IARC Officially Adds Cured Meat as a Group 1 Carcinogen, and Red Meat as Group 2a

[Chris Hennes]

Ars Technica has a good summary here. The gist is that a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies indicates that consumption of cured meats such as bacon, hot dogs, and sausages significantly increases the risk of colorectal cancer. The evidence is also significant, but not quite as compelling, that red meat poses a risk as well.

 

Original source:

Lancet Oncology, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1

[KennethT]

I don't quite understand the statistics.... 'every additional 50 grams of processed meat eaten daily'... raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.

What happens if you don't eat it daily, but once in a while? Obviously the statistics can't be cumulative since people who have eaten a few slices of bacon 10 times in their lives would have a 100% chance, which is certainly not the case.

Plus, it says "additional 50 grams" - additional to what? Zero? Is there a baseline amount that is risk-free?

[gfweb]

Not really news, but more confirmatory of what we've been told for years.

I can't download the paper but the ars technica piece seems to be complete. From that...The IARC report seems not to take into account the eater's inherent risk of colon cancer. For example a population could have 20 % of people all of whom will get colon cancer from red meat and 80% who won't no matter how much they eat. And we know that there is clearly an inherited basis for a lot of colon cancers. So is everybody at risk ....who knows?

This is important because I like cured red meat. Especially hot dogs with charred skins. Maybe yellow mustard's turmeric will fight the hot dog carcinogens.

I'll go ask Oz and get back to you.

Edited October 26, 2015 by gfweb (log)

[Okanagancook]

Hummm, another reason not to die of embarrassment and get your regular colorectal cancer screening/testing done. 

[KennethT]

ha! Hot dogs WITH charred skins! That's practically a death sentence!

[Honkman]

I don't quite understand the statistics.... 'every additional 50 grams of processed meat eaten daily'... raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.

What happens if you don't eat it daily, but once in a while? Obviously the statistics can't be cumulative since people who have eaten a few slices of bacon 10 times in their lives would have a 100% chance, which is certainly not the case.

Plus, it says "additional 50 grams" - additional to what? Zero? Is there a baseline amount that is risk-free?

 

There is a statistical value for every age of a male of female on the likelihood to get certain types of  cancers, e.g. a 45 year old woman in Germany has a 0.3% probability to get cancer in the next 10 years. If she would eat 100 g processed meat per day (and it doesn't matter if she eats it 100g/day or 200g/ every other day, it is the addition over a certain time period) than she has a 36% higher probability than somebody in the same age who eats no processed meat and an overall probability of 0.4% to get cancer in the next 10 years

[dcarch]

Got this from Googling. Wonder would they live to 150 if they eat less meat.

 

dcarchh

 

"Mortality and Lifespan of the Inuit

One of the classic counter-arguments that's used to discredit accounts of healthy hunter-gatherers is the fallacy that they were short-lived, and thus did not have time to develop diseases of old age like cancer. While the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was not as high as ours today, most groups had a significant number of elderly individuals, who sometimes lived to 80 years and beyond. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. "

[gfweb]

I don't quite understand the statistics.... 'every additional 50 grams of processed meat eaten daily'... raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.What happens if you don't eat it daily, but once in a while? Obviously the statistics can't be cumulative since people who have eaten a few slices of bacon 10 times in their lives would have a 100% chance, which is certainly not the case.Plus, it says "additional 50 grams" - additional to what? Zero? Is there a baseline amount that is risk-free?

I think they said that eating meat raises your chance by ~15%. So if your risk is 1 in 100 to begin with ...your meat eating risk will be 15% higher. But, yes , it cannot be additive.or we'd all be deadly now.

It's also not clear if this paper was actually peer reviewed or just published as a consensus paper, which may well go unreviewed.

Also worth noting that consensus papers are what the group agrees to put their name to. Their May have been dissenters whose opinion isn't reflected in the final product. ..or strident minority opinions who get more prominence than they deserve.

[KennethT]

There is a statistical value for every age of a male of female on the likelihood to get certain types of  cancers, e.g. a 45 year old woman in Germany has a 0.3% probability to get cancer in the next 10 years. If she would eat 100 g processed meat per day (and it doesn't matter if she eats it 100g/day or 200g/ every other day, it is the addition over a certain time period) than she has a 36% higher probability than somebody in the same age who eats no processed meat and an overall probability of 0.4% to get cancer in the next 10 years

Thanks... this makes a lot more sense to me...

