Bacon causes cancer

originally posted by: angryhulk

Vague, unnecessary announcement? The IARC have categorized processed meat as a Group 1 Carcinogen. That is neither vague or unnecessary.

Did you read the release? It had all kinds of definitive words like 'may', 'possibly', 'potentially'.

Real, real solid facts there from the World Health Organization. I may take them seriously on this possible issue that could be potentially fatal. Or I may just go chow down on some bacon and tell them to go to hell.

The United Nations. Christ on his cross.

Do Not Believe Them.

If They Say It's BAD its Usually Good. Study Up.

They Think GMO Is Good and Allow Woodchips in Your Bread!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: angryhulk

Vague, unnecessary announcement? The IARC have categorized processed meat as a Group 1 Carcinogen. That is neither vague or unnecessary.

Did you read the release? It had all kinds of definitive words like 'may', 'possibly', 'potentially'.

Real, real solid facts there from the World Health Organization. I may take them seriously on this possible issue that could be potentially fatal. Or I may just go chow down on some bacon and tell them to go to hell.

The United Nations. Christ on his cross.

Yes I did, and no it isn't vague.

They have categorized processed meat as a Group 1 Carcinogen. You cannot dance around that fact.
Group 1 - Carcinogenic to humans [this category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans]

They have categorized red meat as a Group 2A Carcinogen.
Group 2A - Probably Carcinogenic to humans [this category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals]

The IARC was established in 1965 to focus on the facts and to generate exactly this type of information. If the IARC classify a food type as carcinogenic, it is carcinogenic.

a reply to: angryhulk

Second line of the article:

Meanwhile, it said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence.

A little down from there:

And added that an occasional bacon sandwich would do little harm.

As 'dangerous' as plutonium (but not really):

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small..."

The United Nations is the largest gathering of buffoons on the planet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: angryhulk

Second line of the article:

"Meanwhile, it said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence."

A little down from there:

"And added that an occasional bacon sandwich would do little harm."

As 'dangerous' as plutonium (but not really):

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small..."


The United Nations is the largest gathering of buffons on the planet.

I've already provided the full definition of 'Probably Carcinogenic' i.e. Group 2A and it's subtext. What more do you want me to say.

As for the quote on having the 'occasional bacon sandwich' and it 'doing little harm', you could have a single cigarette and it would do 'little harm' but harm non the less.

Your risk increases with the amount of processed meat you consume, in the same way your risk increases with the amount of cigarettes you smoke.

If you want to read the original publication(s) I suggest you head over to the IARC instead of focusing on what a journalist has had to say on the matter.

Years ago, I read a story of how the UN had voted to begin a program to de-meat the planet and replace it with things like... meal worms. It was not too long after that, study after study after study began to appear looking to indoctrinate people away from consuming beef, pork and poultry.

Again, it has been a while ago but... it's apparently still functioning.

Pass the bacon, please

a reply to: angryhulk

The article uses the wording from the IARC where the same certain uncertainty is employed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: angryhulk

The article uses the wording from the IARC where the same certain uncertainty is employed.

What uncertainty? 'Probably Carcinogenic' is the title of one of their groups and they clearly explain why they have been classified as such.

Please link me to the original publication and the concerns you have therein regarding uncertainty.

originally posted by: angryhulk
What uncertainty? 'Probably Carcinogenic' is the title of one of their groups and they clearly explain why they have been classified as such.

'Probably' is followed by 'insufficient evidence' which means their determination is subjective.

Please link me to the original publication and the concerns you have therein regarding uncertainty.

All the adjectives that imply or connotate uncertainty.

a reply to: angryhulk

Better yet, why not link everyone to your information so we can all see who it is that is claiming bacon is a class 1 carcinogen.


ETA: ill start

www.cancer.org...

I see benzene and all sorts of other chemicals. but no meat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: angryhulk
What uncertainty? 'Probably Carcinogenic' is the title of one of their groups and they clearly explain why they have been classified as such.

'Probably' is followed by 'insufficient evidence' which means their determination is subjective.

Please link me to the original publication and the concerns you have therein regarding uncertainty.

All the adjectives that imply or connotate uncertainty.

'Probably' is also followed with 'sufficient evidence in carcinogenicity in animals'. In humans, yes it's subjective, which is why they classed it as Group 2A and not Group 1. Anything else?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: angryhulk

Better yet, why not link everyone to your information so we can all see who it is that is claiming bacon is a class 1 carcinogen.


ETA: ill start

www.cancer.org...

I see benzene and all sorts of other chemicals. but no meat.

The IARC, as I have previously stated in nearly every single one of my posts. The link is in one of them. Have a look.

a reply to: angryhulk

No, you linked to the IARC. You didn't link to a publication, article, anything. Just a haystack with a needle hidden in it.

Not to mention your hazy/fluid descriptions of the type of carcinogen this is. Class 1, Class 2a, "probably carcinogenic"....

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: angryhulk

No, you linked to the IARC. You didn't link to a publication, article, anything. Just a haystack with a needle hidden in it.

I linked to the IARC, correct. Considering this is the biggest news the IARC have released in a while their main publication(s) are right there on the front page, or better yet just go to the 'news & events' section where you are bombarded with information on the subject. Hardly a needle in a haystack.

Not to mention your hazy/fluid descriptions of the type of carcinogen this is. Class 1, Class 2a, "probably carcinogenic"....

First of all, not my descriptions, it's the IARC's. Second, what's 'hazy' about them?

I hope most people stop eating bacon and all red meats.

Then there'd be more for me!

a reply to: angryhulk

It it customary to link to your source. Il just leave it alone...but if the article isn't on the page I open, I just assume its a nonsense claim. I am not unusual in that regard.
Thats all im saying: don't make me do your work.

originally posted by: angryhulk

In humans, yes it's subjective, which is why they classed it as Group 2A and not Group 1. Anything else?

Nope. All I needed to see was the 'subjective' part.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: angryhulk

It it customary to link to your source. Il just leave it alone...but if the article isn't on the page I open, I just assume its a nonsense claim. I am not unusual in that regard.
Thats all im saying: don't make me do your work.

Fair point.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: angryhulk

In humans, yes it's subjective, which is why they classed it as Group 2A and not Group 1. Anything else?

Nope. All I needed to see was the 'subjective' part.

OK, and remember that's related to red meat, not processed. Processed meat is in Group 1 which is carcinogenic in humans.

a reply to: angryhulk

My concern is ultra-minimal because the study said:

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small..."

Just like when I eat plutonium, another Group 1 item.