Draft talk:Hot dog

Cancer
I don't know where you think you're going with this article, &, but processed meats including hot dogs have been evaluated as carcinogenic to humans by IARC. That's basically the end of the story, and all of your waffling on carcinogenicity in the current draft is misleading. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IARC classifications don't necessarily mean hot dogs and other processed meats will kill you as long as your diet is healthy. The IARC statements are highly prone to misinterpretation and misleading (see glyphosate) so saying "end of the story" is problematic. My takeaway is that don't fear the stuff, and given their fat and calorie counts, you can do much, much worse. 05:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * &, you can certainly make the argument that the dose makes the poison, but you can't argue that processed meats including hot dogs don't cause cancer. All health measurements are based on statistical analysis, so sure eating the occasional hot dog is not likely to give one cancer, diets high in processed meats, and probably red meat as well, are more likely to give one cancer. That is the upshot of the IARC analysis. They looked at both human and animal studies, as well as chemical components of cooked meats. Also note that IARC looked at other carcinogens that have not as yet been mentioned in the draft, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. But the human cohort studies alone seem to have been sufficiently strong evidence for IARC to draw their conclusion. From the study (p. 489):
 * The large amount of data, strength of association, and consistency across cohort studies in different populations, including most of the larger cohort studies, makes chance, bias, and confounding unlikely as explanations for the association of consumption of processed meat with cancer of the colorectum.
 * Bongolian (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I argued that. There's a risk of it causing cancer but my point is to not fear it. Just, go easy on the processed meats, and don't have to renounce them, as they do contain their benefits (unlike most other cancer-causing chemicals like cigarettes). 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , there might actually be benefits to cigarettes but the cost-benefit analysis probably weighs heavily against them as the evidence for the benefits is not strong and the evidence for the hazards is strong and for diseases that kill a lot of people. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the ratio is a ton worse, compared to eating hot dogs and bacon (where they would give you protein boost and not horrible amount of fat and sodium and aren't addictive like nicotine). 18:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ralph Nader
Nader spent decades (1969 onward) fearmongering about the dangers of hot dogs, though it was never about the actual danger (cancer risk, as it later turned out). I heard him talk once and he went on about the FDA allowing a certain amount of rat feces in hot dogs. Well, the alternative is the FDA not allowing a maximum amount of rat feces — much worse to do. Bongolian (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)