http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621
Damn it to hell! I just bought a smoker this year too...
So does smoking cigarettes and I've been smoking since 1974. Damned ..I must have died from cancer years ago.
So they now fall under the same category as cigarettes. Somehow I don't see governments regulating the sale of pepperoni to minors and taxing the shit out of it in the interests of public health.
According to reports on NPR, the data doesn't look as bad as cigarettes.
Aahhhhhhhhhhhhh shittttt....we all gonna die!
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/argentinebeefcuts1.jpg) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/argentinebeefcuts1.jpg.html)
Quote from: TomFoolery on October 26, 2015, 04:12:21 PM
So they now fall under the same category as cigarettes. Somehow I don't see governments regulating the sale of pepperoni to minors and taxing the shit out of it in the interests of public health.
You have little imagination ;-( Give me bacon, or give me death!
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 26, 2015, 04:55:36 PM
Aahhhhhhhhhhhhh shittttt....we all gonna die!
No, the gambit is in play ... beef for the millionaires, bugs for us ... they have been putting out articles how nutritious bugs are for several years now.
Good thing a lot of those projects to cure cancer are starting to pay off, eh?
I can just see it now.. The image below is a weapon of mass destruction and our armed forces will hunt Oscar Meyer to the ends of the earth. You're either with us or you're against us.
USA USA USA!
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsLcDrrACFXX3wozNwNds2hKFmKOspmpk139IsMi500BxpBVyVqg)
First of all I don't think the conclusions are iron clad so much as suggestive. I have a smoker and I'm not going to stop using it.
Commercially prepared processed meats I can see that, because they have a lot of chemicals besides salt and spices. But a typical ham is salt cured and smoked, not a lot of ingredients added. Sausage made at home has salt and spices and fat, but there are no other nitrates or "shelf extenders" needed. Prosciutto, corned beef and pastrami are all cured meats.
Too much salt (sodium) is definitely bad, and practically every diet but straight vegan has an abundance of salt. I know the British diet is heavy on sausages and sweetbreads, so it might certainly need improving.
Sweetbreads, for the less knowledgeable
http://www.foodterms.com/encyclopedia/sweetbreads/index.html
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 26, 2015, 08:27:58 PM
Good thing a lot of those projects to cure cancer are starting to pay off, eh?
Cancer and death are natural outcomes of individual biological development. Trying to cure them are like trying to cure life. Will never be successful ... you each have an ethical obligation to die, some day. Same thing with other aging diseases. Spending a million on trying to give one more year to an octogenarian ... even my own mom ... is unethical. My mother thinks so too. Death is a part of life, not an enemy.
Quote from: Baruch on October 26, 2015, 11:04:22 PM
Cancer and death are natural outcomes of individual biological development. Trying to cure them are like trying to cure life. Will never be successful ... you each have an ethical obligation to die, some day. Same thing with other aging diseases. Spending a million on trying to give one more year to an octogenarian ... even my own mom ... is unethical. My mother things so too. Death is a part of life, not an enemy.
Hmm. You just blew your EQ facade.
Cancer is pain and suffering beyond imagination.
Crossing the street can kill you, too. I like my bacon.
Quote from: facebook164 on October 27, 2015, 01:19:06 AM
Hmm. You just blew your EQ facade.
Cancer is pain and suffering beyond imagination.
I don't know about the ethical obligation to die bit, but cancer is indeed pretty much intrinsic to macro organism life forms, due to the processes of ADN copying itself, cellular division and how this things are affected by radiation and carcinogens widely present in nature. We could greatly reduce it in the future though with how powerful science is but it is a very hard thing to fix due to our environment and our bodies creating a set of conditions that makes it very common.
Baruch what are your thoughts on transhumanism? I bet you do not like it =^)
Quote from: mauricio on October 27, 2015, 01:57:55 AM
I don't know about the ethical obligation to die bit, but cancer is indeed pretty much intrinsic to macro organism life forms, due to the processes of ADN copying itself, cellular division and how this things are affected by radiation and carcinogens widely present in nature. We could greatly reduce it in the future though with how powerful science is but it is a very hard thing to fix due to our environment and our bodies creating a set of conditions that makes it very common.
Baruch what are your thoughts on transhumanism? I bet you do not like it =^)
The video of the chimera with a human ear grown on the back of a "nude" mouse has been going around ... and the technology existed for some time, but is getting better. So I suspect we will trans-mouse to make minor human body parts. We kill minks for fur.
Your note on the nature of cancer is spot on ... but our carcinogens will only increase ... we will have to eat worse and worse food and drink and breath worse air ... China is the future. The human race can't afford business or government ethics ... it can only afford a race to the bottom. Of course optimists will say ... we haven't hit bottom yet ... and I don't want to spoil their surprise.
On the subject of pain ... my mother and daughter are experts. I don't have an answer for them or this crowd. Ameliorating pain in both an effective and non-deleterious way ... would be a god-send ... but probably the only tool we have been given is a good whiskey ... and it is much cheaper than a pill a capitalist jacked up to $750 each.
As I have noted before, particularly in GB ... cloning and adding human genes to sheep is already a done deal. Are you sure, based on voter response, that adding sheep DNA to people isn't already being done? In a world where people are just livestock, just say MOOOO
I would add bacteria DNA to Germans, so they can be proper germs (not really).
Quote from: facebook164 on October 27, 2015, 01:19:06 AM
Hmm. You just blew your EQ facade.
Cancer is pain and suffering beyond imagination.
