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."
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.)
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
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!"
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.