Image copyright Thinkstock 
 
 Processed meats - such as bacon, sausages and ham - do cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 
 
 Its report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. 
 
 Meanwhile, it said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence. 
 
 The WHO did stress that meat also had health benefits. 
 
 Cancer Research UK said this was a reason to cut down rather than give up red and processed meats. 
 
 And added that an occasional bacon sandwich would do little harm. 
 
 What is processed meat? 
 
 Processed meat has been modified to either extend its shelf life or change the taste and the main methods are smoking, curing, or adding salt or preservatives. 
 
 Simply putting beef through a mincer does not mean the resulting mince is "processed" unless it is modified further. 
 
 Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces. 
 
 It is the chemicals involved in the processing which could be increasing the risk of cancer. High temperature cooking, such as on a barbeque, can also create carcinogenic chemicals. 
 
 In the UK, around six out of every 100 people get bowel cancer at some point in their lives. 
 
 If they were all given an extra 50g of bacon a day for the rest of their lives then the risk would increase by 18% to around seven in 100 people getting bowel cancer. 
 
 "So that's one extra case of bowel cancer in all those 100 lifetime bacon-eaters," argued Sir David Spiegelhalter, a risk professor from the University of Cambridge. 
 
 How bad? 
 
 The WHO has come to the conclusion on the advice of its International Agency for Research on Cancer, which assesses the best available scientific evidence. 
 
 It has now placed processed meat in the same category as plutonium, but also alcohol as they definitely do cause cancer. 
 
 However, this does not mean they are equally dangerous. A bacon sandwich is not as bad as smoking. 
 
 "For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Is processed meat going to kill me? 
 
 Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. 
 
 Red meat risk In context 21% of bowel cancers are caused by processed or red meat 86% of lung cancers are caused by tobacco 19% of all cancers caused by tobacco compared to 
 
 3% of all cancers ascribed to red or processed meat PA 
 
 That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year. 
 
 Red meat does have nutritional value too and is a major source of iron, zinc and vitamin B12. 
 
 However, the WHO said there was limited evidence that 100g of red meat a day increased the risk of cancer by 17%. 
 
 An eight ounce steak is 225g. 
 
 Image copyright Thinkstock 
 
 The WHO said its findings were important for helping countries give balanced dietary advice. 
 
 Little harm 
 
 Prof Tim Key, from the Cancer Research UK and the University of Oxford, said: "This decision doesn't mean you need to stop eating any red and processed meat, but if you eat lots of it you may want to think about cutting down. 
 
 "Eating a bacon bap every once in a while isn't going to do much harm - having a healthy diet is all about moderation." 
 
 Dr Teresa Norat, one of the advisors to the WHO report and from Imperial College London, said there were many factors causing bowel cancer. 
 
 She told BBC News website: "People should limit consumption of red meat and avoid consuming processed meat, but they should also have a diet rich in fibre, from fruit and vegetables and maintain an adequate body weight throughout life and limit the consumption of alcohol and be physically active." 
 
 The industry body the Meat Advisory Panel said "avoiding red meat in the diet is not a protective strategy against cancer" and said the focus should be alcohol, smoking and body weight. ||||| WHO expected to highlight dangers of bacon, sausages, ham and burgers – and even fresh red meat is to be listed as unhealthy 
 
 The World Health Organisation is expected to issue new guidelines warning that processed meat products such as bacon and sausages are a cancer risk on the scale of smoking and asbestos. 
 
 Reports have claimed the UN’s health body will highlight the dangers of eating processed meats by putting bacon, burgers, ham and sausages on its list of cancer-causing substances. 
 
 
 
 Even fresh red meat is expected to be listed on Monday as unhealthy. According to the latest survey of the British diet, the average adult eats around 71g of red meat a day. 
 
 What’s so bad about ‘processed food’? Read more 
 
 The warning on the “carcinogenicity of red and processed meats” is expected to come in a WHO and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluation published in the Lancet. The WHO has not denied the reports, but has said there was no leak of the findings. 
 
 The guidelines would bring the UN’s position in line with the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), which says there is convincing evidence that processed meat can cause bowel cancer. 
 
 
 
 But Dr Jill Jenkins, a GP and member of the Meat Advisory Panel, an industry sponsored body, said she would not be advising her patients to stop eating meat, but she did recommend caution over highly processed meat products. 
 
 “I think certainly that we should be keeping a low level, so everything in moderation,” she told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. 
 
 “From the same body we have had advice about the carcinogenic effects of the air we breathe and the sun on our skin, so I think we have to take it within reason in that if you are stuffing in burgers and sausages and bacon every day, yes you are at risk. 
 
 “If you have some healthy, locally made high-protein sausage once a fortnight, well, I personally don’t consider that a risk.” 
 
