Scientists demand cancer warnings on bacon and ham sold in UK
(www.theguardian.com)
from HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to world@lemmy.world on 25 Oct 15:26
https://sh.itjust.works/post/48573486
from HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to world@lemmy.world on 25 Oct 15:26
https://sh.itjust.works/post/48573486
Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.
Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.
Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.
#world
threaded - newest
They just want to keep the bacon for themselves.
100%. Its why I went veggie and say everyone should be veggie.
Great, more for me!
boomer
You know, eating meat is a non generational thing right? It’s literally a lifestyle. Just like, I don’t know: Vegetarian, Vegan, Pescatarian, Pollotarian, Flexitarian and dozens more. Asking everyone to just be “veggie” without taking this into consideration is such a myopic view.
Also, NOT a boomer lmao.
only a boomer would say this
Yes, yes you would lmao
It’s been working its way through California courts since the 2015 WHO guidelines said processed meats are carcinogenic. Under Prop 65 that should have triggered immediately labeling processed meats as “Known to the State of California to cause cancer” (like we already have on any charred food, parking garages, etc) but because reasons a decade later I think it is still being adjudicated.
It’s pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.
It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.
That’s not why. It’s because it’s cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn’t any such material in the product. There’s no penalty for false positives, so to remain “complaint” suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.
I mean that doesn’t really invalidate their point. If you can just slap it on anything you want then it’s not really serving any purpose, it’s not informing anyone.
Correct on that count. The whole thing is now just a boy-who-cried-wolf situation.
I would argue it is an important distinction, though.
The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.
That comment claims that it’s manufacturers being lazy.
If it’s manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)
If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there’s a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.
I heard even talking about Prop 65 is known to the state of California to cause cancer
Agreed I bought a fender telecaster (black cherry starburst, so sexy) and it had a prop 65 sticker on it. Absolutely rediculous and meaningless
It really needs to specify the carcinogens and what they’re used as. There’s a huge difference between “this product uses a 30% lead solder in internal components” and “adhesives used in this product may offgas formaldehyde”
Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.
There’s an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it’s incredibly detrimental to the whole system.
This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.
There’s magnitude and that’s important but the big thing about what, where, how is that it tells me how to protect myself and others from it. If my metal shim is an alloy containing lead, I need to wash my hands after touching it, use breathing protection and air filtration if I grind it, and cover it in the final version of the product. If it’s made in a facility that also processes lead, I can just wash it and it’ll be fine. If it may contain trace lead from ore deposits I don’t have to care. Meanwhile internal components that don’t offgas just means I’m fine if I don’t open it up
Exactly, just slapping a “warning cancer” label on literally everything does absolutely nothing to help me actually protect myself.
The classic A to F + S ranking. Nobody wants to come near an S ranked carcinogen.
Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.
I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn’t really help anyone.
Often times it’s cheaper to add the label than pay for the product testing in a lab.
Yeah, that could also provide an incentive for companies to produce stuff in ways that reduce carcinogens, yet still have some amount. I think traditional bacon that doesn’t use synthetic curing salts contain less nitrates, for example.
Prop 65 treats everything like it’s Happy Fun Ball.
anything preserved in nitrates, or celerey salt should be labeled as carcinogenic.
Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.
It’s like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it’s utterly disingenuous.
Not if the category is “causes cancer” — nor, in the case of your Glock and bomb, if the category is “can kill you”
Context matters
I never said they weren’t in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.
There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don’t people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.
It’s disingenuous, you’re right that context matters because displaying the two as if they’re the same strips the risk assessment of its context.
No, the fact that they are in the same category is the entire reason for your comment. Making such a claim is disingenuous… Which, if I recall, is your accusation.
I agree. Most people here do. That’s why nobody has made such a claim.
How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.
I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.
Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you’re not doing anything useful.
Because I can read
Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important
I’m not the one who has misused several words, clearly not understanding their definition.
I’m also not the one making an absurdly obvious strawman argument.
