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

[Shalmanese]

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.

 

But that's the entire point of this report. We've known nitrates cause cancer for a long time but the preponderance of evidence finally moves it into group 1 designation. What that means is "We're as sure that nitrates cause colon cancer as we are that smoking causes lung cancer". Even after the evidence for smoking came rolling in, there was still a period of time where most people continued to reject the scientific consensus and used the exact same arguments being used in this thread. Nowadays, there are obviously people who still smoke but pretty much every smoker accepts that what they're doing is an unhealthy activity.

 

You can continue to eat all the processed meats you want but you shouldn't be under any illusion that the science is unsettled on this point.

[Thanks for the Crepes]

I think people have the "Sleeper" syndrome:

 

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

What can we trust? The latest is that eggs and cholesterol in general were not the demons we told you they were. I have always been skeptical that shrimp, so seemingly fat free are high in cholesterol, but that is the information out there.

 

So my eating plan is to enjoy myself, eat a wide variety of foods, and eat my vegetables like mom and grandma always told me. Happy eating folks, and live long and prosper! 

[Deryn]

But that's the entire point of this report. We've known nitrates cause cancer for a long time but the preponderance of evidence finally moves it into group 1 designation. What that means is "We're as sure that nitrates cause colon cancer as we are that smoking causes lung cancer". Even after the evidence for smoking came rolling in, there was still a period of time where most people continued to reject the scientific consensus and used the exact same arguments being used in this thread. Nowadays, there are obviously people who still smoke but pretty much every smoker accepts that what they're doing is an unhealthy activity.

 

You can continue to eat all the processed meats you want but you shouldn't be under any illusion that the science is unsettled on this point.

I agree with you. That part I never had a problem with at all, though I admit I thought that was settled science many years ago. Most people I know also already know that it is probably not a great idea to eat 10 slices of bacon every day - for more than just the nitrate reason.

The point is really that they communicate this stuff in a manner which either has people suddenly getting scared stiff or pooh-pooh-ing it, especially when they don't really, in plain English, tell people what this means for THEM personally. And, of course, nitrates won't cause cancer in everyone, nor are nitrates be the only thing that causes colon cancer. And some people will get colon cancer having never eaten anything containing nitrates in their lives. They probably are capable of causing cancer but the risk for any individual is much lower most likely than if that same individual smoked, etc.

This announcement (given its limited useful scope) would have been fine buried in some darned obscure journal but the WHO and the media decided they wanted to make a bigger deal out of it. Why would that be do you think?

[gulfporter]

My guess is that we won't have to wait very long for a new study that refutes this study,  That seems to be they way it goes.

[dcarch]

As I hinted in my previous post, the Inuits seem to have a different biology to handle their special diet. It is also well known that the village of Limone in Italy, the local people have no problems dealing with extremely high levels of cholesterol physiologically.

 

Unless the studies are done with racial differences also included, the science is incomplete.

 

dcarch  

[Martin Fisher]

Unless the studies are done with racial differences also included, the science is incomplete.

 

 

And ethnic differences, gender differences, age differences, socioeconomic differences, etc. etc. etc.

[liuzhou]

I'm voting for this.

[cdh]

As I hinted in my previous post, the Inuits seem to have a different biology to handle their special diet. It is also well known that the village of Limone in Italy, the local people have no problems dealing with extremely high levels of cholesterol physiologically.

 

Are you sure it is a racial or even a genetic factor at work here.  I'd wager it is specialized microbiome, or something epigenetic at play.  The magic bugs that live within us outnumber our own cells by 100 to 1 or so... I think it has to be the symbiotic friends that such diets invite in that handles keeping those people in the pink.

 

More generally, a friend on FB commenting on this very wisely said:

"I think some who really loved science would read and report the *absolute* numbers, not the relative ones, and if they did they'd learn that 50g/day of bacon raises your lifetime risk of bowel cancer from ≈0.064% to ≈0.072%.

They also might report that every single substance the WHO has studied has been found to be some form of carcinogen. The sad truth is that cancer is just a side-effect of being alive. The effects of bacon here are so small they don't seem to warrant any change in behavior. But that's your choice to make too, obviously. Science just says what *is*, not what we ought."

[Porthos]

They also might report that every single substance the WHO has studied has been found to be some form of carcinogen. The sad truth is that cancer is just a side-effect of being alive. The effects of bacon here are so small they don't seem to warrant any change in behavior. But that's your choice to make too, obviously. Science just says what *is*, not what we ought."

