Slashdot Mirror


Stop Adding Cancer-Causing Chemicals To Bacon, Experts Tell Meat Industry (theguardian.com)

The reputation of the meat industry will sink to that of big tobacco unless it removes cancer-causing chemicals from processed products such as bacon and ham, a coalition of experts and politicians in UK warn this week. From a report: Led by Professor Chris Elliott, the food scientist who ran the UK government's investigation into the horse-meat scandal, and Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, the coalition claims there is a "consensus of scientific opinion" that the nitrites used to cure meats produce carcinogens called nitrosamines when ingested. It says there is evidence that consumption of processed meats containing these chemicals results in 6,600 bowel cancer cases every year in the UK -- four times the fatalities on British roads -- and is campaigning for the issue to be taken as seriously as sugar levels in food.

"Government action to remove nitrites from processed meats should not be far away," Malhotra said. "Nor can a day of reckoning for those who dispute the incontrovertible facts. The meat industry must act fast, act now -- or be condemned to a similar reputational blow to that dealt to tobacco." [...] In a statement issued today, the coalition warns "that not enough is being done to raise awareness of nitrites in our processed meat and their health risks, in stark contrast to warnings regularly issued regarding sugar and fattening foods."

302 comments

  1. Stopped reading by Kohath · · Score: 0, Troll

    At "big tobacco". Try posting articles without adding such ridiculous flamebait.

    1. Re: Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need you to provide more evidence, Beau. Add more bleeps and maybe one boop to your "IT address" to gain our trust. YWIA.

    2. Re:Stopped reading by Misagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The words "big tobacco" came from the newspaper article, not from the scientists quoted in the article.
      The use of those words do not make thier words less valid.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    3. Re: Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeHealth scares are ten-a-penny, but this one was very hard to ignore. The WHO announcement came on advice from 22 cancer experts from 10 countries, who reviewed more than 400 studies on processed meatâ
        -The Guardian

    4. Re:Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, snowflake, those words are scary. Stop being a pussy you worthless coward

    5. Re:Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the 'Yes Minister Euros sausage when the British sausage was 80% fat.
      Germany is the Ham capital - what are the standards for German stuff?

    6. Re:Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's accurate. Not slashdot's fault too many of it's readers, like you, are too fucking tied up with libertarian bullshit to ever face reality.

    7. Re:Stopped reading by Kohath · · Score: 1, Troll

      Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Hysterical news media reporting (a.k.a. trolling) about a subject gives people a good reason to doubt any particular message regarding that subject.

      If n scientists were quoted, why shouldn’t we wonder if 2n other scientists wouldn’t go along with the reporter's agenda? What would we be reading if the reporter intended to be factual? Something much different? Longer, more scientific quotes that mention uncertainties?

    8. Re: Stopped reading by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The analogy with "Big Tobacco" is apt. In both instances people are consuming something that is obvious bad for them, and then blaming their idiotic behavior on corporations because "they made me do it".

      I remember hearing about nitrites+heat generating carcinogens 40 years ago. Nobody in their right mind believed that bacon was good for them.

    9. Re:Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hysterical news media reporting (a.k.a. trolling) about a subject gives people a good reason to doubt any particular message regarding that subject.

      Good to see that you know the term for what you're doing.....

      If n scientists were quoted, why shouldn’t we wonder if 2n other scientists wouldn’t go along with the reporter's agenda? What would we be reading if the reporter intended to be factual? Something much different? Longer, more scientific quotes that mention uncertainties?

      If you need a reporter to be 100% unbiased in their reporting to take a given topic seriously, you need to go back to elementary school. Facts and opinions are different things, both can be in a given statement, and you obviously never figured that out. Further, we don't care what 2n other scientists said, or what the reporter's "agenda" is. We care about what statements the scientists in the article said and whether or not those statements are factual when referring to the results and process of their research. Yes there may be interpretation in the article, and the scientists may even be the ones to give it, but when referring to the actual data and how that data was generated, that is when we care about whether or not the statements are factual. That's the scientific method, and when used properly it cuts through any bias.

    10. Re: Stopped reading by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      Well, bacon isn't addictive as far as I know, so that is a big difference vs tobacco. However, tobacco is sorta under control these days, so that is a big difference vs bacon. Are we at the point where bacon and friends are causing more deaths and health expense than tobacco? Not sure, got to be close.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re: Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how Kohath's FP was at +5 last night and when Miss Mash came around this morning to delete comments that score was down to 0. Coincidence?

    12. Re: Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is amazing how stupid people are. Not only should it have been obvious before the specific data came in, for the reasons you mention, but it has been years now where the studies are showing that eating "processed meat products" is a major factor in the increased rate of colon cancer in the US.

      The neckbeards start wailing about how they'll die without their daily 10lb of bacon, without even considering that the problem has nothing to do with the pig meat, and if these chemicals get removed, bacon will still be made out of pig meat.

      It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives. And they put it in all the processed meat products; lunch meat, hot dogs, bacon, ground beef, everything in the frozen aisle that has meat that isn't a whole cut.

    13. Re: Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      More people eat processed meat than smoke, and for poor people, they'll have a harder time quitting.

      For the poor, the choices are between eating processed meat, or not eating meat.

      It isn't addictive, but it is a matter of basic freedom for them. They're not going to change their food culture. And there is no good reason why it is currently so harmful.

    14. Re:Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.

      No, absolutely not.

      Person A says says something.
      Person B listens, and then says something different.
      Person A said the thing that Person B said:
      a) True
      b) False
      c) Not enough information

      You chose C, and you're wrong. Don't be a credulous moron. This is not a hard one.

    15. Re: Stopped reading by bugnuts · · Score: 2

      Without added nitrites there is no bacon. It doesn't exist. Nitrites are what make it bacon.

      And the additives are exactly what make it safer. Without erythorbic acid it forms a lot more nitrosamines.

    16. Re: Stopped reading by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      The article mentions the UK because the full-English breakfast (containing bacon) is one of the things that makes living on a cold, damp island enjoyable :)

    17. Re: Stopped reading by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Except it's far FAR less obvious that bacon is as harmful for you as tobacco.

      Nitrites in cured meats are a trade off. The trade off is the avoidance of dying from botulism or some other food borne illness.

      Frankly I trust big business far less to kill me in the short term versus chemical additives that have failed to prematurely kill members of my own gene pool.

      Even the "official proof" of the harm of nitrites is grossly overblown by the media.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re: Stopped reading by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      For the poor, the choices are between eating processed meat, or not eating meat.

      That's simply not true. Chicken and turkey are inexpensive and available minimally processed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re: Stopped reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly asked.. where are you from? Chicken here at least is amongst the most expensive meat, particulaly if you were to buy say.. a tray of 5 chicken breasts.. very likely to spend toward 30 CAD.

      That said food costs here in recent years have been increasing soo much so.. that feeding 3 children is competing with the cost of my mortgage (which has also, to a lesser degree been increasing in costs, i guess due to economic voodoo i dont entirely understand)

      Im not exactly poor either.. but i feel as though my choice is limited..

    20. Re: Stopped reading by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "people are consuming something that is obvious bad for them"

      Depends. Lots of producers don't use sodium nitrite.

    21. Re: Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Bacon was not invented in the past hundred years in America you idiot.

      The English had bacon in the Saxon era already.

      When you watch that Vikings show on teevee, in that period of time, the food those English kings are eating would include bacon. It would have been spelled bacoun though.

      https://www.englishbreakfastso...

      Stop letting your neckbeard tell you such stupid things. Nobody is trying to take away your bacon. People who understand public health are not part of an anti-bacon conspiracy. The only reason your neckbeard is telling you to defend cancer is because it hates you, and doesn't even want you to taste real bacon.

    22. Re: Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Low cost chicken appears not to be processed. For chicken they have in situ chemical processing. That's why it has some absurd percentage of added weight. There is likely a percentage on the package explaining to you that something like 17% of your bird isn't actually a bird, but some processing solution that they injected it with.

      Try to buy a natural bird in the same store; it will be in a different aisle. And it will cost 3x as much.

    23. Re:Stopped reading by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "If you need a reporter to be 100% unbiased in their reporting to take a given topic seriously, you need to go back to elementary school. Facts and opinions are different things, both can be in a given statement, and you obviously never figured that out. Further, we don't care what 2n other scientists said, or what the reporter's "agenda" is. We care about what statements the scientists in the article said and whether or not those statements are factual when referring to the results and process of their research. Yes there may be interpretation in the article, and the scientists may even be the ones to give it, but when referring to the actual data and how that data was generated, that is when we care about whether or not the statements are factual. That's the scientific method, and when used properly it cuts through any bias."

      Nobody expects "100% unbiased", it's just not going to happen. What I would like to see is fewer pejoratives in headlines that are clearly opinion instead of fact based. We see way too much of that from both the left and right. What I'd like to see is much less click-bait, but I know in this age of eyeball revenue, it's not likely to ever happen again.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re: Stopped reading by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Nitrites also weren't invented in the last 100 years. Nitrites have been used to cure meat for centuries. It may not have always been the processed form of nitrites used today but nitrites from natural sources.

      It also isn't the nitrites/nitrates that are carcinogenic but rather the nitrosamines that are produced when nitrites are heated (above 300 degrees F if I remember correctly).

      There is way more nitrite in leafy greens than in cured meat. We just don't usually heat those green to the point that nitrosamines form.

    25. Re: Stopped reading by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      ...

      Did you have any point, other than to give enough details to show you understand the point, but also to show that you're trying to distract from it by placing emphasis on historical dates that are misleading?

      Wave your hands some more, but it shows that you do understand, and are trolling. You're splitting hairs not because the detail is relevant, but to make irrelevant details appear to contradict the claims. Pathetic waste of effort.

    26. Re: Stopped reading by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      My point is that nitrites have been used for centuries to cure meat (even bacon/bacoun). It is difficult to find a pre-17th century recipe (best I could find was this site - recipe is about half way down) but I would be surprised if they weren't using saltpeter as part of the recipe. Even "natural" salt from sea water or mining contains nitrites.

      Your original post deriding bugnuts for saying bacon wasn't bacon without nitrites seemed to imply that nitrites were only used in the last 100 years or so for curing bacon. Even the link you posted doesn't make reference to whether nitrites (saltpeter) was or wasn't used to cure the bacoun.

      Sorry if you still think this is just me trolling you.

    27. Re: Stopped reading by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      > "It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives."

      WTF are you going on about? Is sodium nitrite an additive? I think it is.

      > "Nobody is trying to take away your bacon."

      You take away additives, you take away bacon. It doesn't exist without additives, specifically nitrite in some form. And additional additives, specifically erythorbic acid, make it safer.

      You're a fucking ignorant philistine, whereas, I have a fucking curing chamber in my back room. My pinky understands the science, laws, chemistry, and biology about curing better than your entire body.

      Yes, cured meats increase chance of cancer. WHO proved it. They also claim it's highly likely red meat (uncured) also increases chance of cancer.

      You have about a 4% chance of getting colon cancer in your life. If you eat 2 lbs of cooked bacon a day for life, that increases to something like a 10% chance. Two fucking pounds of bacon a day, every day. You'll die of heart disease long before cancer claims you if you're eating 2 lbs/day.

  2. I think the study came out last April by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

    Not sure if this is breaking news.

