Ham Sandwiches 'too Dangerous For Children'

[Slim]

Everything supposedly causes cancer. It'll be water and fresh air next

 

Your right, we should ignore sound scientific advice and snort asbestos all day!

[manshimajin]

Everything supposedly causes cancer. It'll be water and fresh air next

 

Your right, we should ignore sound scientific advice and snort asbestos all day!

Slim, your right somewhatdamaged is right.

 

Remember the concerns over additives to water? And pollution in big cities is a major cause of respiratory ailments and quite probably a contributory factor in some forms of cancer.

[Slim]

Remember the concerns over additives to water? And pollution in big cities is a major cause of respiratory ailments and quite probably a contributory factor in some forms of cancer.

 

It's a large and complicated issue that's been summerised into some sensible advice. Some things are more dangerous than others. The people who diss it as 'oh what next? everything is bad for us!' aren't actually reading the advice, just the sensational headlines. The study actually concludes that regular consumption of these products has been shown to increase the risk of bowel cancer, so moderate your consumption. They haven't suggested you stop eating it, they haven't said 'OMG YOU WILL DIE IF YOU EATS TEH HAM', but the eejits just seem to want to take the line that those pesky scientists are telling us how to live our lives once again and dismiss it instantly.

 

This kind of research has saved lives in the past. It's worthwhile, some people eat processed foods for every meal, and the health costs effect us all. It shouldn't be instantly dismissed.

[bluemonday]

I also recall Curries single handed destruction of the egg industry and Gummer cramming a burger down his kids neck in front of cameras.

Actually curries gob off impacted me personally as I used to sell my surpus hen and duck eggs. Helped cover costs. I gave up and just used them myself.

[mollag]

Strangely there was a report in the Guardian this week re an " expert report published this week ses" that the MSG scare over the years was bogus and that all the percieved symptons were generally psychological with a very few results of allegies.

This report could be seen as a positive, no life threatening content, so it got very little press.

It is the nature of the press to be sensationalist and misrepresent reports out of proportion,

This is what most people are annoyed at, ie the lack of credability, who has time to read every pertinant medical publication or the smarts to understand the science?

So in the absence of a trustworthy source of info and the experiance of soooo many sensational scare stories is it surprising that people are cynical?

[Miss Roo]

Everything supposedly causes cancer. It'll be water and fresh air next

 

Ever heard of sellafield!

[x-in-man]

That was Windscale, its been safe since they renamed it.

 

(t'was a cunning plan, pity it never really worked thou'.)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I kinda understood what you say, but I think gross ignorance and stupidity accounts for a lot.

 

Processed red meat in packet isn't what you would call natural. It is processed (you don't know the quality) and has additives. You don't know the quality and additives are obviously artificial and not something we were born to eat.

And it is red meat - there is a lot of evidence to show that it can trigger bowel cancer. (And are we really designed for eating much, if any, meat, it isn't a great source of balanced protein from what I have read)

 

Simply because a food is commonly eaten you get idiots who don't use their brain and dismiss anything they hear as rubbish.

Clearly you are better buying fresh foods and ones that have been processed as least as possible. But then food can be pretty expensive.

[Slim]

I also recall Curries single handed destruction of the egg industry and Gummer cramming a burger down his kids neck in front of cameras.

Actually curries gob off impacted me personally as I used to sell my surpus hen and duck eggs. Helped cover costs. I gave up and just used them myself.

 

Both government gob offs in front of the press. Neither had anything to do with science or the results of research. These news reports are based on a five year project by nine teams who looked at 7,000 studies to make this conclusion. That's nothing like Edwena making a rash statement which turned out to be out of her arse on a telly interview or a minister taking a driveway press op. The guidence is backed up by the FSA, which has naff all to do with the original study, but agrees that moderating both red and processed meat will reduce your risks. Nobodys saying it should be banned, but feeding it daily to kids isn't a good idea. That's all.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's fish consumption that is pretty awkward. On the one hand you have the oils which are a requirement (though you can get them from other sources) and then you have the mercury levels. Tuna is another food that you should limit to small amounts per week. But then who would even want to ingest mercury at all?

