World Health Organization (WHO) Gone Full Retard

[Team Sergeant]

If I were a wealthy cattle, lamb or pork rancher I's sue the morons in the World Health Organization for every penny they have........ Idiots.

On the bright side maybe the beef prices will fall a little....:D

Chef Michael Symon is my hero!




Meat-lover Michael Symon blasts WHO meat study
Published October 29, 2015
·FoxNews.com

Earlier this week, meat lovers everywhere bemoaned the results of a new study released by the World Health Organization that declared processed meats such as sausages, bacon, and ham to be carcinogenic to humans-- lumping the beloved proteins into the same category as cigarettes and asbestos.

But the news for carnivores got worse. WHO research also labeled red meats like non-cured pork, beef, and lamb as "probably carcinogenic.”

Amid the outcry from meat producers and lovers everywhere was a particularly long Facebook post from carnivore-centric celebrity chef Michael Symon. Symon, best known as a co-star of ABC's "The Chew", who penned a cookbook “Carnivore: 120 Recipes for Meat Lovers," called the study a "witch hunt" and a "disservice" for lumping in mass produced meat with “crafted artisan products.”

“To say I am disappointed in your witch hunt..errr "research" would be to put it mildly a understatement,” the Food Network star posted. “First off why wouldn't you take this opportunity to talk about the huge division of meat and meat products that are out there. To group factory farmed, mass produced products loaded with hormones, words we can't pronounce and man made nitrates with beautifully raised, produced & crafted artisan products is an incredible disservice to those who work so hard to do things the right way.”




Michael D. Symon
Public Figure · 376,934 Likes · October 27 at 1:42pm · Edited ·
..

Dear World Health Organization,
To say I am disappointed in your witch hunt..errr "research" would be to put it mildly a understatement. First off why wouldn't you take this opportunity to talk about the huge division of meat and meat products that are out there. To group factory farmed, mass produced products loaded with hormones, words we can't pronounce and man made nitrates with beautifully raised, produced & crafted artisan products is an incredible disservice to those who work so hard to do things the right way.
Also the media using this research as "click on my page" gimmick with headlines such as "Bacon & Beef Kills!" just makes it an even larger problem. Lets talk about a couple facts here. You never mentioned anything about anyone that was tested diet or if they are rich in fiber and balanced with grains & vegetables. Also when digging deeper in the article it mentions that a diet filled these so called deadly products effects less than 1% of people or 30,000 people WORLDWIDE ANNUALLY. To put that in perspective deaths caused by car accidents and smoking where 1.3 million and 900,000 last year.
I would hope most people understand by now life is about balance and if you ate pounds of bacon, beef and hot dogs daily that it would be bad for you. To categorize the danger of eating bacon, salami & beef in the same breath as cigarettes is a complete joke ....as is your blanket statement research.
On a happier note my 97 year grandfather called me today laughing about the article while enjoying a BLT from his couch.

Eat Real Food,
Michael Symon




He also blasted media organizations for using gimmicky, click bait headlines for exacerbating the problem.

“Also when digging deeper in the article it mentions that a diet filled these so called deadly products effects less than 1% of people or 30,000 people WORLDWIDE ANNUALLY. To put that in perspective deaths caused by car accidents and smoking where 1.3 million and 900,000 last year.”

Symon caps off his rant-- which has received over 45,000 likes-- with a personal anecdote about an elderly relative who clearly wasn’t phased by the research.

“On a happier note my 97 year grandfather called me today laughing about the article while enjoying a BLT from his couch.”


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/10/29/meat-lover-michael-symon-blasts-who-meat-study/?intcmp=hpffo&intcmp=obnetwork

[PSM]

Then there's this: World's oldest person eats bacon every day so suck it, World Health Organization.

Susannah Mushatt Jones was officially declared the oldest person in the world earlier this year, winning a difficult competition that depends on staying alive while other people die. She's six years away from beating the world record previously set by Jeanne Calment, who died at the age of 122 years and 164 days. At the tender age of 116, Mushatt Jones lives a good life in Brooklyn, with a positive attitude and comforting routine. Her day begins with eggs, grits, and four strips of bacon, which comes as a surprise after the World Health Organization's boner killer about bacon yesterday.

Yesterday, the WHO (who?) announced the devastating news that bacon and other delicious processed meats cause cancer, but perhaps Mushatt Jones has a special immunity. Still kicking it at 116, she understands that bacon is one of the only things worth living more than a century for.

http://www.someecards.com/life/health/susannah-mushatt-jones-oldest-person-bacon/

;)

Pat

[Dusty]

" Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

[Badger52]

Chief of Staff, she thinks Michael Symon rocks.
I'd have to concur.

Been hearing these kinds of retarded pronouncements, off/on, for decades - although bacon gets roped in pretty regularly, which rises to felony-stupid when they don't understand the building blocks of the universe. When I was growing up (sans internet) everything was going to kill me. Bacon, peanut butter, albacore or halibut I caught, you name it. An uncle (who was a medic on Omaha Beach) told me we're dyin' from the day we're born, so live. I'm still here.