    1. Re:I think the study came out last April by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been warning about nitrites since at least the 70's. In fact it was a big deal back then.

      Then supposedly they were found safe or something and people forgot about it.

    2. Re:I think the study came out last April by justthinkit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was taught this in second year Organic Chemistry...in 1978.

      We were told you needed two things: beer and meat pizza.
      The nitrites were in the meat in the pizza.
      The beer provided the amines.
      Combine the two and you get the nitrosamines.

      Pretty unforgettable lesson.

      BTW, it is not really surprising this is only coming out now. Chicken feed contained an arsenic compound...for forty years.

      Come to think of it, 1978+40=2018.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:I think the study came out last April by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      You also learned that ascorbic acid will bind up most of it in the stomach too, then. Which is why most meat manufacturers add Vitamin C to their products.

      But that makes for a boring headline in The DaIly Anecdote.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:I think the study came out last April by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked most of your reply.

    5. Re:I think the study came out last April by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Horse shit, you're an idiot if you think they're adding shit for health reasons, as if food processors are Mother Teresa.

      They add ascorbic acid as a preservative. They're required to add stuff to prevent spoilage. They use ascorbic acid because it is cheap and people don't complain.

      Also, it is well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer. It isn't a theoretical harm that might not exist, because [some stupid theory that doesn't explain the increased cancer rate].

    6. Re:I think the study came out last April by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would like to learn more on how to level the field that currently plays against you from all sides, search youtube: Larken Rose

    7. Re: I think the study came out last April by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      No, they're not. They're adding it because they're required to for health reasons. All brined/injected bacon requires vit c or erythorbic acid, a salt related to ascorbic acid, to be added to bacon by us law to scavenge extra nitrites.

      It's not for preserving, and you know nothing about meat curing or additives.

    8. Re: I think the study came out last April by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      ascorbic acid acts as a free radical scavenger, avoiding a common route for degradation.

    9. Re:I think the study came out last April by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not it is NOT well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer. The only studies that point out ANY correlation are epidemiological studies that hand out questionnaires to people to investigate their eating habits. I think you could imagine how this would not be a very precise way to establish CAUSATION which is what we want, not correlation, since it could very well be that people who are unhealthy have a variety of lifestyle choices which are harmful to them, and it might be that in this group, for some reason or the other, they tend to eat more processed meat.

      While many would love to jump at some "aha!" moment, we don't know if it would apply in the same way to people with a healthy diet, who exercise, sleep well, do not smoke, live in less polluted areas, etc. and it would VERY irresponsible to make health decisions based on a simple indirect correlation, which is exactly how health advice is carried out nowadays.

    10. Re:I think the study came out last April by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You do know that Americans have an increased risk of colon cancer, though, right?

      Keep waving your hands and pretending the studies that attempt to explain it are all wrong, without having another explanation. Don't expect anybody to care.

    11. Re:I think the study came out last April by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Also, it is well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer

      So, help me understand how it is that processed meat consumption is up, and colorectal cancer is down...

      http://fortune.com/2018/01/02/...

      https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/col...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:I think the study came out last April by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Weather is not climate.

      If that doesn't explain it to you... ask somebody else with more patience.

    13. Re:I think the study came out last April by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      For a nation of 300M+, it effectively is climate statistically speaking.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    14. Re:I think the study came out last April by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When you found short-term blah-blah in the data to point at, that is weather. Don't pretend to have done a statistical analysis; you didn't. You're not speaking statistically. You're just talking with your hands.

    15. Re:I think the study came out last April by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I provided evidence. You provided the "blah-blah".

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. Sugar... by js290 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sugar is the most carcinogenic ingredient in cured bacon. Some butchers will have sugarless bacon. Cancer from a physicist's perspective: a new theory of cancer

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re: Sugar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sugar does allow cancer to hide but the nitrates cause thousands of cases of leukemia.

      Quote:
      Researchers found that..those who ate cured meats and fish more than once a week had a 74 percent higher risk of leukemia than those who rarely ate these foods.

    2. Re:Sugar... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.

      When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.

      Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.

    3. Re: Sugar... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Not sure any actual leukemia patients would take this seriously. That includes those of us for whom following this kind of thing is a serious full time hobby.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Sugar... by js290 · · Score: 1
      When you see responses like this, you can ignore it because it's an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Feel free to look up the Warburg Effect.

      When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.

      When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.

      Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    5. Re:Sugar... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You didn't use enough words to actually say anything.

      When you point at the names of technical things, it helps to say some words next to it with some kind of point.

      This is because humans can't read your mind, and no, if other people had the same information, it doesn't imply that they'd also have the same thoughts as you. So you have to actually put content into your own words, instead of waving your hand and naming something.

      There seems to be no obvious implication at all. Why would a person identify an Appeal to Authority fallacy, and then look up Warburg Effect? Seems like it would take a lot to connect these things.

    6. Re:Sugar... by js290 · · Score: 1
      Under what context did you make your initial response?

      When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.

      When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.

      Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    7. Re:Sugar... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The context is already on your screen .

  4. Did something change? by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IS there any alternative to nitrates/ites? My understanding is the alternative to nitrates is botulism.

    Either that or lying about nitrate content. I've NEVER seen "nitrate free" meat that wasn't lying with fine print: "..except that which naturally occurs in celery powder" is the same thing as "contains no salt, except that which naturally occurs in seawater."

    1. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.

      The alternative is to not cure or smoke at all but then it's just pork belly and not really bacon.

    2. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      yes, you can just naturally smoke or cure your bacon without them. They are by no means necessary, they do simplify the process. Plenty of good butchers provide naturally cured/smoked meats.

    3. Re:Did something change? by Misagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Modern meat-processing is clean and cold enough that there is no longer any case for using sodium-nitrite to prevent botulism.

      The real reason for using nitrite is that it makes the meat products red -- making meat look like how consumers are used to.
      Meat without nitrite is more grey, which looks less appetising.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    4. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you will never be naturally nitrate free, that doesn't mean you have to add additional chemicals to the process.

    5. Re:Did something change? by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

      I know that this is a factor historically; Alton Brown talked about it on his corned beef episode. That said, I thought they were using carbon monoxide for redness these days.

    6. Re:Did something change? by larryjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      IS there any alternative to nitrates/ites? My understanding is the alternative to nitrates is botulism.

      From Wikipedia: "While meat-preservation processes like curing were mainly developed in order to prevent disease and to increase food security, the advent of modern preservation methods mean that in most developed countries today curing is instead mainly practised for its cultural value and desirable impact on the texture and taste of food. For lesser-developed countries, curing remains a key process in the production, transport and availability of meat."

      Curing in the developed world is not needed for safe food. It is used purely for taste and aesthetics. Of course, this is obvious. The same cuts of meat are commonly eaten in non-cured forms (either with artificial nitrate of celery-based nitrate) with no fears of botulism or other illnesses.

      The big question is whether people are willing to eat gray hot dogs. Maybe we can swap out the nitrates with red food coloring ...

    7. Re: Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course when it isn't. Clearly, we don't need meat inspectors anymore.

    8. Re:Did something change? by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I think virtually everything we do to make food taste good was originally used for preservation or to hide off flavors. Pickling, salting, smoking, drying, cooking, sweetening, fermenting, culturing? whatever yogurt/cheese making is, and spicing all have preservative benefits or control how the food ages. About the only common practices that hurt shelf life are those that reduce food to smaller pieces, e.g. milling.

      As I said earlier, we can keep meat red with carbon monoxide, although I'm not well informed on how well it works.

    9. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curing improves flavor and texture though. Bacon and Ham will not taste the same even they can keep the meat pink.

    10. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can already buy nitrate free bacon and other meats.

      The good news is you can buy your own nitrate's and fix that filthy natural bacon. Serve it like it was meant to be.

    11. Re: Did something change? by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

      Market the greydogs to colorblind people if you want. Until then, you can pry my hotdogs and bacon from my cold, dead hands. (Presumably from bowel cancers.)

    12. Re:Did something change? by melted · · Score: 1

      It's not used to prevent botulism. It's used so that meat doesn't turn brownish-gray.

    13. Re:Did something change? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I was not aware of the color-angle.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re: Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brats are already a grayish color before cooking, so I think I would be fine with it.

    15. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you write meats but then wrote nitrate's?

      Look, either you know how to pluralize correctly, or you don't. Don't flip a coin every time you type an "s".

    16. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP literally said what you just stated. What's the point of your comment?

    17. Re:Did something change? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's for fresh meat, not cured. Bacon stays colored during cooking (as does ham)

    18. Re:Did something change? by kqc7011 · · Score: 1

      I have eaten lots of "nitrate free" meat, it was and is venison from deer that we have taken. Some of the venison sausage from those same deer, curing salt (sodium nitrate) is added. It all depends on the recipe. If someone objects to the nitrates, just tell then that pink salt is added. They probably are thinking Himalayan salt when it is Pink curing salt #1 or #2.

      --
      Passionately Indifferent
    19. Re:Did something change? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I think virtually everything we do to make food taste good was originally used for preservation or to hide off flavors. Pickling, salting, smoking, drying, cooking, sweetening, fermenting, culturing? whatever yogurt/cheese making is, and spicing all have preservative benefits or control how the food ages. About the only common practices that hurt shelf life are those that reduce food to smaller pieces, e.g. milling.

      As I said earlier, we can keep meat red with carbon monoxide, although I'm not well informed on how well it works.

      I always understood that the spicing and all of that was more to cover up flavors in instances where the meat had started to turn but was still edible as opposed to preserving the meat itself. Except of course for salt, which does preserve the meat.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    20. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regular salt, and lots of it, is what I’ve seen where nitrates and nitrites have been removed. Still using a sodium to make the shelf life of processed meats last. The problem, it’s an alarming amount of unhealthy salt. I’ve felt that no meat or any product should be considered as “food” for sale that is so highly processed, and contains lethal chemicals or unhealthy amounts of something like salt or even sugar (also a processed “food”. They should adopt standards of no carcinogenic materials, low sodium/sugarminimal processing and deal with a short shelf life as to extend the life of the human consumer

    21. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is certainly true of slathering everything in ketchup or "french sauces" to hide the "found at the side of the road rotting" flavour ...

    22. Re: Did something change? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm no expert but I just ate"bio"kraut. The meats were without nitrites. They were all grey, but more importantly the taste wasn't very good and seemed very greasy, to the point of nausea. And it was a lot more expensive. Overall not a nice experience, won't do again.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    23. Re: Did something change? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Normally kraut is made from cabbage, maybe that is why the flavor was off?

      Maybe they accidentally served you raw meat instead.

    24. Re: Did something change? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's the most hilarious part about it, the really good processed meats aren't bright red anyways.

    25. Re: Did something change? by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Muscle meats like bacon do not need nitrites to prevent botulism. Basically if it's not ground, nitrites aren't needed and literally tons of meats are cured without nitrites/nitrates with no risk of botulism.

      But nitrites are what make bacon bacon. They change the flavor and texture. Otherwise it's just pork belly. So there is no nitrite-free way of making bacon that doesn't carry some small extra risk of colon cancer.

