Tuesday, October 27, 2015
"Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares" By Peter Whoriskey
There is sad news for bacon lovers, as a recent study by the World Health Organization (WHO) points out that bacon, sausage, processed meats, and possibly red meats cause cancer. "After a decade of analyzing various studies that tested the correlation between processed meats and cancer, a panel of 22 international scientists decided that there is a link between the two. Eating meat itself has a small risk, but “this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” states Kurt Straif, an official at WHO. In fact, there are studies suggesting that “an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent”; nearly 34,000 cancer related deaths are connected to high meat consumption. That being said, the exact details are still unclear. How much meat can we eat? How much of it will actually cause cancer? There are no answers to these questions as of yet, but strong epidemiological evidence has been found to support the connection between meat and cancer. The public’s reaction to this study has been ambivalent, and in some cases downright dismissive especially when it comes to the fast-food industry and the $95 billion beef-industry we have here in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the North American Meat Institute, called the report “dramatic and alarmist overreach.” Others like Caroline Rouke, an energy policy analyst, have shrugged it off: “Everything causes cancer...Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?" The accuracy of the report continues to be debated by scientists and the public, but this study is a step forward in better understanding the relationship between what we eat and how it affects us.
In my independent study two years ago, I did a research paper about the correlation between diet and cancer. This included red and processed meats, and I had actually contacted WHO for information on this study. So for me in particular, reading about this was very interesting, and it’s impact on science and health is huge. This study can help us learn more about what a healthy diet looks like and what foods to avoid, encouraging us to eat healthier. In a scientific standpoint, it reveals more about cancer and what may cause it to occur. For example, there may be chemicals in the processed meats that make our body to react a certain way, thus causing mutations and cancer. This study also brings up more questions about other foods in our diet and their impact on cancer, whether they help to decrease or increase the risk.
I really liked this article, but I would have loved to learn more about the specific research that took place in order to come up with this study. The article does touch upon how a panel of 22 scientists looked at and reviewed various studies, but it would have been nice if we could learn about the process they took to come up with their results and what criteria was required to draw a conclusion. I also think the article could have talked more about the controversy regarding the study, or shown other critics and papers that show no correlation between processed meats and cancer. I think that would have provided us with a better understanding about the accuracy of the study and given us a better point of view on this topic.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/26/hot-dogs-bacon-and-other-processed-meats-cause-cancer-world-health-organization-declares/>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yosman, I really enjoyed reading this review. Your summary of the article was clear and conveyed the main points in the article distinctly. I really liked how you incorporated several quotes from the article; this made your review more authentic. I also liked how you included statistical data to further prove the main issue portrayed in the article; it allowed for some truths to emerge. Lastly, I really liked how you included your own experiences in the second paragraph, very cool!
ReplyDeleteAlthough your review was overall very positive and informative, there are areas for improvement. I think in your first paragraph, you go a little off track when you mention Caroline Rouke because she is an energy policy analyst and is not an expert in the field you are discussing. I think a more severe contrast between the two sides would be a quote from a fast food restaurant owner instead. I also think you should have added on a little more to your own experiences to give us readers more insight into what exactly you were doing and to provide insight into how specifically your studies relate to this article.
I was initially drawn to this review because I have read other articles concerning the many factors that can cause cancer. Cancer is definitely a frightening thing, and many believe that it can be prevented if we all take specific steps to do so. I was curious to see how meat causes cancer and what people can do to help themselves.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
I thought Yosman did a good job with her review, especially considering how sensitive the issue. First, I enjoyed that both sides were equally presented. First there was the evidence from the study, then evidence that stated the study may not be completely accurate. This helped me gain a wider understanding of the topic at hand instead of just one side. Also, I enjoyed the quotes that Yosman inserted, especially the one from Caroline Rouke. Hearing that really put the issue into perspective, and made me wonder if it really was a big issue after all. Finally, I was happy to see that Yosman included real, hard numbers from the study, such as when she said “an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent”. This helped me understand the study better than her simply saying “red meat raises the risk of colorectal cancer”.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I thought could have been presented was a quote from the people who created the study in defense of it. Of course, they may not have released a statement, which would make this an exceedingly difficult thing to find, but I think it would be a nice counterweight to the quotes that call out the study and simply do not care about the study. I also would’ve enjoyed if there was an explanation from skeptics as to just how this study was flawed, instead of just saying that it is flawed.
