New WHO report says that processed meats cause cancer


chezjulie

Recommended Posts

Processed meats do cause cancer - World Health Organization

 

New report published today based on the advice of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The big news here is that the report has conclusively states that processed meats such as ham and sausage cause colorectal cancer. 

 

This is definitely something to think about as my consumption of hot dogs and sausage has gone up significantly since adopting a Whole30 lifestyle. In this context (carcinogens produced by processing meats), it does not matter if you are talking about organic and grassfed or not. It's all about the way it was cooked.

 

This information is something I will assess as my move forward with Whole30 eating, which has brought me significant improvements in other aspects of my health such as cholesterol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Processed meats do cause cancer - World Health Organization

 

New report published today based on the advice of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The big news here is that the report has conclusively states that processed meats such as ham and sausage cause colorectal cancer. 

 

This is definitely something to think about as my consumption of hot dogs and sausage has gone up significantly since adopting a Whole30 lifestyle. In this context (carcinogens produced by processing meats), it does not matter if you are talking about organic and grassfed or not. It's all about the way it was cooked.

 

This information is something I will assess as my move forward with Whole30 eating, which has brought me significant improvements in other aspects of my health such as cholesterol.

It also said red meat. Should we be cutting back on that now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I'd caution anyone from making major decisions based on a news article (or several news articles) about a study. Studies can be biased (intentionally or unintentionally), either as the study itself is being set up, as the conclusions are being drawn, or even as articles are written about the study by news organizations looking to get readers' attention. I'm not saying that the BBC has misrepresented anything, only that I would wait until we could see the study itself, or until a source I trusted to review the evidence in as unbiased a way possible could review the study completely and tell us more about what it says. There have been too many times in the past when studies were accepted as fact, when further review found researchers threw out results that didn't agree with their preconceived notions, or that they'd purposely used a pool of participants in the study that would tend to prove their own biases, or that they'd tested things in lab animals in quantities that, to scale up to human levels, would mean consuming one's entire body weight in certain ingredients, daily, to receive the same results.

 

What I would do is do my best to eat a variety of protein sources -- eggs, fish, shellfish, poultry, game, beef, pork -- and lots of vegetables (again, aim for three cups of veggies at each meal, ideally). I wouldn't worry if I have hot dogs, sausage, bacon, deli meats, etc., sometimes, but I'd make an effort to have fresher sources of meats, and a variety of them, most of the time. (Also, check out the Bacon Manifesto if you haven't already.) 

 

I'd also wait this out. Dallas & Melissa have in the past changed what is/isn't allowed on Whole30, and they seem to have no problem reviewing new evidence and changing their advice based on that new evidence. I'm sure that when they have a chance to review this study, they will address it and let us all know if it causes them to change their stance on meat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope that we will hear from Melissa and Dallas about this at some point. The report was published in The Lancet, one of the world's preeminent medical journals. The summary reads:

In October, 2015, 22 scientists from ten countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, to evaluate the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. These assessments will be published in volume 114 of the IARC Monographs.

It is being reported today in almost all major news outlets, not just the BBC, and they are all saying that the conclusion is that processed meats cause cancer, especially bowel cancer, and red meat "probably" causes cancer.

Of course we have all been guided by nutritional misinformation over the years, to the detriment of our health, and I hope that this information isn't true either. But it is certainly concerning, and I plan to follow the same approach that Shannon recommends and seek to get my protein from a wider variety of sources such as eggs, fish, and poultry in the future rather than relying so much on processed and red meat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you all should believe this hype, and if you don't, at least know that your comments are incredibly ignorant to the point of offending many cancer patients, who know this already. The fact that moderators, and advanced members on this forum, who from what I can see by many various posts have no medical or naturopathic training, are making comments that this is hype or a set up/or biased study indicates just how little you know about cancer and how the foods we eat contribute to it.

I am deeply offended by your comments to the point I will no longer be posting on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd caution anyone from making major decisions based on a news article (or several news articles) about a study. Studies can be biased (intentionally or unintentionally), either as the study itself is being set up, as the conclusions are being drawn, or even as articles are written about the study by news organizations looking to get readers' attention.

The articles are actually not about a study. The articles are about a report published by the World Health Organization today which included a literature review of over 800 studies analyzed by an international team.

 

I would encourage everyone to educate themselves on this. Since the question of bias and agendas has come up both in this thread and in Melissa's response on FB, I think we should remind ourselves that a private company in the nutrition field could also exhibit some bias (intended or not) in its interpretation of the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would not accept nutrition advice, or scientific advice, from this publication without further investigation, this article does, at least, give a plain English answer as to why we need to be cautious about accepting headlines as fact when we read them.

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/who-does-bacon-cause-cancer-sort-of-but-not-really/

 

The problem is not with the conclusions, but with the perspective, and it's the perspective that is ignored in the headlines. That, and the fact that WHO's methodology in how they compile their lists is completely ignored (or glossed over) by the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.