    26. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually fresh ham is more white than pink. If it is pink it's been cured with something. Take a hind leg (i.e. the ham) off of just about any pig, wild or domestic, and put it on a BBQ pit and you'll get a dark "bark" on it from smoke but the center of the muscle will be more of a white color. Still delicious but a very different taste then cured ham.

    27. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why alot of hot red salsa and the red seasoning (paprika, chili powder or red beet juice) is added to give it color and null your tastebuds before you swallow it before you know what the mystery is...

    28. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. I was not aware of the color-angle.

      your primitive species will soon go extinct, animals that don't pay attention to their food tend to die off

    29. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IS there any alternative to nitrates/ites? My understanding is the alternative to nitrates is botulism.

      Not in bacon. Botulism is anaerobic. Bacon is not sealed in an air tight enviro. You pile it up in your cure. If you canned it then I'd worry.
      Nitrates preserves color. It also give flavor as well as a degree of safety (especially when home processing).

      I've NEVER seen "nitrate free" meat that wasn't lying with fine print: .

      Let me take you on a site seeing adventure.
      First stop: Country Ham. This salt and sugar cured beast is actually shelf stable due to salt content and lack of moisture. Hang it in your closet and eat in in 10 years.
      Next stop: prosciutto. Mmm prosciutto. another big pile of salt. Want to eat pork that has been at room temp for 3+ months? This is your dream.
      Are you rich?: Jamon, they even sell X00$ special jamon holders for carving your 800$ jamon. People get special training to carve these.
      If we want to head to China they have hams they cure just by packing them into a barrel of salt and leaving them for many years (I hear they bury them in the desert).

      Salt has been used for curing meat for a very long time. If you use enough it does a good job even if it leaves things a little salty. And of course salt will kill you (articles like this tell you that).
      Could I wet cure a pork belly and make bacon without nitrates? Yep, but it would not be as good as a proper dry cure with nitrates, but if that is what you want... If you want something like that lets talk Canadian "bacon".
      Could I dry cure one that way? Maybe? I worry it would be too salty once cooked.
      Could I honey cure one? I bet I could but then we are roaming into new territory (we might be inventing a new meat and it would still be too moist).

      Where cure #1 and its more dangerous friend cure #2 are mandatory is dry cure/fermented sausages which cure at around room temp. Needless to say if you are hanging meat at around room temp for months, you want a little help making sure it doesn't kill you when you eat it.

    30. Re:Did something change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yum! Jamon, nom nom nom.

    31. Re:Did something change? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Now you're just talking semantics - the modern-day term "ham" means cured meat in English. It used to mean just the cut, but that's a very archaic usage of the term. I'm using ham to mean a cured portion of that cut of meat. But again, I was talking about cured and not fresh anyway (if you read closer).

  5. You had me at bacon... by burhop · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit surprised this study didn't blow up social media when it came out. I mean, bacon, cats, and the Kardashians are 90% of the interwebs.

    1. Re:You had me at bacon... by mentil · · Score: 1

      I thought porn was 90% of the interwebs. Unless there's some overlap with bacon, cats, and/or the Kardashians. I reject your reality and substitute my own!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:You had me at bacon... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Religion actually ties them together. You know, the story about the beast with two back bacons.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    3. Re:You had me at bacon... by drewsup · · Score: 1

      Mmmm...bacon porn.....

    4. Re:You had me at bacon... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Leave the Kardashians and their large butts out of this...although personally I think they've bellied up to the bacon bar more often than is good for them.

    5. Re:You had me at bacon... by burhop · · Score: 1

      Wow, no up votes for this quippy thread on bacon. I guess we will all be looking at Slashdot ads this week.

    6. Re:You had me at bacon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roll that beautiful pork and bean footage.

    7. Re:You had me at bacon... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I was a bit surprised myself. Maybe the folks w/mod points are still sleeping of the holiday hangover, or looking at bacon porn.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  6. No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's no real evidence that nitrate cause cancer, if anything it's useful to prevent foodborn illness like botulism.
    Most studies that link nitrate to cancer have been disproved by other studies.
    This isn't a clear open and shut case like cigarettes were.

    To me, this is like people trying to convince us that GMOs are bad when there's hundreds of studies that prove they aren't but a handful that says "well maybe it could cause cancer in a very specific and unrealistic scenario on mice and human cells samples in a petri dish that does not have the body's defense system."
    Just as bad as the anti-vaccines twats.

    1. Re: No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop adding bacon into my cancer causing chemicals.

    2. Re:No real evidence by jma05 · · Score: 5, Informative

      GMO activists aren't telling you that nitrites cause cancer, the scientists are.
      Show me a scientific body that says nitrites are safe, not some health magazine or a "nutritionist".
      The link isn't new and the concerns haven't abated at all.
      There are always studies that go both ways in everything. An average Joe isn't equipped to weigh the evidence and understand the scientific consensus.
      The industry also frequently tries to muddy the waters saying that the evidence is a wash.

    3. Re:No real evidence by Deef · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's no real evidence that nitrate cause cancer, if anything it's useful to prevent foodborn illness like botulism.
      Most studies that link nitrate to cancer have been disproved by other studies.

      A number of consensus studies recently, such as those cited in the paper that the article is about, claim that there IS substantial evidence that nitrates cause cancer.

      What is your evidence for your claim that "There's no real evidence that nitrate causes cancer."? Are you an expert in the field?

      It appears to me that the experts claiming that there IS evidence have so far provided substantially more evidence for their point of view than you have.

      Saying there's "no real evidence" sounds a lot like the No true scotsman fallacy.

      Disregarding the consensus view of experts in a scientific field is something that should be done with great caution, and preferably with strong evidence of some kind, not just skepticism.

    4. Re: No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Might want to read that article, because the studies were talking about processed meats, with only a suspicion that it was due to nitrates. The only study that was specifically looking at nitrates was looking at mental health issues. The studies are weak in that they largely rely on self-reporting consumption and exercise. High levels of salt and sugar are other possible issues, as is a correlation between high processed food in the diet and generally poor diet and exercise.

      If we were to take their studies at face value, you'd have to wonder why they're focusing on the nitrates and not sugar content of processed meat, as the latter has more causative evidence.

    5. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that there ISN'T any evidence, and it's ridiculous to ask somebody to prove a negative, you mongoloid. Besides, have you READ any of the studies that they are quoting? They come in two forms (1 ) experiments in rats, which we are not, especially because we evolved eating cooked and presevred meat (that is to say we have particular adaptations for it, otherwise had it been for processed meat the homo genus would have vanished a millenia ago), and epidemiological studies which rely on questionnaries in order to establish a correlation (though most certainly not a causation in this case). This "I trust the professionals" mentality is why we have so many people suffering from metabolic disease in first world countries. Cavities, coronary artery disease, diabetes and cancer are not even close to being as widespread elsewhere around the world, which still practice these things we regard as unsafe.

      Just consider how ridiculous it is for someone to tell you that something the human race has been THRIVING on for thousands of years will somehow kill you now.

    6. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-science dumbass here with a real *hot take* about his beloved food.

    7. Re:No real evidence by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

      When you threaten the source of toxins, the neckbeard takes control of the host and releases chemicals into their brain that makes them feel as if the toxin is the mother they wished they had. They'll fight to the death for whatever cause their neckbeard tells them to support.

      There is no reliable cure, even if there are anecdotal examples of somebody overcoming a neckbeard infection.

    8. Re:No real evidence by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      We know that something in the processed meats in the American diet is causing colon cancer.

      And we know that people eating traditionally processed meats do not have increased colon cancer.

      It seems that all the people who want to argue about if it is the nitrites seem ignorant of that, and want to believe that maybe the processed meats on the US market are actually safe. But that's just ignorant bullshit.

      If it isn't the nitrites, that's even worse than if it is, for the bacon eaters. It means we're that much farther away from finding the reason and making the food safe again.

      A lot of people think that macho words hides you from the cancer; but it isn't true.

    9. Re: No real evidence by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. One of the largest studies done (ever in science) was to determine if there's a link between nitrite cured meats and cancers, and there definitely is a link. The unknowns are whether it's nitrosamines or something else but the common ingredient was cured meats.

      Your layman's opinion with zero evidence and zero citations doesn't override the expansive WHO study which spanned several countries.

      This website is full of scientists and I'm surprised I'm the first one to call out your bullshit.

    10. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a scientific body that says nitrites are safe, not some health magazine or a "nutritionist".

      Just how, exactly, are they supposed to prove the absence of ill health effects?

    11. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please.

      GMO is so vague it means nothing. However review any, any, small cross section of literature and it'll be evident we do not know how our bodies work. People blindly arguing tweaking proteins or other compounds make them the same as any other is the same as the people arguing 1 calorie from honey is the same as 1 calorie from sugar is the same as 1 calorie from alcohol. And then you have "scientific consensus" and the peer review perversion blocking anything challenging from pushing forward. If you are happy rolling the dice that's fine.

    12. Re:No real evidence by jma05 · · Score: 1

      With meta-analyses that show that all the evidence that points to ill effects is of poor quality.

      This is medicine and biology, not formal logic for absolute "proofs". The keywords are current evidence and consensus; but get them from proper sources, even if the consensus may be overturned tomorrow.

    13. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > same as the people arguing 1 calorie from honey is the same as 1 calorie from sugar is the same as 1 calorie from alcohol.

      For purposes of weight loss/gain, they ARE the same.

    14. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nutrition science has serious issues with outright faked data, and the field does such a shitty job of weeding it out that any study that hasn't had multiple independent experiments on subjects with controlled diets is essentially worthless.

      Take Brian Wansink, for instance. Former executive director of the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. In charge of Cornell's entire food science department.

      Whoops, turns out that all of his research was falsified and nobody noticed until he was dumb enough to admit it on his blog. Seventeen fucking papers were outright retracted, and fifteen had to have major corrections issued.

      You've definitely seen his results, because he kept making the news - remember that story you heard about how the size of people's plates controlled how much they eat? Yeah, he just made that up.

      Given that the field is rife with p-hacking and falsified data, which was totally missed by peer review, until the food scientists clean house, they should be regarded with skepticism at best, and with contempt at worst.

    15. Re: No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s nitrites. If you canâ(TM)t get that basic info right then why would we listen to your theories on nitrates.

    16. Re:No real evidence by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Still unclear from this recent meta:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      A few key paragraphs...

      In conclusion, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, ingested nitrite under conditions that result in endogenous nitrosation is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A (IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2007, 94: in the press). NOCs are present in some processed meat, and are formed endogenously after red and processed meat consumption. Heme is a major determinant of NOC formation, and nitrite also contributes to NOC yield. Although many tested NOCs induce cancer in rodents, and NOC-adducts are found on volunteers’ colonic DNA, it is not yet clear whether red and processed meat-induced NOCs are colon carcinogens.

      General Conclusion
      The fact that processed meat intake increases colorectal cancer risk seems established from the published meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies. The evidence is weak, however, since the RRs were all less than 2, and observational studies never fully avoid biases and confounders. The excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20 and 50% compared with non-eaters, which is modest compared with established risk factors like cigarette smoking for lung cancer (RR=20). However, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly higher than that of fresh red meat.