My IQ won't levitate a car off of a car crash victim ... and neither will my EQ. Doctors can be helpful, but they don't wear spandex and fly around the room. If I could wave my magic wand (I actually have one to fix IT problems at work) and rid humanity of its many scourges ... do you imagine I wouldn't do it? But that is not the anime cartoon I find myself in, unfortunately.
And as far as suffering goes ... you have no conception what my EQ is ... just because we don't know one another, not because you mistakenly think I don't care. But I confront death every day as a senior care provider among other things ... and I chose this, I didn't run away from it. May you find your strength of character as well.
That post just made your previous post more weird.
Quote from: facebook164 on October 27, 2015, 06:47:50 AM
That post just made your previous post more weird.
Its OK if you don't get it. I don't either ;-) But conversation thru this medium, at less than 144 character per post in many cases, is like sucking cold peanut butter up a small straw. It is very difficult, except thru many posts and a photographic memory to provide context.
No. It isnt so hard. You just dont say that cancer shouldnt be fighted because we die anyway...
Quote from: facebook164 on October 27, 2015, 06:54:40 AM
No. It isnt so hard. You just dont say that cancer shouldnt be fighted because we die anyway...
Not what I said ... I said it can't be cured (a ham can be cured but the pig dies). It can go into remission in some cases ... temporarily. It is like the crazies who think and advertise that thru technology people will live for hundreds of years in perfect health, and this technology is just a few years away. There is entropy to contend with ... and we can ... but you have to put energy in (and that costs money, so only expect millionaires to get it) ... it doesn't happen spontaneously (you hear me Adam Smith!) ... what happens spontaneously is that entropy increases ... neither medicine nor society get better automatically.
What a given patient does with their condition, is between them and their doctor. But don't ask me to pay a million dollars in a vain attempt to prevent life. One thousand dollars I can afford. False heroics are ... false ... no matter how much we want to overcome death and taxes.
Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2015, 07:00:34 AM
Not what I said ... I said it can't be cured. It can go into remission in some cases ... temporarily. It is like the crazies who think and advertise that thru technology people will live for hundreds of years in perfect health, and this technology is just a few years away. There is entropy to contend with ... and we can ... but you have to put energy in (and that costs money, so only expect millionaires to get it) ... it doesn't happen spontaneously (you hear me Adam Smith!) ... what happens spontaneously is that entropy increases ... neither medicine nor society get better automatically.
What a given patient does with their condition, is between them and their doctor. But don't ask me to pay a million dollars in a vain attempt to prevent life. One thousand dollars I can afford. False heroics are ... false ... no matter how much we want to overcome death and taxes.
And this is so much bullshit that I'm done with this discussion.
People who are up in arms about preservatives being bad for you forget why we developed them in the first place: to keep food from spoiling. Eating spoiled food is every bit as bad as eating preserved food, because the spoilage microbes pepper the food with an arsenal of poisons that aren't any better for you, and purposefully so. The 'crobes're saying, "Up yours, you macrosopic meatbag! We got to it first! *blows raspberry*"
Either way, you're navigating a minefield.
Not all preservatives are good, many are banned now.
On every British news programme I have heard over the last day or so the phrase 'Red meat and processed meat are'
Now the report points definitely against processed meat, but there is only very light evidence for red meat of itself being bad. It is therefore interesting that the reports emphasised red meat.
It is mentioned bacon is a processed meat.
So is that traditionally cured pork or the highly processed bacon injected with mixtures of saline and proteans?
If the traditional method of curing is indited then are we looking at any act of preserving as causing cancer?
If that is the case then modern industrial farming is incapable of delivering non carcinogenic food. As such if we want to avoid cancer only eating seasonal products that are sustainably produced can be relied on.
There is nothing here any proponent of industrial farming could take the slightest encouragement from.
Quote from: jonb on October 27, 2015, 08:12:12 PM
Not all preservatives are good, many are banned now.
Of course not all preservatives are created equal. Formaldehyde is a damn good preservative, but useless for food purposes.
Quote
Now the report points definitely against processed meat, but there is only very light evidence for red meat of itself being bad.
Even though red meat is rated just below processed meats on a five bullet scale of badness probability? I don't call that 'light evidence', and in fact there has been evidence building for years that red meat isn't all that good for you either. Hell, the scale even says that it doesn't measure risk but only probability. It tells you that processed meats are carcinogenic, but doesn't tell you how strong a carcinogen it is.
Amateurs assess probabilities; professionals assess risks.
Quote
It is mentioned bacon is a processed meat.
So is that traditionally cured pork or the highly processed bacon injected with mixtures of saline and proteans?
You do realize that "saline and proteans" are 'salt water' and 'what bacon is made of', right?
I think that "processed meats" does include traditional curing.
Quote
If the traditional method of curing is indited then are we looking at any act of preserving as causing cancer?
It's quite possible. Most curing techniques result in removing some of the water from the meat, which of course will concentrate
all carcinogens in the meat, including the endemic ones.
Quote
If that is the case then modern industrial farming is incapable of delivering non carcinogenic food.
As is non-industrial farming. Remember, "processed meats" include traditional farming. Traditionally cured bacon and salamis are indicted along with the industrially processed stuff. They're all hit with the same wide brush.
Quote
As such if we want to avoid cancer only eating seasonal products that are sustainably produced can be relied on.
I don't see where that is justified anywhere in the article, or the research. While they know that processed meats are causing cancer, they don't actually know
what in processed meats is causing the cancer. It could be the preservatives, or it could be the... well, meat, which you might notice is just below processed meats in WHO rating that it
probably causes cancer. Well, it either does or it doesn't, but the epidemiology is pretty conclusive that red meat in and of itself is bad for you, preservatives or no, industrial farming or no.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if meat has endemic carcinogens produced by the animal itself. Poisons and toxins are everywhere in the natural world. Nature is out to kill us.