[Okanagancook]

Found this article with a bit more interpretation:

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cancer-red-meat-processed-1.3288601

[gfron1]

But its the Why that matters. Are we talking meat with nitrates or other curing or preserving properties? Or are we just saying meats high in non-muscular matter (grisle and tendon and such)? Why would it increase the risk of cancer? (and I fully disclose that I"m on vacation so I'll be damned if you think I"m going to read the research paper before next week)

 

The article still doesn't answer the question well. Quoting the article above...

 

That's likely because the salting and curing of meat creates cancer-causing chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), according to the IARC's article published in the medical journal the Lancet Oncology Monday.

Edited October 26, 2015 by gfron1 (log)

[Okanagancook]

I had another thought, I wonder if home cured bacon and other home cured sausage have less curing agent per gram weight than the commercial stuff.  ???

[gfron1]

And that's what I'm thinking - maybe us do-it-yourselfers are safe

[Chris Hennes]

Maybe, but sometimes in the interests of food safety home recipes are over-conservative with the amount of curing agents included, so the reverse might also be true.

[Deryn]

If I were to believe and/or take seriously, everything I read in the media (even if it supposedly emanates from the 'scientific community') or even listen to the ever lengthening list of 'not good for you' foods that my doctor spouts every time I see her (once a year), life would be no fun at all and the list of 'safe foods' for me to eat would be now down to about 3 - all vegetables - and those only if I grow them myself under organic conditions.

Supposedly, the first person who will live to be 1000 has already been born, according to something I read recently. Once that person reaches the age of 65, at which point (at least for me) most foods have been decreed not good for them, what will that person be allowed to eat for the remaining 900 plus years of his or her life?

No joy ... no life. So, I will raise my glass of wine and eat a bit of cheese, bacon, ham, red meat, butter, eggs, milk and fois gras to go with my cauliflower, broccoli, kale and corn before enjoying a chocolate or other sweet ... none of which I am 'allowed' to ingest these days supposedly but without an occasional nosh of which, life would not be worth living.

Had to laugh though. Ran into a neighbour at the supermarket the other day and she mentioned that she had 'discovered' 'uncured' meats so she could finally have bacon, ham, sausage again. I told her to check for celery extract on the package and what its purpose was. The look on her face was nothing less than shocked.

[gfron1]

I was reminded of the infamous chocolate weight loss study.

[Martin Fisher]

I read the article then nonchalantly waltzed into the kitchen and fried-up some bacon!!! 

[dcarch]

https://www.google.com/search?q=tofu+bacon&rlz=1C1RNHN_enUS472US472&espv=2&biw=1006&bih=464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDUQsARqFQoTCMn52aWk4cgCFUltPgod8roBdQ

 

dcarch

[Lisa Shock]

I had a checkup a couple of weeks ago. I am 54 and have been a vegetarian since 1979. I am a bit overweight, being a food lover and all.... But, Doppler ultrasound of my neck (carotids and jugulars) showed them to be absolutely clean. (the technician said "perfect" and "like a baby") I don't have high cholesterol, I do not have diabetes or pre-diabetes, and I do not have high blood pressure. Been screened for cancer, all negative so far. That said, I never liked bacon, or hot dogs, or most processed meats. I don't like greasy foods in general. (The pool of oil that sits in the little cups that pepperoni forms when baked on pizza just grosses me out.) I went veg in the first place because, as some of you have posted in other threads, I was really tired of eating steak for dinner all the time as a kid at my parents' house. -Speaking of the family, I am officially the only member of my family without cholesterol or BP issues, so, I doubt my condition is due to genetics.

 

When I struck out on my own, I started cooking recipes from cuisines around the world and it was the spices and vegetables which excited me. I also enjoy trying new things. I don't make the same dinners over and over again. Even time-tested favorites only appear at my house maybe once a month. So, I think that even if I had liked bacon, I would have moved on from it by now.

 

I also rarely eat processed foods because I am allergic to black pepper, and that's in so many processed foods. It was also a motivator for me to learn to cook everything I wanted on my own because I can't trust restaurants much, either. I chose to focus on what I could eat, and what I was able to cook to move on and find joyful things on my plate rather than be sad about what I couldn't eat any longer. I could make 50 different things for dinner tonight, based on what's in my pantry/fridge. Each of those options has positive qualities worth exploring, so, like most evenings, I'll be off on a new adventure making tonight's dinner not obsessing about the past.

[Honkman]

If I were to believe and/or take seriously, everything I read in the media (even if it supposedly emanates from the 'scientific community') or even listen to the ever lengthening list of 'not good for you' foods that my doctor spouts every time I see her (once a year), life would be no fun at all and the list of 'safe foods' for me to eat would be now down to about 3 - all vegetables - and those only if I grow them myself under organic conditions.