      Several hypotheses may explain the association of processed meat intake with CRC risk. From data reviewed above, the authors propose that the most likely explanations for the excess risk in processed meat eaters are (i) heme-induced promoters and (ii) carcinogenic N-nitroso-compounds. These toxic compounds are not specific to processed meat, but it is likely that nitrite curing enhances the toxicity: (i) nitrite binds to the heme iron, and the nitrosylheme could yield more toxic lipoperoxides and/or cytotoxic agents than native myoglobin-bound heme; (ii) nitrite curing leads to increased levels of N-nitrosated compounds in food and in the gut: Processed meat eaters are thus exposed to larger NOC levels than fresh meat eaters.

      Colorectal cancer is the first cause of cancer death among non-smokers in affluent countries, and the five-year survival (approx. 60%) improves too slowly with the advances in the treatment of the disease. CRC prevention is thus a major goal for public health. Today, prevention is mostly based on dietary recommendations, notably the advice to reduce or to avoid processed meat consumption (2). We think that the prevention strategy might be improved if the mechanisms of cancer promotion were better understood. We guess that non-toxic processed meat could be produced, either by removing the potential toxic agent (e.g., removing nitrite to reduce NOC formation), or by adding a specific inhibitor, e.g., calcium to block heme in the digestive tract (Pierre et al, 2007, Brit. J. Nutr., accepted manuscript). This would permit the reduction of CRC load, without putting an end to the production and consumption of traditional, nutritional and enjoyable foods.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    17. Re:No real evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Responding to my own post here. Apologies for not noticing that this article was dated 2008. Back to the drawing board looking for something more recent.

    18. Re:No real evidence by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, this one isn't conclusive nor about colorectal cancer (manic or bipolar behavior instead), but nevertheless interesting and calling for additional study.

      https://www.hopkinsmedicine.or...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re: No real evidence by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This website is full of scientists and I'm surprised I'm the first one to call out your bullshit.

      Basement science != scientist

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re:No real evidence by jma05 · · Score: 1

      The general gist from here and elsewhere seems to be: concerns against nitrites and nitrates remain unabated, but not as definitive as the smoking link. "More research required" is the usual hedge at the end of almost every paper in medical research. Pinning down any delayed effect in a multi-factorial system with confidence is a slow process in research and is certainly prone to error. But it cannot be helped.

      https://www.theguardian.com/so...

      "Prof Tim Key, Cancer Research UK’s epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: Cancer Research UK supports IARC’s decision that there’s strong enough evidence to classify processed meat as a cause of cancer, and red meat as a probable cause of cancer."

      The 2015 Lancet study is not easy to ignore.

      https://www.thelancet.com/jour...
      (fulltext paywalled)

      The classic response from Industry:

      The North American Meat Institute said defining red meat as a cancer hazard defied common sense.

      “It was clear, sitting in the IARC meeting, that many of the panellists were aiming for a specific result despite old, weak, inconsistent, self-reported intake data,” said Betsy Booren, the institute’s vice-president of scientific affairs. “They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome.

      Sure, dietary science is rarely perfect since we can't put people in cages, control for everything and monitor them for years. Medical (or climate science for that matter) advise is often going to be from imperfect conclusions from best available evidence for now - people should understand that.

  7. Come up with a way to make a ban work first by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because nitrites are a natural component of certain vegetables - mainly celery extract. If you ban nitrites, you ban celery and most green vegetables. If you ban artificial nitrites, processed meat packagers will simply use celery extract as a preservative. That's what the "nitrite-free bacon" products do - if you read their list of ingredients, you'll find celery extract listed prominently. Because the natural nitrites in it are used to preserve the cured meat in lieu of artificially produced nitrites. The only difference is the former can be labeled "celery extract" while the latter must be labeled as "nitrties."

    At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.

    The only way I can see this working is like how we recommend how much fish you should eat because of the different amounts of mercury they contain. Come up with a list of the maximum amount of a food you should eat in a week due to the nitrites they contain. Bacon, hot dogs, celery, cabbage, carrots, spinach, beets, etc. And publish those as health advisories.

    1. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you eat my shit?

    2. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.

      We should go back to putting radium in chocolate. https://www.businessinsider.co... to give you an inner glow. After all it's naturally-occurring right?

      The point is not a witch hunt. It's a continuously evolving understanding. It's an industry adapting. it's the present adapting to new information. Nitrites are NOT needed to process meat, celery extract or otherwise. Just because some people eat celery doesn't mean you shouldn't also ban this entirely preventable and nonsensical ingredient being put into meat.

    3. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to be clear: you're calling celery an "entirely preventable and nonsensical ingredient", right?

    4. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by Rutulian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agree with your general point, but this whole discussion seems to be a little confused about nitrates vs nitrites vs nitrosamines, so a quick chemistry overview for some clarity:

      Nitrates (most oxidized form) -> nitrites (two-electron reduction of nitrate. Outside of industrial processes only occurs biologically by the bacterial enzyme nitrate reductase) -> Nitrosamines (reaction of nitrites with secondary amines. Requires heat and/or acidic conditions. These are generally stable compounds.) -> Hydroxylated nitrosamines (Unstable intermediate formed by enzymatic processes that mostly occur in the liver) -> Nitronium cation (spontaneous breakdown of the hydroxylated nitrosamine. Cation is an alkylating agent that can modify DNA.) -> DNA damage -> DNA repair or cancer

      The basic gist here is to illustrate that there is clear mechanistic reasoning behind the notion that nitrates have a cancer risk associated with them. But it also illustrates that the transformation is complex and there are multiple ways for harm to be mitigated long before a cancer risk is ever truly a risk.

      For example,
          Sodium nitrite in food cooked at high temperature with high protein content -> skips step 1 and facilitates direct production of nitrosamines that get ingested and transformed in the liver
          Sodium nitrate plus antioxidants -> hinders production of both nitrites and nitrosamines -> lower risk of being transformed in the liver
          Nitrates in vegetables -> typically have low protein content and lots of antioxidants, so low risk of producing nitrites or nitrosamines
          Celery juice -> naturally occurring nitrates -> no intrinsic risk of being converted to nitrites, especially if antioxidants are also present
          Celery powder -> evaporated celery juice (same as above)
          Cultured celery powder -> celery juice that is treated with bacteria and then evaporated -> this causes the nitrates to be converted to nitrites (by the bacteria) and presents a direct path to nitrosamine production if used to treat high protein content foods (aka meats)
          Bacon -> depending on above may have varying levels of nitrites or nitrosamines present after cooking, but generally low levels overall -> likely a low cancer risk, but may present a higher risk depending on frequency of consumption and other dietary factors
          Celery, arugula, beets -> high in nitrates, but no nitrites or nitrosamines present, even when cooked in the presence of meats (ex: stews) -> low, probably non-existent, cancer risk
          Cigarette smoke -> high concentration of nitrosamines inhaled directly into the lungs -> the nitrosamines still have to make their way to the liver, but represents a moderately high risk of cancer, especially considering the often habitual and frequent nature of smoking

         

    5. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by epine · · Score: 1

      At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you.

      Dihydrogen monoxide is a notorious killer.

      Only when Big Broccoli invents a green floret as addictive as tobacco or bacon-flavoured ice cream, will "can kill you" matriculate into freshman Epidemiology 101.

    6. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by nasch · · Score: 1

      At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.

      Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it should be used in a particular way. These scientists are saying this is a dangerous practice that's harmful to human health and should stop. Are you saying it should continue? You seem to be arguing that the scientists are wrong to call for nitrites to be removed from processed meat.

      The only way I can see this working is like how we recommend how much fish you should eat because of the different amounts of mercury they contain.

      Perhaps a public information campaign can mount enough pressure to change practices. People are more health conscious than ever. After all, this is something the producers can control, unlike mercury in fish.

    7. Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would also like to see people stop using the phrase, "a consensus of scientific opinion". Just because there is a consensus of opinion does not make it fact, scientific or not. It is just someone's opinion or a group of people's opinion, and as we all know...opinions can be wrong. But that is just my opinion.

  8. Socialism by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0

    FU you're not taking my guns and my money. I want freedom! The problem will solve itself with the Bacon as long as we don't do anything. Just ask any Republican?

    1. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If bacon is outlawed, only Islamist terrorists will have bacon.

    2. Re:Socialism by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Yes, God forbid *people decide for themselves*.

    3. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep government is bad so we should regulate at this anti freedom

    4. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed we need to let corporate America to poison people as it is socialistic to interfere and regulate.

    5. Re:Socialism by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      In fact, in this case, it certainly *is* socialistic/totalitarian to *tell people what they can and cannot eat*, particularly when the effects are highly dubious.

    6. Re:Socialism by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, in this case, it certainly *is* socialistic/totalitarian to *tell* people what they can and cannot eat*, particularly when the effects are highly dubious.

      Now it's socialist for people to hear things that they might not like? Christ what a bunch of snowflakes. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. All that's happening is some dude (with evidence) has written an open letter to an industry roup teling them he thinks they're causing trouble for themselves.

      If you think private individuals writing open letters to trade organisations is socialist then you have a massively overdeveloped sense of persecution.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now it's socialist for people to hear things that they might not like?

      As written, it implies regulation, not merely "telling" but you avoid that reading because it lets you complain more.

      Also, it's interesting that you're the one to equate socialism with persecution. Then again, whether it's the National Socialists or those in Venezuela (formerly the Socialist poster child), there has been a lot of persecution under regimes that identify as Socialist.

      I'm sure you'll say they're not true Socialists, but who are you do decide what they can and cannot identify as?

  9. Here's an explaination by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why nitrates in vegetables aren't really a problem

    TL;DR; cooking a high protein food at high heat is what makes them cancerous.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Here's an explaination by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      That was interesting. So boiling a hot dog would be fine, carbonizing the outside over a campfire not so much. And the Christmas ham roasted at 325 F in a covered pan should be fine too.

      A possible nitrosamine is still better than botulism though.

    2. Re:Here's an explaination by mentil · · Score: 1

      If we tried to ban grilled/seared steak, New York would secede!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Here's an explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When you use celery juice in natural cured bacon, you are not adding any nitrates. However when celery juice interacts with the meat over time,. it breaks down into a concentration of nitrates that is 4 times the legal limit of just adding nitrates. However since this is "naturally occurring" as part of celery, it's not banned or regulated.

    4. Re: Here's an explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I don't know a single state that wouldn't call out the militia.

      This shit gonna be the real end of the US.

    5. Re:Here's an explaination by EryximachusBK · · Score: 0

      Yep. Nitrosamines, which are formed by heating organic molecules, are what cause cancer. There isn't anything particularly cancerous about tobacco. Anything you smoke - marijuana, wheat, puppies - will cause cancer. Or at least increase the risk.

    6. Re:Here's an explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There isn't anything particularly cancerous about tobacco.

      Other than the carcinogens you mean?

    7. Re:Here's an explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, don't cook your bacon at 500 degrees. Bake it at 400 in the oven. Sous vide it and lightly crisp the outside in a pan. For use in other dishes, even the microwave bacon (HERESY!!) isn't that bad.

      Or, cook your bacon in a teflon pan at 550 degrees, and see which kills you first-- the teflon or the overcooked bacon..

  10. The nitrite free bacon contains more nitrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Use the FDA approved nitrite salts for curing and there are strict limits on how much can be added.