How’s that for context? lol
this comment chain sucks
And fittingly, both of those categories are pretty much a perfectly overlapping venn diagram because they are so overarchingly vague.
Drinking water can kill you, and if it’s too hot, it causes cancer.
Therefore “drinking water” is something that can be found it both lists. And so is “not drinking water”.
Well, I’m glad somebody noticed 😉
But everyone knows not to and therefore doesn’t go near asbestos. Almost anyone who eats meat eats bacon.
Maybe stop putting things in stuff that mean that they require this warning?
But what do I know…
Everyone knows bacon isn’t good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.
If you’re eating bacon you’re already doing it knowing it’s bad for you.
We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They’re already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.
Seatbelts have been a legal requirement for longer than I’ve been alive, and people can see why, but people get pulled over daily for not wearing one.
Still not as bad as sugar, most essential fatty acids are saturated, while there is no such thing as an essential sugar, because we can make all the sugar we need from other types of food.
Bacon and eggs are not nearly as unhealthy as some have made them out to be, and it turns out sugar is a way more dangerous source for the most damaging form of cholesterol there is.
The reason bacon is bad and cancerous is mostly because it’s smoked, and people like to fry it hard. It has very little to do with saturated fat.
I’ve never understood this, it tastes far better nice and soft.
Yes it does, but many prefer crispy bacon.
I think it is because US bacon is streaked with huge amounts of fat that they render down until it goes crispy. Elsewhere bacon is often more meaty and less fatty and cooking the shit out of it doesn’t do anything for it.
Why are saturated fats bad for you?
I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.
Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.
This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.
It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don’t.
Trans unsaturated fats are perhaps worse, but saturated fats are associated with arterial plaque and heart disease. Poly and mono unsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats.
The category just means that there is scientific proof of carcinogenicity. The WHO states (somewhere) that it’s not to be taken to mean that bacon is as dangerous as tobacco. Of course, that’s what everyone thinks they mean, so maybe they should work on their messaging
That’s what I’m saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.
They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it’s just another warning that people will ignore because it’s on literally everything.
might as well just slap cancer warnings on everything these days. Launch a massive banner to orbit so everywhere can see the cancer warning for the sun. Doctors need to hold a cancer warning sign when a baby is being birthed so it’ll be the first thing they see because you can literally just get cancer for simply living.
Wait till you hear about oxygen, or water.
Everyone who has died has at one point in their life ingested dihydrogenmonoxide. Look it up!
It’s also the worlds most addictive chemical, and alarmingly nobody addicted to dihydrogen monoxide has ever been able to overcome that addiction, every dihydrogen monoxide addict dies with a 100% certainty within a few weeks if they stop taking it.
No oxygen, no cancer. It’s obvious.
We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.
I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that’s needed.
Except personal responsibility is impossible when people don’t know that xyz food causes cancer.
That’s why they’re asking for a label. So that people can make an informed choice. That’s literally their entire point.
If the labels don’t have some type of ranking system, then they are pointless. A great example being the California cancer labels that are on fucking everything. It’s impossible to use them to gauge risk, because everything you buy causes cancer in California.
My problem is that these labels don’t differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I’m not against labels, I’m against bad labels
Putting something that’s harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that’s harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.
This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.
Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they’re safer than they are.
It’s why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.
If we’re going to use a single label that doesn’t differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.
Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.
Glad you hate science and healthy living. Luckily we have these glow-in-the-dark rocks you can lick - since ‘everything gives you cancer’ I’m sure you won’t feel any compunction about doing so.
I mean processed meat sure.
But you can pull bacon from my cold, dead, cancerous hands.
Good news! It’s bowel cancer, not hand cancer.
Look mate.
In this cold, bleak and heartless blasted hell of an existence this is one of the few genuine pleasures I have guilt free.
You don’t have to feel guilty about risking your own health! I never felt guilty about smoking (never smoked other than in smoking areas), I never feel guilty about eating processed bullshit that is probably no good for me.
This world is too cold to feel guilty for something that only affects you! 🫡
Had. “Had” guilt free.
