> It’s also important to note that the studies included in the analysis were observational, meaning that the data can only show an association between eating habits and disease –– not prove that what people ate caused the disease.
I can't think of a faster way to erode trust than saying "there is no safe amount" of something everyone consumes with no significant health impact on the vast majority of people.
For health risk purposes, is the distinction simply mechanical?
So I could cut a raw chuck roast in half, mince one half with my knife and cutting board, cook both halves - and the minced half would be far less healthy for me to eat?
What about Salisbury Steak or other cuts that need extensive work to be consumable? One could argue mechanical processes allow lower quality meat to be used as a primary source (for some)?
I don't really buy the idea that mechanical processes = the Processed Food that I was thinking of. But I do think some sins can be hidden in ways a household would never try.
As a layman I'd say that's not wrong: consider the difference between whole oats and finely ground porridge: the latter is bound to taste sweeter and digestion does not have to break down as many chunks, so the body has to do less work.
> It’s also important to note that the studies included in the analysis were observational, meaning that the data can only show an association between eating habits and disease –– not prove that what people ate caused the disease.
Just a reminder.
I can't think of a faster way to erode trust than saying "there is no safe amount" of something everyone consumes with no significant health impact on the vast majority of people.
> processed meat –– such as sausages, bacon, salami and burgers
I can't recall seeing burgers classified as a "processed meat" before.
From a skim on Wikipedia, I'll guess the issue is packaged burger meat, which was dosed with preservatives to improve its shelf life.
Anyone more familiar?
Burgers are definitely processed.
For health risk purposes, is the distinction simply mechanical?
So I could cut a raw chuck roast in half, mince one half with my knife and cutting board, cook both halves - and the minced half would be far less healthy for me to eat?
What about Salisbury Steak or other cuts that need extensive work to be consumable? One could argue mechanical processes allow lower quality meat to be used as a primary source (for some)?
I don't really buy the idea that mechanical processes = the Processed Food that I was thinking of. But I do think some sins can be hidden in ways a household would never try.
Hamburger combines meat from many animals. This increases risk of mad cow disease, and makes it riskier to undercook the meat in general.
Different, lower “quality” parts of the animal are used.
Also, because the meat has risks, it is often treated with preservatives.
As a layman I'd say that's not wrong: consider the difference between whole oats and finely ground porridge: the latter is bound to taste sweeter and digestion does not have to break down as many chunks, so the body has to do less work.
Salads too.
Slop