The IARC's list of confirmed cancer causes.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ancer-list

After Monday’s bombshell news from the World Health Organisation that bacon, ham and sausages are carcinogenic, you can be forgiven for wondering just what exactly is safe for you to come into contact with – let alone eat.

Handily, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – a body that collects and publishes cancer figures worldwide – has a list of the 116 substances and activities (for some of them are more verb than noun) that are now considered to cause cancer.


Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO
Read more
Red meat isn’t on the list – that only probably causes cancer. This is the IARC’s group 1 list – the stuff it says definitely is carcinogenic. The IARC splits the list into three categories, which it calls “exposure circumstances”, “mixtures” and “agents”.

Not posting the whole list here because its bloody long, but just click on the link and its all their. Anyway, I thought this would be a useful thing to post for future reference.

Frankly, I'm surprised its only 116, but again, this is only what's confirmed to be carcinogenic.

[salm]

I don´t understand the hype. Hasn´t this been known for ever?

[LaCroix]

BAcon causes cancer. Sounds scary. But keep in mind that this is a survey study - correlation does not equal (strong) causation.
People who eat more bacon than others most probably have other bad health habits, as well - for example, overindulgence on bacon usually is a sign of general gluttony, which is usually coupled with bad general fitness, etc. Most likely, they will drink alcohol and smoke, as well. It is really hard to filter out all these factors and genetic reasons.

They state that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. This would mean that most of Austria and Germany should have this cancer. Why? ~50 grams are considered about 1 bread slice worth of topping, and people eat more than one of those for breakfast, and then usually eat a couple of sandwiches again in the afternoon (Brotzeit), and then once more for dinner, if they don'T eat another full meal, then. Then we need to add the usual red meat lunch. And alcohol, air pollution, smoking.

But in Germany (~80milion), they only have ~65.000 cases in total. Which means the total risk is lower than 1 in 1200, and this AFTER we do have these multipliers slapped on multiple times. The article also states that other studies claim that they only found a causal relation for 3 added cases per 100000 people, which are most likely people who really stuffed themselves with it. Now, we know that per 100000 people, about 100 would have gotten the cancer according to the german data. So 3 is not really a significant increase.

Does it add to cancer risk? Most likely. But the effect should neglible, unless you really gorge yourself on it.

[Lost Soal]

I believe the part which is always missed out is that while "x" may increase the risk by 18% or whatever, that is actually an 18% increase of the standard risk which is something stupidly low like 0.003%. Yes I'm generalising the figures but the news reports always leave what that the risk percentage is thats being increased, by a percentage of that already low amount.

[salm]

The risk for a 65 year old man for developing bowel cancer within the next ten years is 2.4%. If he eats 100g more processed meat per day than the average his risk goes up to 3.3%.

At least that´s what the following article states:
http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaeh ... 59645.html

[Dominus Atheos]

Here is the link to the full list, including the single thing they say is (probably) not carcinogenic.

Everything else might be or is unclassified for now.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

[Zeropoint]

Is "being alive" on the list?

[Zeropoint]

Just in case you were wondering, the one single thing believed to be non carcinogenic is:
Spoiler

Caprolactam, a precursor to one type of nylon

[Esquire]

Is "being alive" on the list?

Basically, this is what the news keeps forgetting to include in the report. Practically everything is a risk factor, and among risk factors this one is tiny. For comparison, smoking carries an increase in cancer risk of up to 3,000%, which is not a typo (source: CDC).

Processed meat intake, according to the WHO, might account for 34,000 cancer deaths per year, or about 0.4% of the 8.4 million total cancer deaths per year. It is not a serious* problem and this whole situation is a perfect example of why the media shouldn't be allowed to report on things without demonstrating a clear understanding of them first.

*Compared to, say, low physical activity, industrial pollution, or smoking. Obviously each of those cases is a tragedy for those involved.

[Zixinus]

Am I correct in that "risk factor" basically means "this probably causes it but we don't know how and what in it is, for all we know the very thing we name isn't the cause but merely often shows up with it"? I also note that the list mentions red meats and stuff like sausages.

I also note that paltry and fish are not mentioned, which I have been told are healthier than red meat (curiously, my father who just had an appendix-surgery is allowed to eat chicken but not red meats).

But I think it's important to some of the list. Most of the causes are stuff that's in the air, in the water or something you have to constantly wear a gas mask to avoid like secondhand smoke or coal dust. Lots of nasty chemicals mentioned that people obviously shouldn't be drinking or inhaling.

Also he media does not mentioned alcoholic beverages either, yet it is listed.

Oh, and on that note, if you ever meet a "natural is healthy" idiot:

21. Naturally occurring mixtures of aflatoxins: Such toxins produced by certain species of fungi, are among the most carcinogenic substances known, and linked to increased risk of liver cancer.
...
78 Herbal remedies containing plant species of the genus Aristolochia