You will never be able to avoid the possibility of cancer completely. There is only modulated risk. Also, dying of acute food poisoning doesn't sound all that good a fate, either, and even if I survive it, it's probably done no good for me. Again, nature is out to kill us.
Quote
There is nothing here any proponent of industrial farming could take the slightest encouragement from.
I think that as far as the science is concerned, the report is absolutely
neutral on industrial farming, because it's indicting
processed meats and may implicate
red meats, which has fuck-all to do with whether or not the meats are processed in a plant or processed using traditional methods.
Quote from: jonb on October 27, 2015, 08:12:12 PM
It is mentioned bacon is a processed meat.
So is that traditionally cured pork or the highly processed bacon injected with mixtures of saline and proteans?
Both.
That said: what the WHO doesnt say is HOW the risk of getting cancer from processed meat is. Just that it is certain that it can cause cancer.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on October 28, 2015, 12:35:48 AM
Of course not all preservatives are created equal. Formaldehyde is a damn good preservative, but useless for food purposes.
That if I may say is not exactly talking about what is actually used in food.
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/top-10-food-additives-to-avoid (http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/top-10-food-additives-to-avoid)
QuoteEven though red meat is rated just below processed meats on a five bullet scale of badness probability? I don't call that 'light evidence', and in fact there has been evidence building for years that red meat isn't all that good for you either. Hell, the scale even says that it doesn't measure risk but only probability. It tells you that processed meats are carcinogenic, but doesn't tell you how strong a carcinogen it is.
Amateurs assess probabilities; professionals assess risks.
Oh how much I like this part with its implication I am an amateur and know little. What is the methodology of the report? It is not just that it shows a relationship between high levels of processed meat consumption and cancer is it, without taking into account lifestyles that of themselves maybe unhealthy?
You could read the report of course.
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf (https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf)
https://youtu.be/PNwZ4bINaxM
The Dr above is of course biased, but her criticisms do have weight.
QuoteYou do realize that "saline and proteans" are 'salt water' and 'what bacon is made of', right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521119/Chemical-sludge-Meat-glue-Pig-skin-If-water-ALL-pumped-chicken.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521119/Chemical-sludge-Meat-glue-Pig-skin-If-water-ALL-pumped-chicken.html)
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/08/08/know-10-additives-commonly-found-meat/ (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/08/08/know-10-additives-commonly-found-meat/)
QuoteI think that "processed meats" does include traditional curing.
It's quite possible. Most curing techniques result in removing some of the water from the meat, which of course will concentrate all carcinogens in the meat, including the endemic ones.
As is non-industrial farming. Remember, "processed meats" include traditional farming. Traditionally cured bacon and salamis are indicted along with the industrially processed stuff. They're all hit with the same wide brush.
I don't see where that is justified anywhere in the article, or the research. While they know that processed meats are causing cancer, they don't actually know what in processed meats is causing the cancer. It could be the preservatives, or it could be the... well, meat, which you might notice is just below processed meats in WHO rating that it probably causes cancer. Well, it either does or it doesn't, but the epidemiology is pretty conclusive that red meat in and of itself is bad for you, preservatives or no, industrial farming or no.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if meat has endemic carcinogens produced by the animal itself. Poisons and toxins are everywhere in the natural world. Nature is out to kill us.
You will never be able to avoid the possibility of cancer completely. There is only modulated risk. Also, dying of acute food poisoning doesn't sound all that good a fate, either, and even if I survive it, it's probably done no good for me. Again, nature is out to kill us.
I think that as far as the science is concerned, the report is absolutely neutral on industrial farming, because it's indicting processed meats and may implicate red meats, which has fuck-all to do with whether or not the meats are processed in a plant or processed using traditional methods.
What sort of preservation and how much it effects we don't know because the study does not directly cover that. However if preservation is of itself a problem then it is hard to see any system which is reliant on preservation being a good model, and although the report does not deal with Industrialised farming head on, that industrialised farming needs the use of preservatives even in so called fresh meat (that is why it is injected) to make it viable the problem becomes evident.
Its a conspiracy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-dana-perino-bacon-conspiracy_562fc644e4b06317990fb778?cps=gravity_5040_5983011156521510055
QuoteThe panel was discussing a recent report released by the World Health Organization showing that processed meats, like bacon, can lead to cancer. The report ranked processed and cured meat on a top-tier list of carcinogenic substances that includes alcohol, cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic.
But to Fox host Dana Perino, the report is just another ploy from the enviro-crazies to stop you from running the AC with the car windows down or eating a Baconator five times a week.
"I think that there is a bigger conspiracy here anyway by the World Health Organization," Perino said. "Climate change. Global warming. This is all -- there's a big push against any sort of animal consumption."
"Reduce our carbon hoofprint, as they say," co-host Greg Gutfeld joked.
The panel highlighted the story of Susannah Mushatt Jones, the world's oldest woman, who says the secret to her 116-year-long life is eating bacon every morning.
Another host even went as far to say that if she were given the choice between not eating bacon and death, she'd choose death.
So there. :103:
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2015, 09:56:04 AM
Its a conspiracy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-dana-perino-bacon-conspiracy_562fc644e4b06317990fb778?cps=gravity_5040_5983011156521510055
QuoteThe panel was discussing a recent report released by the World Health Organization showing that processed meats, like bacon, can lead to cancer. The report ranked processed and cured meat on a top-tier list of carcinogenic substances that includes alcohol, cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic.