 

 

As someone who is a Type 2 diabetic I am much more focused on making choices of the types of foods and quantities I eat to not aggravate that condition. I know that the death rate for human beings is hovering right around the 100% mark. My choice is to take steps regarding the more imminent threats that could hasten my date with that mark by not ignoring my personal health issues. Beyond that I choose to not let every "what if" kill the enjoyment of my day-to-day life.

 

edited to fix a wrong word tense.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Porthos (log)

[Honkman]

I agree with you. That part I never had a problem with at all, though I admit I thought that was settled science many years ago. Most people I know also already know that it is probably not a great idea to eat 10 slices of bacon every day - for more than just the nitrate reason.

The point is really that they communicate this stuff in a manner which either has people suddenly getting scared stiff or pooh-pooh-ing it, especially when they don't really, in plain English, tell people what this means for THEM personally. And, of course, nitrates won't cause cancer in everyone, nor are nitrates be the only thing that causes colon cancer. And some people will get colon cancer having never eaten anything containing nitrates in their lives. They probably are capable of causing cancer but the risk for any individual is much lower most likely than if that same individual smoked, etc.

This announcement (given its limited useful scope) would have been fine buried in some darned obscure journal but the WHO and the media decided they wanted to make a bigger deal out of it. Why would that be do you think?

 

If you would actually read the Lancet article (have you done it  ?) they describe in a scientific way the issues without arguing that we all should drop meat immediately. If people would take a little bit more time and effort to understand scientific manuscripts they wouldn't be scared away but would actually understand what was written (and it is not the job of scientists to write in "plain English" but in a scientific way even though it might be too much for some people with a short attention span). And your comments seems to imply that you don't really understand what a meta analysis is if you are asking for "personal" implications and that not "everyone will get cancer". And no, this manuscript shouldn't be buried in an "obscure journal" but it is important that the WHO brings it to everybody's attention because even though the risk effect might be small for the individual the risk factors in this studies have a tremendous effect on a society in terms of health care cost etc (and that's one of the main reasons to run meta analyses). By your argument it would have been better to bury the studies which showed a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer in some "obscure journal" because they don't have a hug impact on the personal level (I hope we can agree that that your argument is rather ridiculous)

[Honkman]

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).

 

I am always amazed how ignorant people can be about science. (Just curious, do you believe in evolution ?)

[gfweb]

I am always amazed how ignorant people can be about science. (Just curious, do you believe in evolution ?)

 

In general, real scientists welcome critical thought and testing of hypotheses.  Name calling is reserved for the faculty senate.

[Honkman]

In general, real scientists welcome critical thought and testing of hypotheses.  Name calling is reserved for the faculty senate.

 

They welcome challenging scientific hypotheses but not ignoring science completely

[Toliver]

My favorite bacon quote:

“They can have my bacon when they can pry it from my cold, dead fingers.” by eGullet member =Mark from the infamous "Bacon Aphorisms" thread.

 

Everything seems to go in cycles. This dire warning of smoked/processed meats has reared its ugly head before and will continue to pop up ad nauseam. 

Sometimes it's not the finish line that matters but the race itself. And I'll do my life's marathon eating bacon, please.

[Ttogull]

Are you sure it is a racial or even a genetic factor at work here.  I'd wager it is specialized microbiome, or something epigenetic at play.  The magic bugs that live within us outnumber our own cells by 100 to 1 or so... I think it has to be the symbiotic friends that such diets invite in that handles keeping those people in the pink.

 

I'm betting the microbiome is going to be a big factor. The microbiome is hugely influential on our immune system. Our immune system is a large part of our protection from cancer, helping to identify and destroy damaged cells. The gut microbiome is significantly impacted by our diets - carbohydrates that we don't digest directly help to feed it. These come primarily from plants and fruit in everyday situations.

But if we don't eat enough fiber and stuff to adequately feed the gut, our immune systems can become compromised. When that happens, maybe our immune system loses its ability to help to ward off cancer.

Here's my question: is it bacon's fault? Or is it that someone who eats a lot of bacon is more likely to have inadequate intake of fiber and stuff, and it's the latter that is the true culprit? I've read a lot of studies vilifying fat and meat, but not one I've read has compared diets with equal quantity and quality of fiber in the meat and non-meat diets.

The problem is that there aren't too many people regularly consuming meat and fat and simultaneously eating lots of fiber. I know a few. We are all very healthy and have reversed many diseases (heart disease, high BP, diabetes, and many others connected to autoimmunity). I find it funny, though, that some of us have a distaste for bacon in large quantities - it's just too salty.

