21 ms·

The risk of nitrites and nitrates in bacon

169 points by techman9 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The health risk of bacon is largely to do with two food additives: potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre) and sodium nitrite. It is these that give salamis, bacons and cooked hams their alluring pink colour Is nitrate/nitrite [1] free prosciutto okay? EDIT: Apparently not. “Processed meats, which are transformed by salting, curing, or fermentation. This includes everything from hotdogs and bacon, to lunch meats like salami and prosciutto“ [2]. [1] Is there a single word for these? [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-who-cancer-red-meat https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-...
- tomhschmidt 9y ago
  The most worrying part of this article for me is that processed meats that are advertised as "nitrate-free" really just use natural nitrates from celery salt, which aren't much better, if at all.
- zaroth 9y ago
  TFA says that prosciutto di parma with it's 18 month aging process is truly nitrate free.
taeric 9y ago
Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't? Even the conclusion of this article dives in to how little this study is showing directionally. "Processed meat may be another factor to consider when thinking about your overall risk of breast cancer." is far from a definitive "yes it is really killing us" opening title. :( I mean, yes, it increases your risk. And when we have solved many of the other high causes, it will have an obvious benefit for getting rid of it. So, very glad we know this. But right now? You are far more likely to be killed from other things than from exposure to bacon. Such that, statistically, it isn't where most people should worry about starting.
- umeshunni 9y ago
  Relax, it's just classic Guardian rage-bait.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't? No, the studies are very clear. They were widely misreported. There are two things: how good the evidence is, and how strong the effect is. The evidence that processed red meat causes cancer is now as strong as the evidence that smoking causes cancer. We know that both do cause cancer. But processed red meat doesn't cause much cancer. Smoking causes a lot of cancer.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I was explicitly attacking the strength of the effect. Poorly, I grant. That is, yes it increases the risk. It is such a weak source, though, that you are still better starting elsewhere, and are here unlikely to die from cancer if you eat these. Contrasted with smoking, where it is a strong influence.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Wait, is it equally strong? We have lots of cohort studies. Do we have studies that show a mechanism of action? If one exists, do we know the circumstances in which it occurs? Are there particular formulations that are risky? Are there food handling or cooking factors we're not aware of? We know a great deal about the mechanisms of action by which smoke inhalation and tobacco in particular cause cancer. I don't think the distinction here is merely in strength of the effect.
wnevets 9y ago
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say nitrite & nitrate are killing us?
- rexpop 9y ago
  Ah, but is it nitrite that is killing us, or the subsequent chemical reactions? We can become more pedantic, or more useful, but they are both accurate levels of abstraction, and one is more useful.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Nitrosamine, created by cooking nitrates with meat
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Doesn’t appear to be unique to nitrites and nitrates. “Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it,” with processes including “salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking” [1]. [1] https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
  - mtgx 9y ago
    The article seems to say that meat that uses nitrates and nitrites is worse than other "processed meat" in general. It's like the worst kind of processed meat.
  - IBM 9y ago
    Does this include chicken and turkey that you get at the deli counter at the grocery store?
- inanutshellus 9y ago
  No, not according to the article. It says that lettuce and other veggies have nitrites and don't cause cancer but the chemical reaction of meat with saltpeter causes the meat to become a carcinogen.
zenogais 9y ago
Pure click-bait headline. It's not bacon that's killing us it's the nitrates used to process it. You can buy uncured, nitrate free bacon.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  That’s what it says in the article.
- vfc1 9y ago
  Its still "probably carcinogenic" according to the WHO - http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    I mean so is the entire state of California...
ChristianBundy 9y ago
Animal agriculture is a large contributor to climate change, intrinsically inefficient (i.e calories eaten << calories "harvested"), and an ethical nightmare. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
- PunchTornado 9y ago
  what does this have to do with the subject discussed here? Can't vegans just take a break?
  - dashundchen 9y ago
    I would say it's relevant - not only is reducing consumption of bacon and meats good for your personal health, it's good for our climate and overall environmental health. Raising pigs industrially is a huge environmental problem that affects a lot of people, especially in the American south.
reificator 9y ago
Just moved out and started cooking bacon and eggs every morning. After reading this article, I think I'm going to continue eating bacon and eggs every morning.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > every morning Why not occasionally? I’m not going to stop eating bacon and ham. But I might stop keeping it regularly stocked at home.
  - reificator 9y ago
    > Why not occasionally? To be honest? Because I really like having a routine. It's something that in a lot of ways I can't have, but I'm exactly the type of person who would benefit a lot from one. So if cooking breakfast the same way every morning is a way to gain a shred of routine in my life, then I'm all in.
    - supermatt 9y ago
      So if its just a routine, wouldn't you be better off enforcing a good routine instead of a bad one? Eating bacon and eggs every morning just because its a routine sounds like a terrible idea. There are more time, health, and money efficient morning rituals...
      - reificator 9y ago
        See, I can't argue with that.
        nielsbot 9y ago
        Steel cut oats, my man! (or woman)
      - Jonovono 9y ago
        The best and healthiest breakfast routine is to skip breakfast completely :)
lobotryas 9y ago
I'm willing to pay a premium for my processed meat products (and thus, indirectly, reduce my consumption of them). Does anyone have any experience buying nitrite-free bacon/salami/etc in the US? I think I can still find a butcher locally (and I mean an actual stand-alone butcher store, not the meat/deli counter at a grocer), but what do I ask them for? Just "locally made" or are there brands who eschew adding pure nitrites to their products?
- cobalt 9y ago
  the safeway near me (sf bay area) sells nitrile free bacon, advertised as such (maybe other meats too)