…do I bring up the factory farms now or come back later?
I feel no guilt over that.
Ah, so you’re a terrible person. My mistake.
I am. Never denied it.
I agree that bacon is delicious, but pigs are smarter than dogs.
Oh boy, can’t wait to see right wing screeches about Muslim takeover of UK.
IMO every food should have cancer rating in the nutrition facts, cause it’s not black and white.
What does Muslim have to do with bacons being carcinogenic?
A lot of right wing nutters in the UK claim that Muslims are trying to take over the country and make everyone follow Sharia law, which doesn’t allow eating pork. Spouting off online that this move is part of that conspiracy would be very on brand for them. Much like Alex Jones’ “making the frogs gay” tirade.
Sausages are OK right? Right?
Depends on what you are doing with the sausages.
Wrapping them in bacon…
Boofing them
Yes torturing animals is still cool.
I mean … They cause cancer. We literally know they do. It should at least be fucking STATED. Like come the fuck on
Who cares anymore, life is so depressing and the future so bleak that it doesn’t matter. By the time the average person will get cancer from bacon we’ll be dead from fascism.
That’s the attitude! 😁👍
dude you need to talk to someone, there’s no fascism anywhere. If you living like this day to day it must feel horrible. sorry its like that for you.
Just because you don’t live under a tyrannical government doesn’t mean others don’t as well.
i agree there is tyrannical governments, like Afghanistan with the Taliban and China with the commies in power, but im not aware of any fascist governments right now unless im wrong which i might be?
Oh maybe just a small country with little influence in the world called the United States of America. Go ahead an try to tell me there’s no fascism here
oh no i don’t think its fascist that is a reach, but i mean the US has always been messed up so its on brand.
wake up and smell the nitrites
thanks. reported
What are you reporting him for? Stating the obvious?
for A) using a derogatory word for people with autisum and B) trying to use said word to insult me for no good reason.
As someone with Autism, kindly shut up
as someone with a child who has severe autism, no, i wont.
Oh god you have somehow made yourself look even dumber, shut the hell up. You having a child with Autism does not mean you can be offended on behalf of people with Autism and as someone who acturally has autism I dont care. Also “severe autism” is a made up term you just made up on the spot, I know a lot of people who are low functioning and I wouldn’t say they experience autism any more or less than I do.
Ok buddy try to be kind.
How about you stop talking down to people with Autism and acting like you understand the experience of people with Autism better than they do
talking down? this conversation came from the fact someone using the the word retard. i find the word disgusting to use, and insults people like my son. check yourself mate.
My problem was because you in your white savior complex decided to get offended on behalf of autistic people because someone said retard online. Did you just join the internet yesterday? Boo fucking hoo someone just said a mean word. Get over yourself, also I find it disgusting that you said “ok buddy” like im some sort of child.
This is not surprising since this entire conversation literally started with you dismissing the concerns of someone with autism over rising fascism. You claim to be the parent of someone with Autism yet somehow you are clearly not scared about the fascistic remarks regarding people with autism from the likes of RFK JR. Clearly you are more concerned with policing speech than real world issues. Because as a simple fact people with autism are under threat and if you do acturally have a child with autism then it would do them no good to pretend that threat doesn’t exist.
white savior complex…what? I’m offended becuase i dont like the word as to how it relates to people with autisum, and my son who has it is why i take it personal. your getting words outta left field and making this into some game im playing. I don’t see the USA as fascist. They are crazy, and RFK JR is a joke, but calling someone a retard becuase they dont agree with you is childish levels of conversation.
Once again you refuse to listen to someone with Autism and insist that the fascistic threat isn’t real which furthmore discredits you being offended over the word retard. You have fundamentally demonstrated that you care significantly more about bad words than real bad policies. You are little more than a standard liberal and you fall into a perfect stereotype of a liberal parent of a child with autism who thinks that they’re significantly more important than anyone else.