But to Fox host Dana Perino, the report is just another ploy from the enviro-crazies to stop you from running the AC with the car windows down or eating a Baconator five times a week.
"I think that there is a bigger conspiracy here anyway by the World Health Organization," Perino said. "Climate change. Global warming. This is all -- there's a big push against any sort of animal consumption."
"Reduce our carbon hoofprint, as they say," co-host Greg Gutfeld joked.
The panel highlighted the story of Susannah Mushatt Jones, the world's oldest woman, who says the secret to her 116-year-long life is eating bacon every morning.
Another host even went as far to say that if she were given the choice between not eating bacon and death, she'd choose death.
Of course anecdotes trump scientific data. :embarrassed:
I don't eat bacon. But KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF MY PROSCIUTTO!
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 28, 2015, 10:01:17 AM
Of course anecdotes trump scientific data. :embarrassed:
Of course! Always. But then at Faux snooze, anecdotes are scientific data.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 28, 2015, 10:48:12 AM
Of course! Always. But then at Faux snooze, anecdotes are scientific data.
Almost all dietetic studies are not controlled experiments, usually it is impossible to do controlled experiments with people. Hence such studies are barely science (not necessarily wrong, just not reliable).
Quote from: stromboli on October 28, 2015, 09:56:04 AM
The panel highlighted the story of Susannah Mushatt Jones, the world's oldest woman, who says the secret to her 116-year-long life is eating bacon every morning.
One of my secret hopes is that I live to be like 120 and when people ask me my secret, I can say something like weekly gang bangs and daily ice cold showers.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
That if I may say is not exactly talking about what is actually used in food.
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/top-10-food-additives-to-avoid (http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/top-10-food-additives-to-avoid)
I'm immediately suspicious of a source that describes aspartame as a "neurotoxin and carcinogen." It's a fucking dipeptide â€" a two-unit protein. It breaks down into two amino acids. The only health risk that has ever been realistically pinned to it is for people who suffer from PKU, but such people have to avoid a whole slew of otherwise wholesome foods because they contain large amounts of a particular,
naturally occuring amino acid.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
Oh how much I like this part with its implication I am an amateur and know little.
Actually, yeah, you in fact do know little if you believe aspartame is a neurotoxin and carcinogen.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
What is the methodology of the report? It is not just that it shows a relationship between high levels of processed meat consumption and cancer is it, without taking into account lifestyles that of themselves maybe unhealthy?
Yes, but that's still not a causal connection.
Let me see if I can express my criticism more clearly: What we call 'meat' is a whole mix of chemicals, both simple and complex. The notion that there is not, even in traditionally farmed meat, some chemical in there that promotes cancer is silly. There's too many chemicals in there to actually make that assessment. All you can do is compare different chemical mixes (various meats prepared in various ways) to a standard.
The WHO report cannot tell you that any particular chemical in the meat is responsible for that cancer.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
You could read the report of course.
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf (https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf)
https://youtu .be/PNwZ4bINaxM
The Dr above is of course biased, but her criticisms do have weight.
By the same standards that WHO indicts processed meats as causing cancer, the WHO says that red meats are probably a cause of cancer. Yet your Dr above says that there is no evidence that red meat is a direct cause of cancer. That's problem one. The second problem is that there is no assessment of the risk of cancer in the WHO report, if any.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521119/Chemical-sludge-Meat-glue-Pig-skin-If-water-ALL-pumped-chicken.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521119/Chemical-sludge-Meat-glue-Pig-skin-If-water-ALL-pumped-chicken.html)
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/08/08/know-10-additives-commonly-found-meat/ (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/08/08/know-10-additives-commonly-found-meat/)
From the first article: "Once you know this, none of our mass-produced foodstuffs sound remotely appetising."
The is basically the level of the argument put forward in this article. It's designed to scare you, not inform you. It mentions "hydrocolloids" â€" a scary sounding term â€" until you look it up and figure out that it is a fancy, scary word for... starch. It mentions "collagen" of pig skins, and asks if that sounds wholesome. Well, collagen is something you can't avoid if you eat meat at all â€" it's the protein forming the extracelluar matrix. None of the chemical addatives mentioned are anything that I didn't immediately identify as natural and wholesome.
"This is not real, natural meat, but an industrialised meat-like substance."
Which is why it's cheap, you ninnies. Industrialized farming is why you can regularly eat meat
at all. First source is FUD.
As to your second source, it has more meat, but only for certain numbers: 3, 5, 7, and 10. The rest are of completely no concern, expecially for 6 (carbon monoxide) and 8 (viral sprays). The former because the carbon monoxide binds up firmly to the heme groups, which will be broken down anyway. There is no gas in the meat. None. It's not used as a preservative. Carbon monoxide doesn't do ANYTHING to bacteria â€" its danger in humans lies with it binding the heme groups in hemoglobulin,
which bacteria don't have! As to 8, bacteriophages are EVERYWHERE. They are, in fact, the #1 cause of death in bacteria in the wild. All we're doing is leveraging nature's antibiotics to our own ends. I could go on, but it's all the same nonsense. There is no risk-vs-benefit assessment in either article. That alone makes it FUD trash.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
What sort of preservation and how much it effects we don't know because the study does not directly cover that. However if preservation is of itself a problem then it is hard to see any system which is reliant on preservation being a good model, and although the report does not deal with Industrialised farming head on, that industrialised farming needs the use of preservatives even in so called fresh meat (that is why it is injected) to make it viable the problem becomes evident.