[Guymullins]

What happened to the WHO we knew and loved? The Live at Leeds and Tommy WHO.

[PSM]

What happened to the WHO we knew and loved? The Live at Leeds and Tommy WHO.

Well, there's this:

The Who Sell Out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiDDQHnOs2I) ;)

Pat

[Guymullins]

Well, there's this:

The Who Sell Out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiDDQHnOs2I) ;)

Pat

Surely that should be Heinz Beans & Franks and a Ball Deodorant?

[Team Sergeant]

Moderating consumption of preserved meat to reduce the risk of certain types of cancer has been a nutrition and chronic disease prevention guideline since 2002.

The latest science and IARC review are only confirming the guideline.


The anti-science battle rages on.

I take it you actually read this part of the WHO's statement:

WHO research also labeled red meats like non-cured pork, beef, and lamb as "probably carcinogenic.”


Please tell us of the "science" behind this statement by WHO?

Not "anti-science", anti-stupid or anti-moronic is more like it.

[Richard]

I was listening to some research physicians discuss this and their consensus was that moderation, as with most things, was an important factor inre to this 'theory' (at this point), and that even if you regularly ate such meat products the levels of increased risk would likely amount to around 1%.

Richard

[Team Sergeant]

From the 26OCT2015 IARC press release:

"After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.

This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer."


Also, "non-cured" meat is still a preserved type.

I didn't realize that "probably" was scientific speak. Please expound on the facts behind "probably" causes cancer.

Your quoting that paragraph does nothing to further your defense of "anti-science".


And non-cured meat is preserved with? Please do tell. (I know how it's done do you? And it's the same process man has been using for 10,000 years, no chemicals involved.)

Let me tell you a secret, it's not the red meat that's the culprit it's the cooking method used, and again, it's the same one that been employed for 10,000 thousand years.

[blacksmoke]

People should know that lifetime risk for developing cancer is roughly %40. About half will die from it. The older you live to be the higher the risk. I don't know what it feels like to be a vegan/vegetarian etc. but those diets are low in several key nutrients, such as vitamin D that they have to be sourced from animal products anyway.

[Sdiver]

I don't know what it feels like to be a vegan/vegetarian etc. but those diets are low in several key nutrients, such as vitamin D that they have to be sourced from animal products anyway.

Well, the WHO just released this report ....

http://theunaustralian.net/2015/10/29/world-health-organisation-warns-that-consumption-of-kale-leads-to-arrogance/

Do you really wanna find out?

[Team Sergeant]

You've pointed out colorectal cancer here's a study by a team from Oxford....... I'm just guessing here but why wasn't the WHO aware of this study? Didn't they get the memo?

Cancer is not that far apart between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. And check out that last sentence......

I'll have my ribeye rare please. :munchin




Cancer risk in vegetarians
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, Travis RC, Roddam AW, Allen NE
Cancer Incidence in Vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Inverstigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89(5)1620S-1626S.
BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians. OBJECTIVE: We report cancer incidence among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries. RESULTS: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters and adjusting for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.

http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/1506/cancer-risk-in-vegetarians

[Team Sergeant]

People should know that lifetime risk for developing cancer is roughly %40. About half will die from it. The older you live to be the higher the risk. I don't know what it feels like to be a vegan/vegetarian etc. but those diets are low in several key nutrients, such as vitamin D that they have to be sourced from animal products anyway.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but, isn't "the longer or older you live" the probability of death also goes up? :rolleyes: :munchin

[Badger52]

I'm goin' over to Whoville for Christmas; at least they serve Roast Beast, apparently good enough to be worthy of stealing by the Grinch. I'll stand watch over it this year.
:cool:

[Patriot007]

There's a lot of "junk science" out there and unfortunately large"authoritarian" groups love to endorse it. Ever wonder how the EPA decides what's safe? "Add a few arbitrary decimal places to derived data just to be sure and yeah that looks safe."

There is decent evidence in animal studies that nitrates used in processed meats are carcinogenic. The mechanism is under high heat the nitrates combine with amines to form compounds called nitrosamines. In vitro and in animal studies these nitrosamines are found to be fairly carcinogenic through mechanisms such as chemically attacking DNA. Studies suggest that people who eat more processed meats have higher rates of gastric cancers but this does not prove causation. Looking at all types of studies, vivo, vitro, and populations studies it looks like nitrates are probably carcinogenic. As TS alluded to it's not just nitrates though but also products of meat actually burning. Nitrites may just be more potent.

But guess what? Pick any chemical you want and apply it in high concentrations and you will be able to prove it is a carcinogen. Many studies don't use realistic concentrations. The human body has always been a battleground for carcinogens and we have mechanisms in place to directly repair this damage which can also been multiplied with a varied diet. It's always been about moderation.

Also, throwing in highly processed meats with meat in general is an absurd way to skew the statistics to ones viewpoint.

