Anyone giving up bacon?

[danarnold]

They say "if you want to get big you gotta eat pig!"
I'm not quitting

 

[neverquit]

I am right along with my cell phone and my pickup truck!!lol!!!

 

[5MilesBack]

I don't think we'd be having this disagreement if the headlines yesterday had been accurate: "Intergovernmental health agency, after reviewing existing literature, concludes that there is strong evidence that processed meat has a relatively insignificant carcinogenic effect."

The players may have changed, but there would still be arguments over it......just like global warming claims. Positive effect.....negative effect......people can argue all day long BECAUSE the so-called evidence really isn't evidence at all.

A better conclusion would be.......processed meats MAY have a contributing effect in causing cancer in SOME people. Just as smoking may also have that contributing effect.

 

[jmez]

I just want to be clear about one thing--I don't think that there is a significant carcinogenic risk posed by processed meat or red meat. Neither, it seems, do these scientists. I just think it is a disservice to the scientific community and to expert knowledge when a report like this, misrepresented by the media, is dismissed as headline-grabbing sensationalism. I'm confident that the panel that produced this report (google their names and credentials; it's not some crackpot team) has at least the same level of scientific literacy that the members of this forum do.

I also think it is a disservice to the scientific community to take a panel of experts and have them draw their own set of conclusions by reading the work of others. You can certainly form an opinion but that is exactly what it is, opinion. You can't make this statement:

The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of
colorectal cancer by 18%.

How do they draw this conclusion? Did multiple studies with repeatable results yield this conclusion? If they did there would be no meta analysis needed. Did they take differing results from different studies, piece them together, and come up with this? That isn't science.

Yes, I commented that the only useful information would be prospective studies. According to them they had over twenty, yet they only used 10 of them to make this conclusion. Why is that?

I tried looking at the Lancet link they provided and it didn't work.

I see your points but I'm also not going to point blank accept information because a panel of so called experts published an opinion. The very nature of science would say to question findings. I don't think I have raised any unreasonable questions. I have a really hard time trusting any so called "science" coming out of a political organization.

 

[mmw194287]

Good ol' internet debating! I usually try to avoid this kind of thing, and I should probably stop because I have work to do, but...

-They didn't have more than 20 prospective studies; they had twenty-year prospective studies.
-You need a membership to access the Lancet Oncology--it's free, you can sign up with just an email address. The link won't work otherwise.
-I'm guessing that we'll have to read the monograph to see an explanation of the methodology used to determine the risk factor that they came up with.
-No one ever said that the report was "science"--it was an advisory panel of scientists producing a report for a public health agency. They did not claim to produce new scientific knowledge. They are interpreting and synthesizing the existing literature in order to facilitate public awareness.
-In your final comment, you seem to be arguing that we should rely on the general public and inexpert public officials to comb through medical and scientific journals and come to their own conclusions in order to shape policy. That's just not realistic, nor does it reflect the long tradition of scientifically-informed policymaking in this country and others. On a whole host of public health issues, "so-called" experts have synthesized the literature and offered policy recommendations just like this one (even though this one specifically says that people shouldn't be concerned enough to stop eating red or processed meats). Your real issue, here, seems to be with the legitimacy and function of scientific advisory panels--I'm not sure how to convince you of their value in the modern world.
-Here's a link to the list of the "so-called" experts and affiliations. If you can think circles around them on this one despite not having read the literature or seen their report, I'm impressed: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Meetings/vol114-participants.pdf
- The most important part of all this is that we can all breathe a big sigh of relief--the experts never said that anyone should stop eating bacon(!).

 

[jmez]

Nothing wrong with internet debating as long as it remains civil and productive. I think this has. The problem with internet debating is that is usually quickly denigrates into personal attacks and name calling.

My bad on the 20 study thing, I got the 20 years and studies confused. I would still like to at least look at the abstracts of the 10.

I know the report isn't science. I don't believe policy should be made or dictated by opinions drawn by panels that piece together various sources of information. If you are going to promote science and experts to shape policy then you should use the actual hard science. Science has no bias, only scientists do. If the evidence is so compelling then it should stand on its own. It shouldn't need to be "synthesized" by any panel.

Political organizations shaping policy is going to be purely political.

 

[5MilesBack]

-In your final comment, you seem to be arguing that we should rely on the general public and inexpert public officials to comb through medical and scientific journals and come to their own conclusions in order to shape policy. That's just not realistic, nor does it reflect the long tradition of scientifically-informed policymaking in this country and others.

Personally, I think they should eliminate the policy making in its entirety.

Can you imagine the amount of money spent (public or private) on these types of studies and committees and results that are pretty much meaningless? Man, what a waste of money, time, and manpower.

 

[Wyatt G]

 

[COlineman78]

Personally, I think they should eliminate the policy making in its entirety.

Can you imagine the amount of money spent (public or private) on these types of studies and committees and results that are pretty much meaningless? Man, what a waste of money, time, and manpower.

On the contrary, there was very important information that did come out of this. Even though I believe the "causes cancer" tag to be premature and not enough evidence to support such a definite claim, the simple fact that they identified a chemical reaction that they believe causes certain types of cancer is very important and may eventually result in preventative care and/or a cure. Also, learning more about the cause of one form of cancer may provide insight into others.

