Bacon classified as dangerous as cigarettes by WHO

Keyhole said:
Big problem. These are epidemiological studies, which can ONLY find correlation and NOT causation. Therefore this is simple BAD science which makes me very frustrated hearing it pumped out on the radio over and over like it is truth.

Yeah, my wife sent me an article about this yesterday and it is frustrating indeed - they go like "oh we analysed hundreds of studies..." and everyone thinks "wow! That must be true then". It's the same thing that Richard White critizises in his "smoke screens - the truth about tobacco": if, for example, you have a group of heavy construction workers, eating a diet based on McDonald's and ham sandwiches and soda, and you have some vegetarian hipsters who hit the gym regularly and have an easy life, guess who's healthier?

And then of course you have studies showing for example that vegetarians are more likely to suffer colon cancer (_http://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/35819/Studie-Vegetarier-erkranken-haeufiger-an-Darmkrebs), but they won't put that on the radio 24/7 as if it's gospel truth... :mad:
 
I can see that all media reported this " news". Same here in Macedonia. All web portal, Tv station and newspaper reported this. Even one my friend who is a medical doctor come to me and said : "I told you that all that meat and bacon are carcinogenic" , while he eats 4-5 big peaces of cake. ;D

They even say that all read meat are carcinogenic and that they have a evidence for that. So dont eat meat and bacon and just eat your bread and fruits. Fruits and grains are class of food that they are calling Healthy food. So when somebody is saying that he eats " healthy food " i know that they are an high sugar diet.

They can write nonsense like this as much as they want, but i and my family will eat bacon as much as we can. :cool:
 
Rx said:
My hubby just sent me this- worth checking into I think...

-http://truthinmedia.com/bacon-classified-dangerous-cigarettes-world-health-organization/

From the same organization that defined cell phone use as non cancerous.

Had a contact in the states who recently underwent a major surgery having had his skull cranked to remove a good sized tumor.

It was by his own admission of being a very heavy cell phone user (relate to his business).

The area of the skull where he has always place the mobile phone eventually lead to the rapid growth of a non-malignant tumor.

Looks like he dodged another misinformation WHO bullet.

WHO
Reviewed October 2014
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
_http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Always 360-WHO
 
[quote author=Luc]"they go like "oh we analyzed hundreds of studies..." and everyone thinks "wow! That must be true then".[/quote]

Exactly, maybe those easily convinced should understand that peer research this days does not meet up to the standards it should : See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
From the article:

‘’Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.’’

- That's a total of around 152 fabricated versions wrongly approved. In 10 months. All done by one man.


A few years back the media relentlessly defended 'GMO' with their argument that 2600 research papers have 'proven' their safety. Calling it 'case closed'

One of the major things they left out was that 'GMO' are patented in such a way that you have to get permission by the bio-tech corporations to test their products. Which makes objective research impossible.

Their 'User Agreements'(Publicly available), something you have to sign before buying makes this abutment clear.


I am sure the WHO is just as a bad joke like the FDA (U.S Food and Drug Administration)

Their website is a landmark of contradictions: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/ucm346030.htm

From the FDA website:


‘’2. Are foods from genetically engineered plants regulated by FDA?

FDA has set up a voluntary consultation process to engage with the developers of genetically engineered plants to help ensure the safety of food from these products.’’



- Just for the record, voluntary consolation does not ensure safety. It just goes on and on. Real science is death when big money interferes.
 
With the comments here in this thread, a nice rebuttal article could be put together... somebody's gotta do it. Then we can all get behind it on social media.
 
Laura said:
With the comments here in this thread, a nice rebuttal article could be put together... somebody's gotta do it. Then we can all get behind it on social media.
Im already on it Laura
 
Keyhole said:
Laura said:
With the comments here in this thread, a nice rebuttal article could be put together... somebody's gotta do it. Then we can all get behind it on social media.
Im already on it Laura

Good job! :thup:

In case you need these, some of the items stored in my "Meat is not evil" health folder bookmarks:

http://www.sott.net/article/291068-SOTT-Exclusive-The-ultimate-dietary-terror-threat-in-2015-Red-meat-again

http://www.sott.net/article/276846-Cancer-heart-attacks-mental-instability-and-lack-of-conscience-Vegetarians-are-less-healthy-and-have-a-poorer-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters

http://www.sott.net/article/243055-Will-Eating-Red-Meat-Kill-You

http://www.sott.net/article/254800-Meat-glue-in-your-fake-steak
 
Laura said:
Probably preparing the masses to be denied nutritious food so they can have it all for the elites.