[huiray]

The problem is that there aren't too many people regularly consuming meat and fat and simultaneously eating lots of fiber. I know a few. We are all very healthy and have reversed many diseases (heart disease, high BP, diabetes, and many others connected to autoimmunity). I find it funny, though, that some of us have a distaste for bacon in large quantities - it's just too salty.

 

Perhaps 1++ billion Chinese, Japanese, E/SE Asians might have some comments. Ditto about another billion South Asians.

[Ttogull]

Perhaps 1++ billion Chinese, Japanese, E/SE Asians might have some comments. Ditto about another billion South Asians.

Sadly, what once might have been the case seems to have changed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4488807/

I know there are all kinds of problems with studies like this. And the many others like it. It makes it hard to use studies to make a point. But even in 1990, T Colin Campbell estimated g/day at a median of 33 g/day for Chinese. That's about the US recommended amount. I've seen other estimates at 20 g/day. That's not high fiber. I can't speak to other countries. High fiber is probably something closer to 75-100g/ day.

In general, there is a crowding out effect. More meat crowds out more veggies and fruit. So my original question remains valid. Veggies and fruit can be linked to a stronger immune system which can be linked to better cancer protection. Maybe meat/fat/bacon are not the real problem.

[Honkman]

. Maybe meat/fat/bacon are not the real problem.

 

I think literature shows a relatively high likelihood that bacon (or other processed or smoked meats) have a correlation with certain types of cancers with nitrosamines a possible reason (but nitrosamines also occure in other types of food like beer.)

Edited October 27, 2015 by Honkman (log)

[Ttogull]

I think literature shows a relatively high likelihood that bacon (or other processed or smoked meats) have a correlation with certain types of cancers with nitrosamines a possible reason (but nitrosamines also occure in other types of food like beer.)

The immune system is designed to clean up damaged cells. Lots of things create damaged cells that can create cancer. If bacon and processed meats damage cells and *simultaneously* impair the immune system (by reducing the quantity of fiber eaten), then there will be a correlation as described. BUT, and this is my question, what if one has a well-functioning immune system? Will bacon still be a problem?

Let's do it another way. Alcohol. Alcohol damages cells, and high consumption is associated with cancers. Suppose we, loosely speaking, examine alcohol consumption relative to fiber (something not yet done with bacon, AFAIK).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25994566/?i=3&from=/26269366/related

Short version: Alcohol intake was associated with hormone-dependent cancers among the low fiber group, but not the high fiber.

I've read lots of studies like that.

[Honkman]

The immune system is designed to clean up damaged cells. Lots of things create damaged cells that can create cancer. If bacon and processed meats damage cells and *simultaneously* impair the immune system (by reducing the quantity of fiber eaten), then there will be a correlation as described. BUT, and this is my question, what if one has a well-functioning immune system? Will bacon still be a problem?

Let's do it another way. Alcohol. Alcohol damages cells, and high consumption is associated with cancers. Suppose we, loosely speaking, examine alcohol consumption relative to fiber (something not yet done with bacon, AFAIK).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25994566/?i=3&from=/26269366/related

Short version: Alcohol intake was associated with hormone-dependent cancers among the low fiber group, but not the high fiber.

I've read lots of studies like that.

 

Your view on the human body and its functions are too simplistic - for example to describe the immune system's role as to "to clean up damaged cells" is way too limited. And this complexity of the role of the immune system (with its many feedback loops etc) make it very unlikely that one factor, e.g. fiber (or any other factor) is THE factor to have such an impact you are implying. Also correlation doesn't imply causation.

[Ttogull]

Your view on the human body and its functions are too simplistic - for example to describe the immune system's role as to "to clean up damaged cells" is way too limited. And this complexity of the role of the immune system (with its many feedback loops etc) make it very unlikely that one factor, e.g. fiber (or any other factor) is THE factor to have such an impact you are implying. Also correlation doesn't imply causation.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating this. I frankly don't care. I can't figure out your agenda.

Everything I've said is correct. The immune system helps prevent tumors from developing. Here's an excerpt:

"In 1909, a scientist by the name of Paul Ehrlich proposed that the incidence of cancer would be much greater were it not for the vigilance of our immune defense system

in identifying and eliminating nascent tumor cells. This suggestion gave birth to the generally accepted concept that the immune system plays a vital role in the iden- tification and elimination of transformed cells. About 50 years later, two scientists, Lewis Thomas and Frank MacFarlane Burnet, took Paul Ehrlich’s original idea a step further and proposed that a special type of immune cell called a T cell was the pivotal sentinel in the immune system’s response against cancer. This elaboration led to

the coinage of the term “immune surveillance or immunosurveillance” to describe the concept whereby the immune system is on perpetual alert against transformed cells.