 

[LaGriz]

View attachment 30196

Excuse me guys, I was enjoying the debate but I have to turn the roast. LOL!

In my youth they pushed milk as the healthiest part of our diet. Later they told us eggs are very bad for you and should be avoided. For years margarine was a healthy option to butter. Then in the 70's they said we were headed for another Ice Age. In the 2000 election Al Gore said we had 9 years before environment disaster due to “Green House Gasses” and the hockey stick graph proved it to be true.

Now they tell us the world is going to end if we don't stop raising cattle, move to the cities, give up any personal vehicles, open our borders to all, adopt radical gun ledgestlation, end all hunting (especially on public land) , surrender any personal freedom, create "jobs for jihadists" (so they won't plan our murder), surrender any personal freedom, and agree to every progressive agenda.

My favorite tax payer funded study is the one that wants to answer the deeply serious and non-agenda based question of:
Why are the members of the Lesbian community routinely more obese by percentage then an equal number of gay men?
I have often wondered about this dilemma. I makes me proud that my government is being so diligent and all-caring with my tax dollars. Brave! That’s what they are….only 18 Trillion in debt and yet we don’t let that stop us from researching what really matters.

LaGriz

 

[mmw194287]

If you are going to promote science and experts to shape policy then you should use the actual hard science. Science has no bias, only scientists do. If the evidence is so compelling then it should stand on its own. It shouldn't need to be "synthesized" by any panel.

I'm in agreement on the civility thing...no hard feelings here.

I guess I can't imagine a world in which if we wanted, say, a law regulating the sale of cigarettes to adults 18+ because of their addictive and carcinogenic qualities, we'd rely on legislators to track down hundreds of individual studies unprompted, make sense of the data on their own, conclusively interpret the collective body of evidence, and then make public policy. If disinterested non-governmental scientific bodies, or individual scientists themselves, don't synthesize the science for policymakers, someone else will--probably lobbyists and industries.

Re: "hard science"--your take on this would suggest that anything outside of published experimental results doesn't have any scientific value. It seems like you have some sort of an advanced degree in a technical field--was your training solely comprised of reading individual journal articles and conducting your own experiments? I'm guessing it wasn't--synthesis is a valuable and inescapable part of the scientific world. It would be odd to expect policymakers to go without the advantages of synthesis--and, again, the report is annotated with the "hard science" should interested parties be intellectually equipped to read the latest findings in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention I'm not saying that all synthesis is created equal--certainly Big Tobacco spent fortunes producing synthesis to shape policy in ways far more "political" than anything we're discussing here. And, to that point, the WHO isn't making policy, nor is it a political organization per se. It's not dictating anything. It's not staffed by political actors, it doesn't wield any lawmaking authority.

To me, there's nothing wrong with wanting to read the information for yourself if you're capable of doing so--even if you approach it with a skeptical eye. But I think there exists a significant line between the spirit of critical inquiry so fundamental to scientific life and what I would describe as an intellectual nihilism ("we can't know anything, science can't be trusted, scientists can get away with saying whatever they want, there's no such thing as real evidence, etc.") that poses a real danger. Not that you're engaging in that type of behavior--and you likely respond to it as I do-- but I'm always frustrated by it when I encounter it on the internet--which is probably why I've been defensive of this report and the professionals at the WHO.

 

[5MilesBack]

On the contrary, there was very important information that did come out of this. Even though I believe the "causes cancer" tag to be premature and not enough evidence to support such a definite claim, the simple fact that they identified a chemical reaction that they believe causes certain types of cancer is very important and may eventually result in preventative care and/or a cure. Also, learning more about the cause of one form of cancer may provide insight into others.

Ya, people are suckers for anything that gets them every extra minute of life that they can. Personally.......I just go with life and if I get cancer from bacon or brats or red meat or whatever.......then so be it. It's out of my hands.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Damn...to wrap the bison or not wrap the bison...what to do? What to do?

 

[MTarrowflinger]

Right there with ya... This is a pork loin that was butterflied and stuffed with boudin, cream cheese, and bell peppers, and then wrapped in bacon to smoke for 4 hours. From now on, it's called a cancer roll.

 

[atcflick]

If I die from cancer that was caused from eating bacon i do not deserve to live.

 

[jimd]

According to all the so-called experts I should not drink the water,eat the wrong food or breathe the air as it might kill me. I will be 71 this next January and all I can say is all the experts can keep their advise to themselves as I am going to eat,drink and breathe what I want.

 

[Tony Trietch]

long live bacon

 

[ACC]

Just had some for breakfast. YUM!

 

[Chris Sloan]

Just to expand a little, i didnt read said study, but its not new info. So just "processing " meat doesnt make it carcinogenic. A mpre accurate title would be that some common preservative salts are some of the most aggressive free-radicals (cancer causing agents). All of the sodium nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, diaceatate....free radicals. Cancer causing. But you can spend a little more and get some bacon at a health store that just has plain old salt in it.

 

[SDC]

Give up bacon? Sooner give up beer... or sex...

Hmmm.... not only "no", but "HELL NO!"