Given that
everyone is dependent on food preservation in one way or another, given that very few people live in a climate where plentiful food is available year-round, that makes
every system a bad model. Once you accept that, our food models boil down to which ones are less bad. Then you're talking about risk assessment, which moves the discussion beyond that of the WHO report.
The ability to store up food and have it remain wholesome for long periods of time is the reason why we have civilization in the first place. It evens out the irregularity in the growing seasons and allows a (mostly) predictable food source â€" you know you're going to be here next year, which allows you to plan for the future.
I have seen nothing in your links that is at the same time (a) a cause for concern or action, and (b) credible. Even WHO doesn't recommend cutting out processed meats entirely, only to keep it to reasonable levels, which is just no-shit-sherlock advice.
I say again: amateurs assess probabilities; professionals assess risks. In none of these articles are there any statement of the
risk of processed meats vs non-processed meats. Without that risk assessment, there is literally no reasonable action to be taken, or needs to be taken.
Nobody said whether any of the panel experts were vegans. That would skew your weighted average right there, by golly.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on October 28, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
Having read your post I am not sure if it is worthwhile going through point by point which would take me time, so first let me ask you this-
Are you shouting at me because you don't like what I may seem to represent to you, or are you talking about just this subject? If it is this subject I think you may have my position wrong we can talk on, however if it is my presence alone that is annoying you fair enough. Throw some more invective at me and we can call it a day.
Quote from: jonb on October 28, 2015, 08:01:17 PM
Having read your post I am not sure if it is worthwhile going through point by point which would take me time, so first let me ask you this-
Are you shouting at me because you don't like what I may seem to represent to you, or are you talking about just this subject? If it is this subject I think you may have my position wrong we can talk on, however if it is my presence alone that is annoying you fair enough. Throw some more invective at me and we can call it a day.
Dude, I agree with you on many points outside this thread, but here you seemed to have dropped the ball and let it roll down the mountain. Food and nutrition is a subject
soaking in woo, and a place where emotions run high. I'm not at all surprised. We are dealing with people's precious bodily fluids here, but that just means we need to examine the science all the more closely.
As I have told Baruch, there is a lot to hate about industrialized farming without going into falsehoods. The fact that it is a significant contributor to global warming; the fact that it encourages cash-crop economies vulnerable to the whims of companies and consumers alike. However, when you appeal to FUD, and FUD that falls apart under even a little bit of scrutiny, it only undermines your position and makes you look like a reactionary whack-a-loon.
I would like to hash this out, but I think you need to up your game. Scholarly articles about food safety would go a long way to establishing your case. At least, they wouldn't be as easy to knock down as looking up the definition of a scary-sounding word like "hydrocolloids" (starches). Chemists can make even the most innocuous chemical sound scary.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on October 28, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
I'm immediately suspicious of a source that describes aspartame as a "neurotoxin and carcinogen." It's a fucking dipeptide â€" a two-unit protein. It breaks down into two amino acids. The only health risk that has ever been realistically pinned to it is for people who suffer from PKU, but such people have to avoid a whole slew of otherwise wholesome foods because they contain large amounts of a particular, naturally occuring amino acid.
Actually, yeah, you in fact do know little if you believe aspartame is a neurotoxin and carcinogen.
Yes, but that's still not a causal connection.
Can I presume from this you, are admitting that what is considered fresh meat is regularly treated with preservatives? We might argue over the merit or not of those preservatives, but there is an admission here that what looks like fresh is mostly treated in one way or another.
QuoteLet me see if I can express my criticism more clearly: What we call 'meat' is a whole mix of chemicals, both simple and complex. The notion that there is not, even in traditionally farmed meat, some chemical in there that promotes cancer is silly. There's too many chemicals in there to actually make that assessment. All you can do is compare different chemical mixes (various meats prepared in various ways) to a standard.
I very much agree with this statement. For any report the precision of its categories is critical. If those categories are suspect the report is more or less useless.
QuoteThe WHO report cannot tell you that any particular chemical in the meat is responsible for that cancer.
By the same standards that WHO indicts processed meats as causing cancer, the WHO says that red meats are probably a cause of cancer. Yet your Dr above says that there is no evidence that red meat is a direct cause of cancer. That's problem one. The second problem is that there is no assessment of the risk of cancer in the WHO report, if any.
The Who report is flawed, its definitions of fresh and processed do not stand to scrutiny. The definition of 'processed' is that the meat has been through more than one process such as mincing. But since most meat is injected minced beef which might be called fresh in the report, you have already conceded has been injected and therefore has been through at least two processes.
What is fresh what is processed. If I cook pork with some onions and some dumplings is it fresh?
If I put some pork onions and meal in a sausage skin and then cook it, is it processed?
The report is reliant on what people report as being fresh or processed. So it is not about the actual food consumed, but about how people identify their food. There is no relationship to life styles, as such a poor lifestyle which may over consume is not identified as possibly altering the data so factors such as smoking or drinking that might go along with the consumption of cheep highly processed meat is simply not accounted for. As such a person going down with a cancer might have a relationship with the consumption of ready-made foods or processed meats but the actual cause of the cancer could well be with the drinking and smoking.
QuoteFrom the first article: "Once you know this, none of our mass-produced foodstuffs sound remotely appetising."
