Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Food/recipes

For related content, visit our food content hub.

Original poster

Now that processed meats have been deemed carcinogenic by the World Health Agency...

354 replies

Whoknewitcouldbeso · 23/10/2015 08:12

Can I ask if you will be allowing your kids to eat sausages, ham, burgers etc? They are also warming about red meat in general so I can no longer feel virtuous when I cook homemade lasagne or shepherds pie.

My son loves sausages, I tend to buy the 98% pork ones but again, now thinking that I'm hurting him by letting him have sausages at all.

What are other people giving their children for dinner? I feel like I'm royally fucking up nowadays although I did make fresh cod goujons in a tempura batter two nights ago and he thought they were great. I must get at least one brownie point for the fish!

OP posts:
claig · 26/10/2015 23:30

"What do the WHO classifications really mean?

The WHO classifies agents into one of five groups:

Group 1- carcinogenic to humans
Group 2A - probably carcinogenic to humans
Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans
Group 3- not classifiable
Group 4- probably not carcinogenic

Processed meat has been placed into Group 1 as the scientific evidence says it definitely does cause cancer.

Although this does not mean all Group 1 agents - which include tobacco, plutonium and alcohol - are equally dangerous."

They have put processed meat into Group 1 and on the TV news they have said it is up there with asbestos and tobacco and I forgot about plutonium too. Of course they didn't go into detail to explain that it wasn't as dangerous as plutonium because they hoped that the word plutonium would scare the daylights out of some meateaters who believe every word they say.

PigletJohn · 26/10/2015 23:32

claig Mon 26-Oct-15 21:46:55
They have put processed meat up there near asbestos and tobacco as a cancer risk

You wrote that. Why?

The figures suggest that it is worse than Asbestos, but not as bad as smoking or alcohol.

claig · 26/10/2015 23:34

'You wrote that. Why?'

Because that is what they said on the TV news, that processed meat is in category 1 alongside asbestos, tobacco and plutonium.

claig · 26/10/2015 23:35

'The figures suggest that it is worse than Asbestos'

Do me a favour. I wasn't born yesterday. I understand their game.

PigletJohn · 26/10/2015 23:49

"Do me a favour."

How many deaths per year are there from Asbestos?

How many do you think there were from Plutonium?

How many people do think are exposed to Bacon sandwiches several times a week, and how many to Plutonium?

Do you know how to calculate a risk?

MadeMan · 27/10/2015 05:33

My breakfast this morning right now is a cornish pasty and a cup of tea; I didn't fancy cereal.

I'm assuming a pasty is heavily processed.

SlipperyJack · 27/10/2015 07:53

This is a few years old now, but it's a good explanation of risk in this kind of story: www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/84/pages/a4e.html

MajesticSeaFlapFlap · 27/10/2015 08:04

I had a preperami and a coke for brekki.
Pepperamis are probably made of asbestos

DrDreReturns · 27/10/2015 08:28

I've just had a bacon buttie. Shit!

Verbena37 · 27/10/2015 08:47

I think people need to look at the bigger picture. I read the article in the independent yesterday and there was absolutely no mention of any other variables when the trials were done. People who ate a high amount of red meat in the trails didn't just eat red meat, yet the research doesn't mention whether those who ate the red meat or processed products were smokers, non-exercisers or whether their family had cancer history etc. did they look at what type of cooking oil people used eat? There are too many other variables to say red meat causes cancer for goodness sake!

Without those facts how can we work out just how much of a risk there is?
I've known that a high amount of red meat and processed products aren't great for you for years and so will using my initiative as I always have done to give my family a balanced diet.

Humans are supposed to have red meat in their diet every now and again (think cavemen) so along with fish and nuts and berries, I'm sure we'll all be ok.

rogueantimatter · 27/10/2015 08:49

Nobody has been ordered not to eat bacon or not to smoke or drink or eat refined sugar......

If parents want to try to make healthy choices for their children good for them. Their children will be free to make their own choices when they're older.

