Ultra-Processed Foods May Be Linked To Cancer, Says Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Ultra-processed" foods, made in factories with ingredients unknown to the domestic kitchen, may be linked to cancer, according to a large and groundbreaking study. Ultra-processed foods include pot noodles, shelf-stable ready meals, cakes and confectionery which contain long lists of additives, preservatives, flavorings and colorings -- as well as often high levels of sugar, fat and salt. They now account for half of all the food bought by families eating at home in the UK, as the Guardian recently revealed. A team, led by researchers based at the Sorbonne in Paris, looked at the medical records and eating habits of nearly 105,000 adults who are part of the French NutriNet-Sante cohort study, registering their usual intake of 3,300 different food items. They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer. "If confirmed in other populations and settings, these results suggest that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades," says the paper in the British Medical Journal.

Comments

Compared to....

[Templer421]

Deaths from Botulism or food poisoning like Cholera?

The trade off is living long enough to get cancer.

Re: Compared to....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Darwinism would take over. Look at the shit people are willing to eat, of course stupid fucks got sick and died from food poisoning. We cant even get farm laborers to stop shitting on the food we eat, literally.

People have no concept of food safety. 100 years ago few people has refrigeration too.

The time of the over processed, heavily preserved food needs to come to an end. Its not needed. We need to be at work less and at home more tending to our own gardens and being closer to our own food. If that could happen for even half the population; disease, depression, the worries of society and many other problems would start to melt away.

Re:Compared to....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are exactly correct on all points. Botulinium toxin can occur but only at USFDA-fail plants or uninspected facilities. In England they don't even have to refridge their eggs because they eliminated E.Coli and other things AT THE FARM.
It's a paradigm shift needed. There are ways to do these things properly without poisons that we know cause problems. Yet "the old ways" continue because we rely on business systems rather than best practices in our standards now.

Re:Compared to....

[thegarbz]

Deaths from Botulism

You don't need to process food with a laundry list of chemicals to prevent this. Simply cooking it will do.

Correlation != Causality

[schematix]

Useless conclusion.... Is it the ingredients in 'ultra processed' foods that cause cancer, or overall poor lifestyle choices made my the types of people who consume a lot of this type of food? Or maybe something else all together?

Cooking is hard

[rsilvergun]

it is. I mean that. Especially if you live in a cheap apartment with a crappy kitchen. I do, and I cook most of my meals and it sucks. Your stove takes forever to heat up. Your burners don't heat evenly so you have to set them and let the pans hit for 10-15 minutes or your food cooks unevenly. The stove never stays level either. Your microwave is cheap and your fridge small. Your freezer smaller

If I make a meal of eggs, potatoes & some pancakes from scratch (minus the pancake mix, which is pre made) I need to plan on a little over an hour. 10-15 minutes to heat the pans. 5 minutes to mix the pancake batter (you can't mix it until just before you use it or it screws up the pancake texture). 15 minutes to cook the pancakes (one at a time, since I only have 1 full sized burner) 5 to cook the eggs (I'm not a good cook, so if I try to juggle the eggs and pancakes I burn one or the other) meanwhile the potatoes are cooking for about 30 minutes while being flipped periodically. Then I need to sit down and eat (15-20 minutes) and then clean up (10 minutes). Of course, I have to wait at least 30 minutes to an hour to clean since the pans need to cool or they'll warp. And you can't leave the pans sitting around, especially in an apartment. You'll get roaches. Lots of them. And ants.

Then there's the cost of fresh food. If it's not on sale it's expensive. If it is on sale it's about to go bad. You can freeze meat, but vegetables & fruits don't freeze well (fruit it tolerable in smoothies but nothing else). Packaged dinners are a great buy because they keep for months. I can buy them when they're on sale, stock up and save. I can't do that with Bananas. They're worm food in 5 days tops.

There's a reason why women used to be home bound. Food preparation was a full time job. As pay decreases they moved into the workforce largely to make up the difference. Processed foods made that possible. But wages keep going down. So we need foods that need less and less prep time and cost less and less. There are consequences.

Re:Cooking is hard

[another_twilight]

I can understand your frustration, and if you're frustrated at something, you're less likely to spend time getting better at it. Working with poor tools is frustrating.