This study really made me think about my meat consumption. I am a major meat consumer, especially red meat, so this article really called out my lifestyle. However, I do not think it will change my lifestyle because, after careful consideration, I have concluded that I’m going to die from something, so it may as well be something I love.
Ford Neild October 29,2015
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 6 Comment
Dear Yosman,
I felt that, overall, you explained the article in very concise manner without skipping over any of the essential details, as many people often do when summarizing. First, You were able to support your claim by inserting statistics and facts from the article, something that many people struggle with in these current events. Prior to reading your summary I would have never guess that something as common as red meat could cause cancer and your statics helped me consider this upsetting possibility. Second, you described the opposing viewpoint in a very interesting way that held the reader's attention. Often people do not sound passionate when arguing other scientists opinions, but you did a fantastic job of that in this description. One reason you were able to do this is through the use of the quote,“Everything causes cancer...Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?", helped add a scientist's description that further captured the reader and added a new perspective. Thirdly, your descriptive vocabulary showed real depth of understanding on your part and added additional detail that helped to create a clear image of this previously confusing article.
Though, overall this article was very well written, there is room for improvement yet. Previously, I had commented that your descriptive vocabulary was intelligent and descriptive, however, for many of these words, they were too complex. To fix this, I recommend putting in parentheses the definition of the word. For example, I was not familiar with the term, colorectal. After doing personal research I found that Colorectal cancer is cancer that starts in the colon or rectum. The colon and the rectum are parts of the large intestine, which is the lower part of the body’s digestive system. In your relevance paragraph, you consistently mention how dangerous chemicals and food can mutate of DNA. I was disappointed that you did not give specific example of chemicals that were to blame for the mutations. If these were not mentioned in the article, I recommend doing independent research in order to fix this issue.
From your summary I learned a lot. Specifically, I was horrified but interested in the research that revealed this this scary possibility. Personally, I eat a lot of meat, so this article concerned me deeply. As previously mentioned, prior to reading this article I would have never guessed that something a trivial and common as meat could cause such a potentially fatal disease. More importantly this helped me realize a much broader truth: we must be careful when ingesting unhealthy foods and must consume them in moderation or else the consequences could be fatal.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Yosman,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your response to this article. One thing I liked in particular was the way you opened with your response. You started off by saying, “There is sad news for bacon lovers,” immediately setting a rather light tone, instead of simply spitting out facts and statistics about cancer. By doing this, you were able to pique the reader’s interest and not bore him or her instantly. Another thing you did that I liked was you made the data you used seem credible by citing the type of people who came up with it. For instance, you incorporated the quote, "After a decade of analyzing various studies that tested the correlation between processed meats and cancer, a panel of 22 international scientists decided that there is a link between the two.” By specifically saying that 22 international scientists were involved in this process, you made it clear that the information you found was actually true and needed to be heard. One last thing I liked about your response was that you used some of the things you learned on your own to weave that into the information found in this article. You said, “In my independent study two years ago, I did a research paper about the correlation between diet and cancer. This included red and processed meats, and I had actually contacted WHO for information on this study. So for me in particular, reading about this was very interesting, and it’s impact on science and health is huge.” I found that by showing your previous knowledge on the subject, you were able to prove that, since your results and their results matched up, this information is even more credible. Overall, I loved this particular part of your response because you were able to show that you had a personal connection with this matter, and you were able to further the credibility of the information presented in the article even more.
While I found your argument on the whole to be very persuasive, there are a couple of things I believe you could have done to make your response a little bit better. For example, by referring to this “panel of 22 international scientists,” you added credibility to the information, but there is still a little bit of mystery about who these people actually are. I feel that you should have included a little more information about where they are located and what organization they work for. Also, it would have been nice to know the process in which they gained this information. A second thing I didn’t really like about your response was the way you asked questions like “How much meat can we eat? How much of it will actually cause cancer?” and then left them unanswered. I found that they were rather unnecessary questions, for the answer obviously depends from person to person. While these two things did not really hit it home for me, I still loved your response and learned a lot from it.
