News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

WHO: Processed meats do cause cancer

Started by josephpalazzo, October 26, 2015, 02:36:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stromboli

I don't eat bacon. But KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF MY PROSCIUTTO!

Mike Cl

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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

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).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

TomFoolery

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.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Hakurei Reimu

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
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://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.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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

stromboli

Nobody said whether any of the panel experts were vegans. That would skew your weighted average right there, by golly.

jonb

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.

Hakurei Reimu

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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

jonb

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.


Hakurei Reimu

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).
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

"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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

jonb

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. 

Baruch

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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

stromboli