Take care of your body, eat a varied diet, relax, and enjoy the finer things in moderation knowing you only have so much control over getting cancer or not. I can't imagine the pressure some people must feel thinking they have control over the situation.

[VVVV]

People should know that lifetime risk for developing cancer is roughly %40. About half will die from it. The older you live to be the higher the risk. I don't know what it feels like to be a vegan/vegetarian etc. but those diets are low in several key nutrients, such as vitamin D that they have to be sourced from animal products anyway.

Vitamin D isn't a vitamin, it's a hormone produced by the body being exposed to sunshine.

[Team Sergeant]

The paragraph wasn't quoted in defense of anything. The probability of red meat being carcinogenic, as determined by research, is now strong enough that its worth an announcement and likely further investigation.

'Probably' means what it means in any other context. I'm as surprised as anyone that this is currently an issue at all in regard to red meat consumed in moderation.


If the fact that the meat is preserved isn't an issue, reviewing the preservation process would not be useful here.


I'd be surprised if an anti-science stance isn't at work with backlash against an announcement based upon investigation of over 800 epidemiological studies made by SME scientists from ten countries representing an independent cancer agency.

Show me one, just one study that shows that red meat is a carcinogenic. Your quoting research from thin air? 800 studies done by SME's? Please name one such study.

As I've said, it's not the meat but the process of cooking that causes the carcinogens. Unless of course you throw down that study that I've not read. (And I've read a few.)

Do me a favor and don't reply without a study for me to read that says red meat is a carcinogenic. (And we're talking about your "non-preserved" meats. No nitrates etc. And you skipped my question to you about preservation, you have nothing just as I thought.)

[Patriot007]

I don't know that a systematic review by 22 SMEs in an independent research coordination agency would have included keeping junk science in the pool of narrowed studies.

Its possible, but not nearly probable.

Junk science in this case refers to making conclusions based off of studies that do not necessarily lead to those conclusions. The individual studies may be scientifically rigorous but there are gaps between what the study supports and the broader conclusions being made.

The difference in scientific rigor between pharmaceutical studies and these studies in proving causation are worlds apart.

In this case the studies are largely grouping red meat and processed meat together. Many source studies themselves conclude they don't have enough evidence to suggest red meat itself is carcinogenic.

[SF0]

Isn't this the same organization that still supports the old "food pyramid"? :rolleyes:

[miclo18d]

And the rest of the population will die from something else.

How many people die(d) under the auspices of socialism?

When will the UN and WHO (same people) come out against that?

[Team Sergeant]

I see this like the global warming issue. And I love the part where the liberals want to criminalize the "questioning" of global warming.

And as was mentioned the EPA using "science", secret science to complete their studies and enact laws. This has got to stop.

Questioning science should be the status quo.

We're not going "gentle into that goodnight", we're running full speed into socialism/communism.

[blacksmoke]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but, isn't "the longer or older you live" the probability of death also goes up? :rolleyes: :munchin
That was my point. But as we age the incidence of cancer rises steadily until near age 80 where it pretty much takes off. In other words, we are going to get cancer from something. This WHO article isn't completely worthless, but its science value is being misunderstood. I don't research the WHO so I'm not sure what kind of angle they are working here. Possibly the "you can get more food per acre growing plants then raising animals on a farm, and feed more people if we all go vegan, save the planet from CO2 in the process, etc." I don't have a link but that is a vegetarian political platform.

Vitamin D isn't a vitamin, it's a hormone produced by the body being exposed to sunshine.
Pre-vitamin D3 (calcidiol) is produced in the body when 7-dehydrocholesterol is hit by adequate UV light. That 7-dehydrocholesterol is found in adequate supply in the fat of most people, but getting enough UV exposure to get your levels up to recomeded daily levels is difficult for most of America. Vitamin D is fortified into foods to make up for this, but about 40% of Americans are deficient. Most D3 supplements come from animal products, salmon is a good example.

In case it wasn't clear, the only point I am trying to make here is that we need meat.

[Badger52]

Pre-vitamin D3 (calcidiol) is produced in the body when 7-dehydrocholesterol is hit by adequate UV light. That 7-dehydrocholesterol is found in adequate supply in the fat of most people, but getting enough UV exposure to get your levels up to recomeded daily levels is difficult for most of America. Vitamin D is fortified into foods to make up for this, but about 40% of Americans are deficient.Does America need to get its ass off the couch as well?
:)

[blacksmoke]

Does America need to get its ass off the couch as well?
:)

Not neccessarily just that, but most of continental U.S. doesn't get much UV. Unless you spend lots of time outdoors, year round with plenty of skin exposed, you could be at risk. There are maps out there of different cancer mortality rates compared to UV exposure, and there is a negative correlation between UV exposure and all cancer deaths. (I should add there are caveats to this) Skin cancer is one of the less threatening forms of cancer as far as mortality. Get out early, get out often!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12899536