There is no safe amount of processed meat to eat, according to new research | CNN
There is no safe amount of processed meat to eat, according to new research | CNN
A new study investigates the link between processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and trans fatty acids, to diseases such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
You're viewing a single thread.
Like... is it written to excite anxiety?
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003. I like how precisely we can measure it using regular statistics, but what does it tell to a human being? To me it tells nothing about hotdogs
I guess the point is that it shows the correlation between processed food and cancer is statistically significant. As in there is definitely a link, and this meta analysis shows good evidence this link exists. Even if the impact is small.
As for the day to day impact of this study, I'm not sure there is one. Processed food is already on WHOs list of things that definitely cause cancer.
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003.
Depending on the average amount of processed meats eaten, it could also show not eating a hot dog every day will reduce your risk of cancer by about that much. It's probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say. But one food's impact like this is probably only important to scientists.
So getting back to your original question:
Like... is it written to excite anxiety?
Yes. Anxiety drives clicks which drives revenue.
Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can't take anything from it but anxiety.
a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.
That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now
Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.
So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.
The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.
Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.
WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.
The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.
Common risk factors
- unhealthy diet
- physical inactivity
- tobacco use
- harmful use of alcohol
- air pollution added more recently
Major chronic noncommunicable diseases
- cancer
- cardiovascular diseases
- diabetes
- chronic respiratory diseases
funny thing is diabetes can cause all the rest of the illness, or as a comorbidity. if your type 2 your at risk for all of those other diseases. people who have type 2 already are taking avrostatin(anti cholesterol meds), maybe blood pressure meds if its high enough, medications to reduce triglycerides. of course insulin, or insulin stimulating medication, because type 2 is insulin resistance. diabetic neuropathy, renal disease. thats type 2 is also a very profitable disease, ton of medications for different associated illnesses.
type 1 is an expensive disease, but different causes.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
No questions regarding the populational risks as the small percentages would shine with the big numbers.
WHO's recommendations remain the same for decades indeed: lower processed and red meat, eat chicken and fiber.
What's your point exactly?
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
Histeria clickbait makes money. Extra points if some kind of agenda can be pushed so more people share.
This is like saying it's not safe to go outside because there's some marginal percent you'll be murdered or some shit.
Higher chance you will die of heart disease if you don't.
Egads! Everythings dangerous!
Imagine using this argument with someone that gets cancer. Statistics mean nothing to the individual.
The title is also shit, leaving put sugars etc and only putting forward processed Meat.
It would be more useful to correlate this with other common risks, like PFAS exposure, genetic factors, etc
Agreed and it should be mandatory to add in the headline who financed the study
Isn't big tobacco still the major investor in cancer epidemiology research? I mean, when it's not about cigarettes and nicotine