One thing that particularly resonated me was that our country has this tremendous “fast-food industry and the $95 billion beef-industry.” The amount of money we spend on our meat is unbelievable. I think it just goes to show how much of a change we need to make. The fact that this is not a bigger issue by now is unfathomable to me. I find that we need to make a change to cut down this tremendous amount of meat consumption by the citizens of our nation. All of the data and analysis showing the correlation between cancer and meat consumption establishes that meat can cause cancer, but this fact right here is what shows how drastic of a change needs to take place. The sheer quantity of money spent on distributing this one type of carcinogenic is repulsive. Moving forward, I believe I am going to let those around me know just how unhealthy too much meat is for you.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health
Organization Declares." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 28
Oct. 2015.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/26/hot-dogs-bacon-and-other-processed-meats-cause-cancer-world-health-organization-declares/
Yosman,
ReplyDeleteI think you did an excellent job reviewing this article from the Washington Post. The article itself was very interesting to me, and you did a great job reviewing it. One thing I think you did particularly well was how you explained how much more additional meat could potentially cause cancer, and this is a very important statistic because it shows the range of additional meat that could raise our chances of getting cancer. Another thing I think you did very well was how you explained the public’s reaction to this discovery saying that they were “Ambivalent, and in some cases downright dismissive especially when it comes to the fast-food industry and the $95 billion beef-industry we have here in the U.S.” One final thing I appreciated in your review of the article was how you discussed the things that the critics of this discovery have said, showing the doubt in this theory, and I thought it was helpful to see the other side of the theory of the meats causing cancer.
Although I feel the review was very well-written, I think that a few things could have been improved upon. One specific thing I would have liked to have learned more about was the process the scientists went through to come to this conclusion. I understand that the article may have not had much information on it but even an opinion of what you thought they could have done to figure this out would have helped. Another thing that I would have liked to have learned more about was the possible chemicals that could potentially give us cancer that are in these meats, and the specific way in which our body reacts to this chemical.
Ultimately, I found the review very insightful and intriguing. One specific reason why I was so interested in this review was because these meats are a very normal food for many, so the possibility that they could cause cancer is quite concerning. Altogether, I really enjoyed reading this review.
Whoriskey, Peter. "Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
I thought you did an excellent job reviewing your article. First off, you included a substantial amount of information concerning the authenticity behind the WHO’s claim that processed meats and red meats caused cancer, stating percents by which chances of getting cancer can be increased. In addition, I thought your use of rhetorical devices was strong, as you utilized rhetorical questions on multiple occasions to make a point of the fact that everything these days seems to cause cancer, and one cannot stop eating red meat in general just because a study says so. Furthermore, I liked how you connected to the independent study that did two years ago, which showed the association you had previously made and affirmed your knowledge on the topic, which in turn made everything you wrote more believable and. In terms of what you could improve upon, I felt you could have added more about your personal connection with the topic, as you really only mentioned it briefly, and first-hand experience on the topic would be invaluable. In addition, it would have been a good idea to include a statement made by the WHO defending the position they recently took on the topic, as the opposite viewpoint is only conveyed in the article. I chose this article because I thought it would be quite tangible as I eat red meat somewhat frequently. However, I do not think the findings made by the WHO should really be taken seriously, as one cannot refrain from everything that “causes cancer.”
ReplyDeleteFor my current event comment, I read Yosman’s review of “Hot Dogs, Bacon and Other Processed Meats Cause Cancer, World Health Organization Declares” by Peter Whoriskey. There were three main aspects of your review that I really appreciated. First, you incorporated countless statistics into your summary paragraph. These numbers from various studies, such as the statement that “an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent”, backed up the argumentative points you made. Next, your review blossomed from the presence of numerous quotes. These quotes, besides adding stature and backing to the review, brought various experts’ opinions into the discussion over a controversial topic, which in turn substantiated the arguments you made. I especially appreciated when you quoted the North American Meat Institute, displaying the bias and discrepancy over the results of these tests. Finally, your analysis paragraph incorporated a lot of your own research into the review, which added a personable and relatable subset of information that made reading that paragraph super interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhile your review was very strong, I have two suggestions. First, I believe the reader would appreciate a definition of the term “processed meats”. I, for one, have a rough view of which meats belong in this category, but do not specifically know exactly where meats like bacon, sausages, steaks, and pork chops fall. By knowing which meats are technically processed meats and thus apply to this study, I could apply the results to my own life. Second, I would suggest adding a quote (or even two) in defense of this study. You included many quotes that simply denounced the existence and findings of this study, but all were from biased sources. A biased source on the other side could help balance the two point of views on this issue.
Overall, this article appealed to me because we are learning about cancer in class. Increasingly, I find myself interested in things related to medicine, and cancer is one of the main illnesses treated by modern doctors. Before I read this article and review, I had never seen anything like this connecting processed/red meats to cancer. These findings opened my eyes to something I had never seen before, and will provoke necessary lifestyle changes.