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."
"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."
"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.
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 ...
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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/...
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)
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.
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.
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
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.