The is basically the level of the argument put forward in this article. It's designed to scare you, not inform you. It mentions "hydrocolloids" â€" a scary sounding term â€" until you look it up and figure out that it is a fancy, scary word for... starch. It mentions "collagen" of pig skins, and asks if that sounds wholesome. Well, collagen is something you can't avoid if you eat meat at all â€" it's the protein forming the extracelluar matrix. None of the chemical addatives mentioned are anything that I didn't immediately identify as natural and wholesome.
The problem is that as you have said yourself already in this post I am quoting-
QuoteThere's too many chemicals in there to actually make that assessment. All you can do is compare different chemical mixes (various meats prepared in various ways) to a standard.
re quote
Even on the most basic level the injection in one meat of a different sort of meat means that it becomes very difficult to identify if you find a problem what could be the cause of that problem. And therefore a WHO statistical study of what people report they might have eaten is useless.
Quote"This is not real, natural meat, but an industrialised meat-like substance."
Which is why it's cheap, you ninnies. Industrialized farming is why you can regularly eat meat at all. First source is FUD.
Industrialised farming, for ninnies is not one system that only produces food in one way, traditional farming is not one system that only produces food in one way. There are many methods of farming and also most governments subsidise farming in one way or another. There are ways of producing food in large quantities that does not destroy the land in the long term, our current systems do, to say what is happening to many environments is cheep, is short sighted.
QuoteAs to your second source, it has more meat, but only for certain numbers: 3, 5, 7, and 10. The rest are of completely no concern, expecially for 6 (carbon monoxide) and 8 (viral sprays). The former because the carbon monoxide binds up firmly to the heme groups, which will be broken down anyway. There is no gas in the meat. None. It's not used as a preservative. Carbon monoxide doesn't do ANYTHING to bacteria â€" its danger in humans lies with it binding the heme groups in hemoglobulin, which bacteria don't have! As to 8, bacteriophages are EVERYWHERE. They are, in fact, the #1 cause of death in bacteria in the wild. All we're doing is leveraging nature's antibiotics to our own ends. I could go on, but it's all the same nonsense. There is no risk-vs-benefit assessment in either article. That alone makes it FUD trash.
Given that everyone is dependent on food preservation in one way or another, given that very few people live in a climate where plentiful food is available year-round, that makes every system a bad model. Once you accept that, our food models boil down to which ones are less bad. Then you're talking about risk assessment, which moves the discussion beyond that of the WHO report.
Yes, but my criticism is that I cannot point to a difference between ways of food preservation. The wide meaningless categories used in the report also make that useless. So we have a report that comes from a body we are supposed to respect that tells us nothing in any shape or form apart from food processing seems more of a problem do eat too much. As such all that can be said is, preservation of food is bad, therefore the system which needs food to be preserved for longer periods than other forms of agriculture and delivery has not come out of this report well. Now if you read back over what I have said before this post you will find that is all I have actually said, although I may have used a few links to justify that position, I am not in total agreement with any one of those links, but I thought they might be useful reference.
Quote
The ability to store up food and have it remain wholesome for long periods of time is the reason why we have civilization in the first place. It evens out the irregularity in the growing seasons and allows a (mostly) predictable food source â€" you know you're going to be here next year, which allows you to plan for the future.
I have seen nothing in your links that is at the same time (a) a cause for concern or action, and (b) credible. Even WHO doesn't recommend cutting out processed meats entirely, only to keep it to reasonable levels, which is just no-shit-sherlock advice.
I say again: amateurs assess probabilities; professionals assess risks. In none of these articles are there any statement of the risk of processed meats vs non-processed meats. Without that risk assessment, there is literally no reasonable action to be taken, or needs to be taken.
Some people may take what is said in the WHO report on a superficial level, I don't think either of us has. I think both of us look at it and say no shit Sherlock 'that one should probably not over eat'.
Further I admit to my bias that I do not like unsustainable farming and that many modern methods are unsustainable and I also have a bias that I see many bodies like the World health Organisation either propping up that unsustainable system or that in producing reports which are essentially meaningless muddying the waters so issues that systems of industrialised farming may have, are not looked at.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
Can I presume from this you, are admitting that what is considered fresh meat is regularly treated with preservatives? We might argue over the merit or not of those preservatives, but there is an admission here that what looks like fresh is mostly treated in one way or another.
Yes, some of what we call "processed meats" are in fact treated with preservatives. But that word, 'preservatives,' describes a very large set of chemicals, most of which don't even belong in the same chemical class, and their actions to preserve the freshness of meat are as varied as drying out the little buggers from osmotic imbanance, to pH alteration, to direct poisons against microbe-specific metabolic pathways.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
I very much agree with this statement. For any report the precision of its categories is critical. If those categories are suspect the report is more or less useless.
Agreed.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
The Who report is flawed, its definitions of fresh and processed do not stand to scrutiny. The definition of 'processed' is that the meat has been through more than one process such as mincing. But since most meat is injected minced beef which might be called fresh in the report, you have already conceded has been injected and therefore has been through at least two processes.
The WHO report says that "processed meats" have to include some sort of transformation. The only way that a processed meat can be more cancer causing than natural meat is the introduction of carcinogens into the meat or concentration of endemic carcinogens already in the meat. I'd hardly call "mincing" a process that can do that.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
What is fresh what is processed. If I cook pork with some onions and some dumplings is it fresh?
According to the WHO, it is. Cooking explicitly causes a chemical change to occur to the meat. It certainly is a transformation that both enhances flavor and improves preservation. (When used for long-term preservation, cooking is called "pasturization.")
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
If I put some pork onions and meal in a sausage skin and then cook it, is it processed?
Yes. In fact, such a thing is directly mentioned as an example:
Quote from: WHO
Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.