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    As do a lot of butchers. People just need to actually search out and not just pickup whatever prepackaged meat they see.
- BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
  > Does anyone have any experience buying nitrite-free bacon/salami/etc in the US? Yes. It's everywhere and costs about the same. But that may not be sufficient.
  - qubex 9y ago
    But as the top post indicates, in the US celery-derived chemicals earn the “nitrate-free” label but are chemically indistinguishable from the “real deal” (and thus have the same health concerns).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jd20 9y ago
  If you live in the SF bay area, Good Eggs sells several types of uncured bacon. The one from Sonoma County Meat seems the least processed, having only salt and spices added. None of them are cheap though, around $14-16 / lb, far more than what I'd pay at Safeway for the carcinogenic bacon.
zaroth 9y ago
And in other news, "nitrate free" bacon sold in the US isn't actually nitrate free; "Ever since the “war on nitrates” of the 1970s, US consumers have been more savvy about nitrates than those in Europe, and there is a lot of “nitrate-free bacon” on the market. The trouble, as Jill Pell remarks, is that most of the bacon labelled as nitrate-free in the US “isn’t nitrate-free”. It’s made with nitrates taken from celery extract, which may be natural, but produces exactly the same N-nitroso compounds in the meat. Under EU regulation, this bacon would not be allowed to be labelled “nitrate-free”. “It’s the worst con I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” says Denis Lynn, the chair of Finnebrogue Artisan, a Northern Irish company that makes sausages for many UK supermarkets, including Marks & Spencer."
- TACIXAT 9y ago
  I get sinus headaches from sodium nitrites (among other things). I was stoked about the nitrite free bacon. Had it, got a headache, found out about celery after a bunch of searching. I need to find a butcher so I can just get straight pork belly.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Are you sure it isn't just salt that's doing that to you? There's more nitrate in bacon than in plain pork belly to be sure, but there's actually not much of it, and the amounts you need to consume to have a vasoconstrictive effect seems high. Meanwhile: bacon (along with all cured meat and fish) is one of the very saltiest things we eat. Lots of people are salt-sensitive. This is probably what virtually all claims of "Chinese restaurant syndrome" (MSG sensitivity) turned out to be. You should have no trouble finding pork belly. Try an experiment: just make your own bacon by filling a pan with kosher salt and pushing each side of the pork belly into it until they're all evenly and aggressively covered. Wrap the meat in plastic wrap, dump the pan, and put the meat back in it; leave it in the fridge for 3-4† days. Rinse it off and slice it. See if you get a headache from eating it. (Home-cured bacon is good but if you don't add some of the carcinogen back to the cure, it's not safe to keep much longer than fresh meat is). † That's a light cure, but long enough for this experiment, and if you're new to baconing and don't know what to look for, under-cured is better than over.
ryanmarsh 9y ago
In my lifetime experts have been wrong about so much when it comes to food and nutrition I just can’t take any of them seriously. So I try to imagine what kept humans alive for 300k+ years. Then you realize humans live in incredibly diverse environments and manage to survive on whatever they can find. So we can pretty much survive eating almost anything. There are plenty of people who live long enough to know their grandchildren while eating the most disgusting toxic foods. Thus the only guide I can trust is, how does this food make me feel when I eat it? Coca cola makes me spike then feel like shit, eggs make me feel happy and satiated, bacon and avocado too. Fried chicken makes me feel grimy and sluggish as does pasta and beer. Leafy greens make me feel amazing and make my stool less disgusting. I can only imagine this is all that earlier humans had to go on and so I choose to listen to my body.
- 21 9y ago
  This is one of the reason of the obesity epidemic. Our body loves sugar which was very hard to come by, but which now is cheap and abundant. Also keep in mind that up to 200 years ago average life span was ~35, so cancer didn't really had time to develop.
  - quiq 9y ago
    Low average life span had a lot more to do with high infant mortality rate. It wasn't that most people were dead by 40, just that a lot more were dead by 5. If you made it through adolescence gray hair was totally within reach.
    - nielsbot 9y ago
      I'd like to read more about this.. Source? Is there a historical histogram, over time, of lifespan somewhere?
      - Amezarak 9y ago
        Something that made it to HN recently was this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. That infant mortality was sky-high prior to the 20th century is pretty well known - I can't think of a good, detailed source for that off the top of my head. But what I can tell you, on the subject of longevity in general, is to do the following: - Look back through the genealogical record, for you personally. "People old enough to have kids" is a good sort-of proxy for life expectancy minus infant mortality. I personally found that my ancestors regularly lived into their 70s and 80s. Very few of my ancestors died younger than 70, going back to the 1600s. - Another good example is to look at history. Pick up Livy, for example, or someone along those lines, and see how often someone dies of non-violent causes before they've entered old age. It's pretty uncommon. When it did happen, it was usually because of a horrific plague that killed people left and right. Basically, historically, people generally (we're talking about a huge expanse of time and different cultures here) lived pretty healthy lives. They were much more active than we were, ate fewer processed foods, and often ate very healthy foods. People didn't smoke and didn't eat much sugar. There also wasn't a lot of industry spewing carcinogens and endocrine distributors everywhere. If you lived in a peaceful area and time, in relatively sanitary condition, your odds were very good that you'd live long into old age. Even if you lived in a nasty city (and I'd call Victorian England pretty nasty) your odds weren't bad. Where things fell apart was in war and plague. And as discussed in the paper above, when people did die in old age, they tended to pretty quickly of infection-related causes. Life expectancy has probably risen and fallen over time, depending on different historical and cultural factors. The popular model of "it's just been getting better and better over time" is not at all correct - it's no coincidence most charts begin in ~1900. The Victorian England paper is a good basis for reflection because it's clear that the medical technology of that time was not dramatically different than that available a few hundred years or even two thousand years earlier, and neither was their diet or lifestyle extraordinary, even if it was good.
deanCommie 9y ago
