Does the WHO study that categorizes processed meats as ‘carcinogenic’ have you rethinking your diet?

“While doctors have long warned against eating too much meat, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency gave the most definitive response yet Monday about its relation to cancer — and put processed meats in the same danger category as cigarettes or asbestos,” reports the Associated Press.

Meat industry groups protest the classification. The North American Meat Institute argued in a statement that “cancer is a complex disease not caused by single foods” and stressed the importance of lifestyle and environmental factors.

Today’s Question: Does the WHO study that categorizes processed meats as ‘carcinogenic’ have you rethinking your diet?

  • billionairesdontneedhandouts

    Just another reason to hate the MN Sports Facilities Authority.

  • Pearly


  • John Dilligaf


    • Jeff


  • David Housewright

    In this, as in all things, I believe in moderation.

  • Mason

    No. Everything is carcinogenic. Bananas are carcinogenic because of higher radiation levels. Even being outside increases your cancer. Without concrete quantification, simpley calling carcinogenic isn’t very useful.

  • KTN

    First they told me coffee was going to kill me, but I like coffee and kept drinking it until they said it was good for me. Then they told me wine was bad, but I like wine and kept drinking it, until they told me it was good for me. Now they tell me bacon will kill me, but I like bacon. I think I’ll keep eating it until they tell me it won’t.

  • diksukly

    What the fuck is processed meat? Isn’t ground beef processed meat? Fucking be clear.

  • reggie

    In the long-run, we’re all gonna die from something, so I’ll follow KTN. In the meantime, here are some good words to live by:
    A wise Greek or Roman: “Moderation in all things.”
    Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”
    Twain: “Too much of anything is bad, but too much whiskey is just enough.’

  • Jogger2

    I used to work with someone who didn’t care how healthful his diet was. He couldn’t walk from his work desk to the restroom without getting winded. Sure, in the long run, we are going to die from something. I might choose to die later, and be healthier between then and now. My former coworker would make the opposite choice, since eating was the part of his life that gave him the greatest pleasure.

  • kevins

    Sorry, but they will have to take my pulled pork and brats from my cold dead hand.

  • Jasper

    If by processed, you mean meats with preservatives and additives, then that is something I already try to limit, but I have a lot of caveats with the WHO’s blanket declaration. It doesn’t detail (in this article, anyhow) all the possible variables. Is there a difference between organic (fewer chemicals pumped into them, less stress throughout their life, more exercise), free range/grass fed meat (not given a diet mainly made up of grains – something they weren’t designed to be eating)? If your food isn’t living a healthy life, it isn’t likely to magically produce great results for you, either.

    Then there are all the different cooking processes: temperature, length of cooking time, what the meat is being cooked in.

    And, finally, what about the rest of a person’s diet and lifestyle? Are they eating a well-rounded diet (fruits, vegetables, fiber, intaking enough vitamins and minerals) and are they exercising enough?

    So, no can’t say I’m going to jump on the latest food study [scare] guidelines.

  • Gary F

    “I like beef and try to get as much of it as I can. ” Ray Romano

  • Porkchops&Greens2016

    Everything can kill you now…

  • Ralphy

    It’s not the red meat that will kill you.
    It’s the fuzzy green meat.

  • Hunter

    How odd the UN has been discussing agricultural beef related flatulence causing increased levels of Co2, which by the way plants love and grow better, yielding more food. Hmmm…I wonder if this study, so loosley wrapped with few stats other than a correlation was found, is like Obama’s economic (false data) speel?
    Under his 7 years, the economy has not gained. for example:

    In 2014, half of working Americans reported an income at or below $28,851
    (the median wage), and 51 percent reported an income of less than
    $30,000. Forty percent are making less than $20,000. The federal
    government considers a family of four living on an income of less than
    $24,250 to be impoverished.

    The conservative candidate who wants to win would do well to harp on how
    Obama’s billions $$$$$ in stimulus spending have helped create eight years of
    stagnation and desperation. 5 million more on food stamps..that’s leadership?