That's actually a long list, and you can have a traditionally made sausage from start to finish, and it would still be considered a "processed meat" according to the WHO. That's part of the problem. "Processed meats" is a
huge catagory that includes essentially all meat products except for the cuts and ground stuff. And raw at that.
I mean, I wouldn't care for surströmming, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who likes this form of "processed meat."
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
The report is reliant on what people report as being fresh or processed. So it is not about the actual food consumed, but about how people identify their food. There is no relationship to life styles, as such a poor lifestyle which may over consume is not identified as possibly altering the data so factors such as smoking or drinking that might go along with the consumption of cheep highly processed meat is simply not accounted for. As such a person going down with a cancer might have a relationship with the consumption of ready-made foods or processed meats but the actual cause of the cancer could well be with the drinking and smoking.
Yes, these are confounding factors. The chief confounding factor for the WHO study is that the more processed meats you have access to, the more food period you have access to, especially meats, which even if it is farmed and processed completely organically, the amino acids (proteins) themselves put a significant ammonia load onto your kidneys and liver. Even the ammonia used to preserve the natural nutrition bugbear, pink slime, works out to only 1 part in 30,000 of the ammonia load from the proteins in the pink slime â€" by any definition, the preservative used in pink slime is insignificant.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
The problem is that as you have said yourself already in this post I am quoting-re quote
Even on the most basic level the injection in one meat of a different sort of meat means that it becomes very difficult to identify if you find a problem what could be the cause of that problem. And therefore a WHO statistical study of what people report they might have eaten is useless.
Yes, and I agree. Are you thinking that I believe the WHO's report has any real merit? 'Cuz I don't.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
Industrialised farming, for ninnies is not one system that only produces food in one way, traditional farming is not one system that only produces food in one way. There are many methods of farming and also most governments subsidise farming in one way or another. There are ways of producing food in large quantities that does not destroy the land in the long term, our current systems do, to say what is happening to many environments is cheep, is short sighted.
Like I said, there's plenty to hate about industrialized farming without lying about it. There are so many ways to process meat, both industrialized and traditional, that the only common element amongst them is the
meat. In short, what we may be seeing is the effects of meat overconsumption, which I think is kind of likely. I calculated eating one kg of lean meat the equivalent to swigging 56 g of ammonia (though not all at once), which comes from the deamination of the amino acid (knocking off the amine group of the peptide backbone) in vivo.
My ire for these people comes completely from spreading misinformation, to vilify industrialized meat by vilifying the meat itself. Scaring people may get them to forgo industrialized meat may seem good, but not if they respond by going to a farming infrastructure that, while traditional and non-industrial, is just as unsustainable as industrialized farming. The problem with industrialized farming is not in the product, but in the side-effects that are never seen at the shelf.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
Yes, but my criticism is that I cannot point to a difference between ways of food preservation. The wide meaningless categories used in the report also make that useless. So we have a report that comes from a body we are supposed to respect that tells us nothing in any shape or form apart from food processing seems more of a problem do eat too much. As such all that can be said is, preservation of food is bad, therefore the system which needs food to be preserved for longer periods than other forms of agriculture and delivery has not come out of this report well.
That's assuming that was part of the report parameters in the first place. A report is not going to address subjects that are not in its perview. The goal of the World Health Organization is to promote world health by direct means: making nutrition recommendations, making recommendations for use of medicines, making recommendations about how to provide safe drinking water and proper sewage treatment, etc.. Addressing the environmental damage of farming itself, of the pharmaceutical industry itself, and so on, are simply not a part of the WHO's mission, so I really don't see how you expect that to be addressed.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
Now if you read back over what I have said before this post you will find that is all I have actually said, although I may have used a few links to justify that position, I am not in total agreement with any one of those links, but I thought they might be useful reference.
The links you provide only look at the
nutritional aspect of processed foods â€"what happens after the food goes into your gob. They say
nothing at all about the environmental degredation of large-scale farming, which doesn't enter into the nutritional aspect at all â€" you can farm a completely natural, addative-free product (thus passing all these idiots' tests for "good, wholesome food"), and it could be farmed in a way that is more environmentally destructive than any industrialized farm. I really don't see how anyone was supposed to read that and not think you were in deep in some kind of food woo.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 12:07:48 PM
Some people may take what is said in the WHO report on a superficial level, I don't think either of us has. I think both of us look at it and say no shit Sherlock 'that one should probably not over eat'.
Further I admit to my bias that I do not like unsustainable farming and that many modern methods are unsustainable and I also have a bias that I see many bodies like the World health Organisation either propping up that unsustainable system or that in producing reports which are essentially meaningless muddying the waters so issues that systems of industrialised farming may have, are not looked at.
The irony is that preservatives actually
mitigate the problem of industrialized farming to an extent, because if food were to spoil quicker (which would happen if you cut out preservatives), then you would have the one-two punch of having to grow more food to replace the lost product (using environmentally-destructive techniques) and we would have to spend more energy transporting that food faster (to get it to us without it spoiling, keep it colder to further cut down decay, etc).
"According to the WHO, it is. Cooking explicitly causes a chemical change to occur to the meat. It certainly is a transformation that both enhances flavor and improves preservation. (When used for long-term preservation, cooking is called "pasturization.")"
Consuming raw meat is hazardous under most conditions (we can't all be master sushi chefs). And eating red meat raw in particular is thermodynamically suspect. Since our mouths are only designed to be omnivorous, not carnivorous ... we would consume as much energy eating meat raw as we would gain from its caloric digestion. It does have other values than just energy though. Cooking meat specifically tenderizes it, making its consumption more efficient, provided one doesn't burn it to carbon like my dad did with spare ribs ;-)
Definition of processed meat from the WHO report.
