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

I think the study came out last April

[walterbyrd]

Not sure if this is breaking news.

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:I think the study came out last April

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:I think the study came out last April

[Aighearach]

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].

Sugar...

[js290]

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

Re:Sugar...

[Aighearach]

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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Re:Did something change?

[Presence Eternal]

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.

Re:Did something change?

[larryjoe]

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 ...

Re: Did something change?

[TimMD909]

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.)

Re:Did something change?

[omnichad]

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

No real evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No real evidence

[jma05]

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.

Re:No real evidence

[Deef]

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.

Re: No real evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No real evidence

[Aighearach]

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.

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:Come up with a way to make a ban work first

[Rutulian]

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

   

Here's an explaination

[rsilvergun]

why nitrates in vegetables aren't really a problem

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

Re:Here's an explaination

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Illiterate Republican stops reading at the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Stopped reading

[Misagon]

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.

Re:Got It Backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:oh no they aren't

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:Socialism

[Brett Buck]

Yes, God forbid *people decide for themselves*.

More FUD

[crmarvin42]

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?...

Re:I should add

[Mashiki]

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?

Alternative?

[reanjr]

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.

Re:Alternative?

[thegarbz]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr

[Zero__Kelvin]

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?

Re:Got It Backwards

[Waffle Iron]

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?

IARC Group 2A carcinogens

[N_Piper]

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!"

Re:IARC Group 2A carcinogens

[esperto]

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.

*slowly raises hand*

[magusxxx]

"What about making bacon in the microwave?"

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

Yeah, I went there. ;)

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Stopped reading

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:As an Islamic country...

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Socialism

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[pslytely psycho]

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

Re:As an Islamic country...

[Bearhouse]

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/...

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[omnichad]

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.

Re:Got It Backwards

[Jarik C-Bol]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:I'd rather have more poison in bacon

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re: Stopped reading

[bugnuts]

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.

Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru

[RockDoctor]

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.