    • Gayle
    • kevins

      It’s “spiel” thank you.

    • Gordon near Two Harbors

      I’d say the VAST majority of Americans are better off today than when Obama took office in Jan 2009 after eight years of disastrous, Republican “leadership”.
      The economy is certainly WAY better, along with the stock market.

    • Jaime

      yeah lets bring back Bush jr

    • Yanotha Twangai

      Hunter, these off-topic rants of yours would have more credibility if you’d get your facts straight. The contribution of bovines to global warming comes from methane, not CO2, and most of that comes from belching, not flatulence.

      As for the stagnation our economy is currently suffering, it’s largely due to lack of consumer demand, which is largely due to the fact that middle class wages have been stagnant since about three decades before Obama took office, while most of economic growth during that time went to enrich the top 1%, thanks to Republican policies. Richer rich people don’t spur the economy. Richer middle class people and less-poor poor people do.

  • Gary F

    The WHO, a division of the UN. That’s why I don’t care.

    • Ralphy

      Perfectly reasonable. How do you feel about the CDC? The American Cancer Society?

      • Gary F

        CDC- Mixed opinion. They are also a political being, so there is some bent to their findings. Am Cancer Society, not sure yet, but wondering if mammogram guidelines are now changed because of pressure from the government.

        • Gordon near Two Harbors

          Science is always re-evaluating itself and seeks new information all the time to do so. The goal is better understanding, and it is a process.

          How many would trade modern cancer treatments for those of the 1950s?

    • Jeff

      Won’t get fooled again?

  • Abdi Amen

    More government intrusion without any follow up studies other than correlation results…typical. The government over reaching again and supporting the corrupt UN.
    Imagine a day where 90% of our food and beverage trucking companies have muslim drivers. Our liberal administration that just today sided with 2 muslim drives who sued for being dismissed when they refused to deliver their route with liquor. Pork is next even though they knew when they took the job what was being trucked. This crap with their religious so called right and then suing business’s out of business is allowed by Obama’s justice department hacks. But he ignores the Christian bakers? What’s next? no deliveries of women’s facial make up because its not allowed in Islam?

    • Ralphy

      Dude, relax. Have a hot dog. With bacon. Oh heck. Go nuts. Have two.

    • Gordon near Two Harbors

      Sounds a lot like “Christians” suing to be able to deny service to same-sex couples. Religious mythology should be rejected en mass.

    • David P

      When you claim this is more government intrusion, I’m sure you don’t understand what the World Health Organization is or does. They have no governing authority – the mission of the WHO is to study, advise and address health issues. Providing scientific information regarding our health seems like a pretty good idea.
      Regarding the lack of follow-up studies; this report was a consolidation of over 800 independently conducted studies regarding diet and health.

  • Rick

    Ground breaking study finds life is the cause of death!

    • scott44

      #1 cause of death is??? Bueller…Bueller?
      #1 cause of death is being born.

  • JEB

    I already don’t eat a lot of red meat, so I’ll keep to moderation until more studies confirm this one. As far as “processed meats”, is there a difference between the tub of lunchmeat in the cold meats section of your grocery store and a really good prosciutto or salami from a reputable butcher or deli? One is full of chemicals and additives, the other is made using processes passed down through generations.

  • Gary F
    • Gordon near Two Harbors

      Good post, Gary F. Risk is all relative. As the old adage goes: everything in moderation. Some risks are cumulative, too, like the added risk of heart disease. But, like my SIL says, “Ain’t nobody getting out of this thing alive…”

  • PaulJ

    It is a 1% rise in the risk of cancer (colon) if you have one serving per day of processed meat (is that what they are saying?). What if you have 2 per week? And is it a treatable cancer? I’ll rethink anything but it is not giving me much to go on (sorta speak)

  • David W.

    I’m taking the study seriously, and likely will cut back on my red/processed meat consumption.