The big problem I have with that is that all but one of the sources link to the Daily Mail. The other one links to Facebook.
"A-Z CAUSES OF CANCER ACCORDING TO THE DAILY MAIL..."
Your reading comprehension needs some work.
Well,
The Guardian is also running the story. The W.H.O. released a report saying processed meat could be considered a class 1 carcinogen based on it's risk profile. But that just puts it (as noted in the guardian) in the same class as smoking and alcohol, as well as asbestos. It does not mean it's, specifically, "just as bad as asbestos", which is misleading since you're neglecting to mention all the other things it's now classed with, because "just as bad as asbestos" gets more headlines.
Actually,
I read a while ago about bowel cancer risk vs. diet. Red meat eaters get more bowel cancers than vegetarians, which is what we're generally informed about. Normally that's all they tell you, so they're pushing vegetarianism and by extension, veganism, which is clearly a doubleplusgood version of vegetarinism, right?
Unfortunately for that narrative, vegans suffer more bowel cancers than vegetarians. So keep eating milk and eggs people. Additionally, people who eat fish (pescetarian) get significantly less bowel cancer than vegetarians do. The heirachy vs red meat is: vegan 16% less cancer risk, vegetarian: 18% less cancer risk, pescetarian
43% less cancer risk.