Therefore it is precisely because of liberals like you that fascism is taking power, liberals who refuse to take the threat seriously. In 1938 Liberals were talking about “peace in our time”, today its “they may be crazy but we have to reach across the isle”.
actually im not liberal, i actually have no political beliefs. i refuse to participate in this world politically anymore and when i vote, i put an emtpy ballot.
Wow eveyone look, its a smug centrist who cant even bother to do the absolute bear minimum yet still thinks they can look down on others for saying naughty words. Yes I aknowlage that the system is fundamentally corrupt yet still I went out today and voted for Mamdani. From my point of view my political participation doesn’t start or end with voting.
look down? i don’t look down on anyone, i just call out inappropriate behavior.
Severe autism huh? Good for you buddy, good for you.
Wow, I had no idea there was no fascism anywhere! Thanks!
is there? please correct me if im wrong, i cant know everything.
Well I just looked it up. Looks like nitrites are in salad. So its official, salad causes cancer. I fucking knew it. So we are going to put cigarrette style warnings on salad now, right?
Foods High in Nitrates
Nitrates are naturally occurring compounds found in various foods, particularly vegetables. They can also be added to certain processed foods. Here’s a breakdown of foods that contain nitrates:
Natural Sources of Nitrates
The majority of dietary nitrates come from vegetables. Here are some key examples:
VEGETABLE NITRATE CONTENT (PER 100G)
Spinach ~741 mg
Lettuce Varies, generally high
Beets Varies, generally high
Celery Varies, generally high
Carrots Varies, generally high
Cabbage Varies, generally high
Radishes Varies, generally high
Processed Foods with Added Nitrates
Certain processed meats have nitrates added for preservation and flavor. Common examples include:
Bacon
Hot dogs
Salami
Sausages
Deli meats (e.g., ham, bologna)
Not really. Veggies do contain nitrates, but that’s not the same as the nitrites used in processed meat. In vegetables, nitrates come with antioxidants like vitamin C and polyphenols that prevent the formation of nitrosamines (the actual carcinogenic compounds). In bacon or cured meat, the combination of nitrites, proteins, and heat can create nitrosamines. Veggie nitrates are generally linked to better cardiovascular health, not cancer.
First search result on Nitrates:
The problem here is the general term “nitrates”.
Interesting, how so?
Ah, alright, so no science then.
Lmao, checkmate vegans! /s
WARNING: Bacon contains chemicals known to the UK Government to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
So it’s fine if I just don’t eat the bacon in the UK? Then I am safe!
If you eat in France that’s fine
In the UK (not sure about anywhere else) you can buy bacon without Nitrates. ‘Naked Bacon’ is in sainsburys, tesco, etc. Been buying it for years.
Noted, thank you
i want the nitrates please, it tastes hell of a lot better.
No one is taking nitrates away from you.
forgot the /s
I’ve gotten pizza with “uncured” bacon, ham, or sausage before. I’m not sure if the meat has no flavor or if it was the pizza tha had no flavor.
However I expect the pizza itself was worse for me than those specific ingredients
Because My grandfather cures meats without nitrates and it just tastes as good
At one point I looked into making jerky. It’s reasonable for people to do their own.
The big question is whether to use curing salts. They’re necessary if you want to be shelf stable. If you don’t use them, you need to refrigerate your jerky and it has limited shelf life, like any other food. However in that scenario, you have the advantage of fresher ingredients with a quality of your selection that may make up for it.
You don’t get that from store bought uncured meat
yeah my grandfather uses somthing else for curing his meats. he used to use curing salts but he stopped using that after the doctor told him to stop consuming so much nitrates and tbh it tastes the same to me but i know that it needs to be vaccumed packed so it doesnt spoil, and in the fridge, but thats a better trade off for nitrates.
put the cancer warnings, like smoking people will still consume it.
Yeah but imagine having to explain to your daughter at breakfast, “Daddy, what’s that on the label? What’s cancer?”
“Don’t worry about it, honey. This is just more government bullshit, like with COVID and Brexit. The Muslims are trying to make eating pork illegal. Have an extra portion. Don’t let them tell you what to do.”
