SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Health Organisation is to list processed meat among the most cancer-causing substances, alongside arsenic and asbestos. Fresh red meat is also due to join the 'encyclopaedia of carcinogens' and is likely to be ranked as only slightly less dangerous than the preserved products.
The rulings, revealed to the Mail by a well-placed source, will send shock waves through the farming industry and the fast food sector. They could also lead to new dietary guidelines and warning labels on packs of bacon. The classifications, by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, come amid mounting concern that meat fuels the disease which claims more than 150,000 lives a year in the UK.
[Also Covered By]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/23/who_bacon_shocker/
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday October 25 2015, @04:01AM
Telling it like it is takes some bravery; it also means rejecting lobbyist/bribery funding to shape the message. And so since the dollars did not come from corporate america, it will be a political conspiracy that funded it with taxpayer dollars or shady self-interest groups.
As for the health effects,I agree, none of this is news. What is news is that a large, mostly viewed as reputable, organization is actually stating it as fact, as opposed to vague whispering that all might not be as good as the advertising suggests.
And soon we shall see how they are part of the new world order or in league with the obamicans or something of that nature.
Just like how the attempts to ban sugary fountain drinks in New York or wherever that was, ended with democracy nearly failing were it not for the funding of the soft drink association of corporate America swooping in like Superman to save freedom from the tyranny of ordering two drinks or just having one or something. I forgot what that problem was--probably, it was that anything under 16 ounces was inconvenient.
We need a savior to protect us from such tyranny again. Maybe Trump will make a statement that gets a lot of likes?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:23AM
Except that it's not the whole story there. The problem is that the health campaigns all too often go overboard. Eating these foods every day for all meals is going to have health problems associated with it. But, cutting out the meats completely also has negative health consequences. Like it or not, the human body evolved eating meat and removing it from the diet is going to have negative consequences.
If you keep at all current on health advice, it changes significantly with time and sometimes is rather astonishingly contradictory. Certain things like getting adequate exercise, sleep and a balanced diet are relative constants. But, how much and what kind are changing rather substantially. Sometimes following the advice even leads to worse outcomes than completely ignoring it.
Ultimately, people are going to have to make some decisions for themselves about what the risks are and how much they're willing to take. Some of the past advice like keeping your cholesterol levels low winds up causing more fatalities than it prevents and what happens when you mandate that people eat that sort of a diet without consideration for genetics?
The lists of carcinogens are largely ignored because they're ridiculously conservative. Aspartame was on the list for however many years, but the evidence was never particularly strong that it was a carcinogen in the quantities that a person could reasonably be expected to ingest. The studies were done based upon rats and the rats were consuming a substantially larger dosage than a human would. So, you wound up with warning labels scaring people away from products that could help reduce the risk of diabetes.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:52PM
Except that the belief that eating an artificial sweetener is likely to reduce the risk of diabetes is unproven, and there is suggestive evidence that it is false. (In one study it turned out that those who frequently ate artificial sweeteners lost the ability to be satiated by sugar. IIRC, this only tested one of the artificial sweeteners, but the hypothesized explanation was that the body learned that sweet didn't mean you'd eaten calories.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @10:30AM
> Like it or not, the human body evolved eating meat and removing it from the diet is going to have negative consequences.
Simply removing meat, yes. Eating a well-balanced vegetarian diet, no problems.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 25 2015, @12:29PM
Telling it like it is takes some bravery
Then again there's the neopuritan thing where telling people fun stuff is bad is considered holiness signalling.