 The Daily Mail, which reported on the WHO shift, said it had received the information from a “well-placed source”. In a note to the media, however, the WHO said: “Following random reports [on] Friday 23 October in the British press postulating on the outcome of the IARC evaluation on the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat, please note that there was no breach of embargo, as no embargoed material was shared with any news outlet, in Britain or elsewhere.” ||||| A new World Health Organization study found that processed meat like bacon and hot dogs cause cancer. It is the most prominent group to declare it a cause of the disease, and the U.S. beef industry isn't happy about it. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post) 
 
 A research division of the World Health Organization announced Monday that bacon, sausage and other processed meats cause cancer and that red meat probably does, too. 
 
 The report by the influential group stakes out one of the most aggressive stances against meat taken by a major health organization, and it is expected to face stiff criticism in the United States. 
 
 The WHO findings were drafted by a panel of 22 international experts who reviewed decades of research on the link between red meat, processed meats and cancer. The panel reviewed animal experiments, studies of human diet and health, and cell processes that could explain how red meat might cause cancer. 
 
 But the panel’s decision was not unanimous, and by raising lethal concerns about a food that anchors countless American meals, it will be controversial. 
 
 The $95 billion U.S. beef industry has been preparing for months to mount a response, and some scientists, including some unaffiliated with the meat industry, have questioned whether the evidence is substantial enough to draw the strong conclusions that the WHO panel did. 
 
 In reaching its conclusion, the panel sought to quantify the risks, and compared to carcinogens such as cigarettes, the magnitude of the danger appears small, experts said. The WHO panel cited 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, according to the research cited. 
 
 “For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” says Kurt Straif, an official with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which produced the report. “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.” 
 
 About 34,000 cancer deaths a year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meats, according to figures cited by the panel. 
 
 [WHO says hot dogs, bacon cause cancer. Does this mean we should all become vegetarians?] 
 
 
 
 The research into a possible link between eating red meat and cancer has been the subject of scientific debate for decades, with colorectal cancer being a long-standing area of concern. But by concluding that processed meat causes cancer, and that red meat “probably” causes cancer, the WHO findings go well beyond the tentative associations that some other groups have reported. 
 
 The American Cancer Society, for example, notes that many studies have found “a link” between eating red meat and heightened risks of colorectal cancer. But it stops short of telling people that the meats cause cancer. Some diets that have lots of vegetables and fruits and lesser amounts of red and processed meats have been associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, the American Cancer Society says, but “it’s not exactly clear” which factors of that diet are important. 
 
 Likewise, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the U.S. government’s advice compendium, encourage the consumption of protein-containing foods such as lean meats as part of a healthy diet. Regarding processed meats, though, the Dietary Guidelines offer a tentative warning: “Moderate evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats (e.g., franks, sausage, and bacon) and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.” The Dietary Guidelines do not assert that processed meats cause cancer. 
 
 Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is updating the Dietary Guidelines with the USDA, have not yet reviewed the WHO report, a spokesperson said. 
 
 [95 percent of the world's people may be wrong about salt] 
 
 For consumers, the WHO announcement offers scant practical advice even while casting aspersions over a wide array of foods. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton and goat. Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef and beef jerky — or any other meat that has been cured, smoked, salted or otherwise changed to enhance flavor or improve preservation. 
 
 How much of those is it safe to eat? The group doesn’t offer much guidance: “The data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.” 
 
 Should we be vegetarians? Again, the group does not hazard an answer. 
 
 And how exactly does red meat and processed meat cause cancer? The group names a handful of chemicals involved in cooking and processing meat, most of them nearly unpronounceable, and some believed to be carcinogenic. 
 
 “But despite the knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat,” the group wrote. 
 
 Despite the voids in the science, the WHO findings might cast a pall over diners and those who serve them. 
 
 At The Pig Restaurant on 14th Street NW in Washington, where the menu includes an array of pork products - kielbasa, prosciutto, pork cheek, etc - a worker sweeping the tables outside encouraged a reporter to look elsewhere for comments about cancer and red meat. Around the corner, outside the Whole Foods grocery, shoppers evinced a weary of fatalism regarding authoritative diet advice. 
 
 “It makes some sense,” said Nassrin Farzaneh, a development consultant, carrying a bag out of the store, said of the WHO finding on processed meat. “But they say one thing and then two or three years later they something that contradicts it. It goes on and on.” 
 
 “Everything causes cancer,” said Caroline Rourke, an energy policy analyst, also on her way out of the grocery. “Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?" 
 
 [Another food to worry about? Honey not as healthy as we think.] 
 
 In recent years, meat consumption has been the target of multi-faceted social criticism, with debates erupting not just over its role on human health, but the impact of feedlots on the environment and on animal welfare. The public debate over the WHO’s findings will probably play out with political lobbying and in marketing messages for consumers. 
 
 An industry group, the North American Meat Institute, called the WHO report “dramatic and alarmist overreach,” and it mocked the panel’s previous work for approving a substance found in yoga pants and treating coffee, sunlight and wine as potential cancer hazards. 
 
 The WHO panel “says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A),” said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs for the group. 
 