No-one (presumably) would shrug off an adult giving a child a cigarette or alcohol....

rogueantimatter · 27/10/2015 08:51

x-posted with Verbena

WoodleyPixie · 27/10/2015 09:05

I certainly won't be changing to quorn products over processed meat. Something we eat maybe once a week for something that us completely processed and gives me and dd chronic stomach ache.

Verbena37 · 27/10/2015 09:24

Funny how cancer research et al aren't doing research on aspartame and its cancer causing properties.....

AnyoneButAndre · 27/10/2015 09:35

You mean apart from all the studies that have been done on aspartame? There's loads of studies, investigating all sorts of suspected effects.

The problem is that artificial sweeteners are so invisible that it's difficult to do these huge epidemiological studies. You can ask people "how much bacon have you eaten each week over the last 5 years?" and get a meaningful answer (though not if you're asking them after a diagnosis of bowel cancer). But you probably won't get a meaningful answer to "how much aspartame have you consumed weekly over the last five years?" because hardly anyone actually knows apart from the really hardcore label readers who can say "None".

rogueantimatter · 27/10/2015 09:52

*get a meaningful answer (though not if you're asking them after a diagnosis of bowel cancer)

Sorry for being dim but I don't quite follow you. Could you explain?

AnyoneButAndre · 27/10/2015 10:06

Retrospective studies that ask people about their exposure to perceived risks after a diagnosis are notoriously iffy, because people's memory is distorted. If you ask a million women "how dark is your bedroom" and then follow them up for ten years to see which ones develop breast cancer then you will get a good indication of whether light bedrooms cause breast cancer (barring confounders). But if you ask a million women, some of whom have breast cancer and some who don't, "how dark was your bedroom ten years ago" then the answers of the ones with breast cancer will be irretrievably biased. They'll never answer that question in the same way that the others will. For more objective questions like "did you work night shifts?" it might be OK.

rogueantimatter · 27/10/2015 10:20

Thank you.

I didn't know that there are retrospective studies! I assumed that people are asked to record as they go - I suppose that would probably change people's behaviour.

MackerelOfFact · 27/10/2015 10:47

This quote from the BBC article on this had a reassuring statistic that puts it into perspective:

"In the UK, around six out of every 100 people get bowel cancer at some point in their lives.

If they all had an extra 50g of bacon a day for the rest of their lives then the risk would increase by 18% to around seven in 100 people getting bowel cancer."

I don't eat a huge amount of processed meat but I do love chorizo, cured hams, jerky, etc etc. I don't think I'm going to start eating significantly less.

runlulurun · 27/10/2015 10:50

pigletjohn you wrote "The figures suggest that it is worse than Asbestos, but not as bad as smoking or alcohol."

How are you defining 'worse'? More people affected? Or greater chance of contracting cancer based on comparable exposure?

The latter would be my definition of 'worse'.

Verbena37 · 27/10/2015 10:50

anyonebutandre I don't think this was a retrospective study was it?
Also, when I said why don't people do more research on aspartame, I meant studies that are then published and announced as this meat one was. My point was to show there are far more harmful (or as harmful) products used in the food industry than red meat but for which research is conveniently covered up.

But yes, I understand that in human studies it's much harder to quantify how much aspartame is consumed (unless you're like me who reads every label under the sun and proactively refuses products containing it).

runlulurun · 27/10/2015 10:52

thankyou Mackerel that is just kind of context that I have been looking for.

The only ambiguity is what do they mean by 'an extra 50g of bacon'?

What amount is it assumed that they will have had? Or is it just that for every 50g of processed meat you eat you appear to increase your risk by 18%??

runlulurun · 27/10/2015 10:55

I have now read the link and answered my own question!! thanks

AnyoneButAndre · 27/10/2015 11:10

No I don't believe these studies were retrospective - it was just a passing caveat to my overall point that it's easier to classify people according to how much processed meat they eat than by how much of different types of artificial sweetener they eat.

rogueantimatter · 27/10/2015 12:31

The incidence of colorectal cancer in the UK is increasing. Cancer Research UK stats (2011) are 1 in 14 males and 1 in19 females.