I guess the point is that it shows the correlation between processed food and cancer is statistically significant. As in there is definitely a link, and this meta analysis shows good evidence this link exists. Even if the impact is small.

As for the day to day impact of this study, I'm not sure there is one. Processed food is already on WHOs list of things that definitely cause cancer.

Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003.

Depending on the average amount of processed meats eaten, it could also show not eating a hot dog every day will reduce your risk of cancer by about that much. It's probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say. But one food's impact like this is probably only important to scientists.

So getting back to your original question:

Like... is it written to excite anxiety?

Yes. Anxiety drives clicks which drives revenue.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can't take anything from it but anxiety.

a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.

That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 5 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.

So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.

The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.

Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.

WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.

The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.

Common risk factors

unhealthy diet
physical inactivity
tobacco use
harmful use of alcohol
air pollution added more recently

Major chronic noncommunicable diseases

cancer
cardiovascular diseases
diabetes
chronic respiratory diseases

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Parent comment discussed "anxiety", a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.

What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.

It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.

If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.

Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)