I, as the author, am also surprised there haven't been more nitrate-free versions of the same products appear on the market. I realize it's a privileged position, but I'd gladly pay more for a salami/bacon that doesn't last as long to get rid of the carcinogen.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  As far as I understand it shouldn’t cost more. It will just mean that the color is not pink, which consumers may need to be educated about. It may need to be aged more to attain a pink color, which granted could cost more.
  - tomxor 9y ago
    It definitely will cost more, longer time to process means more storage, less shelf life means more waste from lost sales which has to be costed in. This doesn't just apply to processed meats, plenty of cheap crap is packed with preservatives, the reason it's so damn cheap is that so little of it goes to waste when it can stay on the shelf for months. That doesn't mean preservatives must be inherently bad or carcinogenic though - e.g canned foods, dehydrated fruit, while things are lost in the process it doesn't necessarily have to make the food toxic. But when you see a 20p cake you can bet it's going to be bad for you, not just because it's sugary, but because it's 20p and therefor must have a long shelf life, and cake isn't inherently long lived.
- txsh 9y ago
  You, as the author, should mention that stores such as Whole Foods Market have sold bacon and other meats for years without nitrates or nitrites. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/why-our-bacon-better http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/why-our-bacon-better http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/i-love-bacon http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/i-love-baco...
  - piotrkaminski 9y ago
    Hmm, the first link says: > All of the bacon we sell is made without synthetic nitrates or nitrites. Is that the dodge mentioned in the article where they actually do use nitrates from celery instead, which are just as bad even though they're natural?
vfc1 9y ago
Nothing new here, according to the World Health Organization: - red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans - processed red meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (" there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer") source - http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
- supermatt 9y ago
  Which was mentioned in the article...
stickfigure 9y ago
The nitrites and nitrates are essential to making bacon (and other cured meats) taste good. The article is clickbait; the risk of bowel cancer in the study was increased 18% - that is, from a low number to an 18% larger low number. This isn't a public health crisis, this is a perfectly rational individual choice. Also, "uncured" bacon is a lie; one of the main ingredients is celery powder, which contains - you guessed it - naturally occurring nitrites.
- woolvalley 9y ago
  Bowel cancer is the 3rd most common cancer in the USA, and cancer is one of the largest human causes of death that is fairly hard to avoid otherwise: https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-in-the-us-2249408 https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-in-t... So it's not a small chance.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    Let's use real numbers shall we? https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html Approximately 4.3 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. Your chance (roughly) goes from 4.3% to 5% if you eat bacon (and salumi, prosciutto, etc) regularly. Whether or not you personally consider this small or large, it seems like a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis.
jdietrich 9y ago
The author fails to meaningfully contextualise the risk, giving what I think is a completely misleading account. According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed meat increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. Given the prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to about one premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed meat. Is processed meat somewhat bad for your health? Almost certainly. Is your daily bacon sandwich worth a 0.5% chance of a premature death? That's entirely your decision. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but that level of risk wouldn't faze me in the least if I really liked bacon. Factors like obesity, inactivity, smoking and alcohol use dwarf the risks posed by processed meat. Constant fretting over small risks posed by our diet may be distracting us from clear messaging on big risks. I've heard countless people say "everything gives you cancer, so why worry about it?" or "scientists can't make their mind up about what you're supposed to eat, so I just ignore them". It isn't news that smoking, being obese or drinking too much alcohol are incredibly bad for your health, but it's a message that deserves repeating. I fear that those messages are being drowned out by a constant trickle of stories about "superfoods" and cancer risks. The author of this article has previously made exactly this point in an article criticising the "clean eating" fad: "When mainstream diets start to sicken people, it is unsurprising that many of us should seek other ways of eating to keep ourselves safe from harm. Our collective anxiety around diet was exacerbated by a general impression that mainstream scientific advice on diet – inflated by newspaper headlines – could not be trusted. First these so-called experts tell us to avoid fat, then sugar, and all the while people get less and less healthy. What will these “experts” say next, and why should we believe them?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...
- techman9 9y ago
  The concrete numbers about absolute risk are useful. Thanks.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed meat increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. Given the prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to about one premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed meat. That is a huge number.
acd 9y ago
There is an agent added to pork meat to make it look pink. The pink making substance is called natrium nitrate E250 look for it the next time you shop meat in the super market. Natrium nitrate has a skull symbol marking it as a poisonous substance on Wikipedia. Food industry labels natrium nitrate not as a make pork look pink but as a preservative. To avoid natrium nitrate you can by some ecological food. The German version of Wikipedia has a skull symbol marking it as posinous on natrium nitrate https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit
- nielsbot 9y ago
  "sodium nitrate"?
pithic 9y ago
In terms of harmful ingredients, phospates (used to increase water content) might actualy be more dangerous than nitrates. Consumption of added phospates is linked to renal failure, CVD, and yes, bowel cancer. It's thought that disruption of biophoton communication is the mechanism by which phosphates promote cell undifferentiation, proliferation, and, eventually, cancer.
jimrandomh 9y ago
This article drastically overstates the evidence, which comes not from experiments but from epidemiology--that is, purely observational studies where you ask people what they eat and follow them to see what happens. This type of study has a horrible track record, and there's a solid theoretical basis for expecting them to produce false results. That there are "more than 400" such studies is irrelevant, because the problem with epidemiological studies isn't a problem with sample size, and the same confounder can distort all 400 studies in the same way.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  This is, perhaps, the biggest takeaway from this article.