Maybe preparing the masses for the next plague? Many vegetarians will die and meat eaters (including elites) survive. Overpopulation problem solved for the elites... :evil:
 
The "go to" doctor on the BBC yesterday pretty much dismissed it as sensationalist and nonsense
He de-bunked it live - by eating Bacon egg sausage and blood pudding, "fry-up" in a cafe.
He said thet report found almost everyhting including "air" to a carinogen - the only lifestyle choice the report found was not a carcinogen was yoga!
 
ska said:
He said thet report found almost everyhting including "air" to a carinogen - the only lifestyle choice the report found was not a carcinogen was yoga!

Don't forget McDonald's! They never say anything about McDonald's.

And their pesticide GMO ridden vegatables (if you can even call them that) are DEFINITLEY the way to go.
Nuke said:
Seriously, their push to turn us into non-smoking delish vegetarians is becoming so overt I don't even know what to say...except laugh.

But just how far can they go? Are they gonna make it illegal to eat meat? Round up all the meat-eaters!? "They're terrorists!" Gee.. :ohboy:

I was thinking the same thing!

And actually, I was skimming an article a few weeks back, it was something about Vegetarianism causing hormone changes that lead to a higher sex drive, the awful diet tells your body the specie is in endanger, the environment isn't optimal and leads you to procreate in order to save the species.

I wish I had read it more thoroughly and had a link :D I'm going to try to look for it.

But if that's the case it wouldn't be populations control at all, it would mean more food for them!
 
Keyhole said:
Laura said:
With the comments here in this thread, a nice rebuttal article could be put together... somebody's gotta do it. Then we can all get behind it on social media.
Im already on it Laura

That's good! I had it in my head to write something last night before seeing this thread, and I thought of you as someone that could maybe help with that. We really do need a response on the sott page to counter all this propaganda nonsense, so go go go!! It's crazy how many people on my facebook page are talking about this report, people who never talk about much news-wise. AND, this new report is allowing for more anti-smoking propaganda to get inserted into story. "Bacon is a carcinogenic as tobacco". Two birds with one stone, nicely done MSM. Here is the full Lancet report:

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.1
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. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but might also contain other red meats, poultry, offal (eg, liver), or meat byproducts such as blood.

Red meat contains high biological-value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc. The fat content of red meat varies depending on animal species, age, sex, breed, and feed, and the cut of the meat. Meat processing, such as curing and smoking, can result in formation of carcinogenic chemicals, including N-nitroso-compounds (NOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Cooking improves the digestibility and palatability of meat, but can also produce known or suspected carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) and PAH. High-temperature cooking by pan-frying, grilling, or barbecuing generally produces the highest amounts of these chemicals.2, 3

Depending on the country, the proportion of the population that consumes red meat varies worldwide from less than 5% to up to 100%, and from less than 2% to 65% for processed meat. The mean intake of red meat by those who consume it is about 50–100 g per person per day, with high consumption equalling more than 200 g per person per day.4 Less information is available on the consumption of processed meat.

The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets. For the evaluation, the greatest weight was given to prospective cohort studies done in the general population. High quality population-based case-control studies provided additional evidence. For both designs, the studies judged to be most informative were those that considered red meat and processed meat separately, had quantitative dietary data obtained from validated questionnaires, a large sample size, and controlled for the major potential confounders for the cancer sites concerned.

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. Positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies, including a cohort from ten European countries spanning a wide range of meat consumption and other large cohorts in Sweden and Australia.5, 6, 7 Of the 15 informative case-control studies considered, seven reported positive associations of colorectal cancer with high versus low consumption of red meat. Positive associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat were reported in 12 of the 18 cohort studies that provided relevant data, including studies in Europe, Japan, and the USA.5, 8, 9, 10, 11 Supporting evidence came from six of nine informative case-control studies. A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat and an 18% increase (95% CI 1·10–1·28) per 50 g per day of processed meat.12
Data were also available for more than 15 other types of cancer. Positive associations were seen in cohort studies and population-based case-control studies between consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced prostate cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach.

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. Chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with the same degree of confidence for the data on red meat consumption, since no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude. The Working Group concluded that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat.

