8 ms·

Every time another post comes up about this I hate to the bearer of bad (good?) news, but the entire concept is predicated on the fact that it increases risk of

Every time another post comes up about this I hate to the bearer of bad (good?) news, but the entire concept is predicated on the fact that it increases risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That doesn't mean your chance of cancer is 18%, that means your chance of that type of cancer goes from below 5% (4.3% for men, and 4% for women)[1] to <5.07%. A change of at the most .9% difference risk. Colorectal is also one of most treatable, and curable cancers there are. And this isn't just bacon, this is for all processed meats, to reduce your chance you would have to eliminate all processed meat for a reduction of less than 1% in your chance at that specific type of cancer. I hate to compare anything to tobacco, but smoking tobacco increases your risk of cancer not by 18%, but 2,500%. To quote a Wired article on this very topic that keeps getting rehashed [2]: > The IARC is an organization of scientists, not policy makers. It publishes monographs to identify hazards and sift them into five piles: group 1 (carcinogenic), group 2A (probably carcinogenic), group 2B (possibly carcinogenic), group 3 (not classifiable), and group 4 (probably not carcinogenic.) Group 1 includes processed meat, and also asbestos. Also alcohol (boo!) and sunlight (yup!). Identifying hazards involves looking at existing data—lots and lots of it—to do essentially a meta-analysis of studies already out there. And it’s relatively objective. “Hazard identification is the process that is the closest to the generation of scientific data,” say Paolo Boffetta, a cancer epidemiologist at Mount Sinai who has served on similar WHO panels. In other words, IARC studies the studies and generates numbers. > What the IARC doesn’t do—and where things get a lot fuzzier—is risk assessment, or figuring out the danger to humans in the real world. [1] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-... [2] https://www.wired.com/2015/10/who-does-bacon-cause-cancer-sort-of-but-not-really/ https://www.wired.com/2015/10/who-does-bacon-cause-cancer-so... Edit: Added source for cancer risk and fixed my rounding mistake (5.9% -> 5.07%)

