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."

Comments

Did something change?

[Presence Eternal]

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."

Re:Did something change?

[Misagon]

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.

Come up with a way to make a ban work first

[Solandri]

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.

Re:I think the study came out last April

[justthinkit]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[Tough Love]

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.