saas_co_de 9y ago
But it is killing us so deliciously ...
tptacek 9y ago
This is alarmist and misleading. First: it is not true that the nitrates in green vegetables are entirely benign. All sodium nitrite potentially metabolizes to sodium nitrate; depending on what vegetables you consume and when you consume them, many have nitrate content; all nitrate you consume potentially metabolizes to N-nitroso compounds. People have claimed that other compounds in vegetables neutralize the formation of nitrosamines in the digestive tract; researchers have refuted that claim. You knew you were in trouble when the article tried to make a clear dividing line between vegetables and meats, because it's not even surprising that vegetables can be carcinogenic. When cooked, potatoes, corn, flour, coffee, and peanuts all create significant amounts of acrylamide, which is also a known and potent carcinogen. "Slow-cured, nitrate-free, artisan hams are one thing," says this article. What, exactly, does that mean? "Nitrate" and "slow-cured" are practically synonyms. Nitrates (the slow-acting form of curing salt) are what prevents the germination of botulism. Whether the ham cure uses "Prague Powder" curing salts or celery powder, the biological impact is the same --- but because people have been so alarmed about nitrosamines for so long, virtually everybody (falsely!) claims to sell "nitrate-free" product. To a pretty good first approximation, everything delicious adds some additional exogenous risk of carcinogenesis. It may very well be that cured meats carry relatively more risk than other foods (it seems very unlikely that switching from store-brand bacon to artisanal ham will help you here). But this article, written by "British food writer" Bee Wilson, doesn't even include the word "milligram" --- but does think you should know that someone once found a correlation between hot dogs and brain cancer. This is junk.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  > it is not true that the nitrates in green vegetables are entirely benign. All sodium nitrite potentially metabolizes to sodium nitrate; depending on what vegetables you consume and when you consume them, many have nitrate content; all nitrate you consume potentially metabolizes to N-nitroso compounds. I think that this point is made in the article: > It’s made with nitrates taken from celery extract, which may be natural, but produces exactly the same N-nitroso compounds in the meat. Under EU regulation, this bacon would not be allowed to be labelled “nitrate-free”. You also say: > prevents the germination of botulism The article also talks about botulism, seems to claim it's overblown propaganda by the meat industry: > Does making ham without nitrite lead to botulism? If so, it is a little strange that in the 25 years that Parma ham has been made without nitrites, there has not been a single case of botulism associated with it. Almost all the cases of botulism from preserved food – which are extremely rare – have been the result of imperfectly preserved vegetables, such as bottled green beans, peas and mushrooms. The botulism argument was a smokescreen.
woolvalley 9y ago
I'm guessing this applies to most jerky sold in stores too?
nitwit005 9y ago
Are the nitrites particularly risky versus the alternatives? I recall the world health organization warning about basically all forms of red meat and cured meat: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
CryptoPunk 9y ago
Well the FDA, USDA, etc have all but destroyed small farm independent food processing so we'll all have to wait until our central planners decide to change their definition of cured meats to include those not treated with nitrates.
beebmam 9y ago
All processed meat is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) as carcinogenic. Here is a list of all substances absolutely known to cause cancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...
allthenews 9y ago
>Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever. But learning that consumption of processed meat causes an additional 34,000 worldwide cancer deaths a year is much more chilling No, it really isn't. This is pure sensationalism. I can't stand articles which try so desperately to scare me. It makes me even less likely to follow suggestions.
emodendroket 9y ago
> The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day – equivalent to just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog – would raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever. Uh, no, it isn't. Does anybody even eat "a couple of rashers" of bacon per day?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Probably some people do, but then they probably have many more pressing health concerns than a fractional impact of nitrosamines.
stjohnswarts 9y ago
It's a numbers game. I choose bacon. If it was "increases your chance 4X" then they might have had me, but 0.18% over an already small chance.... meh. Very badly written article. Once excerpt "The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day – equivalent to just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog – would raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever." That math is terrible. It's 5% for cancer, not bowel cancer. The author has an extremely poor grasp on numbers, and is clearly trying to elevate the scare factor. It's probably more dangerous to drive to work for an extra couple of months of your life than it is to eat bacon.
GordonS 9y ago
If the evidence is so damning, and alternatives are available, I don't see why at least the EU can't legislate - surely it's not party to the same kind of lobbying that allows big business to rule the roost in the US?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The evidence isn't particularly damning. Sure, there is some increase in cancer risk, but it is a small increase. A lot of times when something is in the news for contributing to cancer, you can look at the statistics and still conclude that very few people that do the thing will get cancer.
GordonS 9y ago
I'm colour-blind, and I've never given even a seconds thought to the colour of bacon - the only things I look for is that it's smoked and has a nice amount of fat. Now that I do think about it, the colour of bacon (well, as far as my broken eyes can tell!) is a bit... 'weird' for cured meat - I actually find the colour of parma ham more pleasing. I just checked online at the local supermarket (Tesco in the UK), and it seems they don't even stock bacon made without nitrites, which is quite disappointing.
originalsimba 9y ago
This just in, corporations are self-interested and corrupt. If you've reached middle age without realizing that literally everyone in the world is lying and cheating to get ahead then you are not paying attention. "How did it get this way?" Because Bacon didn't always cause cancer, Bacon doesn't cause cancer. Industrial processes cause cancer. The headline is misleading. The article even states that there are non-cancer-causing methods of manufacture. So whatever, keep eating bacon. This is a great opportunity for safe meat producers to label their bacon "Non-Carcinogenic!" when they use the proper methods.