 “We simply don’t think the evidence supports any causal link between any red meat and any type of cancer,” said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 
 
 But at its core, the issue revolves around science, and in particular the difficulty that arises whenever scientists try to link any food to a chronic disease. 
 
 Experiments to test whether a food causes cancer pose a massive logistical challenge: they require controlling the diets of thousands of test subjects over a course of many years. For example, one group might be assigned to eat lots of meat and another less, or none. But for a variety of reasons involving cost and finding test subjects, such experiments are rarely conducted, and scientists instead often use other less direct methods, known as epidemiological or observational studies, to draw their conclusions. 
 
 “I understand that people may be skeptical about this report on meat because the experimental data is not terribly strong,” said Paolo Boffetta, a professor of Tisch Cancer Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who has served on similar WHO panels. “But in this case the epidemiological evidence is very strong.” 
 
 [Why the Bureau of Prisons stripped pork from the menu for federal inmates] 
 
 Some scientists, however, have criticized the epidemiological studies for too often reaching “false positives,” that is, concluding that something causes cancer when it doesn’t. 
 
 “Is everything we eat associated with cancer?” asked a much noted 2012 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 
 
 That paper reviewed the academic studies conducted on common cookbook ingredients. Of the 50 ingredients considered, 40 had been studied for their relation to cancer. Individually, most of those studies found that consumption of the food was correlated with cancer. But when the research on any given ingredient was considered collectively, those effects typically shrank or disappeared. 
 
 “Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak,” the authors concluded. 
 
 Although epidemiological studies were critical in proving the dangers of cigarettes, the magnitude of the reported meat risk is much smaller, and it is hard for scientists to rule out statistical confounding as the cause of the apparent danger. 
 
 Moreover, some skeptics noted that two experiments that tested diets with reduced meat consumption, the Polyp Prevention Trial and the Women’s Health Initiative, found that people who reduced their meat intake did not appear to have a lower cancer risk. It is possible, though, that the reductions in animal flesh were too small to have an effect. 
 
 “It might be a good idea not to be an excessive consumer of meat,” said Jonathan Schoenfeld, the co-author of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article and an assistant professor in radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School. “But the effects of eating meat may be minimal, if anything.” 
 
 Read more: 
 
 Was it wrong that the government steered people away from whole milk for decades? 
 
 How Coca-Cola has tricked everyone into drinking so much of it 
 
 What Americans do with fish is shocking 
 
 Why Americans are falling out of love with one of their favorite fruits 
 
 Whole milk, butter and eggs are now okay to eat. What's next? ||||| If you like bacon, you’ll love this. And if you don’t like bacon, WTF? 
 
 Researchers at Oregon State have patented a new strain of seaweed. But if you’re thinking, “Yes! I love seaweed salad,” you’ve got it all wrong. This new strain of seaweed actually tastes like bacon when it’s cooked. No, this is not a drill. 
 
 The seaweed is a form of red marine algae and looks like a translucent red lettuce. It has twice the nutritional value of kale — and yes, it still tastes like bacon. 
 
 Oregon State researcher Chris Langdon told Business Insider that his team was looking to find a good food source for edible sea snails (a super popular delicacy in parts of Asia) when they started growing this particular strain of seaweed. The new type of red algae normally grows along the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines. After his colleague Chuck Toombs said he thought this particular seaweed had the potential for a new industry in Oregon, Toombs began working with Oregon State’s Food Innovation Center to create different foods using the seaweed as a main ingredient — and hallelujah! Bacon seaweed was born. 
 
 We’re not sure just yet whether or not it would be commercialized, but I’m thinking, YASSSS, YASSSS, DO IT. Vegans and vegetarians could finally eat bacon (er, a bacon-like seaweed), and the rest of us would have a healthier alternative. 
 
 And be able to eat more bacon. 
 
 Image via Flickr/Akuppa John Wigham
– The World Health Organization delivered bad news to bacon lovers Monday morning, declaring that the breakfast staple causes cancer. In fact, the report by a WHO research arm found that all processed meats, including sausages, ham, and hot dogs, are carcinogens, reports the Guardian. Specifically, the report says that 50 grams a day—about two slices of bacon—raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%, reports the BBC. The report also declared that red meat itself is "probably" carcinogenic, not going quite as far as its warning over processed meats. Still, the controversial assertions go further than those of other health groups such as the American Cancer Society, which have merely warned of possible links between the consumption of such foods and a heightened risk of cancer, reports the Washington Post. "For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," says a WHO doctor. Expect a furious pushback from the global meat industry, reports the Financial Times. Already, the North American Meat Institute has accused the WHO of "dramatic and alarmist over-reach." Most coverage cites coverage from medical experts on both sides of the debate, and the Guardian quotes a general practitioner who strikes a middle ground. "I think we have to take it within reason in that if you are stuffing in burgers and sausages and bacon every day, yes, you are at risk," she says. “If you have some healthy, locally made high-protein sausage once a fortnight, well, I personally don't consider that a risk." (You could also eat this instead of bacon.)