Bacon = Cancer?? Easy choice, bring on the cancer

Eating hot dogs, ham and other processed meat can cause colorectal cancer, and eating red meat “probably” can cause cancer, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency reported Monday

The IARC report labeled processed meat a carcinogen — cigarettes are similarly labeled — and said red meat is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Processed meat was defined as meat transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking “or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.” The most common processed meats consumed in the U.S. include hot dogs, sausages, bacon, ham, canned meat and beef jerky.

Sensationalism? Bribed veggie fanatics? who knows.

you’ll have to pry my bacon from my warm greasy fingers.

I don’t think further studies are required to establish that eating a lot of bacon will decrease your life expectancy.

Yeah, surprise, not so much.

itera if you like bacon you gotta try russian salo oh my…krnyc knows what im talking about

Go vegan.

Raising a remote risk by 18% isn’t really something remarkable. It’s not like smoking, which pretty much guarantees your death. And this study doesn’t look at correlations such as being fat and a bacon pig, which is likely the real issue. Eating some bacon from time to time isn’t a big deal. Eating red meat topped with bacon every meal is probably not wise. It never was.

Lets just think of it this way. A tiger prowls in the wild to gain meat. It hunts, attacks and eats red meat. This is similar to the human body. If you workout in the gym hard, you can eat red meat as good protein and nutrients. If you sit on your @ss on the couch all day and eat bacon and other crap, you will suffer. You do not deserve the kill.

Bacon does not cause cancer. Show me more stats.

^Nah, bacon is pretty bad. Processed crap, plus that high temperature cooking in bacon fat also adds more carcinogens.

Regarding animals, tigers don’t live very long, so it’s not necessarily applicable. For example there’s animals running around in Chernobyl, it doesn’t mean that people can. Plus, working out super hard doesn’t let you outrun a bad diet, unless you have the right genetics.

My understanding is that the studies showed an effect that was just as statistically significant as cigarettes, but the effect was substantially less, meaning that it was just as unlikely that the measured differences were due to sampling error (though there might still be sampling bias), but cigarettes still reduced life expectency by a much greater degree.

Statistical literacy is still a challenge for many journalists.

bacon is not nearly as processed as many other meats in the deli in fact, you can buy some without nitrates or processing … in a place called whole foods even if you don’t go there, I would much prefer a BLT over a hot dog or something like that

And those other processed meats…also cause cancer. And you still have to deal with the byproducts that come out of cooking that fat at high heat.

Yep. All of those in the “cancer causing” category are not equal. Radium > cigarettes > bacon.

^ Exactly. Someone avoiding bacon while walking down a rush hour street in New York is not doing themselves any favours.

True, but generally it’s heart disease that bacon gets you, not cancer.

When I read whatever article it was on this yesterday I loved the last paragraph threw in something to the effect of “the study also found that obesity and lack of exercise were far greater causes of cancer”.

Ok, so nothing has changed? Bacon is bad for you, we already knew that. Eat it moderately, don’t be fat, work out. Thanks, didn’t need any help there.

Have there been any studies on all these processed “health” bars and similar crap on the market? High in fiber and protein! Also created in a lab with 500 ingredients that no one has ever heard of! I’m sure those things are just great for you.

Although the study didn’t really reveal anything new, I’m certain some school district somewhere will use it to justify eliminating all processed meats from the school lunch menu.

I’m sure Oscar Mayer will start getting hit with lawsuits from fat cancer patients from around the country too.

Regarding the statistical significance of these findings, I read an earlier version of this article that attempted to make this undertandable to general audiences by grouping various substances in categories like “definitely”, “probably”, “maybe”, in their likelihood to cause cancer. Bacon was in something like the “probably” bucket. I don’t know what statistical significance this meant.

The real question is, what doesn’t cause cancer? One cancer or another seems to win.

I recall some diet advice suggesting that one should opt for bacon sometimes vs saussages or ordinary ham. The theory was that even though it’s worse for you if you eat the same quantity, most bacon is cut thin and you actually don’t end up eating as much as other stuff because the flavor is extra strong.

EDIT: This doesn’t seem to square with the graphic above, but is probalby not from the same data set.