And in other news, "nitrate free" bacon sold in the US isn't actually nitrate free;<p>"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”.<p>“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."
The author fails to meaningfully contextualise the risk, giving what I think is a completely misleading account.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>The author of this article has previously made exactly this point in an article criticising the "clean eating" fad:<p><i>"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?"</i><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...</a>
I, as the author, am also surprised there haven't been more nitrate-free versions of the same products appear on the market.<p>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.
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.
This is alarmist and misleading.<p>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.<p>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.<p>"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.<p>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 <i>brain cancer</i>.<p>This is junk.
Just moved out and started cooking bacon and eggs every morning.<p>After reading this article, I think I'm going to continue eating bacon and eggs every morning.
>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<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>I can only imagine this is all that earlier humans had to go on and so I choose to listen to my body.
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.<p>It's thought that disruption of biophoton communication is the mechanism by which phosphates promote cell undifferentiation, proliferation, and, eventually, cancer.
> <i>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</i><p>Is nitrate/nitrite [1] free prosciutto okay?<p>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].<p>[1] Is there a single word for these?<p>[2] <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-who-cancer-red-meat" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-...</a>
I'm colour-blind, and I've never given even a seconds thought to the <i>colour</i> of bacon - the only things I look for is that it's smoked and has a nice amount of fat.<p>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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Uh, no, it isn't. Does anybody even eat "a couple of rashers" of bacon <i>per day</i>?
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?
All processed meat is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) as carcinogenic.<p>Here is a list of all substances absolutely known to cause cancer: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...</a>
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: <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/" rel="nofollow">http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/</a>
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?
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.<p>Also, "uncured" bacon is a lie; one of the main ingredients is celery powder, which contains - you guessed it - naturally occurring nitrites.
This just in, corporations are self-interested and corrupt.<p>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.<p>"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.<p>This is a great opportunity for safe meat producers to label their bacon "Non-Carcinogenic!" when they use the proper methods.
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.
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.
Nothing new here, according to the World Health Organization:<p>- red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans<p>- processed red meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (" there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer")<p>source - <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/" rel="nofollow">http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/</a>
Animal agriculture is a large contributor to climate change, intrinsically inefficient (i.e calories eaten << calories "harvested"), and an ethical nightmare.<p>See: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism</a>
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.<p>To avoid natrium nitrate you can by some ecological food.<p>The German version of Wikipedia has a skull symbol marking it as posinous on natrium nitrate
<a href="https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit" rel="nofollow">https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit</a>
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. :(<p>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.