folli 6y ago
>Colorectal is also one of most treatable, and curable cancers there are. Iff diagnosed early enough.
- ortusdux 6y ago
  The new at-home screening kits look promising.
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> Colorectal is also one of most treatable, and curable cancers there are . While I agree that the interesting statistic is "the individual chance of getting colorectal cancer given that one eats meats cured with nitrites and nitrates", I don't think I'd accept the risk to give up a piece of my colon for the joy of eating ham. Especially if this joy can be enjoyed without having to run the risk (see the bit about Parma ham in the article). Btw, 5% risk is a gigantic chance. 5%! One in twenty! Where does that number come from? Can you link to its source please? Edit: let me stress this again; it's not cured meats that increase the chance of colorectal cancer. It's meats cured with nitrates. You don't need to make a choice between a healthy colon and an enjoyable diet.
- drannex 6y ago
  I over-rounded on the 5% number (since fixed), real stats are 4.3% for men and 4% for women and with an 18% increase that brings it to <5.07%, not 5.9%. I've included the source in the comment as well.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    Thank you.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Well, there are some natural nitrates/nitrites in celery powder, which is generally what is used in more 'natural' processed meats.
- tomxor 6y ago
  > 5% risk is a gigantic chance. 5%! One in twenty! I can't tell whether or not you understand that 5% is supposed to be the base chance of getting colorectal cancer. Cancer in general is very common, we basically all get it eventually in some form or other. The difference nitrate processed meats are supposed to make is an 18% increase of that base 5%, moving 5% to 5.9% (this is why the article feels a little deceptive, because the correct interpretation of the statistic completely relies on the word "by" and a preexisting knowledge of the baseline statistic). > I don't think I'd accept the risk to give up a piece of my colon for the joy of eating ham. I'm not saying it's nothing, but to be clear the OP is suggesting the _absolute_ difference is 0.9%. So that is the additional risk you would be accepting over your lifetime for regularly eating it.
dcolkitt 6y ago
Another point is that there's a sub-linear relationship between mortality rates and life expectancy. Intuitively, it seems like a 10% increase in mortality should cut your life expectancy from 81 to 73. But in fact, it only cuts life expectancy by about 6 months. To meaningfully cut years off your life, you have to increase your mortality rate by hundreds of percent. E.g. smoking about triples all cause mortality. Going the other way, this is the real challenge with life extension. To increase life expectancy by a decade would require lowering mortality rates by more than an order of magnitude.
ip26 6y ago
It's my hope that we'll find a better, non-nitrate way to combat botulism. That's the only reason nitrates are added- cured meats can sometimes foster botulism. Alternatively, I hope we might make a lucky discovery around gut flora. If bacteria in your digestive tract are digesting compounds in the cured meat & creating carcinogens, perhaps cultivating a different gut flora (e.g. through a predominantly plant-based diet) would be protective. Yet a third option, from Wikipedia: Endogenous nitrosamine formation can be inhibited by ascorbic acid. In the case of formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines in the stomach from dietary nitrite (used as processed meat preservative), ascorbic acid markedly decreases nitrosamine formation in the absence of fat in the meal; but when 10% fat is present, this reverses the effect such that ascorbic acid then markedly increases nitrosamine formation. So perhaps we will one day determine that a plate of bacon is unhealthy, while two slices of bacon (18g, 7g fat) plus an orange (150g, 0g fat, 50mg ascorbic acid) is actually perfectly healthy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> It's my hope that we'll find a better, non-nitrate way to combat botulism. That's the only reason nitrates are added- cured meats can sometimes foster botulism. Well, there's some evidence that nitrate-cured meats aren't safer from botulism than the alternative; and the evidence comes from the (British) meat industry itself: An [internal report] written for the British meat industry reveals nitrites do not protect against botulism – the chief reason ham and bacon manufacturers say they use the chemicals. The study, conducted for the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) by the scientific consultancy Campden, and marked “confidential”, examines the growth of the toxin Clostridium botulinum in the processing of bacon and ham. It is understood that the paper, seen by the Observer, was commissioned to provide evidence that nitrites, which have long been linked to cancer, are essential to protect consumers from food poisoning and, in particular, botulism, a potentially fatal disease. But, in what appears to be a major blow to the industry’s claims, the research found there was no significant growth of the bacteria in either the nitrite-free or the nitrite-cured samples that were tested. The paper concludes: “The results show that there is no change in levels of inoculated C botulinum over the curing process, which implies that the action of nitrite during curing is not toxic to C botulinum spores at levels of 150ppm [parts per million] ingoing nitrite and below.” https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/23/nitrites-ham-bacon-cancer-risk-additives-meat-industry-confidential--report https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/23/nitrites-ham-ba... (edited out some sensationalist language in the quoted passage).
bennysonething 6y ago
Thanks for this. Read this article few years ago and practically cut out bacon because of it. How much does my cancer risk increase from alcohol?

folli 6y ago

>Colorectal is also one of most treatable, and curable cancers there are. Iff diagnosed early enough.

ortusdux 6y ago
The new at-home screening kits look promising.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

>> Colorectal is also one of most treatable, and curable cancers there are . While I agree that the interesting statistic is "the individual chance of getting colorectal cancer given that one eats meats cured with nitrites and nitrates", I don't think I'd accept the risk to give up a piece of my colon for the joy of eating ham. Especially if this joy can be enjoyed without having to run the risk (see the bit about Parma ham in the article). Btw, 5% risk is a gigantic chance. 5%! One in twenty! Where does that number come from? Can you link to its source please? Edit: let me stress this again; it's not cured meats that increase the chance of colorectal cancer. It's meats cured with nitrates. You don't need to make a choice between a healthy colon and an enjoyable diet.