As dictated by the scientific method, theories must in the course of time either withstand rigorous experimental testing, crumble and be discarded or be improved upon. This basic requirement brought the theory of immunosurveillance under severe attack and great controversy when scientists like Osías Stutman showed in the 1970s that mice supposedly lacking an intact immune system (so-called nude mice) did not become more susceptible to tumor growth as predicted by the theory.

Thus, the theory of immunosurveillance remained controversial until an important scientific article entitled “IFN-gamma and lymphocytes prevent primary tumor devel- opment and shape tumor immunogenicity” was published in the journal Nature on April 26, 2001. This breakthrough article was authored by Robert D. Schreiber, Ph.D., and his colleagues at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, in collaboration with Lloyd J. Old, M.D., of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. The experimental evidence presented in their paper unambiguously showed that the immune system can and often does prevent tumors from developing, and thus plays a strong protective role against cancer. These researchers also uncovered important new insights regarding the immune system and tumor development that they dubbed “immunoediting.”"

From

http://www.cancerresearch.org/CRI/media/Content/Cancer%20Immunotherapy/Cancer-and-the-Immune-System-The-Vital-Connection.pdf

The connection with the gut might be highlighted by the fact that the gut can impact the efficacy of anti cancer treatments

http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v22/n2/full/cdd201456a.html

I don't claim that fiber is the holy grail. In fact, it most likely is not. It is most likely a healthy immune system, of which the gut is only a part. Fiber can help when it can, but there are other factors in many cases. Odd, though, that fiber is associated with lower early mortality

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/181/2/83

Again, my earlier question: Is it really the bacon?

[Honkman]

Nobody disputes that one of the roles of the immune systems is eliminating potential tumor cells but it is by far not the only role - and a enzyme pathway which is turned on to react beneficial on a potential tumorous cell might have detrimental effects on another type of cells in the body at the same time.

I don't have an agenda but simply work in this field and always interested in a scientific discussion - but I think people tend to try to simplify too much and so there is no answer to the question " is it really the bacon" - or the only answer (as shown in the original paper) bacon (and other processed meats) seem to increase the changes of getting cancer to a certain percentage statistically.

"Odd, though, that fiber is associated with lower mortality" - Again, correlation doesn't imply causation

[Thanks for the Crepes]

dcarch,

 

I have also been intrigued by the longevity and hardiness of the Inuits and Aleuts in such a very harsh and sparse environment with a very limited growing season for plant foods and not much sun in their long winters. I attribute some of it to the rich Vitamin D content that they cannot obtain from the sun for extended months in their traditional seafood. It's also rich in B12. I think the activeness of their lifestyle also contributes. I do not know what they do to get adequate Vitamin C, but they must be doing something that works for them. Evolution finds a way for life to continue.

 

Life is so persistent and fascinating, with creatures that live in the darkness of very deep almost lightless seas, taking much of their energy from volcanic vents on the ocean floor in temperatures that would kill us humans, weeds that create and spring up through cracks in cement, and the Eskimo people. It is a journey to an inevitable death for all of us who are alive, and it's just stupid to tempt fate by overindulging in things we know are bad for us. I, for one, am going to wring as much pleasure out of my journey as I can.

[Lisa Shock]

The Inuit have genetic adaptation to their diet, and their diet probably shouldn't be used as recommendations for those who are not Inuit.

[gfweb]

 - but I think people tend to try to simplify too much and so there is no answer to the question " is it really the bacon" - or the only answer (as shown in the original paper) bacon (and other processed meats) seem to increase the changes of getting cancer to a certain percentage statistically.

"Odd, though, that fiber is associated with lower mortality" - Again, correlation doesn't imply causation

 

This is really the crux of it.

 

A paper comes out. They lay press finds an attention grabbing headline saying "Bacon = Cancer" and presents the scientific finding as though it is the last word on the subject. No qualifiers, no insight, no perspective.  And then next week theres a different paper that's published and its contradictory. And so on.  Which one is correct?  Often both are...in their way.

 

The simple answer that we all want usually doesn't exist in medicine. Every study has flaws. Every experiment has limitations.

 

Stuff that we are told as truth is often not,  Can anyone find a study in humans (in a good journal) that says anti-oxidants extend life...or even do anything?