    Expect more nitrites when celery juice or cherry powder are used. Both are natural plant based nitrite sources. And the amounts added are calculated based on the weakest celery juice or cherry powder...

  11. Advanced western civilization, what a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Horse-meat industry ...

  12. I should add by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    what made me give up processed meats was finding out how it was we figured out nitrates caused cancer: a bunch of cows were being fed expired herring and getting liver cancer at abnormally high rates. Now, to be fair those cows ate a _lot_ more nitrates than what's expected in a day, but then again so do a lot of Americans...

    To be fair I don't care much for meat (I've got a weak sense of taste and mostly pick up on texture in foods so meat's kinda bleah to me).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I should add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      expired herring

      So feeding them bad produce of a sort they don't actually eat anyway caused cattle problems? How unusual. Love to see a cite for that story however. Never heard of it.

    2. Re:I should add by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard of it either, but there is plenty of precedent for the initial observation that triggers an investigation being a bit off the wall.

      It's not like the investigation stopped with cows and expired herring.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:I should add by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      So let's make this clear, having read that study. Cows were being fed rancid herring, which not only has higher nitrate levels, but also a variety of toxins produced by the meat going rancid. But it's the nitrates that caused liver cancer, and not the liver processing the high levels of toxins that were also present and in turn killing the liver. Especially since it showed that the liver had no problems processing the levels and simply passing it directly into the kidney's and intestines.

      Does this make any sense that the problem was nitrates instead of the variety of toxins causing systemic damage that couldn't be repaired?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:I should add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh he's ranting about the evils of Big Meat. Don't interrupt him with actual real thinking.

  13. oh no they aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Governments are not going ban nitrites from preserved meats for good reason. They are there to inhibit bacterial growth, especially Clostridium Botulinum. A better solution is simply to make sure only the necessary amount it nitrite is present and add an antioxidant like ascorbic acid to reduce the production of Nitrosamines in the stomach, which the USDA is pursuing. And of course to only consume small amounts of preserved meats. The WHO has put out advice which has been widely reported and everybody knows about it.

    Simply removing nitrates as the professors claim they want, would be replacing a tiny increase in the risk of colon cancer when you are 60 with a large risk of dying today from Botulism every time you eat bacon, which would be insane. The professors know this and are lying. Their real agenda is just to impose a blanket ban on the manufacture of all bacon, ham, pastrami, salami etc.

    1. Re:oh no they aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a blanket ban on the manufacture of all bacon,

      Will there be pigs in that blanket?

      Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the piglet, it's suckling.

    2. Re:oh no they aren't by mentil · · Score: 1

      Well played.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:oh no they aren't by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      The professors know this and are lying. Their real agenda is just to impose a blanket ban on the manufacture of all bacon, ham, pastrami, salami etc.

      It's all a conspiracy by Big Mince.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  14. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists also have same obsessions with guns.

  15. Frozen bacon by slazzy · · Score: 1

    I wish more companies sold frozen bacon, it freezes really well and there's no need to add nitrates.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:Frozen bacon by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That would likely be frozen pork belly without any nitrates or nitrates. What do you think curing is? You can use just salt but it takes a lot longer.

    2. Re:Frozen bacon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They already sell uncured bacon, and I've frozen it myself for later use. It keeps more than long enough that the only benefit to buying it already frozen is that you don't have to spend the energy to do so at home. It would cost more to ship frozen, though, so you'd pay anyway.

      The bellies are smoked and then cured with only time, then sliced into "uncured" bacon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Frozen bacon by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No such thing as uncured bacon - that's just pork belly. It's a misnomer that the FDA forces on companies who sell meat cured with celery juice or other forms of nitrate that don't come directly from a mineral salt. One that's used to intentionally mislead consumers too, but since it's forced by law there is no recourse.

    4. Re:Frozen bacon by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Does salted and smoked pork belly taste as good as bacon?

    5. Re:Frozen bacon by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Does that answer matter if it doesn't taste the same?

    6. Re:Frozen bacon by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      There are no two foods that tastes the same. Even 2 pieces of bacon would be different if they come from different pigs.

    7. Re:Frozen bacon by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a straw man there. I'm talking about a little bit wider of a gap.

  16. Re: Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that is why the Democrats want us to stay in Syria. Obsession wirh guns the military and trillion dollar wars.

    Fuck off slavers.

  17. Got It Backwards by mentil · · Score: 0, Troll

    SINK to that of big tobacco? This is the industry notorious for using intestines as casings for sausages, for causing generations of children to half-joke about 'mystery meat', for inventing hot dogs, inventing SPAM (which is so dubious it's the butt of a well-known Monty Python skit AND became the de-facto term for unwanted emails, later extended to mean large amounts of anything of low quality). This is the industry which inspired a novel, The Jungle, to be written about its horrid 'quality control', which led the President of the United States to declare he would never eat meat again.

    This is in comparison to the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel, James Dean, and generations of people thinking that smoking was cool. Sure, people sometimes called cigarettes 'coffin nails', but cigs were considered more respectable than many meats. Consider this: would you rather be in the tobacco industry, or a butcher?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      notorious for using intestines as casings for sausages

      WHAT?? Notorious? For using a casing that's been used ever since sausage was invented? This is the kind of scare mongering that makes people ignore anything else attached.

    2. Re:Got It Backwards by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do realize that real intestines are significantly more expensive to obtain and fill than artificial casings, and only premium sausage products are packaged in them? (The same goes for condoms, BTW).

      I don't really understand people who get squeamish about eating any animal organ other than muscle tissue. What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?

    3. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really understand people who get squeamish about eating any animal organ other than muscle tissue. What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?

      You're kidding, right? Skeletal muscles don't come into constant contact with the animal's shit, for one thing.

    4. Re:Got It Backwards by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      So? I wouldn't eat either without cooking it.

    5. Re:Got It Backwards by mentil · · Score: 1

      Lambskin condoms are more expensive in large part because they're considered a superior product (in terms of sensitivity, so long as you don't care about STI transmission). They're sold in lower volume due to the higher price (and the fact they're slimy/clammy), so there's less economy of scale to keep price down.

      Intestines are normally discarded (or more likely, turned into grist for feedlots), as the market for (humans) eating intestines is way smaller than the amount produced by the meat industry. I could see synthetic casings being cheaper, but the intestines are going to be cheap to buy; if anything, cleaning them would be the vast majority of the cost of using them. I imagine the premium sausages use natural casings for reasons of tradition, which allows them to charge a higher price to make up for it.

      I suspect there's some instinctive disgust for organ meats, that can be suppressed via exposure. Thus, people not raised eating it tend to resist eating it. I know other animals are a-ok eating organs, so I'm unsure why humans would be.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re:Got It Backwards by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Intestine-based casings are way LESS disgusting to me because you can actually chew them...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best sausages are in natural casings and contain decent cuts of meat and fat, while the nastiest sausages are in artificial casings and contain the lowest-grade offcuts.

      I suppose you find delicacies like pâté and headcheese and assorted offals like kidney, heart, liver, tongue and stomach disgusting as well?

      You sound like a massive faggot.

    8. Re:Got It Backwards by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      You do realize ‘The Jungle’ was written with the intent of showing how dangerous the work conditions were for the workers, and showing the foid safety horror show was ancillary to that goal? The author was pretty upset that his main point was ignored (suffering workers) from what I’ve read about it.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    9. Re:Got It Backwards by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I suspect there's some instinctive disgust for organ meats, that can be suppressed via exposure. Thus, people not raised eating it tend to resist eating it. I know other animals are a-ok eating organs, so I'm unsure why humans would be.

      Aren't organs the first to decompose once an animal died? Maybe at some point evolutionary when human ancestors were still primarily scavengers there was evolutionary pressure to stay away from the organs of scavenged animals. Once we moved to hunting if the organs were eaten they were most likely eaten first to avoid spoilage. Interestingly enough, in societies that do "regularly" eat organs (I say "regularly" because a lot of these societies tend to be traditional, agrarian, and poorer so eating meat in rarer than in more developed societies) organs tend to be regarded as prized cuts, with certain organs going to certain people depending on status within the group/community.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:Got It Backwards by judoguy · · Score: 1

      What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?

      Um, the contents?

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    11. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inventing SPAM (which is so dubious it's the butt of a well-known Monty Python skit

      It became the butt of the Monty Python skit because of post-WW2 food rationing in the UK -- spam was one of the few meat products commonly available during those years -- not because of its composition, as you claim.

    12. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that real intestines are significantly more expensive to obtain and fill than artificial casings.

      As someone who has been making sausages for more than a decade I did not. Are you thinking commercial hot dogs which are made in something like plastic wrap which is removed at the end of the process and the consumer never sees?

      From the butcher supply I can get ~1KG of natural casings for ~25$ US. This will allow me to make a pile of sausages so big I could over winter in it with a family of 4.
      Collagen casings to make this amount would cost me more and if I want vegan casings (yes, they exist) it would cost cocaine money.
      Once you learn to work with natural casings they are not only cheaper, they are WAY nicer to work with. For one they do not burst all the time. 2 you do not worry about humidity and storing them. 3 natural comes in shorter lengths so you do not worry about contaminating and thus having to pitch the rest like you do with collagen. Natural casings are the one true way (unless you are making vegan sausages)

      Now if I want to go for a large meat product like a salami I would go collagen for convenience over a natural bung.

    13. Re:Got It Backwards by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about home hobbyists. I *am* talking about hot dogs and other industrially manufactured sausages, which comprise the vast majority of the market. I an certain that their high speed machines have an easier time dealing with artificial casings as they spit out sausages by the mile.

    14. Re:Got It Backwards by mentil · · Score: 1

      I did not, thanks.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    15. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?

      Poop.

    16. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your whole post is nonsense....

      european explorers have documented stuff, like people dying when they just eat beef cuts and not organs at all when they have fallen on local supplies throught malnutrion...

    17. Re:Got It Backwards by jtgd · · Score: 1

      What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?

      In situ they are filled with shit.

      --
      J
    18. Re:Got It Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd eat intestinal chyme? OK, you're either trolling, officially weird, or you simply don't know what you're talking about (a common Internet affliction).

  18. Illiterate Republican stops reading at the truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Big tobacco" refers to a large cartel that pushed a dangerous carcinogenic product knowing it was super-addictive and cultivating that all while lying about it and putting out a campaign of disinformation for decades.

    You're a coward hiding from a very common phrase, for whatever purpose of distracting bullshit you exist for these days Kohath. "Big Tobacco" exists, so dry your little eyes about it being referenced, snowflake.

  19. Re:As an Islamic country... by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    I don't normally reply to AC trolls, but it's worth mentioning that beef and lamb "bacon" exist for cultures that don't like pork. They are delicious.

  20. nitrates aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only nitrates in meats with "amines" proteins do this, and this process can be minimized with vitamin c. nitrates in your vegetables don't do this, as they don't have amines, and they do often have vitamin c. nitrates by themselves aren't the problem. they're oversimplifying the issue

  21. Re: Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are officially only part of the problem

  22. Re:As an Islamic country... by mentil · · Score: 1

    There is also turkey bacon, which I actually prefer since it's leaner.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  23. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would be fine if the cancer risk of bacon was anywhere near as bad as tobacco. Media sensationalism tried to push that narrative for clicks, namely by equating the certainty of nitrate cured meats being a carcinogen with tobacco's potency as a carcinogen, and a bunch of tards (especially militant vegans) still think that is the case, even though the WHO long since clarified their position (and stated that they don't think it needs the same response that tobacco needs.)