Buy a decent pan with a thick bottom, the thicker the better. It will take longer to heat, but it will also provide a more even and consistent heat as the mass helps 'smooth' fluctuations or uneveness and 'hot spots' in your heat source. It will take some of the need to micromanage cooking out of your process. You'd be surprised how much better you'll cook when your pan is an even, consistent temperature. You'll start to get a feel for how long things take and not have to constantly check. (You mention warping and uneven heating, so I assume you're talking about relatively thin pans)

I'd recommend all stainless with rivetted handle(s) and maybe go with a saute pan rather than a fry pan. All stainless means you can cook with it in the oven. Rivets tend to last longer than spot welding. Keep an eye on 2nd hand sales. Decent cookware is expensive, but tends to last long enough to be used and sold.

If you really can't prep while your pan is heating, then it's free time. Time to wind down and get ready to eat. Maybe catch up on some reading.
You've mentioned a meal with some fairly serial processes. Are there meals that better suit your cooking conditions? Finding new foods is part of the joy (for me) of cooking. I also clean as I go. There's always a minute here or there where I can wipe or rinse. You mention needing to leave the pans to cool for 30 minutes, but they are cooling as you eat and by the time you're done and ready to wash the dishes you've eaten on, the cooking gear is cool enough to wash.

If an hour for a meal is more than you can afford (and given commute and other time costs, I understand it can be) then maybe looking at meals you can freeze and/or store. Cooking more than one serving at a time doesn't increase time linearly. You mention packaged dinners - DIY it with a stew or pasta sauce or something similar once a week. Cut them with fresh meals for variety. Make things that can act as the basis of other meals - like meat sauces for pasta.

Like many things, especially DIY, initially the difference between what you can make and something you can have made is disappointing. Knowing that it's healthier doesn't help, and cheaper isn't always the case once you also count time. It takes time to get to the point where you're producing food that's better than you can easily buy. Like anything else, you'll have to work out if the time to get better is worth it. For something as basic and so integrally linked to health as cooking, I think it is. YMMV

Does it have to be one or the other?

[rsilvergun]

Can't I just say no to Botulism _and_ cancer?

Good question

[rsilvergun]

except you've loaded your post with a remark questioning the moral character ("lifestyle choices") of the people who rely on over processed food. I'm not even sure you know you're doing it. But it's basically dismissing the issue by claiming its the fault of the person impacted. The same logic was used against smokers while cigarette companies were hiding the dangers involved. Again, don't take this the wrong way. You might not even realize the message you're conveying, but if you don't then, well, you do now, and need to think about it in context.

Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you. You will _never_ find a doctor who says they're A-Ok. At least not one that isn't on the payroll of one of the companies hawking this stuff. The question isn't so much "are they bad for you" it's "how bad and why".

Re:Good question

[thesupraman]

So, you are saying that at the same time there is TONS of evidence that these foods are bad for you (with the associated implication that everyone should know that), while simultaneously claiming that no one should be able to question the "lifestyle choices" of people eating those foods...
I can only assume then that you think these people are making an informed decision to eat food they know is bad for them, and therefore you are implying they are stupid.
Thats rather judgemental of you, dont you think?

Then of course there is your use of "rely" as if these people are incapable of enough life control to eat other food..

Your complete logic-fail of trying to link something you claim is common knowledge to something that you claim was behind actively hidden is rather special however.

I think that perhaps you are the one who doesnt realise what message you are conveying, or perhaps you do realise that the message is 'rsilvergun is an idiot'?

Re: I thought so some years ago...A cheese example

[Anonymous Coward]

What a silly reason to avoid something. Almost as silly as pretending "processed" means something. It means nothing. And, like "toxins", its usage is strongly correlated with how much chemistry a person does not know.

Cowards

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people miss the point. While they're busy cowering in fear of everything that can give them cancer, cowardly people think that to live the LONGEST life is and should be the goal of every person, and not making sure to enjoy life. Pussies worry about making it last as long as humanly possible might think they're enjoying life. OTHER people, incomprehensibly to the weak, actually LIVE and enjoy life, and aren't giving themselves stomach ulcers worrying about how many seconds they have left to live. The cowards want to live to be over a hundred years old, without, ironically, actually LIVING during that entire century, while people getting fingers wagged at them for living a "unhealthy" life-style, often aren't worried about that kind of bullshit; they drink, they smoke, they fuck, they often die young, and they aren't scared to death of dying, like all the whiny little cunts eating yogurt and kale, and telling themselves over and over again how great their tiny, empty, meaningless little lives are.
 
