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."

10 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. 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/
  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: 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.)

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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!"

  7. 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?

  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: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.
  10. 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