    Nitrates in meat greatly reduce the time needed to cure (hence reducing the cost by a lot), make them taste better than curing with just salt, and make them more red in appearance (cosmetic only, but people prefer that color as opposed to the greyish color that comes from salt curing.)

    IMO if anybody needs any punishment over this, it should be the stupid organic variations that claim to be nitrate free because they use "natural organic" celery juice to cure them, even though celery juice is very high in nitrates (duh) and doesn't make any difference, at all, vs mineral nitrates like potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate (and yes, these are actually mined, just like halite, so they're every bit as "natural".)

    Hell, punish the whole organic movement while you're at it, it's so full of the cow shit it's made of (hence the rate of food poisoning is 10 times higher for organic produce, with no nutritional or taste benefit at all, not to mention insanely wasteful of natural resources and bad on the environment.)

  24. Re: Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize Republicans started these wars. Of course you don't. Too busy sucking Trump's tiny mushroom dick.

  25. More FUD by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Second /. Article today based on an entirely flawed premise (the one claiming that concer crops are somehow new or experimental being the other one).

    Back when the UNs IARC labelled processed meats as carcinogenic the good Dr Carroll (professor at IU Medical School) pointed out that the actual risk of eating significantly more bacon than you used to is rather small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:More FUD by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      Why, if I didn't know better, I would think that the editors have an agenda of some kind. I wonder what agenda that might be?

    2. Re:More FUD by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Why, if I didn't know better, I would think that the editors have an agenda of some kind. I wonder what agenda that might be?

      Increasing revenue by posting articles that we would argue over.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  26. Re:As an Islamic country... by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    I'm not disparaging turkey bacon, but the reason I mentioned beef and lamb is because the cut of meat used is equivalent and can be treated almost identically.

  27. Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    Nitrates and nitrites have been used to cure meats since antiquity. Where did the nitrates and nitrites come from? Natural sources. Yes, that's right. It occurs in deposits in the ground and can be easily refined from nitrate-rich organic materials using technology thousands of years old.

  28. Meat industry will never sink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fucking joke

  29. Alternative? by reanjr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites? Because if there isn't, this is just an academic conversation. We're not going to ban cured meats, and everyone already knows meat causes cancer. No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.

    1. Re:Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are alternatives. A company I'm collaborating with uses olive extract with success

    2. Re:Alternative? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?

      Yeah, not curing them. I mean there's no reason to anymore. It was done in the past for food safety reasons that are not really relevant with today's processing methods. Just like they used to bury meat in salt before refrigeration was invented.

      and everyone already knows meat causes cancer.

      But does it? Or do the things we do to it make it cause cancer.

      No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.

      We've decided given the option of eating or not eating it's worth it. We have not had a discussion on the topic of eating meat which causes cancer vs that which does not. I think you'll find less people taking your side of the debate when it's actually framed correctly.

    3. Re:Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we should label cured meats the same way we label and deal with cigarettes.

    4. Re:Alternative? by Kreela · · Score: 1

      Parma ham is made without. It's expensive. My local butcher also does a sausage without nitrates - labelled the Victorian sausage, it comes with extra salt and pepper so it preserves better. So there are drawbacks. The best alternative I've found is to just get fresh meat that hasn't been adulterated and cook it as soon as possible.

    5. Re: Alternative? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      But like you say, we don't cure meat for food safety reasons anymore. We cure meat because the curing process makes delicious animals even more delicious.

      No one's going to ban smoked salmon, so what's the endgame here besides whining about health?

    6. Re:Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?

      Yeah, not curing them.

      That is not true. To cure the meat, nitrites are not needed __at all__.

      Nitrites are added to cure it much faster and cheaper, like the Italian style Prosciutto.

      Spanish style cured ham never use anything other than sea salt, cold dry air and time to cure the meat, but takes four times more to be ready, up to 2 years.

    7. Re: Alternative? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We cure meat because the curing process makes delicious animals even more delicious.

      If you're using nitrates to cure meat for taste reasons, my god man are you doing it wrong. It's probably the single worst way to do it. The only benefit it brings is that the resulting meat looks red and just like the process of dying oranges orange so they look more like the oranges people believe oranges should look like; it's stupid.

      No one's going to ban smoked salmon, so what's the endgame here besides whining about health?

      Well if we're going to whine about health then people should only ever eat smoked salmon as it would have a net positive health impact on everyone given how good it is for you. Also the curing process is not to soak it in a nitrite solution, but rather to brine it. As part of smoking it generates nitrite but less than that of curing beef, and less than that of char grilling too.

      So yes, no one will ban smoked salmon, and unlike your earlier example, smoking IS something that is worthy of doing for its deliciousness.

    8. Re:Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?

      the existence of human-kind before the invention of nitrites would tend to an answer of yes

    9. Re:Alternative? by illtud · · Score: 1

      Parma ham (you may have heard of it) has banned nitrites for 25 years, using salt (NaCl) alone. Still delicious.

    10. Re:Alternative? by dschiptsov · · Score: 1

      If meat would really cause cancer there would be no human civilization, you fucking idiot. Meat eating goes back hundreds of thousands of years, back to human ancestors. Processed foods/meats cause cancer. Not meat per se.

  30. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a good comment. Thanks.

  31. ...this is nowhere NEAR tobacco levels of risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're saying 6,600 cases a year in the UK is high, except even in today's "post bust" era when everyone and dog openly says how bad tobacco is, when there's been HUGE strides to fix things and get folks off of it?

    https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer

    Still over 46,000 new cases of lung cancer in the UK alone in 2015, per localized research. When combined with population growth they expect over 62,000 incidents by 2035.

    Sure not all of that lung cancer is from smoking, especially when the sharp drop-off in recent decades has crashed out to a very long, slow tail now, but the risk from nitrates in meats seems ridiculously low. It's in the range of 10 per 100k at the quoted 6,600 cases. That's really rather low. It is groups in the 4th highest category of deaths in the UK for a very narrow age range: 50-64 year olds.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-2-major-causes-of-death-and-how-they-have-changed

    Overall this just seems like a lot of noise and motion for little reason besides rattling a tin can in the news.

    - WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. even when I provide citations.

  32. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Desler · · Score: 0

    But you don't have the right to give others cancer through your secondhand smoke.

  33. Better than Botulism by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Gimme nitrites over botulism any day. What about nitrates? can they be used w/o cancer?

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Better than Botulism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And give me odd colored bacon rather than cancer any day.

  34. Utter bullshite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people donâ(TM)t realize that celery and spinach (and the like) contain as much or more nitrates as bacon. Hell, even the bacteria on your teeth make more in your saliva everyday. Stop trying to scare us with these old and outdated fears.

  35. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I smoke. As Andrew Dice Clay pointed out, if second hand smoke is worse than "first hand" smoke, I made the right choice then didn't I?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  36. Nonsense Vegan Science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Celery, arugular (aka rocket) and a number of other plants have far higher amounts of nitrite than bacon. If nitrites caused cancer, then celery should be banned before bacon. The fact that celery hasn't been associated with cancer completely undermines the hypothesis that nitrites in bacon cause cancer.
     

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Nonsense Vegan Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cooks celery to a crisp

    2. Re:Nonsense Vegan Science by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That and there is a limit of how much celery humans are willing to eat.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  37. Don't confuse the chemicals by yanestra · · Score: 1

    Nitrites don't cause cancer, but nitrosamines do. One gets converted into the other but it depends on how you prepare your breakfast. You should be an informed breakfast preparer.

  38. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Salty sentiment. I hope that was Himalayan Rock Salt.

  39. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've never heard anyone say nitrates make meat taste better. If that were true why can't you find it next to MSG in the spice aisle?

  40. It's Bacon, dumass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greasy, slimy, pork belly fat. Unless you're Canadian, then that's not bacon at all. Fargos. Thin crust.

  41. Meanwhile, consumers say... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Stay the course, meat industry. Stay the course.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  42. same with hot dogs by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Hot dogs use it as a preservative but it's allowed because adding vitamin C to the mix prevents the chemical reaction from happening, in theory and in a controlled lab environment, but more recent studies have shown that the human stomach does still form the carcinogen no matter how much vitamin C is added.

  43. IARC Group 2A carcinogens by N_Piper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So that puts Nitrates on the same list ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) as Vapors from frying
    Hot beverages
    Earl Grey Tea (Bergapten)
    Coffee (Acrylamide)
    Red Meat (Which already includes bacon)
    Charred Meat (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
    All cooked and smoked meat (N-Nitrosodimethylamine)
    and last but not least
    Shift work that disrupts the circadian rhythm
    Yeah all we need now is wheat and beans and Everything in British and American breakfasts will be cancerous...
    On a more serious note:
    I would like to reach across all the demographics of Slashdot commenters and try to get a thread going here telling the Admins that we are more critical thinkers than most and really don't appreciate this kind of clickbait alarmist fad science being posted here.
    Everyone here knows that applying the linear no threshold model to anything that causes genetic damage is bull shit
    You want a statistic bigger than 6600 cases of bowel cancer here's a statistic for you
    In the United States alone 10,000 people die a year due to stress and hysteria over Radiation and Nuclear Energy ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12... )
    Now Imagine how many cases of stomach and bowel cancer are caused by undereducated over read people getting their stomach in knots and their panties in a twist over bullshit overstated cancer headlines.
    Right, Left, Others let's all say as one "Shut the fuck up!"

    1. Re:IARC Group 2A carcinogens by esperto · · Score: 2
      An important clarification on the subject of IARC Groups classification is that being in any group, like 2A Probable Carcinogens, means how strong is the EVIDENCE of such agent to be a risk of causing cancer, it has nothing to do with amount of risk related to the agent, i.e., if we had an agent that caused cancer on 100% of people it came in contact with, but there are no studies about it because it is extremely rare or unlikely to be in contact with a human would be in Group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity), but another agent that has very strongly based evidence that it can cause cancer in 1 in 100 million individuals would be classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans).

      Group 1 has thing like alcoholic beverages and estrogen therapy, and group 3 has crude oil, which can contain a any number of really bad substancies.

    2. Re:IARC Group 2A carcinogens by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1
      Don't forget acrylamide. It is found in roasted coffee, toast, baked goods, cereals, and potato products, and will cause cancer if you live in California.

      https://www.knowablemagazine.o...

    3. Re:IARC Group 2A carcinogens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a more serious note:

      I would like to reach across all the demographics of Slashdot commenters and try to get a thread going here telling the Admins that we are more critical thinkers than most and really don't appreciate this kind of clickbait alarmist fad science being posted here.

      I agree with the sentiment of this entirely; however, I am grateful that articles such as are brought to my attention. The reason is simple: how am I meant to oppose pseudoscience if I am not made aware of it? I no longer have the time or inclination to trawl through all the health-freakery on the web in an attempt to garner a sense for what bullshit ideas are de rigueur.

      Right, Left, Others let's all say as one "Shut the fuck up!"

      I could not have put it better myself!

  44. Re:As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you an islamic country? Wow!

    Or did you mean that the UK is an islamic country? This seems to suggest otherwise.

