cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: Bacon cancer risk?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
In The Know More Mad Farmer Disease !
Mart We eat pretty much anything here, the only point that the discussion/report brought to my mind, is how much our preference goes to whole food.
Particularly in animal products, we prefer to know we are partaking from one single creature at a time, I find them all minced up together pretty ghastly in an ideal world, which seemed to be what the report was echoing, needs must though food is of course essential.
Anybody found a link yet?
Porkies I'd be interested to know which parts of the report people think are flawed?It must have cost a fortune to conduct and if their results are "drink little to no alcohol, eat little to no red meat, don't eat pork, bacon or ham", then it's a massive waste of money because the public (as we're seeing on this board) are just going to laugh it off.

Steadily over about the last 50 years just about every food as been ruled out for one reason or another and a report like this, or should I say how the results of a report like this are relayed to the world, is going to make little to no impact as a result.

It's simply too much of a change for most people. This kind of thing needs to be introduced gradually, like the effects of smoking for instance. 50 years ago people would have reacted to a report into smoking like they have with this report into cancer.

The other downside is that reports such as these are regularly found to be inaccurate and there will most likely be a report which contradicts this.

Of course I'm just assuming that the results of the report are what I heard on the radio. Most likely it's been stripped of any logic and reported as bullet points which blur the truth.
zooloo I'd be interested to know which parts of the report people think are flawed?
emmapeelfanclub Complete claptrap! Lets face it, never a week goes by without some report being published telling us what we shouldn't be eating and if we believed all of them we'd eat no food at all!