169 points by techman9 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

> The health risk of bacon is largely to do with two food additives: potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre) and sodium nitrite. It is these that give salamis, bacons and cooked hams their alluring pink colour Is nitrate/nitrite [1] free prosciutto okay? EDIT: Apparently not. “Processed meats, which are transformed by salting, curing, or fermentation. This includes everything from hotdogs and bacon, to lunch meats like salami and prosciutto“ [2]. [1] Is there a single word for these? [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-who-cancer-red-meat https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-...

tomhschmidt 9y ago
The most worrying part of this article for me is that processed meats that are advertised as "nitrate-free" really just use natural nitrates from celery salt, which aren't much better, if at all.
zaroth 9y ago
TFA says that prosciutto di parma with it's 18 month aging process is truly nitrate free.

taeric 9y ago

Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't? Even the conclusion of this article dives in to how little this study is showing directionally. "Processed meat may be another factor to consider when thinking about your overall risk of breast cancer." is far from a definitive "yes it is really killing us" opening title. :( I mean, yes, it increases your risk. And when we have solved many of the other high causes, it will have an obvious benefit for getting rid of it. So, very glad we know this. But right now? You are far more likely to be killed from other things than from exposure to bacon. Such that, statistically, it isn't where most people should worry about starting.

umeshunni 9y ago
Relax, it's just classic Guardian rage-bait.
DanBC 9y ago
> Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't? No, the studies are very clear. They were widely misreported. There are two things: how good the evidence is, and how strong the effect is. The evidence that processed red meat causes cancer is now as strong as the evidence that smoking causes cancer. We know that both do cause cancer. But processed red meat doesn't cause much cancer. Smoking causes a lot of cancer.
- taeric 9y ago
  I was explicitly attacking the strength of the effect. Poorly, I grant. That is, yes it increases the risk. It is such a weak source, though, that you are still better starting elsewhere, and are here unlikely to die from cancer if you eat these. Contrasted with smoking, where it is a strong influence.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Wait, is it equally strong? We have lots of cohort studies. Do we have studies that show a mechanism of action? If one exists, do we know the circumstances in which it occurs? Are there particular formulations that are risky? Are there food handling or cooking factors we're not aware of? We know a great deal about the mechanisms of action by which smoke inhalation and tobacco in particular cause cancer. I don't think the distinction here is merely in strength of the effect.

wnevets 9y ago

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say nitrite & nitrate are killing us?

rexpop 9y ago
Ah, but is it nitrite that is killing us, or the subsequent chemical reactions? We can become more pedantic, or more useful, but they are both accurate levels of abstraction, and one is more useful.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Nitrosamine, created by cooking nitrates with meat
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Doesn’t appear to be unique to nitrites and nitrates. “Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it,” with processes including “salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking” [1]. [1] https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
- mtgx 9y ago
  The article seems to say that meat that uses nitrates and nitrites is worse than other "processed meat" in general. It's like the worst kind of processed meat.
- IBM 9y ago
  Does this include chicken and turkey that you get at the deli counter at the grocery store?
inanutshellus 9y ago
No, not according to the article. It says that lettuce and other veggies have nitrites and don't cause cancer but the chemical reaction of meat with saltpeter causes the meat to become a carcinogen.

zenogais 9y ago

Pure click-bait headline. It's not bacon that's killing us it's the nitrates used to process it. You can buy uncured, nitrate free bacon.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
That’s what it says in the article.
vfc1 9y ago
Its still "probably carcinogenic" according to the WHO - http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
- dawnerd 9y ago
  I mean so is the entire state of California...

ChristianBundy 9y ago

Animal agriculture is a large contributor to climate change, intrinsically inefficient (i.e calories eaten << calories "harvested"), and an ethical nightmare. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism

PunchTornado 9y ago
what does this have to do with the subject discussed here? Can't vegans just take a break?
- dashundchen 9y ago
  I would say it's relevant - not only is reducing consumption of bacon and meats good for your personal health, it's good for our climate and overall environmental health. Raising pigs industrially is a huge environmental problem that affects a lot of people, especially in the American south.

reificator 9y ago

Just moved out and started cooking bacon and eggs every morning. After reading this article, I think I'm going to continue eating bacon and eggs every morning.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> every morning Why not occasionally? I’m not going to stop eating bacon and ham. But I might stop keeping it regularly stocked at home.
- reificator 9y ago
  > Why not occasionally? To be honest? Because I really like having a routine. It's something that in a lot of ways I can't have, but I'm exactly the type of person who would benefit a lot from one. So if cooking breakfast the same way every morning is a way to gain a shred of routine in my life, then I'm all in.
  - supermatt 9y ago
    So if its just a routine, wouldn't you be better off enforcing a good routine instead of a bad one? Eating bacon and eggs every morning just because its a routine sounds like a terrible idea. There are more time, health, and money efficient morning rituals...
    - reificator 9y ago
      See, I can't argue with that.
      - nielsbot 9y ago
        Steel cut oats, my man! (or woman)
    - Jonovono 9y ago
      The best and healthiest breakfast routine is to skip breakfast completely :)

lobotryas 9y ago

I'm willing to pay a premium for my processed meat products (and thus, indirectly, reduce my consumption of them). Does anyone have any experience buying nitrite-free bacon/salami/etc in the US? I think I can still find a butcher locally (and I mean an actual stand-alone butcher store, not the meat/deli counter at a grocer), but what do I ask them for? Just "locally made" or are there brands who eschew adding pure nitrites to their products?