[Slim]

So in the absence of a trustworthy source of info and the experiance of soooo many sensational scare stories is it surprising that people are cynical?

 

Another good example, some bloke sprouted out some anecdotal, which was jumped on by the press. This is nothing like what we're talking about here.

 

As for trustworthy source of info, what's up with the Food Standards Agency? MSG is on their approved list of additives, why aren't they reliable?

 

I understand cynicism well enough, but even very basic source checking can see that these stories are a world apart from the historical scares.

[slinkydevil]

I understand cynicism well enough, but even very basic source checking can see that these stories are a world apart from the historical scares.

 

Yes but the dumb parents that shovel processed foods into their kids probably read gutter press accounts of the FSA story and are not helped by journalists opening the story with:

 

"Children should not be given ham sandwiches because they could pose a danger to their health, a charity has warned."

 

You and I know WCRF and FSA didn't mean that, but it causes a better reaction if the journalists twist it to say kids shouldn't eat ham sandwiches.

[Bobbie Bobster]

So in the absence of a trustworthy source of info and the experiance of soooo many sensational scare stories is it surprising that people are cynical?

I understand cynicism well enough, but even very basic source checking can see that these stories are a world apart from the historical scares.

I looked on the press release from the WCRF and it says:

"There is convincing scientific evidence that eating processed meat increases bowel cancer risk and this is why WCRF recommends people avoid eating processed meat."

 

Yes, but increases risk by how much - 100%, 50%, 20%, 0.3%? How am I supposed to make a balanced assessment of the risk of eating processed meat products if you (WCRF, and the various media outlets who just ran with the press release and didn't bother to do any legwork on it) don't tell me this?

 

Also "The research has not specifically looked at the effect of eating processed meat in childhood,..." Draw your own conclusions.

[Cambon]

I just had an ham sandwich for lunch and now I am coming out in rashers!

 

Sorry, this is a load of cock.

 

You eat 100 ham sandwiches from different sources, and I guarantee one of them will make you ill with some form of food poisoning. Sod the risk of bowl cancer. There is a hell of a lot more the cotton wool brigade should be worried about than "scientist" trying to make a name for themselves.

[mollag]

So in the absence of a trustworthy source of info and the experiance of soooo many sensational scare stories is it surprising that people are cynical?

 

Another good example, some bloke sprouted out some anecdotal, which was jumped on by the press. This is nothing like what we're talking about here.

 

As for trustworthy source of info, what's up with the Food Standards Agency? MSG is on their approved list of additives, why aren't they reliable?

 

I understand cynicism well enough, but even very basic source checking can see that these stories are a world apart from the historical scares.

 

 

Most peoples access to info is limited to press and tv, i dont think many people access the FSA on a regular basis and they are of course a reliable source, but how about the Sun, Star Daily Mail etc? These are the problematic areas, to dismiss a large amount of the population as stupid solves nothing. Reliable reporting leaving out the "crying wolf" elemant will serve so much better.

From the Gurniad

 

In May this year, the medical journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy published a review of more than a decade of scientific research into "the possible role of MSG in the so-called 'Chinese restaurant syndrome'".

 

Chinese restaurant syndrome is the popular slang for allergies or adverse reactions that some people claim they get after eating food containing the flavour-enhancer monsodium glutamate, or MSG, that is widely used in many processed foods and also added to many Asian dishes.

 

What is amazing about the publication of this research is not that it concludes MSG allergy is a myth, but that a scientific journal still needs to bother debunking such pseudoscience at all. As the New York Times put it in an article by Julia Moskin published last year, "'Chinese restaurant syndrome' has been thoroughly debunked (virtually all studies since then confirm that monosodium glutamate in normal concentrations has no effect on the overwhelming majority of people)".

 

This newspaper published an article in 2005 by Alex Renton that says "at no time has any official body, governmental or academic, ever found it necessary to warn humans against consuming MSG".

 

It seems this scare story has been perpetuated by the press, i have seen mention of it on this forum, herein lies the problem, how do you respond to this---believe it? / disbelieve it? or start to research it to convince yourself of its validity?, as i said who really has the time to validate every report issued?

An honest press maybe? or a Which style magazine for weekly assesments on the daily " reports published today "