hungry for science

You ask: "So which official body has pronounced that organic is better for you? I would be interested to know." It's now time for the FSA to leave behind its Krebs-era, pro-GM, anti-organic past and join the 21st century where low-input, organic food has already been proven to be better for humans and better for the environment. As everyone knows organic food uses no artificial pesticides, no artificial fertiliser but has more beneficial nutrients, such as antioxidants, as clearly shown in this study. And who is the body that did the Quality Low Input Food (QILF) research? It's a consortium of 35 partner institutes whose identities are shown here:Come on, FSA, you can do better than this pretend "confusion"!

I am totally confused.This report seemed to indicate that we should not eat any bacon or processed meat in our diet to avoid cancer.Not cut down but completely cut out.It seems to me that food shops like Marks and Spencer have huge shelves full of this kind of meat yet we have not heard anything from the retailers. Should this food have a health warning.What is one to do?

Yes, I wonder what processed meat is? Also there was a thing on the news recently that we should no longer eat ham or bacon as it gives you cancer. Is this true?!?! And what proof is there.

Thanks to you all for your comments. First, with regard to organic food, we are commissioning a review of the literature and will, as always, be guided by what the science says. But, moving to food and cancer, it was the report of the World Cancer Research Research Fund - not the Food Standards Agency - which recommended that people avoid processed meat (ie, things like ham and salami) because of cancer risks. There is no evidence to say that the occasional bacon sandwich will cause cancer and I am worried that people will simply ignore some of the very good advice that is available on eating enjoyably and healthily. The best diet is one that is high in fruit and vegetables and low in salt, sugar and saturated fats and our website provides plenty of good information that is easy to follow. Bon appetite!

As Cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora said: "The educational message for the public should be that there are healthy diets and unhealthy diets but we should keep everything in perspective and not suggest rigid avoidance. Alcohol, red meat and bacon in moderation will do us no harm, and to suggest it will is wrong." It annoys me that headlines are often mis-informative, formulated purely to grab the publics' attention - why can't headlines be catchy without being misleading? Journalists should stop confusing the public with inaccurate articles blaming individual dietary items and keep the message simple and clear: exercise regularly, eat a varied and balanced diet.It's common sense and has been being proven consistently through scientific research but because of the way it's delivered in the media people can't see the simple messages through the fog of spin given to it. I believe this is the point Andrew Wadge is also trying to make.Some sources not having researched the terms of the recommendations made by the report are claiming "We're being told to cut processed food like bacon, ham and sausages out of our diets completely if we want to avoid getting bowel cancer.' And "The biggest-ever study into the link between diet and cancer suggests food used in things like fry-ups and hot dogs boosts the risk of serious illness'. This guideline is currently being misinterpreted by many sources due to a lack of understanding as to what 'processed meat' is . This was clearly defined in the report as meats preserved by smoking, curing, or salting, or chemically by the addition of preservatives such as nitrites or nitrates. The overall message of the report was that to have the best chance of avoiding cancer people need to be fitter and leaner as well as staying at a normal weight. 'Cancer is not a fate, it is a matter of risk, and you can adjust those risks by how you behave. It is very important that people feel that they are in control of what they do.' Professor Martin Wiseman, author of the much debated and mispublicised report.It stands to reason and common sense that the more cells the body has to maintain, the greater the probablility of cellular abnormality - which is the cause of all cancer. The body is analogous to a factory; it has a capabilty to process many substances but it has a limited capacity above which it can no longer work efficiently and effectively. People have missed the message that dietary related diseases are the result of excess: everything in moderation is beneficial but dangerous in excess.It is the responsibility of the scientific community to clearly communicate their findings and research to the general public and to try and prevent this chronic misrepresentation of information. After all there is no point conducting a study to identify the impact of diet on the developement of cancer if the masses do not benefit from your findings due to poor communication.

This subject has dropped off the news, but I was amused to read the following piece at http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=81320&m=1FNUN13&c=faxchwfbebmyofl "11/13/2007 - Nitrites and nitrates, much maligned additives in processed and cured meats, may help heart attack survival and recovery, suggests a new mice study from the US.Published on-line in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers report that the compounds, also found in vegetables and drinking water, reduced heart cell death in the mice following a heart attack by 48 per cent........"The consumer is continually bombarded with conflicting information about diet and food safety matters.I am a scientist working for a large multinational producer of packaging. Food "safety" is increasingly driven by the media and those who seek to further their own ends by creating media scares and sensation. Selling newspapers, research funding, test house financing, career progression may be such motivators.This is costing the Industry (and of course the consumer) a great deal of money and undermining the consumers confidence in the ability or motivation of regulators and producers to protect the quality and safety of food. It cannot be disputed that regulation and control of producers is necessary. However government and regulators need to find a way or attenuating the influence of the press and pressure groups so that better balance can be struck.