  45. Re:As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There is also turkey bacon

    No offense intended, but dat shit ain't bacon!!

  46. *slowly raises hand* by magusxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    "What about making bacon in the microwave?"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    Yeah, I went there. ;)

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:*slowly raises hand* by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That's genuinely interesting. Thank you for sharing the link to the study.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  47. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing is, nothing you said was about food safety.

    They can remove nitrates, but it has to come as a government regulation otherwise they will go out of business due to out-of-state/country meats that donâ(TM)t have it. That entire reason melamine got into pet food was because China didnâ(TM)t regulate and the regulations were only considered for humans, not people (see the baby food contamination for that one)

  48. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought the purpose of organic produce is that it won't harm the environment like mass produce requires. Doesn't mass produce require synthesized fertilizers and pesticides to keep the costs as cheap as possible?

  49. UK roads are surprisingly safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than 3 times better stats than for US. Maybe we all driving on the wrong side of the road.

  50. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

    Why do "nitrate free" products taste worse? I've been sampling both uncured (and apparently without even celery extract) and "nitrate free" (celery juice cured) breakfast meats and find both of them equally worse tasting than nitrate cured products.

  51. Re:As an Islamic country... by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

    Yuck. Half the point of cooking up a 2 lb package of extra-thick bacon every so often is for filtering and saving the rendered fat for other cooking purposes.

  52. Smell by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Are the carcinogens the things that make bacon taste good but smell really bad while being cooked?
    Or is that simply a response I've developed from wanting to sleep while others were awake making noise while cooking bacon?

  53. Mmmm. Cancer-Causing Chemicals by BinBoy · · Score: 1

    But that's what makes it taste good.

    1. Re:Mmmm. Cancer-Causing Chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! And as long as we believe this (or even just suspect it, a tiny little bit), there's no chance of banning nitrates/nitrites. None. Zero. Nada!

      On a slightly more serious note, banning nitrates will apparently make bacon look more grey. Why do people hate grey meat? Grey meat is a sign of spoilage and automatically generates consumer disgust. Not good for sales.

      How can you tell the difference between spoiled bacon and bacon that simply has been produced without nitrates? You can't. Well you can put it on the label, but does the label itself prevent spoilage? Nope! So bacon can be both produced without nitrates, and spoiled, and look grey for both reasons.

      Commercial checkmate. It's a non-starter.

  54. Re:As an Islamic country... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not surprised the UK would begin attacking pork products. It was only a matter of time.

    Well this as insightful shows how incredibly partisan and riht wing idiocy dominated this site has become. This whole "UK is islamic" is a weird fantasy of some segments of the American right wing, and seems poplar on Fox.

    It is simply, utterly flat-out false.

    Naturally I will be modded down for pointing this out.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  55. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, the purpose of organic produce is to sell you the myth it's better for the environment at 3x the price.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  56. Re: As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piss off, Mohammed

  57. I'd rather have more poison in bacon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a vegetarian myself, I am tired of explaining to people that preprocessing vegetables into meat is bad for both one's health as well as the environment (because it is very inefficient use of the vegetables and consequently farming areas). Putting even more poison in bacon would help evolution sort this out a lot more reliably than appealing to individual responsibility (seriously, when did that ever work?) could.

    1. Re:I'd rather have more poison in bacon by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      People die every year from eating contaminated or unwashed lettuce. Even organic food can be risky.

      Best option is to eat nothing at all, or to keep stupid opinions to yourself.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  58. Re:As an Islamic country... by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not sure if you're going for "flamebait" or "idiot" mod. points, but of all Western European and North American countries, England (but not the UK) is probably the worst example of a (potential) Islamic country, since it's the only one where Christianity is the state religion and the ruling head of state (monarch in the case of the England) is also the head of the church. Sometimes overlooked is the fact that the CofE is also head of the Anglican church worldwide, rather like the Pope for the Catholics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Contrast this to France, where the (republication) state expressly forbids alignment of state with religion, or even expressions / symbols of faith in public life, (a ban frequently flouted by all side, admittedly). Note that the % people declared practising Islam in both countries is a very scary.....5% In the USA of course, the danger is even more acute ;)

    France : 51% Christians, 5.6% Islam
    England : 59% Christians, 5% Islam
    USA: 74% Christians, 0.8% Islam

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  59. Re:Preservation by del_diablo · · Score: 1

    Thats true, but a core dilemma is that traditional curing is a drying process. Where the alternative is salt coating and air drying. Possibly less salt and heating to dry.
    While a lot of meat contains nitrates for preservation or for food colouring.

    There is a big difference between a cured ham thats dry by process, and a mixed dough of raw meat thats needs a lot of preservatives to be stored for 1-3 weeks of shelf life from production. There is a even bigger difference between half baked, baked and raw meat dishes intended for long term commercial storage of weeks: Waiting for the customers to arrive at the shelfs and nab em.
    Its basically a very big dilemma where a lot of food technology and logistics are based around traditional methods intended for completely different types of meat, but modern production chain involves raw meats being stored using similar ingredients to preserve it. On top of that another big issue is that the taste of food degrades as its stored, meaning each step away from raw food will degrade the taste merely by storage. So once you go from smoke dried ham to a half finished dish that contains bacon, merely storing it to sell it reduces taste by such a amount that you can't really use similar recipes to the actual dish.
    So at some point into the cycle of preserved half cooked food, you need to drown the food in sugar/salt/preservatives/flavor enrichen to compete with its core recipe. Its basically the reason why Frozen Pizza has limited taste, since it needs to be half cooked to be distributed.

    I mean, to illustrate a point we should just quote wikipedia:
    >Curing is any of various food preservation and flavoring processes of foods such as meat, fish and vegetables, by the addition of combinations of salt, nitrates, nitrites,[1] or sugar, with the aim of drawing moisture out of the food by the process of osmosis.
    >Many curing processes also involve smoking, spicing, or cooking. Dehydration was the earliest form of food curing.[2]
    Its essentially a process to create dry food, due there existing no proper form of cold storage before modern times. And that is very different from a luxury product like ham being coated and minced into a salt mixture with nitrate because people do not cook and slice ham due family size constraints.

  60. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That would be fine if the cancer risk of bacon was anywhere near as bad as tobacco.

    More people eat bacon than smoke tobacco... maybe.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  61. Re:As an Islamic country... by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

    You mean Birmingham isn't a no-go city? Pshaw! Humbug! I find that hard to believe! Fox News said it, so it must be true.

  62. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uncured, by law (in the US), is cured meat with a natural source of nitrate or nitrite. Food producers are required to call it "uncured" even if they believe it's misleading and inaccurate.

  63. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doubtful. The health issue s a lie when it comes to the socialism of smoking compared to reality. For instance, businesses aren't trying to save their customer's lives. Cigarettes just smell like shit. You are getting carbon monoxide either damn way. However, when you are around cigarettes, you will smell like shit. Unless people want to smell like shit, they aren't hanging out with you. If you like Andrew Dice Clay and you smoke cigarettes, no one is hanging out with you or near you.

  64. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    There are so many idiots on Slashdot these days ... It's like you are part of some kind of #MeToo movement, but for idiots instead of woman who have been assaulted.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  65. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Basically all food is trying to kill you in some way. Mainly because we eat other lifeforms who themselves don't want to be eaten.
    We find toxins in nearly every food we eat, because nearly every animal, fungus and plant creates such toxins as a safety measure from being eaten. But those who eat these lifeforms have built in a tolerance to such toxins (Not I said a tolerance not an immunity) These toxins are still bad for us, but we can deal with small amounts, as the nutrition of eating it exceed the cost of having the toxins.

    Now with inorganic (including salt curing) methods of preservation. We are trying to kill of bacteria whose main goal is to turn the food into a puddle of slime, that will have little to no health benefit. As well as other bacteria that we as humans are not well evolved into digesting. Preservation of food, is making food more toxic, because we want to kill of harmful organisms that is in it. But we tend to do it at levels that will not outright hurt us.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  66. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I think it may largely have to do with what type of food you are use too. This is quite literally a matter of taste. However I expect growing up you had nitrate added breakfast meats so that is what you connect to the taste of proper bacon.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  67. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is why we need to get past nuclear phobias that keep us from using radiation to treat foods to vastly increase their shelf lives SAFELY. The radiation passes through, killing those bad microbes, and leaves no residual radiation. "Science", anyone??

  68. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of food phobias out there, many are very culturally sensitive. A lot of Asian foods use fermented food which would find disgusting if we knew what was happening. They let the food spoil to a point when kill off the rest.

    Even a lot of our foods such as steak the meat hangs until it gets crusty, we shave that off and sell it as fresh steak.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  69. Aren't nitrates mostly to preserve color? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember reading that. I know it keeps the meat from turning grey. Never mattered to me because I'm pretty color blind, but I think we've got better/safer preservatives if you're just trying to extend shelf life.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  70. Wait, super-addictive? by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    dangerous? Dangerous cartel?

    You realize you just described bacon, right?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Wait, super-addictive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that is exatly the point the parent was making right? You cannot really be this dense, rsilvergun...

  71. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by randallman · · Score: 1

    Got a link for that "10 times higher for organic produce"? You made some good points like the celery juice bit, which I think most informed people were aware of, but you're sounding more like an industry shill than an informative contributor and posting AC doesn't help. Blowing off organic farming and even calling for "punishing" it is a bit extreme. It certainly is possible to focus on quality over quantity - ask anyone who grows there own tomatoes. Soil can become deficient in minerals and that transfers to the plants, making them less nutritious. Some people like to know what they're putting in their body. Certain pesticides may be safe at certain levels, but that information's not on the "label".

    "insanely wasteful of natural resources and bad on the environment" - ??? Link? Looking more and more like a shill.

  72. Re:As an Islamic country... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Troll

    This whole "UK is islamic" is a weird fantasy of some segments of the American right wing

    Indeed. It's only Birmingham, Bradford and about half of London.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  73. Stop eating cabbage! It's carcinogenic! by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Look at the scary list of natural pesticides found in cabbage - among them both carcinogenic and mutagenic substances.

  74. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Media sensationalism tried to push that narrative for clicks

    This just reminds me of that What the Health Netflix documentary where at one point the narrator says something along the lines of: "I even read a study somewhere that said eating 2 eggs is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette!" and he then doesn't show or tell any more information on the study.

    Then again this same documentary also had some claim (I can't quite remember it, so I guess I'm doing about the same as the documentary man now) about how if you ate carbs and no fat, carbs wouldn't turn into fat in your body????? Someone's a bit confused.

  75. Visit your local Farm. by Dusanyu · · Score: 1

    US centric post but i got sick of al lthis creepyness in meat so i started buying a Whole hog or cow from a local farmer, they happily take it to the closest Slaughterhouse/ Meat market for you ((most smaller towns have one)) few days later you have meat for a year, that you know is safe.

  76. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Italians eat a lot of cured meat, and yet their diet is supposed to be one of the most healthy in the world.

    I call BS on the whole story.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  77. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

    Bacon without nitrates isn't bacon, it's just pork belly.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
  78. Staphylococcus toxins are bad news by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The injury you can get from Staphylococcus and Listeria monocytogenes are more significant to a wider population of people than the small (but measurable) increase in cancer from nitrates.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  79. Carbon Monoxide for red meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few places have started gassing their meats with it as it makes them bright red.