cobalt 9y ago
the safeway near me (sf bay area) sells nitrile free bacon, advertised as such (maybe other meats too)
- dawnerd 9y ago
  As do a lot of butchers. People just need to actually search out and not just pickup whatever prepackaged meat they see.
BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
> Does anyone have any experience buying nitrite-free bacon/salami/etc in the US? Yes. It's everywhere and costs about the same. But that may not be sufficient.
- qubex 9y ago
  But as the top post indicates, in the US celery-derived chemicals earn the “nitrate-free” label but are chemically indistinguishable from the “real deal” (and thus have the same health concerns).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jd20 9y ago
If you live in the SF bay area, Good Eggs sells several types of uncured bacon. The one from Sonoma County Meat seems the least processed, having only salt and spices added. None of them are cheap though, around $14-16 / lb, far more than what I'd pay at Safeway for the carcinogenic bacon.

zaroth 9y ago

And in other news, "nitrate free" bacon sold in the US isn't actually nitrate free; "Ever since the “war on nitrates” of the 1970s, US consumers have been more savvy about nitrates than those in Europe, and there is a lot of “nitrate-free bacon” on the market. The trouble, as Jill Pell remarks, is that most of the bacon labelled as nitrate-free in the US “isn’t nitrate-free”. It’s made with nitrates taken from celery extract, which may be natural, but produces exactly the same N-nitroso compounds in the meat. Under EU regulation, this bacon would not be allowed to be labelled “nitrate-free”. “It’s the worst con I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” says Denis Lynn, the chair of Finnebrogue Artisan, a Northern Irish company that makes sausages for many UK supermarkets, including Marks & Spencer."

TACIXAT 9y ago
I get sinus headaches from sodium nitrites (among other things). I was stoked about the nitrite free bacon. Had it, got a headache, found out about celery after a bunch of searching. I need to find a butcher so I can just get straight pork belly.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Are you sure it isn't just salt that's doing that to you? There's more nitrate in bacon than in plain pork belly to be sure, but there's actually not much of it, and the amounts you need to consume to have a vasoconstrictive effect seems high. Meanwhile: bacon (along with all cured meat and fish) is one of the very saltiest things we eat. Lots of people are salt-sensitive. This is probably what virtually all claims of "Chinese restaurant syndrome" (MSG sensitivity) turned out to be. You should have no trouble finding pork belly. Try an experiment: just make your own bacon by filling a pan with kosher salt and pushing each side of the pork belly into it until they're all evenly and aggressively covered. Wrap the meat in plastic wrap, dump the pan, and put the meat back in it; leave it in the fridge for 3-4† days. Rinse it off and slice it. See if you get a headache from eating it. (Home-cured bacon is good but if you don't add some of the carcinogen back to the cure, it's not safe to keep much longer than fresh meat is). † That's a light cure, but long enough for this experiment, and if you're new to baconing and don't know what to look for, under-cured is better than over.

ryanmarsh 9y ago

In my lifetime experts have been wrong about so much when it comes to food and nutrition I just can’t take any of them seriously. So I try to imagine what kept humans alive for 300k+ years. Then you realize humans live in incredibly diverse environments and manage to survive on whatever they can find. So we can pretty much survive eating almost anything. There are plenty of people who live long enough to know their grandchildren while eating the most disgusting toxic foods. Thus the only guide I can trust is, how does this food make me feel when I eat it? Coca cola makes me spike then feel like shit, eggs make me feel happy and satiated, bacon and avocado too. Fried chicken makes me feel grimy and sluggish as does pasta and beer. Leafy greens make me feel amazing and make my stool less disgusting. I can only imagine this is all that earlier humans had to go on and so I choose to listen to my body.

21 9y ago
This is one of the reason of the obesity epidemic. Our body loves sugar which was very hard to come by, but which now is cheap and abundant. Also keep in mind that up to 200 years ago average life span was ~35, so cancer didn't really had time to develop.
- quiq 9y ago
  Low average life span had a lot more to do with high infant mortality rate. It wasn't that most people were dead by 40, just that a lot more were dead by 5. If you made it through adolescence gray hair was totally within reach.
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    I'd like to read more about this.. Source? Is there a historical histogram, over time, of lifespan somewhere?
    - Amezarak 9y ago
      Something that made it to HN recently was this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. That infant mortality was sky-high prior to the 20th century is pretty well known - I can't think of a good, detailed source for that off the top of my head. But what I can tell you, on the subject of longevity in general, is to do the following: - Look back through the genealogical record, for you personally. "People old enough to have kids" is a good sort-of proxy for life expectancy minus infant mortality. I personally found that my ancestors regularly lived into their 70s and 80s. Very few of my ancestors died younger than 70, going back to the 1600s. - Another good example is to look at history. Pick up Livy, for example, or someone along those lines, and see how often someone dies of non-violent causes before they've entered old age. It's pretty uncommon. When it did happen, it was usually because of a horrific plague that killed people left and right. Basically, historically, people generally (we're talking about a huge expanse of time and different cultures here) lived pretty healthy lives. They were much more active than we were, ate fewer processed foods, and often ate very healthy foods. People didn't smoke and didn't eat much sugar. There also wasn't a lot of industry spewing carcinogens and endocrine distributors everywhere. If you lived in a peaceful area and time, in relatively sanitary condition, your odds were very good that you'd live long into old age. Even if you lived in a nasty city (and I'd call Victorian England pretty nasty) your odds weren't bad. Where things fell apart was in war and plague. And as discussed in the paper above, when people did die in old age, they tended to pretty quickly of infection-related causes. Life expectancy has probably risen and fallen over time, depending on different historical and cultural factors. The popular model of "it's just been getting better and better over time" is not at all correct - it's no coincidence most charts begin in ~1900. The Victorian England paper is a good basis for reflection because it's clear that the medical technology of that time was not dramatically different than that available a few hundred years or even two thousand years earlier, and neither was their diet or lifestyle extraordinary, even if it was good.