QuoteProcessed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking,
or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or
beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as
blood.
Given that you have admitted that what are commonly thought of a fresh meats have been transformed by the injection of other meats or substances of preservation that then by the definition of the report makes those foods fit the processed category.
That is why it was so important for me to show links to the substances used to prove the categories in the report do not work.
So then in the report there is a difference identified between processed and other meat, but as we have no discernible difference between processed and other, that difference within the report becomes highly suspect.
So back to this lady
https://youtu.be/PNwZ4bINaxM
Who points out that the level of cancer in studies in Europe is not different between vegetarians and meat eaters.
So the two us can be I think generally agreed on the above, you might not quite like my inflection on it but so far I presume we are more or less in agreement that the only identifiable factor that one could walk away from this report with is that over eating is not good for health.
Now this is where we will I think start to depute, ill health and being overweight has a strong relationship to class as is eating low quality highly processed cheep food.
All the better for the witch in the gingerbread house to cook your goose ... namely you! Never trust German grannies in the kitchen.
And then there was that scandal in Europe a few years back, where DNA testing showed that stuff labeled beef was anything but ... lucky if it was actually horse. Yes, first lets trust the crooked meat packers ... and then when that doesn't work, lets trust the crooked meat inspectors ... but no thanks, I will go kosher, thank you very much. It is well known in Jewish circles that Gentiles can't be trusted ;-)
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 08:26:31 PM
Given that you have admitted that what are commonly thought of a fresh meats have been transformed by the injection of other meats or substances of preservation that then by the definition of the report makes those foods fit the processed category.
That is why it was so important for me to show links to the substances used to prove the categories in the report do not work.
So then in the report there is a difference identified between processed and other meat, but as we have no discernible difference between processed and other, that difference within the report becomes highly suspect.
So back to this lady
https://youtu. be/PNwZ4bINaxM
Who points out that the level of cancer in studies in Europe is not different between vegetarians and meat eaters.
So the two us can be I think generally agreed on the above, you might not quite like my inflection on it but so far I presume we are more or less in agreement that the only identifiable factor that one could walk away from this report with is that over eating is not good for health.
Your inflection is... confusing, as were your links. It was very hard for me to descern what you were arguing for and against.
If I may be allowed to pose a quick summary of your points:
Ordinary people:Processed meat: "junky" meat products
Nonprocessed meat: sausages, meat cuts, etc.
Organic fanatics:Processed meat: non-organic meats
Nonprocessed meat: organic meats
WHO:Processed meat: Just about every kind of meat comercially available.
Nonprocessed meat: Unadulterated cuts and grinds (and only if you eat it raw)
Which of course makes the report highly suspect. My argument has been predicated on the premise, "suppose you could take the WHO report at face-value. Then what?" My conclusion is that it's still not actionable. It contains nothing new that we didn't already know.
Quote from: jonb on October 30, 2015, 08:26:31 PM
Now this is where we will I think start to depute, ill health and being overweight has a strong relationship to class as is eating low quality highly processed cheep food.
My argument there is the "overweight" part is the prime contributor to the "ill health" part, and the fact that you can buy a lot of cheap food, regardless of how it's processed or how heavy that processing is, is going to be the chief contributor to the "overweight" part. You can't get fat unless you have the calories to sustain it, no matter how messed up you think your endocrine system is.
(http://thecrazypins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/baconbra.jpg)
there are other uses for bacon.
Hakurei Reimu Then at the moment we have no argument. I personally think that the sort of food and the way it is used could be of itself a contributory factor in unhealthy lifestyles, but at the moment it is only speculation as there is to small an amount of hard evidence to back my inclination.
But it is interesting that although the two of us approach issues over diet from different directions we can both see the WHO report as so much paper spoilt.
Baruch I live less than a mile from an area which is said to have the highest density of Jewish population in the world. When I was in advertising half my career was with Jewish firms, many of which had places in their boardrooms for rabbis to make sure they were ethical, If you think 'Kosher products' is any better maintained a standard than any other system, I would advise you to think again.
This is back to ideal vs real. I tend to push the real here ... there are plenty others to push the real. So rabbis on boards fail to make them ethical? And they don't listen or the rabbis stubborn their profession for filthy lucre ... say it isn't so! Just like the SEC here, trying to regulate the stock and bond market ... in the city with the most number of Jews, NYC. This may yet lead to new ethnic cleansing ;-((
But assuming things aren't on the up-and-up ... one rabbi said about the founding of modern Israel ... the only think worse than goyim, are Jewish goyim ;-( If Jews don't stand for ethics above all else, then there is no point to being Jewish ... Jews are just another crooked tribe. Not that Gentiles are bad as a group, anymore than Jews are good as a group ... in reality. I am speaking of an ideal that has nearly died. To me, the Diaspora Jews, who before WW II put ethics first, because they were so often the recipient of unethical behavior ... had a saying ... "don't make a stink among the Gentiles" ... it is bad enough if Gentiles think we are a threat .. it is worse to actually be a threat (and never numerous enough to make good on that threat is simply beau geste. But that is exactly what Likud inverted, in WW I (Jewish Legion), in Palestine (terrorism against Palestinians and British), and in modern Israel.
Spending hours looking at computer screens is unhealthy too, probably cancerous. Brain tumors have nothing on blogs and narrow interest forums, which turn brains into jelly!