  80. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You're either European, or you live in a really bad neighborhood if that many people around you smoke.

    And I'm from a city with a lot of vegetarians.

  81. Re:As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, read what Nassim Taleb says about "intolerant minority" groups. This means that a group that's ~5% of a population can actually dictate what the entire 100% does by simply being extremely intractable about something. Islam is verrrrry strict about pork consumption so what he actually said wasn't partisan or anything like that. Read the chapters of his book Skin in the Game on the medium.com website. Extremely interesting reading.

    Also shows how (although he doesn't actually say this, but you can connect the dots) that American puritanical douchebaggery regarding sex and nudity can likely be traced to an intolerant religious minority pissing and whining cuz oooo little Billy can't see a woman's nipple!! That's satanic!!

  82. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Don't just wave your hands with the word "toxic" like that, it is inaccurate.

    Toxic is relative, not absolute; making something toxic to certain bacteria doesn't make the food "toxic" at all. Is it toxic to humans or not? If not, then it is misleading to use the bare word "toxic" to describe it, you should instead say "toxic to some specific type of creature."

    Salt is not toxic to humans. The Japanese eat the most salt of any country, and they also have the longest lifespan.

  83. Re:As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5% of the population is all they need. Muslims are so intolerant they can just browbeat, or literally beat (as they are so often doing) anything they want into their host population. I say host because Islam is a dark age cancerous death cult that is parasitic.

  84. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    This is why we need to get past nuclear phobias that keep us from using radiation to treat foods to vastly increase their shelf lives SAFELY. The radiation passes through, killing those bad microbes, and leaves no residual radiation. "Science", anyone??

    You have to use a different word, like "electron sterilization," or "x-ray sterilization."

    As for your appeal to science, please stop. You clearly don't understand the science, you only understand that people you believe are sciencey said that it is safe. That doesn't mean you understand the science. The radiation doesn't just "pass through," if it did there would be no sterilizing effect. You're not going to explain the science, because people aren't going to understand that it is absorbed by the food, but that absorbing radiation doesn't make something radioactive. Just like, sitting under the lightbulb doesn't cause you to emit light yourself when it is turned off. If the average person thought of the photons coming out of the lightbulb when you say "radiation," then they'd be capable of understanding it. But they don't, so they can't. And the people trying are usually just virtue signaling anyways.

    And if you use electron sterilization, there is residual radiation, because the food remains ionized. Now you get to explain to people why you lied to them about the science, and they want to know if they can really trust you. LOL Better is to stop using the word that confuses them in the first place, instead of trying to give them a simple-but-false explanation. People understand that electricity is dangerous to touch, but the electrified object is safe later. So they can understand that electron sterilization is safe. Same for x-rays.

  85. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    There is nothing wrong with cured meat. The problem is with chemical additives.

    Italians have traditional meat curing processes. The resulting meats are expensive, but safe.

    I call BS on your reading comprehension.

  86. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    I smoke. As Andrew Dice Clay pointed out, if second hand smoke is worse than "first hand" smoke, I made the right choice then didn't I?

    That just means you're less stupid than whoever is willing to be your friend or family member.

  87. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by irreverentdiscourse · · Score: 1

    Comparing nitrates to tobacco is obvious hyperbole. You all need to grow up.

  88. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > what type of food you are use too

    used to

    Moron.

  89. Well good for you - how about the REST OF US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well good for you - how about the REST OF US?

  90. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by bugnuts · · Score: 1

    No.

    All living things did not develop ineffective toxins to prevent being eaten. How could this evolve it it takes 30 years to have an effect long past the breeding cycle of the eaten species? Very few species have developed this, mostly plants.

    Your knowledge of biology is highly suspect, as is your knowledge of curing.

    Oxygen, the primary purpose of adding nitrites, prevents clostridium botulinium from growing. It doesn't kill it and oxygen isn't toxic. Toxicity is based on not only the material, but the dosage which you are ignoring.

    TLDR: food never evolved to develop toxins to kill us. That is not how it works for nearly all species. Salt and dry curing is to take up available water to slow pathogen growth until there's not enough water, not to poison them with toxins.

  91. Not news for nerds, not news. Infotainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is infotainment. A scare piece. A big lie.

    So go eat some bacon. Eat a pile of bacon.
    Learn to make bacon.
    You will add cure #1 to your bacon (it makes it taste better than plain salt cured).. Deadly nitrates!
    Oh yeah, you will also add salt even though those scare pieces say salt will kill you.
    Don't forget brown or maple sugar.. which scare pieces say will kill you.
    There is fat in bacon which scare pieces say will kill you.
    Oh, did I mention the red meat which will kill you?
    Oh yeah, you will also smoke your bacon, carcinogen city. Total death here.
    Bacon is raw death.

    Instead you should go vegan.
    Worried it will not taste good?
    Make vegan Demi-Glace! Makes any vegan dish delicious. Due to umami load it may be yummier than murder based Demi-Glace.
    Grab a bunch of cabbage, radishes, celery, beets, carrots, rutabaga. Now shave them them pretty thin and bake them hard brown, then...
    Dammit! now we have more nitrates and carcinogens than the bacon.
    Vegan is raw death.

    Well you know what they say about 2 great things. Bacon + vegan demi-glace! Grab a plate full and maybe add some eggs (I hear their cholesterol will kill you stone dead). No toast, we are keto here. Top it off with a pitcher of mimosas (well maybe not totally keto).
    After you read the paper, hit the gym and go for a run before heading to work.
    When you are in you 90s-100s you can blame your morning routine for this. Why? Well you see OBESITY is the cancer monster/mass killer, not bacon. That keto + working out + light alcohol is a great way to start the day.

  92. 4 out of 5 dead people reccommend processed meats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my dead friends all loved their processed meats, bless their ashes

  93. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    That would be fine if the cancer risk of bacon was anywhere near as bad as tobacco. Media sensationalism tried to push that narrative for clicks, namely by equating the certainty of nitrate cured meats being a carcinogen with tobacco's potency as a carcinogen, and a bunch of tards (especially militant vegans) still think that is the case, even though the WHO long since clarified their position (and stated that they don't think it needs the same response that tobacco needs.)

    Not only is it not nearly as carcinogenic, it also does not kill people merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What makes cigarettes so heinous is not that it kills smokers, but that it disproportionately kills innocent bystanders.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  94. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > The thing is, nothing you said was about food safety.

    Sure it is. If you trust big business with uncured meat then you're a moron.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  95. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

    I thought the purpose of organic produce is that it won't harm the environment like mass produce requires.

    It isn't that well thought out. What "organic" means is that the production methods follow the rules written by the Soil Association (in the UK ; I assume there is a comparable body in the USA). Nothing less, and nothing more. What "organic" is marketed as varies according to what you are selling. So, if you're selling grains, then you say that the purpose of "organic" is to promote the use of less (or different) fertilizer, but you don't mention that permitted fertilizers include half-rotten pig shit and exclude shit-free chemicals manufactured from thin air and pure water. If you're selling organic lamb, you market it on claims that "organic" means "better tasting and healthier" to distract people from thinking that it means a lamb adolescent being hung up by hooks through it's ankles and then having it's throat cut. Because that might upset the eaters. You may notice that there is no connection between what the term means, and it's advertising insinuation. Did you actually expect anything different.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  96. Re:As an Islamic country... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turkey bacon is just a turkey sausage cut into strips.

  97. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by bugnuts · · Score: 1

    It has to do with US law, not what you're used to.

    Reread what he said. It is correct. By law, pork belly bacon cured with nitrites from a natural source must be labeled "uncured". By law, adding the same chemical directly must be labeled "cured" or "nitrites added", and cannot be labeled "uncured" despite being exactly the same chemical.

    If it's bacon, it has nitrites (or nitrates which convert to nitrites through a biological process). If it doesn't have any nitrites added, it is not bacon and calling it that is probably violating labeling laws.

  98. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's much easier for people to give up bacon than it is tobacco.

    Well... for most people. ;)

  99. Re:As an Islamic country... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Indeed. It's only Birmingham, Bradford and about half of London.

    Huh some people aactually believe Fox news.

    Tell you what so you don't look like a total idiot how about you tell me which areas of my home town (London) are no-go so I can have a good laugh at your expense.

    (A clue, I'm from saafariva so the whole of North London is no go and anyway who would want to? Yo'd 'ave to go to North London innit.)

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  100. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Botulism it is, then?

  101. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by dcw3 · · Score: 1
    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  102. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    After googling this stuff and hitting 8 websites, this one seems to be the most informative.

    https://www.healthline.com/nut...

    In summary, eating lots of processed meats is linked to certain cancers (might be related to nitrates/nitrites, might not). Lots of vegetables contain tons of nitrates, but cooking them doesn't produce the bad stuff. The problem is

    Quote:

    "When nitrites are exposed to high heat, in the presence of amino acids, they can turn into compounds called nitrosamines.

    There are many different types of nitrosamines... and most of them are potent carcinogens (26).

    They are among the main carcinogens in tobacco smoke, for example.

    Because most bacon, hot dogs and processed meat tend to be high in sodium nitrite and they're high protein foods (a source of amino acids), exposing them to high heat creates the perfect conditions for nitrosamine formation (27)."

  103. Re:As an Islamic country... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Well this as insightful shows how incredibly partisan and riht wing idiocy dominated this site has become. This whole "UK is islamic" is a weird fantasy of some segments of the American right wing, and seems poplar on Fox.

    Interesting that you would jump on an AC comment that said nothing about America, Fox, left or right wings. I'm not arguing the AC's point, only that yours is a large source of the partisan nature you're complaining about.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  104. Re:Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Not picking on the parent here, just a general comment. I love how people toss the word "natural" around as if natural ingredients make it all better. There are plenty of toxic natural ingredients.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  105. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by jtgd · · Score: 1

    we eat other lifeforms who themselves don't want to be eaten.

    Fruit is delicious food with seeds inside specifically intended by the plant to be eaten and distribute the seeds (hopefully inside manure). How could you possibly conclude it doesn't want to be eaten?

    --
    J
  106. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by jtgd · · Score: 1

    Basically all food is trying to kill you in some way.

    Are we saying that plants evolved the production of nitrates to make us die of cancer 50 years after eating it? That doesn't sound like a particularly effective defense.

    --
    J
  107. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't really true, anyway. A lot of plants don't have any defense mechanisms—they just take a scattershot approach to reproduction. Inundate the environment with huge numbers of seeds and not all will get eaten, some will survive.

  108. Re:Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    Toxic natural ingredients would have been noticed a long time ago. It didn't take long for civilization to learn that seasoning your food with lead acetate was a bad idea.

  109. Re:Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but there are plenty of toxins in the things you do eat from natural sources. They just won't kill you unless you reach quantities that are much higher. Water is toxic in large quantities, and people die from drinking too much every year.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  110. Re:Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    Paracelcus had the right idea on the matter.

  111. Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru by lollllol1 · · Score: 1

    A year ago I had cancer. Thank God there were no complications and the operation was successful. But since then I have a constant feeling of anxiety and have to use the CDB to calm. If someone need, here is a link https://www.marijuanabreak.com...