deanCommie 9y ago

I, as the author, am also surprised there haven't been more nitrate-free versions of the same products appear on the market. I realize it's a privileged position, but I'd gladly pay more for a salami/bacon that doesn't last as long to get rid of the carcinogen.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
As far as I understand it shouldn’t cost more. It will just mean that the color is not pink, which consumers may need to be educated about. It may need to be aged more to attain a pink color, which granted could cost more.
- tomxor 9y ago
  It definitely will cost more, longer time to process means more storage, less shelf life means more waste from lost sales which has to be costed in. This doesn't just apply to processed meats, plenty of cheap crap is packed with preservatives, the reason it's so damn cheap is that so little of it goes to waste when it can stay on the shelf for months. That doesn't mean preservatives must be inherently bad or carcinogenic though - e.g canned foods, dehydrated fruit, while things are lost in the process it doesn't necessarily have to make the food toxic. But when you see a 20p cake you can bet it's going to be bad for you, not just because it's sugary, but because it's 20p and therefor must have a long shelf life, and cake isn't inherently long lived.
txsh 9y ago
You, as the author, should mention that stores such as Whole Foods Market have sold bacon and other meats for years without nitrates or nitrites. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/why-our-bacon-better http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/why-our-bacon-better http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/i-love-bacon http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/i-love-baco...
- piotrkaminski 9y ago
  Hmm, the first link says: > All of the bacon we sell is made without synthetic nitrates or nitrites. Is that the dodge mentioned in the article where they actually do use nitrates from celery instead, which are just as bad even though they're natural?

vfc1 9y ago

Nothing new here, according to the World Health Organization: - red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans - processed red meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (" there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer") source - http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

supermatt 9y ago
Which was mentioned in the article...

stickfigure 9y ago

The nitrites and nitrates are essential to making bacon (and other cured meats) taste good. The article is clickbait; the risk of bowel cancer in the study was increased 18% - that is, from a low number to an 18% larger low number. This isn't a public health crisis, this is a perfectly rational individual choice. Also, "uncured" bacon is a lie; one of the main ingredients is celery powder, which contains - you guessed it - naturally occurring nitrites.

woolvalley 9y ago
Bowel cancer is the 3rd most common cancer in the USA, and cancer is one of the largest human causes of death that is fairly hard to avoid otherwise: https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-in-the-us-2249408 https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-in-t... So it's not a small chance.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  Let's use real numbers shall we? https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html Approximately 4.3 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. Your chance (roughly) goes from 4.3% to 5% if you eat bacon (and salumi, prosciutto, etc) regularly. Whether or not you personally consider this small or large, it seems like a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis.

jdietrich 9y ago

The author fails to meaningfully contextualise the risk, giving what I think is a completely misleading account. According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed meat increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. Given the prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to about one premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed meat. Is processed meat somewhat bad for your health? Almost certainly. Is your daily bacon sandwich worth a 0.5% chance of a premature death? That's entirely your decision. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but that level of risk wouldn't faze me in the least if I really liked bacon. Factors like obesity, inactivity, smoking and alcohol use dwarf the risks posed by processed meat. Constant fretting over small risks posed by our diet may be distracting us from clear messaging on big risks. I've heard countless people say "everything gives you cancer, so why worry about it?" or "scientists can't make their mind up about what you're supposed to eat, so I just ignore them". It isn't news that smoking, being obese or drinking too much alcohol are incredibly bad for your health, but it's a message that deserves repeating. I fear that those messages are being drowned out by a constant trickle of stories about "superfoods" and cancer risks. The author of this article has previously made exactly this point in an article criticising the "clean eating" fad: "When mainstream diets start to sicken people, it is unsurprising that many of us should seek other ways of eating to keep ourselves safe from harm. Our collective anxiety around diet was exacerbated by a general impression that mainstream scientific advice on diet – inflated by newspaper headlines – could not be trusted. First these so-called experts tell us to avoid fat, then sugar, and all the while people get less and less healthy. What will these “experts” say next, and why should we believe them?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...

techman9 9y ago
The concrete numbers about absolute risk are useful. Thanks.
coldtea 9y ago
>According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed meat increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. Given the prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to about one premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed meat. That is a huge number.

acd 9y ago

There is an agent added to pork meat to make it look pink. The pink making substance is called natrium nitrate E250 look for it the next time you shop meat in the super market. Natrium nitrate has a skull symbol marking it as a poisonous substance on Wikipedia. Food industry labels natrium nitrate not as a make pork look pink but as a preservative. To avoid natrium nitrate you can by some ecological food. The German version of Wikipedia has a skull symbol marking it as posinous on natrium nitrate https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit

nielsbot 9y ago
"sodium nitrate"?

pithic 9y ago

In terms of harmful ingredients, phospates (used to increase water content) might actualy be more dangerous than nitrates. Consumption of added phospates is linked to renal failure, CVD, and yes, bowel cancer. It's thought that disruption of biophoton communication is the mechanism by which phosphates promote cell undifferentiation, proliferation, and, eventually, cancer.

jimrandomh 9y ago

This article drastically overstates the evidence, which comes not from experiments but from epidemiology--that is, purely observational studies where you ask people what they eat and follow them to see what happens. This type of study has a horrible track record, and there's a solid theoretical basis for expecting them to produce false results. That there are "more than 400" such studies is irrelevant, because the problem with epidemiological studies isn't a problem with sample size, and the same confounder can distort all 400 studies in the same way.

joejerryronnie 9y ago
This is, perhaps, the biggest takeaway from this article.

