Here you go.
Here you go. A thoughtfully worded statement from the WHO IARC (their cancer group). The link to it is below, along with a link to an informative but obviously from a certain perspective on it article from The Atlantic.
Since the media are supposed to be professionals, I do not place blame for this nonsense on WHO. Anyone who has expertise in covering medicine and research would have been able to parse that and explain it to the public as interesting but merely confirming decades old recommendations. Instead, the USS Maine has once again exploded, because CANCER, and Pulitzer and Hearst are lying contentedly in their graves.
1) It does not mention cigarettes. (Some media does because of WHO classification scheme. See the Atlantic article link for an explanation.)
2) Sounds like they did a meta-analysis of the literature. (Not a new study.)
3) They specifically use the word "association", i.e., not causal links.
4) Choice quotes include (italics were theirs):
"... 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."
"Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer."
"“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” ... “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”"
"”These findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat,” ... “At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.”"
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/
#mediafeedingfrenzy #yellowribbonjournalism
Since the media are supposed to be professionals, I do not place blame for this nonsense on WHO. Anyone who has expertise in covering medicine and research would have been able to parse that and explain it to the public as interesting but merely confirming decades old recommendations. Instead, the USS Maine has once again exploded, because CANCER, and Pulitzer and Hearst are lying contentedly in their graves.
1) It does not mention cigarettes. (Some media does because of WHO classification scheme. See the Atlantic article link for an explanation.)
2) Sounds like they did a meta-analysis of the literature. (Not a new study.)
3) They specifically use the word "association", i.e., not causal links.
4) Choice quotes include (italics were theirs):
"... 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."
"Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer."
"“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” ... “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”"
"”These findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat,” ... “At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.”"
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/
#mediafeedingfrenzy #yellowribbonjournalism
Comments
Post a Comment