Supposedly, the first person who will live to be 1000 has already been born, according to something I read recently. Once that person reaches the age of 65, at which point (at least for me) most foods have been decreed not good for them, what will that person be allowed to eat for the remaining 900 plus years of his or her life?

No joy ... no life. So, I will raise my glass of wine and eat a bit of cheese, bacon, ham, red meat, butter, eggs, milk and fois gras to go with my cauliflower, broccoli, kale and corn before enjoying a chocolate or other sweet ... none of which I am 'allowed' to ingest these days supposedly but without an occasional nosh of which, life would not be worth living.

Had to laugh though. Ran into a neighbour at the supermarket the other day and she mentioned that she had 'discovered' 'uncured' meats so she could finally have bacon, ham, sausage again. I told her to check for celery extract on the package and what its purpose was. The look on her face was nothing less than shocked.

 

Your comment reminded me of people who still don't believe in global warming (because science is "complicated" and "always wrong") or people who don't want to here anything which they don't like and just brush over it with general disparaging comments which don't actual add anything to the topic. There are obviously many useless studies on food which try to link many things but at the same time just saying every study is useless similarly is pointless. In this case it is not even a study but a meta analysis which takes a statistical look at a number of fairly established studies and tries to find possible correlation/risk analysis. Nowhere in the article are the authors suggesting that you should avoid any food completely (and if your doctor is doing it, it might be a good time to consider changing to a better qualified one) but they are just describing statistical possibilities of certain food having an impact on the likelihood to get cancer.

[heidih]

So many factors, so much bad info that I think pre-disposes folks to discount studies.  How much in terms of quantity of intake in reality is ill-advised? The crud coming downstream that was touted as healthy and now either pointless or not so great for you must confuse the daylights out of folks. This as usual is less about food then health/politics so I will stop now....

[gfweb]

I think that the public has a hard time telling trash science from the real thing. So much garbage is presented as though it were true.  It can be hard to know who to trust.

[ElainaA]

I think it is relevant that the NY Times had another story today about how much research on nutrition today is done with very small samples and over very short periods of time.

 

​http://nyti.ms/1H4hX3L  (Sorry, I do not know how to post a live link. Paste it in, it should work.)

 

I do not know if that applies to this study but it does raise questions.

 

Edit to say WOW when I posted it, it came up live!

Edited October 27, 2015 by ElainaA (log)

[Deryn]

Honkman - I eat beef, pork and/or lamb (all of which are classified as 'red meat' by this study) a sum total of about once a year, though I like them. I had a grain fed beef hamburger the other day but I cannot remember the last time I had a hamburger or any of the listed 'red meats' otherwise. I, likewise, can't recall the last time I ate bacon or any other processed meat. But, I do that by choice, not because I am told to lay off. And I am aware of the probable dangers inherent in cured meats - and get that/believe it is probably true - but, if I want to eat them, I will not be influenced or bound by any scientific study in my personal food choices.

As far as the carcinogenic potential for cured/processed meats go, here is a clearer explanation I found, which talks about 'how much', etc.: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/ and here is a decent piece as well explaining why although scientific entities may do good and useful work they are lousy at communications: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/.

p.s. The video at the bottom of my second link is interesting - and frankly, though it doesn't apply to the advice about cured meats particularly - it IS where science is trying to lead us - to NO MEAT and thence to 'fake meat'. Nothing wrong with 'fake meat' I am sure though I can't eat it if it is based on anything soy and I really hate the idea of what I call 'regurgitated' meats which this has to have the look and feel of - so, I hope to keep having more choice than that - on the few occasions I decide I want to eat 'meat'.

I am hypothyroid. I have to avoid quite a few foods as a result of that - and I do - but occasionally, I will indulge in vegetables I love for instance, because I also like to enjoy life a bit. Doctor, for good reason, tells me not to eat them, and I understand why - it is good advice but the window has gotten steadily narrower. Regardless .. I think you read my post all wrong. It was personal and said with some jest - but my post capability right now messes with smiley faces so there was no emoticon. Sorry.

As for 'global warming' - you got that right .. sort of. I believe in nature and history. I believe that people need to do something about pollution, etc. but I do not think we are more than a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to our 'power' to change nature and weather through mere daily living so no I am not buying the 'we are to blame for everything' line. And I dislike the nastiness that spews from the mouths of some who are fanatics about that issue, having much of anything forced down my throat, and the idea of paying for carbon credits, etc. - monies that just seem to go into the pockets of jet-setters. This is not the forum for this but you raised the issue, not me. (mods - feel free to remove this last paragraph).

Edited October 27, 2015 by Deryn (log)

[Okanagancook]

I believe that all foods can have a place in one's diet.  Moderation and variety.