LIVE A LITTLE. Eat Cheetos, Ding Dongs, and drink Coke on occasion, smoke once in a while; cigs, weed, whatever, get drunk, and enjoy life! Don't worry too much about the consequences, because let me tell you something. No matter what you do, life is 100% fatal, you are going to be just as dead, for just as long, and no matter what the fuck you do, after you're dead, little will be different because you were alive within even one generation, and within ten, you and everything you touched will be dust--dead, gone, and forgotten. Also, don't forget we could all die any fucking minute because someone let a fucking reality-show retard and his crime-family pretend to run this country, and they could provoke a world-ending nuclear conflagration at any second, or kill us all out of sheer incompetence, plus they're studiously pretending we are not destroying the Earth with our greed, stupidity and wastefulness, which we so totally and obviously are to anyone who isn't a complete fucking moron, so even if you avoid every possible carcinogen, every virus, every pathogenic bacterium... you're still totally going to die, and in the history of the human race, it will be in about a blink of an eye. In geological time, the Earth will never even notice we were here, so...

Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowl.

Re:I'm ambivalent

[dfm3]

On the other hand...this is basically a "common knowledge" study which serves no purpose and tells me nothing at all.

Welcome to science. A vast majority of research takes place simply to collect additional data to test a hypothesis... very few "groundbreaking" discoveries in a given field are made on a daily basis, and those that do happen must then be further tested with repeatable, verifiable experiments before they can be considered more than just a statistical anomaly.

Nearly everything that we consider "common knowledge" was once not so, and had to be backed by the weight of scientific evidence observed over a vast number of experiments. For example, less than a century ago, smoking and red meat were considered healthy, but now it's common knowledge that we know better. It's because of the hard work of many, many scientists that we now know this, but you never hear about the countless hours of labor that the research takes, or the endless experiments that have to be repeated simply to verify that the results are consistent. You do read about the "breakthrough" stuff in the news quite often, but there are two reasons why: 1) there are so many different fields of scientific research going on simultaneously, and 2) many news outlets jump the gun by using a single publication as the basis for an article about how "a scientific study suggests!" before the experimental results can be verified through repetition by other scientists.

Not sterile

[sjbe]

Eggs are heavily cleaned in the US.

This is true and not necessarily a good thing. It's also arguably unnecessary if you design the supply chain properly. As evidence see how eggs are handled in other countries without the same amount of washing. Most places in the world do not bother with the expensive cleaning and refrigeration systems the US supply chain requires.

In the US, the entire supply chain from post clean to shopping cart has to be germ free.

Not even remotely true and not possible either. The supply chain does have safe food handling regulations including cleaning and refrigeration and testing but safe handling does not equal germ free. If it was germ free it would be FAR more expensive.

Now the US egg lasts a lot longer because it's been sterilized and sits in a sterile environment.

A) They aren't sterilized. Some (but not all) eggs are pasteurized which isn't the same thing. Those that aren't are cleaned but nothing remotely close to sterile.

B) Eggs are most certainly not stored in a sterile environment nor are they handled in a sterile manner in most of the supply chain. Especially once they reach the grocery store. People open literally almost every egg carton to ensure no breakage prior to purchase so they are a LONG way from sterile by the time you get your hands on them.

C) Eggs in the US demonstrably do not last longer and because of how they are processed they have to be refrigerated which is not required other places. I own chickens and eggs that aren't cleaned (which removes the protective coatings) actually can sit on a counter for weeks without ill effect even without refrigeration. US eggs are refrigerated which makes a difference but you can refrigerate uncleaned eggs too and get the same effect. Once you refrigerate an egg though it has to stay refrigerated until you use it.

Re:Or

[Anne Thwacks]

Try to live like your grandparents did. They were in most cases not inflamed by BS books from Marxists and other SJWs. Neither were they inflamed by the BS factory called Hollywood. Feminism and Ecology-Nazis were non-existent.

I am not sure how old you are, or where your "reality" comes from. Marxism was a big thing in the 1940's and 1950's. Feminism is far older it was big in the 1920's and 1930's, but had its origins earlier than that. Your grandparents probably took Hollywood more seriously than people do today.

People have been campaigning for social justice since at least the time of Jesus Christ, and probably even earlier - you might remember a guy called Moses saying "let my people go". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDw1QF-9ko? Not all people trying to stop their surroundings being actively destroyed are "Ecology-Nazis" although clearly some are.