There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and of processed meat. In rats treated with colon cancer initiators and promoted with low calcium diets containing either red meat or processed meat, an increase in the occurrence of colonic preneoplastic lesions was reported in three and four studies, respectively.13, 14, 15

The mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity was assessed as strong for red meat and moderate for processed meat. Mechanistic evidence is mainly available for the digestive tract. A meta-analysis published in 2013 reported a modest but statistically significant association between consumption of red or processed meat and adenomas (preneoplastic lesions) of the colorectum that was consistent across studies.16 For genotoxicity and oxidative stress, evidence was moderate for the consumption of red or processed meat. In human beings, observational data showed slight but statistically significant associations with APC gene mutation or promoter methylation that were identified in 75 (43%) and 41 (23%) of 185 archival colorectal cancer samples, respectively.17 Consuming well done cooked red meat increases the bacterial mutagenicity of human urine. In three intervention studies in human beings, changes in oxidative stress markers (either in urine, faeces, or blood) were associated with consumption of red meat or processed meat.18 Red and processed meat intake increased lipid oxidation products in rodent faeces.13
Substantial supporting mechanistic evidence was available for multiple meat components (NOC, haem iron, and HAA). Consumption of red meat and processed meat by man induces NOC formation in the colon. High red meat consumption (300 or 420 g/day) increased levels of DNA adducts putatively derived from NOC in exfoliated colonocytes or rectal biopsies in two intervention studies.19, 20 Few human data, especially from intervention studies, were available for processed meat. Haem iron mediates formation of NOC, and of lipid oxidation products in the digestive tract of human beings and rodents. Haem iron effects can be experimentally suppressed by calcium, supporting its contribution to carcinogenic mechanisms. Meat heated at a high temperature contains HAA. HAA are genotoxic, and the extent of conversion of HAA to genotoxic metabolites is greater in man than in rodents. Meat smoked or cooked over a heated surface or open flame contains PAH. These chemicals cause DNA damage, but little direct evidence exists that this occurs following meat consumption.

Overall, the Working Group classified consumption of processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer. Additionally, a positive association with the consumption of processed meat was found for stomach cancer.

The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). In making this evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration all the relevant data, including the substantial epidemiological data showing a positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer and the strong mechanistic evidence. Consumption of red meat was also positively associated with pancreatic and with prostate cancer.
 
Heimdallr said:
Keyhole said:
Laura said:
With the comments here in this thread, a nice rebuttal article could be put together... somebody's gotta do it. Then we can all get behind it on social media.
Im already on it Laura

That's good! I had it in my head to write something last night before seeing this thread, and I thought of you as someone that could maybe help with that. We really do need a response on the sott page to counter all this propaganda nonsense, so go go go!! It's crazy how many people on my facebook page are talking about this report, people who never talk about much news-wise. AND, this new report is allowing for more anti-smoking propaganda to get inserted into story. "Bacon is a carcinogenic as tobacco". Two birds with one stone, nicely done MSM. Here is the full Lancet report:

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.1
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. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but might also contain other red meats, poultry, offal (eg, liver), or meat byproducts such as blood.

Red meat contains high biological-value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc. The fat content of red meat varies depending on animal species, age, sex, breed, and feed, and the cut of the meat. Meat processing, such as curing and smoking, can result in formation of carcinogenic chemicals, including N-nitroso-compounds (NOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Cooking improves the digestibility and palatability of meat, but can also produce known or suspected carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) and PAH. High-temperature cooking by pan-frying, grilling, or barbecuing generally produces the highest amounts of these chemicals.2, 3

Depending on the country, the proportion of the population that consumes red meat varies worldwide from less than 5% to up to 100%, and from less than 2% to 65% for processed meat. The mean intake of red meat by those who consume it is about 50–100 g per person per day, with high consumption equalling more than 200 g per person per day.4 Less information is available on the consumption of processed meat.

The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets. For the evaluation, the greatest weight was given to prospective cohort studies done in the general population. High quality population-based case-control studies provided additional evidence. For both designs, the studies judged to be most informative were those that considered red meat and processed meat separately, had quantitative dietary data obtained from validated questionnaires, a large sample size, and controlled for the major potential confounders for the cancer sites concerned.