🤮
Just like the California cancer label that is on everything, if you put this label on common shit like bacon, then yes, “it’s just more government bullshit” is exactly how the vast majority of people will treat it.
I’ve seen the “California cancer label” line get tossed around. And its beginning to sound a lot like the “McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit” line, which was - itself - a dishonest mischaracterization of a severe injury caused by corporate neglect.
I’d say it cuts both ways. If you label everything “hazardous”, you’re absolutely right. The term loses all meaning. But, at the same time, if we live in a marketplace where everything is hazardous then the theory “we’ll just put a label on it and let the consumer decide” of patriarchal libertarianism falls apart. What is supposed to be informative becomes little more than marketing material.
The real problem is industrial. Mass production of stuff that delivers a short-term jolt of pleasure at a long term health cost, because the manufacturers consider it more profitable than releasing products with a shorter shelf life or a lower addictive quality or a more expensive production cost.
Oops, now everything needs a label, because the folks producing this shit don’t care that all their products are horrible.
I’m telling you now, if they do this, with the current political climate, people will goto farms that don’t use “woke” labeling (god I hate that word)
A bunch of the stuff I buy has CA cancer warnings on it. When you start putting the warnings on common things, it makes the warnings meaningless…
Do any of the things I buy have a notable chance to cause caner? I have no fucking clue, because everything causes cancer in California.
Let me ask for fun, does toothpaste have a warning?
Imagine brushing your teeth with a ‘may cause cancer’ warning. You think people would even care or just ignore it? ignorance is bliss is real
id still do it. mabye my teeth would glow.
Does that come with superpowers? I’d be brushing twice a day
no it just makes your teeth glow, but it also makes your bones brittle
so glow teeth are guaranteed? might be worth it
You know, I can’t remember any toothpaste with that warning. So, win one for us I guess! ;p
damm, i was hoping for radium toothpaste in califorina.
then again the warning would probably be so tiny we wouldn’t even be able to read it
That’s something I’ve noticed too. There’s not really any information about what parts of something to avoid or what the risk is or how you’d come into contact with it, but I remember seeing it everywhere when I lived there too, and I was like
“Everything in California including California is known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm.”
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be there at all, but at least wish it was a bit more like Material Safety Data Sheets that gives a bit more understanding to what you’re getting into by interacting with various things.
This got me wondering: If bananas are radioactive, and radiation can mutate cells and cause cancer… Can bananas cause cancer? 🤔
Perhaps, but the fiber cleans that bacon sandwich out of your colon quicker.
It’s theoretically possible, some experts think no level of radiation is “safe”. Yet, it’s so improbable that the risk of developing cancer from a single banana is indistinguishable from background noise. You get a far higher dose of radiation just from living on earth.
This fun infographic from xkcd shows a comparison of doses, and just how low a banana ranks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/med…
It would have to be the “perfect shot” of a particle hitting a cell to cause DNA damage that wasn’t repairable. And you would need to be extremely immunocompromised.
If you were in such a position to get cancer from eating a single banana, you would likely already get it from living life.
Is the UK going to start putting cancer labels on Gin, Scotch Whisky, ale and cider? Because alcohol is not just a proven carcinogen but also toxic to a number of organs and a huge public health problem. It is a much, much larger health problem than bacon. The anti-meat lobby is extremely passionate about their cause. They have some strong arguments about the ethics of factory farming and the environmental impacts but it does make any proposal like this suspect because you just know that some of the proponents are more concerned about the ethics of meat eating than the health impacts.
I’ll copy some of the answers from the WHO Q&A linked in the post:
Processed meat was classified in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, does that mean they’re equally carcinogenic?
How many cancer cases per year?
How much is the risk of cancer increased?
278g a day equals 100% cancer im fked thats less than a pound ive eaten that much bacon or ham in a sitting so many times
I don’t think that’s how that math works but sure
Wait what… goddamn it.