Most of the “debate” is just trying to understand what the findings actually mean for people, in terms of a single life.

We’re finding everything is dangerous to some extent, from sugar, to sitting at a desk, to sleep habits, to living in a city. Most people just want to understand how this stacks up to other, better understood, risks.

There’s “debate” because there’s no complete answer at this point. What we have is seemingly undeniable proof that meats cause an increase in certain cancers. Nobody wants cancer, but many people want meat. So each individual is trying to make an informed decision if meat is still worth the risk.

best summary I’ve found here

It’s all about proportion.

As @funkdaddy points out, we have found out that EVERYTHING is dangerous. And since you seem to think that the, “As long as you don’t eat these things every day it’s fine.” crowd are misleading, you are actually part of the reason that there is a debate.

Which do you think is closer to the truth;

A) Red meat is perfectly harmless.
B) Red meat is so harmful that even looking at it will kill you.
C) Something in between.

From the looks of it, you put enough stock in their report that we can eliminate A right off the bat. However, your statement that they WHO isn’t claiming that any amount whatsoever causes cancer implies that you don’t place meat in the same category as plutonium either so B is off the table too.

Normally that would leave C, but that would mean that you already know all the relevant facts better than the experts do, which I doubt. The only way around that is to admit that you do understand, at least subconsciously, why there is debate and are merely having a tough time adjusting to the fact that others don’t see things the same way you do. In other words, you already know the answer but are having issues accepting it.

(Don’t take that the wrong way. I have a fairly big ego, so there are some things I have strong enough opinions on that I myself don’t see the need for debate. Flaws like that make us human. But back to the question.)

There are many people who aren’t 1,000% sure what these findings actually mean. People who looked at this headline and neither dismissed it nor shouted “MEAT IS POISON!” and scurried off to hardcore veganism. Those people who don’t have a concrete opinion based on omniscient understanding of the issue are still looking for the meaning of these findings amidst a flurry of knee-jerk reactionary arguments from both extremes will argue until either a consensus is reached. Of course, enough people are polarized at one extreme or the other that consensus is impossible, but c’est la vie.

My main problem was with someone summarizing their report and stating that processed meats were “AS BAD AS” cigarettes.

That’s just not true. Cigarette smoking raises ones risk for all types of cancer by 30% or more. For processed meats it’s single digit percentage increase for colon cancer.

That’s a huge difference. Plus, people who smoke usually do so MULTIPLE times per day.

One would have to eat a hell of a lot of hot dogs, bacon and sausages IN ONE DAY to equal someone who smokes a pack a day of cigarettes.

So, there’s no argument as to whether processed meats contribut to cancer risk. It’s a matter of HOW MUCH IN PROPORTION to cigarettes.

And there’s no doubt that processed meats cannot possibly be “AS BAD AS” cigarettes (unless someone is literally eating them NONSTOP every single day in the same way as chainsmokers consume cigarettes.)

Since I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I ever eat hot dogs, sausages, ham or bacon in a year, I’m just not that worried. To state that that’s “as bad as” cigarettes is just plain ridiculous. NOTHING is “as bad as” cigarettes. Ever.

@Buttonstc Quite so, but so long as there is hyperbole like that, there will also be realists who know the difference between 1.2% and 30% that will oppose them.

As for ” NOTHING is “as bad as” cigarettes. Ever.”, that is a bit of hyperbole in itself. Let’s just say that I know enough about a few subjects to strongly disagree, but I don’t think it worth discussing (especially not here/now). I only bring it up as I see it as yet another illustration of how hyperbole-based disagreement generally leads to debate.

@jerv

I’m pretty sure that excessive amounts of radiation would be worse than cigarettes but since the discussion centered upon things we ingest, I limited myself to that.

But your point is well taken. I just get tired of smoking apologists minimizing the damage done by cigarette smoking. I find so many smokers are super defensive about their right to smoke bla bla bla.

Quite frankly I don’t care. Smoke all you want to. As long as it’s not affecting my lungs I’m fine with it.

@Buttonstc Check your inbox for a digression on that.

I think that there is quite a bit to debate. Read any of the more analytical stories that were published in the various newspapers over the last few days; basically they say that the WHO is not based on actual science, but on analysis of various research papers on science, and that there is a huge variance as to the matter of degree of danger.

Bottom line is that even the WHO is saying, don’t change your ways, just be aware.

To quote the OP’s source: But the increase in risk is so slight that experts said most people should not be overly worried about it.

@Yetanotheruser That may be what the article says, but that doesn’t mean that that is how all people feel about the issue. This is 2015, and fact-resistance is an epidemic these days.

People with vested interest make it debatable.
Defense lawyers, (or ones who play the role of, @jerv) make it debatable.
News outlets twist and twist words and deeds with their sensational headlines.

@funkdaddy I’m still reading the link.
As you pointed out @Buttonstc “My main problem was with someone summarizing their report and stating that processed meats were “AS BAD AS” cigarettes.” Many people are making it sound like that is what WHO means or stated. So you’re right.

@jerv, Did I not respond to you here ? Where is it? See, if I don’t respond to your post here it can’t be because I can’t, right? You made my 1st post over there sound like I meant “go with natural marijuana it’s healthier than synthetic, and I corrected you that I didn’t mean that, that even natural can be worse. I posted a link similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants
Were you saying “Avoid any kind of drugs if you don’t want to risk your health/life”?

@elbanditoroso “Bottom line is that even the WHO is saying, don’t change your ways, just be aware.” So WHO is saying “Don’t change your ways go ahead and increase your risk of cancer?

@Yetanotheruser That is what I consider a misleading statement. “But the increase in risk is so slight that experts said most people should not be overly worried about it.” No one should be overly worried about anything period, so it means nothing. Also, which experts? The ones who also have restaurants that serve mostly those kinds of items or sell cattle pigs etc? Or experts who also happen to be addicted to them? The experts who say natural = good for you? like @jerv?

You know what I’ve smoked for 44 years I know it’s bad for me I know that red meat isn’t good for me but that doesn’t stop me from eating a rare steak every now and again. Hell the air we breathe in some states isn’t the best due to pollution, but people still have to live there and breathe it. I’m not a drinker but I have friends who are and they say drinking is bad for you.So all in all everything we do has a drawback no matter what it might be.