanced with non-meat (and especially plant) food makes me a little less worried. Long gone are the days of bratwurst being a meal.
Anyone know exactly what 'processed' meat is? Humans have been cooking meat over a fire for a long damn time. Now that we live longer, this means cancer? I'm a vegetarian, but I also put weight toward the idea that being human is what causes cancer.
Processed meats are anything that does more than come off the animal, get cut into bits and prepped for sale. Pork loin is not a processed meat. Carving-ready ham is, because it's generally been cut into chunks, slammed into a sock, bathed in brine, pressure cooked and wrapped in a vegetable protein wrapper to turn it into lunch meat.
I made my own bacon this year from raw, freshly butchered pork belly. Cured it without nitrate salt (I think botulism fears are a bit overblown), then (hot) smoked it myself. Not sure it makes it less harmful to health, but I'm sure it doesn't make it any worse. I assume it's something(s) along the manufacturing routes that make processed meats so much worse. I'm going to continue to home "process" until I'm convinced that it's a bad idea.
One of the perks of living out in BFE is access to butchers who see their profession as an art. I've bought pork bellies, dry rubbed them and set then in a smoker to be slowly converted into awesome. We also have a wide assortment of Amish outlets to get uncured bacon, ham etc. I doubt I will ever make my own bacon again as it was a lot of work, but I'm glad that I did.
You did a step-by-step of that once, didn't you? I'm jealous. Also maybe going to give it a try myself, now that I have like a garage and a yard and stuff. I suspect it's the salt that makes processed meats worse, but at the same time, every study basically says "if you don't eat this stuff in moderation it will fuck you up" which the mere existence of gout tends to support.