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. Positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies, including a cohort from ten European countries spanning a wide range of meat consumption and other large cohorts in Sweden and Australia.5, 6, 7 Of the 15 informative case-control studies considered, seven reported positive associations of colorectal cancer with high versus low consumption of red meat. Positive associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat were reported in 12 of the 18 cohort studies that provided relevant data, including studies in Europe, Japan, and the USA.5, 8, 9, 10, 11 Supporting evidence came from six of nine informative case-control studies. A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat and an 18% increase (95% CI 1·10–1·28) per 50 g per day of processed meat.12
Data were also available for more than 15 other types of cancer. Positive associations were seen in cohort studies and population-based case-control studies between consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced prostate cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach.

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. Chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with the same degree of confidence for the data on red meat consumption, since no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude. The Working Group concluded that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat.

There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and of processed meat. In rats treated with colon cancer initiators and promoted with low calcium diets containing either red meat or processed meat, an increase in the occurrence of colonic preneoplastic lesions was reported in three and four studies, respectively.13, 14, 15

The mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity was assessed as strong for red meat and moderate for processed meat. Mechanistic evidence is mainly available for the digestive tract. A meta-analysis published in 2013 reported a modest but statistically significant association between consumption of red or processed meat and adenomas (preneoplastic lesions) of the colorectum that was consistent across studies.16 For genotoxicity and oxidative stress, evidence was moderate for the consumption of red or processed meat. In human beings, observational data showed slight but statistically significant associations with APC gene mutation or promoter methylation that were identified in 75 (43%) and 41 (23%) of 185 archival colorectal cancer samples, respectively.17 Consuming well done cooked red meat increases the bacterial mutagenicity of human urine. In three intervention studies in human beings, changes in oxidative stress markers (either in urine, faeces, or blood) were associated with consumption of red meat or processed meat.18 Red and processed meat intake increased lipid oxidation products in rodent faeces.13
Substantial supporting mechanistic evidence was available for multiple meat components (NOC, haem iron, and HAA). Consumption of red meat and processed meat by man induces NOC formation in the colon. High red meat consumption (300 or 420 g/day) increased levels of DNA adducts putatively derived from NOC in exfoliated colonocytes or rectal biopsies in two intervention studies.19, 20 Few human data, especially from intervention studies, were available for processed meat. Haem iron mediates formation of NOC, and of lipid oxidation products in the digestive tract of human beings and rodents. Haem iron effects can be experimentally suppressed by calcium, supporting its contribution to carcinogenic mechanisms. Meat heated at a high temperature contains HAA. HAA are genotoxic, and the extent of conversion of HAA to genotoxic metabolites is greater in man than in rodents. Meat smoked or cooked over a heated surface or open flame contains PAH. These chemicals cause DNA damage, but little direct evidence exists that this occurs following meat consumption.

Overall, the Working Group classified consumption of processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer. Additionally, a positive association with the consumption of processed meat was found for stomach cancer.

The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). In making this evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration all the relevant data, including the substantial epidemiological data showing a positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer and the strong mechanistic evidence. Consumption of red meat was also positively associated with pancreatic and with prostate cancer.
fwiw it wont be too long. Just need to add some info about proper nutrition and links etc etc. Will send it to sott on email when it is finished
 
fwiw this may be of help:

_http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/keep-bacon-abolish-the-world-health-organisation#.Vi5Xtq7hDeQ
‘It was clear sitting in the IARC meeting that many of the panelists were aiming for a specific result despite old, weak, inconsistent, self-reported intake data. They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome.’ Booren adds: ‘Red and processed meat are among 940 agents reviewed by the IARC and found to pose some level of theoretical “hazard”. Only one substance, a chemical in yoga pants, has been declared by the IARC not to cause cancer.’
 
Pathetic! I'm glad you're writing something about it already, Keyhole.

Konstantin said:
Even one my friend who is a medical doctor come to me and said : "I told you that all that meat and bacon are carcinogenic" , while he eats 4-5 big peaces of cake. ;D

Isn't it funny how so many of us tend to get silence from family, friends and acquaintances about so much we post on social networks, but then, in an opportunity like this, many suddenly send us "revelations" supposed to prove us wrong? Very interesting, like clinging to the "see, you are crazy!" theories with zero critical thinking.
 
As with all "studies" like this a little math play is in effect.

To quote: "increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%"

What it means: It will *increase* your risk of cancer by 18%. So if your risk is 5%, by eating this your risk will be 5.9%.

That's right on the borderline of being statistically insignificant.

Just my two strips of bacon.
 
Back
Top Bottom