saas_co_de 9y ago

But it is killing us so deliciously ...

tptacek 9y ago

This is alarmist and misleading. First: it is not true that the nitrates in green vegetables are entirely benign. All sodium nitrite potentially metabolizes to sodium nitrate; depending on what vegetables you consume and when you consume them, many have nitrate content; all nitrate you consume potentially metabolizes to N-nitroso compounds. People have claimed that other compounds in vegetables neutralize the formation of nitrosamines in the digestive tract; researchers have refuted that claim. You knew you were in trouble when the article tried to make a clear dividing line between vegetables and meats, because it's not even surprising that vegetables can be carcinogenic. When cooked, potatoes, corn, flour, coffee, and peanuts all create significant amounts of acrylamide, which is also a known and potent carcinogen. "Slow-cured, nitrate-free, artisan hams are one thing," says this article. What, exactly, does that mean? "Nitrate" and "slow-cured" are practically synonyms. Nitrates (the slow-acting form of curing salt) are what prevents the germination of botulism. Whether the ham cure uses "Prague Powder" curing salts or celery powder, the biological impact is the same --- but because people have been so alarmed about nitrosamines for so long, virtually everybody (falsely!) claims to sell "nitrate-free" product. To a pretty good first approximation, everything delicious adds some additional exogenous risk of carcinogenesis. It may very well be that cured meats carry relatively more risk than other foods (it seems very unlikely that switching from store-brand bacon to artisanal ham will help you here). But this article, written by "British food writer" Bee Wilson, doesn't even include the word "milligram" --- but does think you should know that someone once found a correlation between hot dogs and brain cancer. This is junk.

kybernetikos 9y ago
> it is not true that the nitrates in green vegetables are entirely benign. All sodium nitrite potentially metabolizes to sodium nitrate; depending on what vegetables you consume and when you consume them, many have nitrate content; all nitrate you consume potentially metabolizes to N-nitroso compounds. I think that this point is made in the article: > It’s made with nitrates taken from celery extract, which may be natural, but produces exactly the same N-nitroso compounds in the meat. Under EU regulation, this bacon would not be allowed to be labelled “nitrate-free”. You also say: > prevents the germination of botulism The article also talks about botulism, seems to claim it's overblown propaganda by the meat industry: > Does making ham without nitrite lead to botulism? If so, it is a little strange that in the 25 years that Parma ham has been made without nitrites, there has not been a single case of botulism associated with it. Almost all the cases of botulism from preserved food – which are extremely rare – have been the result of imperfectly preserved vegetables, such as bottled green beans, peas and mushrooms. The botulism argument was a smokescreen.

woolvalley 9y ago

I'm guessing this applies to most jerky sold in stores too?

nitwit005 9y ago

Are the nitrites particularly risky versus the alternatives? I recall the world health organization warning about basically all forms of red meat and cured meat: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

CryptoPunk 9y ago

Well the FDA, USDA, etc have all but destroyed small farm independent food processing so we'll all have to wait until our central planners decide to change their definition of cured meats to include those not treated with nitrates.

beebmam 9y ago

All processed meat is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) as carcinogenic. Here is a list of all substances absolutely known to cause cancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...

allthenews 9y ago

>Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever. But learning that consumption of processed meat causes an additional 34,000 worldwide cancer deaths a year is much more chilling No, it really isn't. This is pure sensationalism. I can't stand articles which try so desperately to scare me. It makes me even less likely to follow suggestions.

emodendroket 9y ago

> The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day – equivalent to just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog – would raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever. Uh, no, it isn't. Does anybody even eat "a couple of rashers" of bacon per day?

IntronExon 9y ago
Probably some people do, but then they probably have many more pressing health concerns than a fractional impact of nitrosamines.

stjohnswarts 9y ago

It's a numbers game. I choose bacon. If it was "increases your chance 4X" then they might have had me, but 0.18% over an already small chance.... meh. Very badly written article. Once excerpt "The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day – equivalent to just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog – would raise the risk of getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon sandwiches for ever." That math is terrible. It's 5% for cancer, not bowel cancer. The author has an extremely poor grasp on numbers, and is clearly trying to elevate the scare factor. It's probably more dangerous to drive to work for an extra couple of months of your life than it is to eat bacon.

GordonS 9y ago

If the evidence is so damning, and alternatives are available, I don't see why at least the EU can't legislate - surely it's not party to the same kind of lobbying that allows big business to rule the roost in the US?

maxerickson 9y ago
The evidence isn't particularly damning. Sure, there is some increase in cancer risk, but it is a small increase. A lot of times when something is in the news for contributing to cancer, you can look at the statistics and still conclude that very few people that do the thing will get cancer.

GordonS 9y ago

I'm colour-blind, and I've never given even a seconds thought to the colour of bacon - the only things I look for is that it's smoked and has a nice amount of fat. Now that I do think about it, the colour of bacon (well, as far as my broken eyes can tell!) is a bit... 'weird' for cured meat - I actually find the colour of parma ham more pleasing. I just checked online at the local supermarket (Tesco in the UK), and it seems they don't even stock bacon made without nitrites, which is quite disappointing.

originalsimba 9y ago

This just in, corporations are self-interested and corrupt. If you've reached middle age without realizing that literally everyone in the world is lying and cheating to get ahead then you are not paying attention. "How did it get this way?" Because Bacon didn't always cause cancer, Bacon doesn't cause cancer. Industrial processes cause cancer. The headline is misleading. The article even states that there are non-cancer-causing methods of manufacture. So whatever, keep eating bacon. This is a great opportunity for safe meat producers to label their bacon "Non-Carcinogenic!" when they use the proper methods.