drannex 6y ago
I over-rounded on the 5% number (since fixed), real stats are 4.3% for men and 4% for women and with an 18% increase that brings it to <5.07%, not 5.9%. I've included the source in the comment as well.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  Thank you.
lostcolony 6y ago
Well, there are some natural nitrates/nitrites in celery powder, which is generally what is used in more 'natural' processed meats.
tomxor 6y ago
> 5% risk is a gigantic chance. 5%! One in twenty! I can't tell whether or not you understand that 5% is supposed to be the base chance of getting colorectal cancer. Cancer in general is very common, we basically all get it eventually in some form or other. The difference nitrate processed meats are supposed to make is an 18% increase of that base 5%, moving 5% to 5.9% (this is why the article feels a little deceptive, because the correct interpretation of the statistic completely relies on the word "by" and a preexisting knowledge of the baseline statistic). > I don't think I'd accept the risk to give up a piece of my colon for the joy of eating ham. I'm not saying it's nothing, but to be clear the OP is suggesting the _absolute_ difference is 0.9%. So that is the additional risk you would be accepting over your lifetime for regularly eating it.

dcolkitt 6y ago

Another point is that there's a sub-linear relationship between mortality rates and life expectancy. Intuitively, it seems like a 10% increase in mortality should cut your life expectancy from 81 to 73. But in fact, it only cuts life expectancy by about 6 months. To meaningfully cut years off your life, you have to increase your mortality rate by hundreds of percent. E.g. smoking about triples all cause mortality. Going the other way, this is the real challenge with life extension. To increase life expectancy by a decade would require lowering mortality rates by more than an order of magnitude.

ip26 6y ago

It's my hope that we'll find a better, non-nitrate way to combat botulism. That's the only reason nitrates are added- cured meats can sometimes foster botulism. Alternatively, I hope we might make a lucky discovery around gut flora. If bacteria in your digestive tract are digesting compounds in the cured meat & creating carcinogens, perhaps cultivating a different gut flora (e.g. through a predominantly plant-based diet) would be protective. Yet a third option, from Wikipedia: Endogenous nitrosamine formation can be inhibited by ascorbic acid. In the case of formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines in the stomach from dietary nitrite (used as processed meat preservative), ascorbic acid markedly decreases nitrosamine formation in the absence of fat in the meal; but when 10% fat is present, this reverses the effect such that ascorbic acid then markedly increases nitrosamine formation. So perhaps we will one day determine that a plate of bacon is unhealthy, while two slices of bacon (18g, 7g fat) plus an orange (150g, 0g fat, 50mg ascorbic acid) is actually perfectly healthy.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> It's my hope that we'll find a better, non-nitrate way to combat botulism. That's the only reason nitrates are added- cured meats can sometimes foster botulism. Well, there's some evidence that nitrate-cured meats aren't safer from botulism than the alternative; and the evidence comes from the (British) meat industry itself: An [internal report] written for the British meat industry reveals nitrites do not protect against botulism – the chief reason ham and bacon manufacturers say they use the chemicals. The study, conducted for the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) by the scientific consultancy Campden, and marked “confidential”, examines the growth of the toxin Clostridium botulinum in the processing of bacon and ham. It is understood that the paper, seen by the Observer, was commissioned to provide evidence that nitrites, which have long been linked to cancer, are essential to protect consumers from food poisoning and, in particular, botulism, a potentially fatal disease. But, in what appears to be a major blow to the industry’s claims, the research found there was no significant growth of the bacteria in either the nitrite-free or the nitrite-cured samples that were tested. The paper concludes: “The results show that there is no change in levels of inoculated C botulinum over the curing process, which implies that the action of nitrite during curing is not toxic to C botulinum spores at levels of 150ppm [parts per million] ingoing nitrite and below.” https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/23/nitrites-ham-bacon-cancer-risk-additives-meat-industry-confidential--report https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/23/nitrites-ham-ba... (edited out some sensationalist language in the quoted passage).

bennysonething 6y ago

Thanks for this. Read this article few years ago and practically cut out bacon because of it. How much does my cancer risk increase from alcohol?